I used to say “Jihad”. In fact, when I used to counterprotest the hippies outside my military post and Cindy Sheehan my friend carried a sign that read, “Defeat Jihadists”. My husband, active duty Army, would cringe.

He’s in the chaplain’s corps and in Operation Iraqi Freedom, aside from convoys and raids, his job was to meet with and fasciliate meetings with imams, clerics and sheiks in Baghdad. That was the beginning of a learning process for the both of us, in deciphering the enemy. It wasn’t the good Iraq Muslims, it was the extremists, apostates, wahabbists, practicing hirabah, NOT jihad.

The risk of saying we’re fighting jihadist was that we risked alienating a moderate population who understand the difference between jihad and hirabah. They were actually more likely to side with hirabah than coalition forces because jihad was good and an intimate part of their religion. If we fought jihad, right or wrong, they had almost no choice but to fight against us.

That said, what we see going on now in al-Anbar Province, which includes Fallujah and Ramadi, is a winning of hearts and minds. Local sheiks saw that U.S. forces met them on their religious terms with an additional soldier to sit on a particular side in a particular manner according to their customs, and they began to accept that we are NOT their enemy no matter what propaganda they’d been fed by extremist wackos like al-Qaeda. Now they’ve turned against wahabbists (al-Qaeda), hirabah, and toward the coalition to build a better country for themselves. And they are actually growing quite fond of us in some of these areas. Imagine that!

The Army took a while to come around to the fact that this is a RELIGIOUS WAR cloaked in false theology and all that was up to us to do, aside from maintaining a military presence, was to note this differnce and “win hearts and minds” respecting the good in their religion. Iraqis are people just like us and whatever bad behavior they’ve become accustomed to, they can unlearn. This is true for all human nature.

We’re so close to winning this it isn’t funny. We are literally in the final stretch. I personally hope to visit Iraq’s religious historical sites some day as a tourist. Babylon, the Garden of Eden, Ninevah of Jonah and the Whale fame, etc., etc., etc., all all in Iraq. This country has a ton of potential and I just hope Democrats don’t have a chance to screw it up.

I don’t know Arabic, but I understand that another good word is “mufsidun” meaning “evildoer.”

Another potentially useful word I found: baghy which means “rebellion”, as hirabah might equate to terrorism, perhaps baghy is appropriate for the insurgency. But I really don’t know, as I don’t speak Arabic or Farsi.

jpm wrote:

I have to wonder if the demarcation is that black and white. I think we try too hard to excuse the passive Muslims majority.

I thought I included some of the nuances, and didn’t try to make it black and white. Just food for thought. And I feel like, at least in the right blogosphere, we do all too much to demonize Islam and have been all too eager to point out the problems we see in it. Mohammed might have been wed to a child, but to denigrate their revered Prophet as a pedophile isn’t exactly going to win us “hearts and minds”.

Curt wrote:

Great post. I use the term Jihadist all the time and agree, using the correct term to describe these fanatics would help push the debate that much further.

Last thing I want to do is use a term that our enemy enjoys being labeled.

Curt, I’ve been using Jihad a lot too. It even sounds kinda cool. I’ll still use it, in certain context; but I am also going to start using “hirabah” more often in serious posts.

I think we should do what we can to strip al-Qaeda and their fellow Islamic militants of religious legitimacy. Something Muslims should have been doing (in some cases, have been trying to do) more vigorously.

I think Streusand makes a great case when he says “for a Muslim, jihad is a good thing. It literally means striving in the path of God.” By describing insurgents or terrorists as “jihadists,” he argues, we imply we are fighting meritorious Muslims.

The delusional grandeur of Islamic militants should not be given validation. They should be treated as killers and thugs, and lowlife scum. Not holy warriors. Not martyrs. Those who engage in violent terrorist jihad- hirabah- should be made to feel that they will not achieve glory or honor or martyrdom. That the greater Islamic community will not revere their “sacrifice” but will spit on their graves instead. That they will die an ignoble death, in defiance of the will of Allah and his Prophet. I think this approach should be a part of the counter-terrorism strategy.

Of course, ultimately, it is the Islamic world that needs to reject the radicals, openly and vociferously, so that their voice makes a louder noise than the voice of the Zawahiris and the Ahmadinejads.

How is this term “hirabah” pronounced by the way?

Beats the hell out of me…

I keep wanting to refer to Islamic terrorists as “hirabahadists”. It feels like it would flow off the tongue a lot smoother than “hirabahists”. But that’s because I’m so used to “jihad”.

We need to start winning the war of propaganda and ideas and words.

Last thing I want to do is use a term that our enemy enjoys being labeled.

How is this term “hirabah” pronounced by the way?

I mean I’m not really sure of the relationship between the passive majority and the radicals. For some, it could be like the parents of teenagers who egg’ed the family down the street that is disliked. They dislike & are embarrassed by the behavior and are above it themselves, but on some level they enjoy that it happened and only wristslap their kids.

I think passive = moderate is a bad assumption. But perhaps labeling this “hirabah” and not “jihad” is what is needed to pressure those that don’t have a problem with the radicals’ goals but do have one with their methods.

I don’t know Arabic, but I understand that another good word is “mufsidun” meaning “evildoer.”