Posted on 09/02/2008 4:05:26 PM PDT by B4Ranch
Man has used the written word to express his ideas for more than 5,000 years, starting with basic cuneiform tablets. As time passed, tablets gave way to papyrus scrolls and animal skin parchment, and the written word conveyed more complex ideals and beliefs. The earliest Bible is estimated to be more than 2,300 years old, while the oldest Koran was completed in 651.
So do words matter? When you Google the phrase “Muslim outrage,” you get 36,700 hits. They are obviously outraged over a variety of issues. If you add the words “over radical Islam” to the initial phrase, you get zero hits. It seems that there is no outrage in the Islamic world over radical Islam—at least, no outrage expressed in written terms.
It’s interesting to note that since the beginning of the Global War on Terror (GWOT), several writers have published articles about the improper use of words that reflect radical Islamic goals. The articles written in 2006 and 2007 about the use of words supporting radical Islam were largely ignored by the media, which continued to use “mainstream” terms like “jihad” and “suicide bomber” that reflect radical Islamic goals.
The use of words that legitimized radical Islamic goals were first brought to light in May 2006 in a National Defense University (NDU) article “Choosing Words Carefully: Language to Help Fight Islamic Terrorism,” by Dr. Douglas E. Streusand and Lt. Col. Harry D. Tunnel IV. They believe that “American leaders misuse language to such a degree that they unintentionally wind up promoting the ideology of groups the United States is fighting.”
The most egregious error is using the word jihad, which literally means “striving,” generally striving to do God’s will. In addition, the continued use of mujahideen to describe the “holy warriors” who participate in jihad compounds the error by lending additional credence to the Islamic fight. They believe that using jihad strengthens radical Muslims by lending an air of legitimacy to their fight.
Streusand and Tunnel contend that we should substitute hirabah, which means “sinful warfare,” for jihad; and use mufsid, an evil or corrupt person, instead of mujahideen. I argue we should also substitute murder bomber for suicide bomber, because the goal is not to kill oneself, but to kill “infidels,” and the explosive vest or car bomb is merely the tool of the mufsid.
Largely ignored by the conventional media, the NDU article was covered online at DefenseLink when Jim Garamone penned the article, “Loosely Interpreted Arabic Terms Can Promote Enemy Ideology.” He wrote, “The pen is mightier than the sword, and sometimes in the war of words we unwittingly give the advantage to the enemy.”
The issue received almost no other attention until a year later when David Killcullen, Gen. Petraeus’ advisor, wrote an essay for the Small Wars Journal that stated, “To think clearly about new threats, we need a new lexicon based on the actual, observed characteristics of real enemies… and generate a lexicon to better describe the threat.” He also called the al-Qaida terrorists munafiquun, or hypocrites to authentic Qu’ranic Islam.
Later that summer, Gen. James Mattis, commanding general of U.S. Marines Forces Central Command and I Marine Expeditionary Force, also wrote in Small Wars Journal about the power of words. His article “Attacking The Al Qaeda Narrative” attacked Osama Bin Laden’s six phrases justifying the war on the West. He contends that parroting those phrases is akin to repeating phrases that supported communism during the Cold War.
Unfortunately, there was a casualty in the war of words against radical Islam. The casualty was Stephen Coughlin, a contractor on the Joint Staff, J-2 (Intelligence) for the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon. Coughlin was requested by name because of his knowledge of Islamic doctrine as it applies to jihad and the strategic objectives of our enemy. He was acknowledged as an expert on the Islamic doctrine of jihad within the U.S. government. As a student at the National Defense Intelligence College, he wrote, “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad.” His thesis deals with the root causes of jihad and the failure of the U.S. leadership to learn and understand this doctrine.
Coughlin ran afoul of the PC Police by writing a Joint Staff memorandum describing the nefarious aspirations of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Salafi-Wahhabi-al-Quaida wannabes. He angered Hasam Islam, an aide to Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England. Mr. Islam had Coughlin banished from the staff because he and other Muslims oppose Couglin’s logical correlation between Islamic law and Islamist hirabah doctrine.
So do words matter? They obviously matter to Muslims who support radical Islam.
What then would be a victory in the war of words supporting the GWOT?
A newspaper headline that reads, “Muslim leaders express outrage over mufsid use of murder-bombers in hirabah. Leading Muslim clerics issue fatwah over immoral use of bombs to target and actively murder innocents.”
John Wrenn is a retired U.S. Navy commander and former faculty member of the Joint Forces Staff College. He has a master’s in public administration from the University of Oklahoma.
For more information about the importance of language, visit the following Web sites:
http://www.publicdiplomacyreader.com
http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/09/truespeak-responds
http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/06/david-kilcullens-call-for-a-ne
http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/08/general-james-mattis-attacking
"we should substitute hirabah, which means “sinful warfare,” for jihad; and use mufsid, an evil or corrupt person, instead of mujahideen. I argue we should also substitute murder bomber for suicide bomber, because the goal is not to kill oneself, but to kill “infidels,” and the explosive vest or car bomb is merely the tool of the mufsid."
I do want to be precise.
I like the idea of knowing exactly what words piss them off because they are too accurate.
My home page has a few tidbits and links on this.....
The only thing that's going to be very, very difficult to find is substantial numbers of 'moderate' muzzies to do this. I am deeply suspicious of ANY of them at this point.
As Ibn Wariq said "There may be moderate muslims, but there is no moderate islam."
L
Trust none of em.....their mere association with anything islam makes them an enemy of peace and security for the western world IMO.
Doom on em !
Sorry, I know you intend well here, but to call it anything other that "suicide bomber" is confusing and sounds almost dishonest.
Consider, if a newspaper reports, for example, that someone in this country opened fire in a public place, then turned the gun on himself, it's called a "murder-suicide," or even a "mass murder suicide."
Well, the word "bomber" identifies the act as mass murder, so it only needs the prefix "suicide" to tell us exactly what's going on.
Also, perhaps you noticed? Many victims of suicide bombings have not been "infidels," but rather fellow Muslims. Go figure.
I didn’t write the article nor do I speak Arabic. Understanding their culture is probably above my paygrade.
>Also, perhaps you noticed? Many victims of suicide bombings have not been “infidels,” but rather fellow Muslims. Go figure.<
Shites killing another blend of Muslim or vice versa, is what I figure. That would be kinda like Catholic killing Protestants. Both are Christians, they just have a different slant on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.