I’ve been noticing an interesting trend towards being very careful with the words we use when talking to Muslims lately. Last week, Chris Seiple over at the Christian Science Monitor suggested 10 terms that shouldn’t be used when talking to Muslims. His list includes, “secular,” “freedom,” “assimilation,” “moderate,” and “tolerance,” among others. This is somewhat beyond what I consider acceptable (border-line dhimmitude?). If Americans can’t say freedom, what will we say? “Stability” was used for decades as code for tyranny, which created the situation in which we find ourselves now.
On the other side of the equation (or so I imagine), this week I started reading David Kilcullen’s The Accidental Guerrilla (which so far is fabulous). He says:
“Throughout this book, I use the term takfiri to describe the enemy’s ideology and the phrase “takfiri terrorist” to describe those who use terrorism to further that ideology. The doctrine of takfir disobeys the Qur’anic injunction against compulsion in religion (Surah al-Baqarah: 256) and instead holds that Muslims whose beliefs differ from the takfiri’s are infidels who must be killed. Takfirism is heresy within Islam…Al Qa’ida is takfiri, and its members are universally so described by other Muslims, whom they routinely terrorize…I prefer it to the terms jihad, jihadist, jihadi, or mujahidin (literally “holy war” or “holy warrior”), which cede to the enemy the sacred status they crave, and to irhabi (terrorist) or hiraba (terrorism), which address AQ’s violence but not its ideology.
The third case of words was last month’s decision to officially end the use of “Global War on Terror” among government spokesmen. I agree with limiting this term, calling the enforcement of drug laws a war hasn’t made it any more successful (or less costly), and the conflict formerly known as the war on terror has tended to be overly militaristic.
Is this a good use of our intellectual capacity? I don’t deny that at times we have problems presenting our policies overseas, but often times the policy is the problem rather than the words we use when talking about it. In any case, rather than banning words, I’ll suggest…
Ten words we should use more frequently when speaking with Islam:
- Freedom
- Prosperity
- American Muslims (I know it’s a phrase, sorry)
- al-Anbar (who would have thought two years ago that this would have made the list)
- Equality
- Anti-imperialism (despite our detractors, the U.S. has a phenomenal record here)
- Bosnia (use with care)
- Tolerance
- Independence
- Education
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
I will start watching my language around Muslims when they stop using the word “infidel” to describe any non-Muslim. Fair is fair.
Huh. I seem to be interpreting Seiple in a profoundly different way than yourself.
The person who takes the words and uses them to play an inane game of political correctness is a fool. Such was not their intent. Seiple is not saying “These words make Muslims angry, so lets not use them.” On the contrary, he is noting that much of our lexicon is being misconstrued. If America has an interest in communicating to the Muslim populace of the world, than we have an interest in preventing this from happening. Thus, his argument is that we should be more specific in the terms we use.
Instead of freedom, say “liberty” or “security.” In place of secular, say “pluralist.” The intent is not to coach our words in politically correct jargon, but to ensure that what we are saying is being understood as we mean it.
And honestly, that is nothing I can find a problem with.
P.S. I remember John Matel said much the same about using Takfiri instead of Jihadi on “his own blog. (Then called called Matel-in-Iraq). Perhaps if I have a bit more time today I will find the post and place a link here.
Talking. Meeting. Communicating. One-on-one or small group. Too many Americans (in my opinion) don’t interact with Muslims….I have one for my best friend.
Just speaking with Muslims opens dialogue, understanding, friendships.
We shouldn’t apologize for using terms that we find important. How many Muslim countries have apologized for anti Christian rhetoric that constantly emanates from their imams and their lack of tolerance for non-Muslims?
I think you make a good point, but why assume that there is such an unbridgeable gap between “us” and “them”?
Extreme corruption, the seductive temptations of money sex, lack of discipline, unreasonable anger…
These are root problems confronted by all people, regardless of faith. If you begin a conversation by assuming there is a massive gulf between you and who you’re speaking with, then you deny the universal challenges we all face.
One of the biggest problems we have as Americans is our ETHNOSINTRISTIC way of thinking. We judge the world according to our standards…our beliefs….our way of life…..like the rest of the world is backwards. The only way to stop this foolishness is to learn and understand what we don’t know. Every culture, every nation has it’s own way of doing things. Have since the beginning of time… whether we agree with it or not. We can’t expect everyone to behave as or act as Americans….because everyone is not. I think we have a lot to learn. In relation to Muslims, those who are submitted to GOD, we need to stop making them out, collectively, to be our enemy. Not all Muslims hate Americans. I have so many friends from all over the world who happen to be of the Islamic faith (Islam= to submit [to GOD] ). I have engaged them in dialouge and have learned a great deal. I purchased a Qu’ran and have been studying it. Point being, you can’t jugde what you don’t understand. Let’s not get hung up on “words”. Infidel seems very harsh, yes. But does it really matter? What would you rather: heathen, irreligious, unbeliever, etc? Let’s not get caught up in linguistics. Let’s be better than that.