When I first read the news that the United States government has called on its officials to stop referring to Islamic terrorists as “Jihadists” or “mujahedeen,” I thought to myself “that’s silly. Is this political correctness in action or what?” But after I had read the entire article at the AP, my opinion had changed dramatically:

 The reason: Such words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates.

For example, while Americans may understand “jihad” to mean “holy war,” it is in fact a broader Islamic concept of the struggle to do good, says the guidance prepared for diplomats and other officials tasked with explaining the war on terror to the public. Similarly, “mujahedeen,” which means those engaged in jihad, must be seen in its broader context.

U.S. officials may be “unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims,” says a Homeland Security report. It’s entitled “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims.”

“Regarding ‘jihad,’ even if it is accurate to reference the term, it may not be strategic because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims around the world,” the report says.

Language is critical in the war on terror, says another document, an internal “official use only” memorandum circulating through Washington entitled “Words that Work and Words that Don’t: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication.”

The memo, originally prepared in March by the Extremist Messaging Branch at the National Counter Terrorism Center, was approved for diplomatic use this week by the State Department, which plans to distribute a version to all U.S. embassies, officials said.

“It’s not what you say but what they hear,” the memo says in bold italic lettering, listing 14 points about how to better present the war on terrorism.

Simply put: words matter. People use those words in the West, because they don’t have tremendous cultural meaning. Most Westerners think; ‘well, they consider themselves to be religious warriors, so lets call them like that.’ That’s logical from a Western perspective, from a non-Muslim Western perspective especially, but when the average Westerner takes some distance from his own cultural and religious background, he or she will quickly come to the realization that these words actually mean a lot for people living in the Arab world, in Muslim countries and general, and for Muslims in general.

The Jihad doesn’t just mean ‘fighting for your religion.’ The ‘bigger’ or ‘greater’ Jihad is an inner Jihad. It’s Jihad of the mind, of the soul. This inner Jihad means that you try to live according to God’s will, and that you control yourself constantly. Basically it means that you beat the little devil we all have inside us.

And when it comes to the smaller Jihad, the Jihad on the battle ground, people have to keep in mind that Jihad is often referred to as a fight for the existence of Islam. When Islam is threatened, it will fight, and such a fight is called Jihad.

When, in other words, you’re using words like Jihadist to describe your opponents, you’ve got to realize that these words carry a tremendous meaning for many millions, even billions, of people, and that the thoughts associated with those words may be negative in the West, but most certainly not in, especially, the Arab world.

When you’re fighting a war, words matter.

Robert Spencer has a completely different take on it arguing:

Here again, the assumption is that people in the Muslim world will be influenced by what non-Muslim authorities say about Islam. There is no warrant whatsoever for this assumption…

Of course, one is probably no longer allowed to point out that Hasan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Abdullah Azzam, co-founder of Al-Qaeda, both criticized the idea that jihad was a spiritual struggle as based on a weak hadith, and argued that the primary meaning of jihad in the Qur’an and Sunnah was warfare against unbelievers. The problem here, in short, is that many Muslims believe that jihad essentially means holy war, and refusing to talk about it will not make it go away…

In reality, jihadists routinely claim “moral and religious legitimacy,” and that has to be confronted, not ignored.

With regards to the first point: it’s called common sense. We all know, or we should know, that language is war. Language is incredibly important. By referring to terrorists as “Jihadists,” for instance, you give many moderate Muslims the impression that you consider these terrorists to be ‘good, real Muslims, who are fighting for their religion,’ which automatically means that you are fighting against said religion.

How do I know? Several months ago, me and my girlfriend had this exact same debate.

As for what someone of the Brotherhood has to say about Jihad; that’s a bit ironic. If you look at the Sufi masters, they give quite a different interpretation, as do many modern European Muslim authors and thinkers. If you ask Osama Bin Laden which “Jihad” is more important, he will undoubtedly agree with the Muslim Brotherhood… but that’s kinda because he, this also goes for the Brotherhood, is an extremist with a clear political agenda.

That extremists believe that the ‘real Jihad’ means fighting against ‘infidels’ (according to the Koran, by the way, Christians and Jews aren’t ‘infidels’) doesn’t make it so, nor does it mean that other Muslims agree with it.

Lastly, I do agree that the link should be exposed, but it depends on the manner in which one does so. All too often, people give the impression that to be a good Muslim means you have to support terrorism (if you read some websites, one gets the impression that every ‘good’ Muslim should blow himself up). That’s not the kind of link you need. You need to point out that extremists and terrorists believe that they’re fighting for their religion, and moderate Muslims need to recognize this, but people like Mr. Spencer shouldn’t do their best to basically convince the world that these extremists are right in their interpretation.

* I promised Robert to write a response to his response to an earlier post of mine, which I will do this weekend. Don’t worry Robert, I haven’t forgotten.