Counter-Propaganda

Flopping Aces ^ | 08-05-07 | Wordsmith

[Starman417]

A couple of months ago, I described why I felt that in the war to win hearts and minds, we should engage in the propagandizing of the term hirabah over jihad, when referring to the ideological movement of the radical fundamentalists who wish to war with the West and the rest.

This isn't about "appeasing" the multiculturalists by not labeling and identifying the enemy; or a refusal to call them who they are, because of misguided political correctness in not wanting to "offend" anyone. This is about waging counter-propaganda.

The jihadis want to refer to themselves as martyrs. Holy warriors. Jihadi. They are nothing of the kind. They are thugs and killers of the innocent; and fanatics and lunatics of an intolerant ideology. We should not give the jihadi movement the legitimacy of language. We should strip them of that dignity and distinction, and call them hirabi, or hirabahists.

Dr. Walid Phares writes,

this giant doctrine, which motivated armies and feelings for centuries, also inspired contemporary movements that shaped their ideology based on their interpretation of the historical Jihad. In other words, today's Jihadists are an ideological movement with several organizations and regimes who claim that they define the sole interpretation of what Jihad was in history and that they are the ones to resume it and apply it in the present and future. It is equivalent to the possibility that some Christians today might claim that they were reviving the Crusades in the present. This would be only a "claim" of course, because the majority of Christians, either convinced believers or those with a sociological Christian bent, have gone beyond the Christianity of the time of the Crusades.

 Today's Jihadists make the assertion that there is a direct, generic, and organic relation between the Jihads in which they and their ancestors have engaged from the seventh century to the twenty-first. But historical Jihad is one thing, and the Jihad of today's Salafists and Khumeinists is something else.

Read more...

Whether or not those moderates portrayed in Islam vs. Islamists are the mainstream majority or the mainstream minority, reformation of Islam from 7th century practice and interpretation is necessary if it is to survive in peaceful coexistence with the rest of the world in the 21st. And we do well to encourage that growth by not legitimizing the "Jihad Movement". We do this whenever we refer to the hirabahists in the language with which they want to be identified, and in which they use to propagandize their hatred.

We do a disservice to ourselves and to the War against Islamic Terror by referring to the hirabis as jihadists, every bit as much as we do a disservice and dishonesty in not recognizing "Islam" as part of their identity.

The Islamists (i.e., the radical extremist militant fundamentalist wahabbi sulafists) are attempting to pull us all into a clash of civilizations (it is not: it is a clash between all of civilization versus barbarism), and a war between East and West, Muslim and infidels. Just as al-Qaeda in Iraq fomented the eruption of sectarian violence with the al-Askari Mosque bombing (the mastermind of this and the more recent twin minaret bombing is said to have been killed on August 2nd), so too do they wish to pull both sides into THEIR war. They force all Muslims to choose sides. And I fear that in some instances, we risk alienating Muslims who might otherwise choose the path of peace and alliance with us, and not with the hirabahists.

I agree in fighting the "jihadists" on every front, and at every level; part of doing so, is in taking away the language of legitimacy from them and not refer to them by what they want to call themselves. For many Muslims, the term "jihad" has positive connotations. Whether linked to historical pride and romanticizing past glories; or with the "greater jihad" of spiritual inner struggle. So, when we allow ourselves to go along with the "jihadists" to define the meaning and connotations of "jihad" in the English language to signify the negative (terrorists, murderers, religious fanatics, homicide bombers, etc.), we give them the legitimacy of language.
Why should we?

[givemELL]

Hirabahists is very good. Too much of an intellectual leap for our media, educators, current administration, other political party, Dow Jones Index (it is Sharia compliant already with a Sharia law advisory board)...Link: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/06/the_dow_jones_islamic_index_is.html
Fighting ‘terror’ alone, while gradually merging with Sharia Law here is what seems to be happening, fatally extensive in Europe already, and rapidly advancing here. The idea of a counter-offensive is good as described, and, it should be applied to the cultural/political advancement of Sharia as well. NONE of our institutions are up to it..seem to be hopelessly enmeshed already to withdraw, stand back, take a reappraisal, redefine the situation, and reverse course.

[faq]

I don’t know if I agree with this or not. The terrorists themselves are doing a good job of giving jihad a bad name. Right now they are killing more muslims than non-muslims. Ping for discussion.

[Publius6961]

Another recent reminder is the use of “islamonausea”, instead of the politically correct and psychlogically charged “islamophobia”.

[MizSterious]

Thanks for the ping—I need to read this later when I have the time, I’ll comment later, probably in the morning.

[givemELL]

You are correct, and, they are killing each other (Muslims) in Afganistan and Iraq in testament as to what they would do here if given the opportunity. An interesting article has turned up from Riyadh re a cleric commenting on Islamic advances in the US while we debate here about approaches to Islam in such an unfocused way..he points out that Islam is focused regarding its aims in the US and, for example, “he encouraged Muslims to join intelligence bodies like the CIA and FBI.” Less power to him. This interesting articles link is: http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/international/ticker/detail/Muslims_gaining_strength_in_United_States_cleric.html?siteSect=143&sid=8080824&cKey=11863300620

Counter-propaganda is worth pursuing, and maybe difficult to achieve as we are so divided and uncertain as a nation as what Islam really is in the first place.

[Wiz]

The Al Qaida/Islamists do not mind to be called terrorists. They are happy to be feared because it is part of their strategy to be feared. The best term to piss them off is “cult”.

[givemELL]

Here is another word that might be used: irhab (eer-HAB)... Arabic for terrorism, thus enabling us to label Islamic terrorists irhabis, irhabists and irhabiyoun rather than the so-called “jihadis” and “jihadists” and “mujahideen” and “shahids” (martyrs) they are now called. I think Walid Phares made this connection recently in one of his presentations

[roses of sharon]

http://www.meforum.org/article/1753

FYI, a good Counter-propaganda article.