Posted on 11/17/2004 7:14:49 AM PST by dead
Falluja shows the latest in a puzzling array of undefined labels as Islam is reduced to an ideological "-ism", writes Waleed Aly.
"Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think about," said 20th-century linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf. It creates a mental infrastructure that moulds our perceptions, and those perceptions ultimately find expression in our actions. With that in mind, it seems language can seldom be more important than when it takes the form of political discourse. And no political discourse is more serious than that which invokes the imagery of war.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, a national security adviser to the Carter administration, described George Bush's "global war on terror" in The New York Times as a "politically expedient slogan without real substance, serving to distort rather than define".
Unfortunately, the same could be said of much of the public language surrounding the war on terrorism. Audiences to this language have encountered a bewildering array of undefined labels.
Foremost among them is "Islamist", a term which has been widely used in news reports of Iraq - and most recently, Falluja. For example, Robert Worth in The New York Times this week linked the term with terrorism in saying, "The insurgents may have lost the physical battle, but Islamist Web sites have already begun using the events of the past week as a recruiting tool".
Islamist is an evocative term because it captures the pejorative resonance of a modern "-ism". Thus, Islamism is not Islam, but rather an impoverished perversion of it - one that reduces a great religious tradition to an ideological "-ism". That seems appropriate for a world view morally destitute enough to sanction terrorism.
It also provides a useful rhetorical hook for Western political leaders who seek to portray the war on terrorism as an ideological war without root causes. In this way, terrorism is cast into a uniform ideological mould, and the war on terrorism becomes a war on Islamism. If this is the case, we had better be clear about its meaning.
The problem is that Islamism is a manufactured word that has quietly snuck into the public conversation. As such, no one has paused to articulate its definition clearly. For such a loaded term, it is open to dangerously loose application.
The example of the US academic Khaled Abou El Fadl - a professor of law at UCLA, and a visiting professor of law at Yale - should suffice. He is an Islamic scholar who has been opposed to repressive, misogynist and violent interpretations of Islam. As a passionate advocate of democracy, pluralism and tolerance in Islam, he is the kind of voice the West would probably like to succeed.
But none of this prevented Daniel Pipes from branding him a "stealth Islamist" in the Middle East Quarterly this year. Abou El Fadl's most significant crimes appear to be his fidelity to Islamic jurisprudence, his condemnation of colonialism and its impact on the Muslim world. Throw in his concern that hate crimes against Muslims in the US would rise following September 11, 2001 and his opposition to certain US counter-terrorism measures he felt were draconian, and Pipes was convinced.
It seems that to avoid the de facto condemnation of being labelled an Islamist, one must accept the prevailing neo-conservative judgement uncritically. Pipes's net is so broad it would catch the overwhelming majority of peaceful, unassuming Muslims.
At this point, the rhetorical distinction between an Islamist and a Muslim becomes nebulous sophistry. The war on terrorism, now an ideological war on Islamism, collapses into a war on Muslims. It is difficult to imagine a more polarising discourse; one seemingly committed to spawning an avoidable (and much discussed) "clash of civilisations".
If, as Bush, Blair and Howard have regularly stated, it is vital the world, especially its Muslims, understand the war on terrorism is not a war on Islam, we must clearly define our nomenclature to reflect that. But we haven't.
As Brzezinski suggests, ours is the language of a war characterised by meaningless slogans. Perhaps this is the legacy of declaring war on an abstract noun, rather than an identifiable enemy. Perhaps a war on al-Qaeda would have been more coherent than a war on terrorism. Instead, we are labouring in a fog of meaninglessness that makes it hard for the West to distinguish its enemies from its friends.
Waleed Aly, a lawyer, is on the executive of the Islamic Council of Victoria.
Falluja shows the latest in a puzzling array of undefined labels as Islam is reduced to an ideological "-ism", writes Waleed Aly.
I have no idea why that’s the intro teaser to this piece, since Falluja is not mentioned even once in this article.
It also provides a useful rhetorical hook for Western political leaders who seek to portray the war on terrorism as an ideological war without root causes.
The root cause is that Islamists want all non-believers dead (the terrorist’s preference) or in dhimmitude (the “moderate” alternative offered by reformers, like Khaled Abou El Fadl).
But none of this prevented Daniel Pipes from branding El Fadl a "stealth Islamist" in the Middle East Quarterly this year. Abou El Fadl's most significant crimes appear to be his fidelity to Islamic jurisprudence, his condemnation of colonialism and its impact on the Muslim world.
Pipes' article about El Fadl is a lot more comprehensive and documented than Waleed Aly would lead you to believe. He challenges the West’s embrace of El Fadl as some sort of serious reformer of Islam:
With rare exceptions, Khaled Abou El Fadl's differences with the overt Islamists are those of style, not substance…The case of Abou El Fadl points to the challenge of how to discern Islamists who present themselves as moderates.
- Daniel Pipes
Perhaps a war on al-Qaeda would have been more coherent than a war on terrorism.
The fact that the term would have been completely inaccurate, given the nature of our declared war on all forms of international terrorism and the nations that harbor those involved, doesn’t really matter, apparently.
Instead, we are labouring in a fog of meaninglessness that makes it hard for the West to distinguish its enemies from its friends.
I’m having no difficulty in this area at all.
In other words, his advocacy of Shaariah law.
Sounds real moderate.
islam = terrorism
At least it has for the past thousand plus years or so.
hmmm...I agree..I think
I'll just keep using rat bas*ards
Doogle
Irrelevant musings from the ivory towers of excuse-making.
"Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think about," said 20th-century linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf.
Huh.
Seems the Arabic language must be awfully limiting then, considering the last 6 centuries.
I prefer the term "Islamonazis" because it is both more accurate, and easier to say.
I agree -- or islamofascist. Call it what it is.
There is a point to all this, and that is that totalitarians migrate to whatever ideology currently supports their political ambitions. Islam just happens to lack any antibodies against totalitarian ideas, and the Middle East just happens to enjoy wallowing in greviences rather than building its own future.
This arguement is heard frequently even at the Army War College and its all BS.
No one in the business of the "War on Terror" is confused about what they are doing and who they are trying to kill.
If anything our definition is too narrow...we should pursue the ideologues, logisiticans and financiers and kill them as quickly as the "Allah Akbar" screamers wielding weapons.
...Don't get wrapped around the words get wrapped around the mission.
Our "target set" is not well defined, so let's call it the "War on Terror" and tell the world who and what constitutes it and then set about killing them too.
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.