President Bush continues down the road to dhimmitude, banning in administration and official discourse use of the word "jihadist" to describe jihadists. From an Investor's Business Daily editorial:
But after President Bush a few years back described the enemy as "Islamofascists," Karen Hughes at the State Department got an earful from the Council on American-Islamic Relations. And Bush quickly dropped the term.Now, the Islamic Society of North America is demanding that GOP presidential candidate John McCain stop using the adjective "Islamic" to describe terrorists.
To his credit, Sen. McCain has not backed down.
CAIR and ISNA argue that Westerners confuse jihad for holy war, that its broader meaning in Islam is to struggle to do good. Funny, because both groups last year made a Justice Department list of fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, which advocates violent jihad.
Words matter in war, especially how we define our foe.
The 9/11 Commission Report said that we have to keep squarely in front of us the religious motivation for the terrorists' war against America and the West. Somebody please tell our president.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I didn't actually save it, but here's my point:
DavidTC: To the extent these changes are directed at moderate, or cultural muslims who are current or perspective allies, I think the changes make reasonable good sense and I accept your argument - but there's another potential audience for such changes, and I think it's really, really important that this second audience have the intellectual and linguistic tools to understand what motivates our enemies in the current conflict. . .
Here's an exchange I came across in the comments to the Small Wars Journal on the subject of a project called "TrueSpeak" that pretty well sums up my concerns:
"Dr. Edward O. Grimenstein, asked,
- is there any evidence that the manner of speech the U.S. employs is in any way supporting / confirming our enemy's view of themselves? Essentially what I am asking is this - is there any evidence that our enemies jump for joy pointing to the newspaper saying, "Look, even Bush says we are Jihadists!" Seems to me their validation comes from the mosque not the White House.
So, a new lexicon could be more correct theologically, but in the end would a new lexicon make any difference on the ground?
I asked is what is the purpose of the proposed lexicon? I see two possible answers.
My understanding is that Jim [Giurard's] goal is to separate Islamic terrorism from the religion of Islam and to delegitimize al Qaeda and
associates' claim of religious justification. If so, this is a proper role for the Ummah, not Jim or U.S. policy makers. Hence you question, what evidence is there that we are a validating source for potential Jihadi recruits?
The other purpose, which I believe is the true purpose, is to convince U.S. policymakers and other non-Muslims that there is a clear
separation between Islam and Islamic terrorism. A method to do is Orwellian methods of language control which makes it politically
incorrect for Westerners to use terms like jihad. Such a change would shield Islam from criticism while handicapping our intellectual
understanding of the religious and historical foundations of Islamic terrorism and weaken our ability to protect ourselves from it.
I believe this new lexicon is aimed at us, not young Muslims.
If what Jim says is true Al Jazeera, Arabiya, and Friday sermons throughout the Muslim world would already be using the new lexicon. But they are not. So you have to ask yourself, "why is that?""
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/09/truespeak-responds/
Oh I give up. Here it is without the link:
DavidTC: To the extent these changes are directed at moderate, or cultural muslims who are current or perspective allies, I think the changes make reasonable good sense and I accept your argument - but there's another potential audience for such changes, and I think it's really, really important that this second audience have the intellectual and linguistic tools to understand what motivates our enemies in the current conflict. . .
Here's an exchange I came across in the comments to the Small Wars Journal on the subject of a project called "TrueSpeak" that pretty well sums up my concerns:
"Dr. Edward O. Grimenstein, asked,
- is there any evidence that the manner of speech the U.S. employs is in any way supporting / confirming our enemy's view of themselves? Essentially what I am asking is this - is there any evidence that our enemies jump for joy pointing to the newspaper saying, "Look, even Bush says we are Jihadists!" Seems to me their validation comes from the mosque not the White House.
So, a new lexicon could be more correct theologically, but in the end would a new lexicon make any difference on the ground?
I asked is what is the purpose of the proposed lexicon? I see two possible answers.
My understanding is that Jim [Giurard's] goal is to separate Islamic terrorism from the religion of Islam and to delegitimize al Qaeda and
associates' claim of religious justification. If so, this is a proper role for the Ummah, not Jim or U.S. policy makers. Hence you question, what evidence is there that we are a validating source for potential Jihadi recruits?
The other purpose, which I believe is the true purpose, is to convince U.S. policymakers and other non-Muslims that there is a clear
separation between Islam and Islamic terrorism. A method to do is Orwellian methods of language control which makes it politically
incorrect for Westerners to use terms like jihad. Such a change would shield Islam from criticism while handicapping our intellectual
understanding of the religious and historical foundations of Islamic terrorism and weaken our ability to protect ourselves from it.
I believe this new lexicon is aimed at us, not young Muslims.
If what Jim says is true Al Jazeera, Arabiya, and Friday sermons throughout the Muslim world would already be using the new lexicon. But they are not. So you have to ask yourself, "why is that?""
For the original, Search TrueSpeak Responds, Small Wars Journal.
If what Jim says is true Al Jazeera, Arabiya, and Friday sermons throughout the Muslim world would already be using the new lexicon. But they are not. So you have to ask yourself, "why is that?""
I found the page, and I have a very important question to ask. What qualifications does 'Dale Eikmeier' have to tell us what is and isn't used inside 'Friday sermons throughout the Muslim world'? I doubt even the most devote Muslim would know what was going on 'throughout the Muslim world', although they'd at least know that what's going on in a American Shia Mosque is going to be fairly unrelated to Indonesia Sunni Mosque.
Secondly, Al Jazeera doesn't use the word jihad that way except when quoting people. If you can find an instance otherwise, point me to it. OTOH, I point you to this which is one of the few instances of them actually using the word themselves.
Google 'site:english.aljazeera.net jihad -"islamic jihad"' if you don't believe me. ('Islamic Jihad' is the name of an Palestinian organization and will completely overwhelm the search results if you don't exclude it.) Page through there, look for the word 'jihad' when not a quote or the name of a person or organization.
I don't know what Arabiya does, I always considered that a US front, but maybe I'm wrong. Regardless, glancing through the search results, I'm not seeing that either.
There has always been a difference between lexicon and usage. That difference is the primary driving force in lexicon change.
The key here, in my view, is the source of the change. Without having done much formal research to try to corroborate this, my experience points to a key problem in the analyis:
1) Lexicon shift from usage happens over time, and is governed by usage acceptance within the population. From the inside out, so to speak.
2) Propaganda's primary tool is using current lexicon and usage to shape opinion. Propaganda per se may be a contributing factor in lexicon change, but it does little itself to drive or control that change.
I offer one example for comparison: if you were to read the word "coke", first letter lower case, you would likely take that to mean the slang word for cocaine. If, instead, you were to see it as "Coke", you would likely take it to mean the soft drink. Verbally, the meaning is always clear because of context. In usage, "Coke" is an example of lexicon shift, it being appropriately used and taken in context to mean other cola drinks not distributed by the Coca-Cola Bottling Companies. "Tissue" and "Kleenex" is another example, but without the homonymic impact. ;-)
More on the concept of "Jihad" as a doctrine of war (vis a vis unbelievers) accomplished using every possible stratagem, ranging from spiritual preparation to deception/propaganda to moral/financial support, and ultimately, to open warfare:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/strategic_collapse_in_the_war.html
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.