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.
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?
*UPDATE* In my original post, an anonymous commenter left this link to other useful terms.
Further reading recommended, hat tip to Gayle: Michael Waller’s Making Jihad Work for America
Related blogging:
Bottomline Up Front on Congressman Ellison’s recent comments
Dragon Lady’s Den and also an update on The Importance of Language in Fighting Wars.
Serving the People of Iraq posts on FOX’s Muslims vs. Jihad and Islam vs. Islamists.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Hiraba is a fallacy invented by the Wahabis to save Jihadism as an ideology. It was never used in Arab Islamic history. So the West must not fall into this trap of thinking that by callign the Jihadists “Hirabists” they will lose any credibility. Because Hirabists doesn’t exist in Arabic. It was invented by some lobbyists in Washington. It has no base in Arabic language..read the following and then the article by Walid Phares, you wil understand:
“But in Arab Muslim history, a Hiraba (unauthorized warring) was when a group of warriors launched itself against the enemy without orders from the real commander. Obviously, this implies that a “genuine” war against a real enemy does exist and that these hotheaded soldiers have simply acted without orders. Hence this cunning explanation puts “spin” on jihad but leaves the core idea of jihadism completely intact. The “spoilers” depart from the plan, attack prematurely, and cause damage to the caliphate’s long-terms plans. These Mufsidoon “fail” their commanders by unleashing a war of their own, instead of waiting for orders.
This scenario fits the relations of the global jihadists, who are the regimes and international groups slowly planning to gain power against the infidels and the “hotheaded” Osama bin Laden. Thus the promoters of this theory of Hiraba and Mufsidoon are representing the views of classical Wahabis and the Muslim Brotherhood in their criticism of the “great leap forward” made by bin Laden. But by convincing Westerners that al Qaeda and its allies are not the real jihadists but some renegades, the advocates of this school would be causing the vision of Western defense to become blurred again so that more time could be gained by a larger, more powerful wave of Jihadism that is biding its time to strike when it chooses, under a coherent international leadership.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/preventing_the_west_from_under.html
Sami Abdallah
the COIN should have been in place years ago but now, perhaps because enough time has gone by to convince Iraqis that al-Qaeda is far worse than any preconceived image of Americans, and “winning hearts and minds” is not a cute phrase but a strategic tactic.
I also totally agree with your assessment of many Conservatives being anti-Islam. It will have a backlash and we’re seen as ignorant and hateful to Muslims, the good ones. The fact is that al-Qaeda is not Islamic. They are apostates of the Muslim faith. Moderates, as Rep. Ellison reported, are concerned about the reputation of their religion by heretics like al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
And absolutely right… radicals need to be marginalized and we’re slowly seeing that happen. Iraqis, whether Imams, sheiks or Muslims at the lay level, are beginning to turn against those who use Islam for ideological purposes, as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called it, “those hiding beneath a cloak of Islam”.
I saw a ridiculous show called “Muslims Against Jihad” on Fox not long ago. The show itself was good, and they even talked about Hirabah, the true term for what we think of as “jihadists” but are actually apostates of the faith. But no true Muslim can be against jihad. That’s an oxymoron and it was a foolish title.
Even Pres. Bush has dropped his “islamofascist” talk. There’s a movement at the top, from White House and State Dept. on down, to understand Islam and it’s heretics so we can divide the two and win with the help of real Muslims.
I am glad to see this issue getting more discussion. I think I brought it up here last summer but it now finally seems to be getting more traction. There was another discussion recently of this topic on another blog too:
http://www.rideitin.com/archives/51
The point is, every time we use the term “jihadi” in describing them, we are playing directly into Osama’s game plan. It is exactly what he wanted us to do. He wants to incite hatred toward Muslims in order to more easily facilitate the rallying of those Muslims to extremism. It is easier for them to hate us if we already appear to hate them and using the term “jihadi” sends a message to them that says “we understand you are fighting for good and we are against you and that makes us evil”. By calling them “jihadi” we are by default calling ourselves the great satan and assisting in rallying people to al Qaida’s cause.
Excellent post. Thanks. More people need to understand this important difference.
Again, you don’t seem to get it. The Jihadists wants you to believe that Jihad is untouchable as a notion. They have created an ideology with the same name: Jihadism. Today’s Wahabi lobbies in the US wants the US Government to drop the use of Jihadi and use meaningless words such as Hiraba (which means doing war at the wrong time). So when is the right time for Jihad? Also this lobby wants us to use the term Mufsidoon, which means spoilers. Meaning those who spoiled the great plan of Jihad. So, we’re (the West) are going to tell them Jihad is good and only al Qaeda are bad?
So that other Jihadists rise again after al Qaeda? No wonder why the Saudi embassy, CAIR and the entire Islamist elite is excited about Washington falling to this stupid joke.