ISLAMISM, RADICAL ISLAM, JIHADISM -THE PROBLEM OF LANGUAGE
AND ISLAMOPHOBIA, by Paul Hedges*
There are problems with terms used to discuss religiously justified
violence, like Islamism, Radical Islam, Jihadism, etc. They may provide
legitimacy to terrorists, increase Islamophobia, and distort or misrepresent
the actions and ideologies they seek to describe.
Violence in the name of religion, especially Islam, is a global concern:
the Charlie Hebdo and Paris attacks, and the ongoing ISIS conflict being two
prominent examples. The language used to discuss this is, however, deeply
problematic, with terms used by the media, politicians, and academics often
distorting or oversimplifying the issues.
The focus, here, on Islam is because it is the most discussed example,
although I do not believe Islam is inherently violent or more violent than any
other religion. Indeed, no clear evidence suggests religion is more likely to
incite violence than other ideologies or worldviews; nevertheless, in the
current geopolitical environment it often provides a claimed motivation or
seeming explanation – both for actors and commentators.
Naming religious violence
The language used seeks to distinguish what is termed “moderate Islam”
from the actions and ideologies of terrorists and militants; politicians like
George Bush and Tony Blair wished to distinguish their “War on Terror” from a
war against Islam. The terms used include: Islamism, Radical/Extremist Islam,
Fundamentalist Islam, Jihadism. However, none of these is really adequate.
Islamism often denotes a political form of Islam, which sees “religious”
aspects being extended into areas of statecraft, law, and the public sphere. In
some respects, this misunderstands what “religion” and “Islam” are. Developing
from a modern Western/Christian worldview, contemporary understandings of
“religion” and the “secular” divide the world into a private sphere of personal
religious belief and a public sphere of law, politics, economics, etc.
Such a division comes from the specific European and North American
context of the last couple of hundred years, but is adopted now more globally.
Prior to this, Christianity was involved in almost every aspect of life, law,
politics, morality, and economics. Countries where Islam predominates tend to
uphold a (more traditional) worldview where the “religious sphere” naturally
encompasses law, public morality, and politics.
Further, while Christianity stresses beliefs and creeds (personal
belief), Islam has emphasised duties, embodied in Shariah Law (public actions).
Therefore, to speak of “Islamism” as a militant political form of Islam makes
no sense: all Islam, traditionally speaking, is political and legal. Indeed,
when Tony Blair said that his Christian beliefs guided aspects of his
governmental policy, including the war in Iraq, no one accused him of
“Christianism”. “Islamism”, as a term, is therefore unhelpful to analyse
contemporary militant/terrorist actions.
Problems with terms like “Radical Islam” or “moderate” Islam
Radical Islam names a counterpart to “moderate” Islam. However, it is
not very useful. What is “radical” ? In everyday language, radical suggests
something new, dramatically different, or unusual. In this sense liberal Muslim
reformers are “radicals”. Unhelpfully, it may also suggest those only
“moderately” Islamic are the peaceful ones, while those who take their religion
more seriously (are “radical” about it) turn to violence: young people
especially want to be radicals.
Likewise, use of “Extremist Islam” may suggest those who take Islam to
its extremes; this implies that, taken seriously, Islam leads to violence.
Contrarily many deeply committed Muslims understand Islam as a religion of
peace, while many of the terrorists/militants demonstrate only limited
commitment to or understanding of it: this is seemingly true of both the Hebdo
attackers and the ISIS leadership.
Fundamentalism originated in the United States in the early 20th
century, used by Christians who adhered to what they saw as fundamental
beliefs. These varied but often included the infallibility of scripture, belief
in the virgin birth, etc. It has been debated whether we can accurately use
“fundamentalist” outside of this original context, but if we do what does it
mean?
In common usage it refers to violent and extremist ends of any group. If
we take it more precisely, however, we apply it to those who follow (what they
believe are) the fundamentals of their religion; as with the terms “extremist”
and “radical” this may play into the hands of those who wish to argue for
terrorism and militancy by implying that the most “fundamental” Islam is that
which endorses this.
Most Muslims who adhere to the “fundamentals” of Islam see this as
including principles like peace, tolerance, and respect. In this latter sense,
many of the nicest Muslims I have met are “fundamentalists”.
Consequences of names
“Jihadist” is often used of terrorists/militants engaged in what they
want to be seen as global jihad. Jihad is a complicated term in Islam,
nevertheless, we may mention a commonly used distinction between the “lesser
jihad”, warfare, and the “greater jihad”, spiritual and moral cultivation. The
regular use of jihad as warfare/violence therefore misses out on the primary
element of it for many Muslims; meanwhile, potentially legitimating terrorists
and militants.
Notably, Shariah has historically regulated “just war” practices within
combative jihad in principles like not attacking non-combatants (including
women, children, priests, and rabbis), and not destroying people’s means of
livelihood. The violence of ISIS or Al Qaeda- inspired terrorists/militants is
clearly not practised according to Islamic principles, and so for many Muslims
they put themselves outside of Islam.
All these terms highlight “Islam” in association with
terrorists/militants. Analysis suggests that this results in a popular
perception leading to Islamophobia and distrust of Muslims in general. Given the
implications, for example that Islam has “fundamentals” that supposedly involve
violence, the problem can clearly be seen.
These terms also hide the primarily political motivations around much of
the religiously named violence. Moreover, it unifies often very different
agendas and motivations. We cannot avoid religion’s power to motivate and
legitimate violence (it can also motivate and sustain irenic and pacifist
agendas), nor the fact that some involved may well believe they are acting in
defence of their religion, or on “pure spiritual” motivations. But the terms
currently employed are unhelpful, even counterproductive, for description and
analysis.
While not ignoring the religious dimension, we should not use headline
names for these militants and terrorists using any claimed religious
motivation. While studying religion and ideology plays an important part in the
analysis, the currently used terms give pseudo-legitimacy, hide the complexity
of factors (land, identity, oppression, etc.) behind events, and help fuel
Islamophobia.
* Paul Hedges is Associate Professor in Interreligious Studies for the Studies
in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies Programme, S. Rajaratnam
School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. He
maintains a blog on Interreligious Studies and related issues at:
www.logosdao.wordpress.com.
RSIS Commentaries are intended
to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy relevant background and
analysis of contemporary developments. The views of the author/s are their own
and do not represent the official position of the S.Rajaratnam School of
International Studies (RSIS), NTU, which produces the Commentaries.
No comments:
Post a Comment