DAR AL HARB - U.S.A.: THE U.S. GOVERNMENT NEEDS A GREATER SENSITIVITY WHEN IT COMES TO LINKING MOSLEMS & ISLAMS WITH JIHAD

Wanted: A US lexicon for Islam

Robert Gates said it was "no accident" that he delivered his first public speech as US Secretary of Defense at the American Turkish Council conference in Washington last week. He was right.
When, where and what senior US government officials speak is usually no accident. I'm sure it was also no accident that he used controversial words offensive to many Muslims, such as "Islamism" and "jihadist," in that particular speech. Or was it?

The US has suffered a lot from communication accidents in the "war against terrorism." White House, State Department, Pentagon, you name it. They all made their share of mistakes. After the catastrophic reign of former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, I had great hopes that Secretary Gates would not fall into the same trap at the Pentagon. It looks like I was wrong.
Americans rightfully take pride in their nation's religious tolerance and respect. They often criticize Europe, where they escaped from religious bigotry, for being too indifferent to matters of faith. However, to my surprise, it was the EU, not the US, that adopted a sensible communication strategy for talking about the relationship between Islam and Muslims, and terrorism and extremism.

EU government spokespersons were provided a guide book, or "common lexicon," which advises them refraining from linking terrorism with Islam. Discouraged expressions include "Islamic terrorism," "jihad," "Islamist," etc. EU officials reportedly aim preventing the distortion of the Muslim faith and the alienation of Muslims in Europe. And I applaud them.

Associating Islam with terrorism by words and deeds is a common practice among both extremist Muslims and anti-Muslims. Let alone using Islam or Islamic terms as adjectives to describe deplorable acts, I don't even like the term "Islamist" to describe any Muslim person or movement in the world. That was the point I also recently made to Washington Times. In Tulin Daloğlu's March 13 column "Dealing with Islam," I was quoted criticizing people who use that term: "They are all making a mistake, because the term turns the religion of Islam into an ideology."

Subsequently, I ran into a letter to the editor at the Washington Times. The reader was suggesting that "it is not the use of the term Islamist or any other that has 'turn[ed] the religion of Islam into an ideology.' However the words and actions of many Muslims, as well as the weakness and inaction of many so-called moderate Muslims, are taking a large part of Islam in the direction of ideology."

To make myself clearer I also wrote a letter to the editor, which they kindly published. I offered them my earlier sentence that didn't have a chance to appear in the article: "There may be Muslims who might describe themselves as 'Islamist' and there are non-Muslims who use this term." So I was not criticizing Westerners only. I basically argue that adopting terms like "Islamist" actually helps self-declared "Islamists" who pervert the noble religion of Islam into a political ideology.

As I suggested to the Washington Times, obviously not the words alone, but also some actions on the part of both Muslims and non-Muslim Westerners alike, politicizes Islam. And if Westerners try listening more carefully I'm sure they will hear many moderate Muslim voices who object to such actions.

Now let's put this into perspective. Yes, there are Muslims who exercise horrendous acts in the name of Islam. Muslims who politicize the religion of Islam are out there as well. Many of those people may be happy to be called "Islamist." Because they think what they do is perfectly Islamic. By adopting terms like "Islamic terrorism," "Islamist," or "jihadist" aren't we helping those hijackers of Islam? Don't we please those Islamophobes who defame Islam and Muslims?
Through the Pentagon's press office, I tried submitting questions to Secretary Gates. "Were you aware that many Muslims are offended by usage of the term 'Islamism'? By any chance do you now regret using it?" was one of them. They constantly referred me to the context. With all due fairness, here is Gates sentence: "Many of the fault lines and competing forces that historically have been at play in Turkey are also found in the Middle East and broader Muslim world -- extremism versus moderation, tribalism versus nationalism, authoritarianism versus pluralism, and secularism versus Islamism."

I wonder why a senior US government official should endorse terms which associate Islam with anti-secularism. To my understanding, Islam and secularism are compatible. Secularism by definition is state neutrality in matters of religion. True secularism guarantees religious freedom. This is the preference of many Muslims, except proponents of theocracy. So why not use "theocratic" rather than "Islamist," or "Islamism?"

I am against anti-democratic, anti-secular and extremist forces that associate their ideologies with Islam. And I am against whoever gifts their ideology with the beautiful name of my religion. Isn't it high time for a "common lexicon" which is more receptive to such sensitivities in the US government as well?


Pertinent Links:

1) Wanted: A US lexicon for Islam