Words by Woods

Made from 100% real ideas.

Islam vs. Islamism

Whether we agree with it or not, related to Islamic terrorism, the American strategy is to win the hearts and minds of the ummah.

One policy in that regard is to attempt to use language to alienate Muslims in general from the terrorists.  This is a concrete instance of a legitimate counterterrorism policy – backlash, which is the creation of an environment in which non-state actors who commit political violence can no longer find assistance and support from outside of their organization (narrowly defined).

In that context, I wondered how our neologisms are being translated into Arabic, the language of the supposed target audience.  In essence, are our intellectuals attempting to sell the equivalent of the Chevy Nova in Mexico?

One of the terms that I have been hearing is Islamism to describe the ideology that seeks to justify terrorist violence based upon Islam.

While I am illiterate when it comes to Arabic, I do have access to Google Translate, which provided an identical translation (الإسلام) into Arabic of Islam and Islamism; no bueno.  Thus, someone fluent in Arabic using Google translate from English would read in Arabic that Islam and Islamism is the same thing.

As this can not be the intent of the advocates of this neologism, I referenced Daniel Pipes.  On his website, Islamism is translated as ألتحرك ألأسلامي, which according to Google means “Islamic action”.  However, according to Wikipedia, Islamism can also be translated as الاسلامية (Islamic) or إسلام سياسي (political Islam).

When we use the term Islamism, what are we communicating to Muslims?  It sounds like a confused imprecision in which our message is subject to the shading of the translator.  Further, in all cases, this term appears not to actually distinguish itself from Islam.

Is there an alternative?

One could follow the anti-conceptual approach of the U.S. State Department, which treats each instance of an Islam-inspired terrorist organization as an unrelated case.  According to them, al Qaeda is definitely bad…Hamas could become good…Hezbollah is not necessarily bad if you squint when you look at them…and the Muslim Brotherhood may be the Society of Cincinnati for all Foggy Bottom knows.

On the other hand, Muslims already have names for such terrorists.  Egypt’s Sadat was assassinated by them as was Saudi’s King Faisal.  When the terrorists attacked the Red Mosque in Pakistan and the Grand Mosque in Mecca, what did they call them?  If we wish to communicate with the ummah, should we not take heed of their own terms as English adapts more easily than their own language?

While it would be preferable to integrate our knowledge of Islam-inspired terrorist organizations into a single coherent concept, such may actually be beyond the mentality of our concrete-bound primacy-of-consciousness target audience, the ummah.  For ourselves, the United States and its allies should perform the required integration, which we will need to teach to the State Department and other Washington policy makers.

Report This Post

2 Comments

  1. Jim, since you are a supporter of free market education I would like to ask you the following questions if you don’t mind:

    under your system, who decides what is taught? Who decides curriculum across the country? How do people of one state, or tax bracket even, ensure their kids get the same quality education as the next state? It costs more to run some states, and some states have more people and expenditures. Who decides?

    cheers

    Report This Comment

    • Jim

      April 3, 2011 at 3:56 pm

      “…since you are a supporter of free market education…”

      I do not think that accurately describes my position. While not necessarily by Fareed, this framing smuggles in the premise of government regulation of market activity. Thus, I think about it more fundamentally. I am supporter of freedom of association in education.

      For me, it is an issue of both a fundamental and enumerated right. As such, I challenge the argument by statists that government coercion by a majority is the only means of people acting together.

      “…under your system, who decides what is taught?”

      Ultimately, and rightfully, the choice belongs to the parents.

      “Who decides curriculum across the country?”

      No one would; there would not be a uniform curriculum. I also point out that we do not now nor have we ever had a uniform national curriculum, which remains a utopian fantasy of some. Further, such national uniformity contradicts one of Thomas Jefferson’s objectives in his founding of public education: local governance.

      “How do people of one state, or tax bracket even, ensure their kids get the same quality education as the next state?”

      Equality of education is not a legitimate goal. Even within the same public school today students are assigned unequal educations as a matter of school policy.

      As a parent, I always wanted my children to have a superior education. Those who seek educational equality in the name of the state or the general will are the enemies of parents who want the best for their own children.

      Report This Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2018 Words by Woods

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

Report This Blog