RUPEE NEWS: Recording History, Narrating Archives, Strategic Intellibrief Analysis: Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | новости рупии | 卢比新闻 | Rupi Nyheter | ルピーニュース | اخبار روپیہ

Semantics are very important in the Global War on Terror (GWOT). If the war is against “Terror”, then it targets the “Terrorists”. The English word “Terrorist” or its synonyms, militant, extremist adequately describe a terrorist. However for those who wish to experiment with Arabic the word for terrorist is “Hirabi”.

Those wanting to portray the terrorist as evil should not play into the hands of the terrorists who wish to portray themselves fighting the good fight. 

What Do You Call a Terror(Jihad)ist?  By P. W. SINGER and ELINA NOOR

IMAGINE if Franklin D. Roosevelt had taken to calling Adolf Hitler the “leader of the National Socialist Aryan patriots” or dubbed Japanese soldiers fighting in World War II as the “defenders of Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.”

To describe the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese Army in terms that incorporated their own propaganda would have been self-defeating. Unfortunately, that is what many American policymakers have been doing by calling terrorists “jihadists” or “jihadis.”

While the State Department recently circulated an internal memo advising foreign service officers to avoid such terms, President Bush, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and members of the news media continue to use them.

The word “jihad” means to “strive” or “struggle,” and in the Muslim world it has traditionally been used in tandem with “fi sabilillah” (”in the path of God”). The term has long been taken to mean either a quest to find one’s faith or an external fight for justice. It makes sense, then, for terrorists to associate themselves with a term that has positive connotations. For the United States to support them in that effort, however, is a fundamental strategic mistake.

First, to call a terrorist a “jihadist” or “jihadi” effectively puts any campaign against terrorism into the framework of an existential battle between the West and Islam. This feeds into the worldview propagated by Al Qaeda. It also serves to isolate the tens of millions of Muslims who condemn the violence that has been perpetrated in the name of Islam.

Second, these words locate the ideological battle exactly where the extremists want it to be. The terms of discussion are no longer about the murder of innocents in terrorist acts; they are about theology.

Third, when American leaders use this language it sends a confusing message to the Muslim world, showing ignorance on basic issues and possibly even raising doubts about American motives. Why, after all, would we call our enemy a “holy warrior”?

If we want to say what we mean, what terms better describe Qaeda members and other violent extremists? “Muharib” or the more colloquial “hirabi” or “hirabist” would be good places to start. “Hirabah,” the base word, is a term for barbarism or piracy. Unlike “jihad,” which grants honor, “hirabah” brings condemnation; it involves unlawful violence and disorder.

Of course, it’s probably best not to engage in these nuances at all. Which is why American leaders would do best to call terrorists by their rightful name: “terrorists.” The label may seem passé, but terrorism is an internationally recognized word for an internationally recognized crime. If we want to win a war of words, we would do well to choose the ones we use with greater care.

P. W. Singer is a fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Elina Noor is an analyst at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies in Malaysia. New York Times

The description of a terrorist as a “jihadi” is an oxymoron. It is like describing a suicide bomber “as knight in shining armor”. The correct word for an evil person is not “knight in shining armor”. The correct word to define an evil person is “evil person” or “hirabi.”

calling our enemies “jihadists” rewards them with a name that implies honor in their culture.

A better word exists: Hirabi. This is from the surprisingly good NYT article that Uncle Jimbo quotes:

If we want to say what we mean, what terms better describe Qaeda members and other violent extremists? “Muharib” or the more colloquial “hirabi” or “hirabist” would be good places to start. “Hirabah,” the base word, is a term for barbarism or piracy. Unlike “jihad,” which grants honor, “hirabah” brings condemnation; it involves unlawful violence and disorder.
I’ll do my best to use these better alternatives at every appropriate opportunity. Feel free to remind me, and please consider adopting this practice in your own writing.

The best jihad is self control of self. The only type of war allowed in the “lesser jihad” that is allowed–it is for self defense after one has been attacked.

It is obvious that a terrorist will try to define himself as “a knight in shining armor”. The media that falls for this is actually playing into the hands of the evil doers. (http://watchcat007.blogspot.com/2008/06/calling-hirabi-hirabi.html)

Of course the Neocons insist on using Islamic terms and conjugations of Muslim words to define the terrorists. The purpose of this is to obfuscate the issue and convert the Global War on Terror (GWOT) into the Global War on Muslims (GWOM).

The Conservative leader reflects on his two days with a Muslim family in Birmingham. His top conclusion is that we need to be more careful about our choice of language when discussing the nature of the current terrorist threat:

“By using the word ‘Islamist’ to describe the threat, we actually help do the terrorist ideologues’ work for them, confirming to many impressionable young Muslim men that to be a ‘good Muslim’, you have to support their evil campaign.”

It is disgusting to see Pakistani media use the words “jihadi” and “Islamist” to define the evil ones.

Feb. 4, 2008 update: The prime minister’s ban has now been codified in a new counter-terrorism phrasebook drawn up by the Home Office, reports Alan Travis in the Guardian.

Reflecting the government’s decision to abandon the “aggressive rhetoric” of the so-called war on terror, the guide tells civil servants not to use terms such as Islamist extremism or jihadi-fundamentalist but instead to refer to violent extremism and criminal murderers or thugs to avoid any implication that there is an explicit link between Islam and terrorism. It warns those engaged in counter-terrorist work that talk of a struggle for values or a battle of ideas is often heard as a “confrontation/clash between civilisations/cultures”. Instead it suggests that talking about the idea of shared values works much more effectively. …

“This is not intended as a definitive list of what not to say but rather to highlight terms which risk being misunderstood and therefore prevent the effective reception of the message,” says the Home Office paper. “This is not about political correctness, but effectiveness – evidence shows that people stop listening if they think you are attacking them.”

The European Union: “Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers “non-offensive” phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks. Banned terms are said to include ‘jihad,’ ‘Islamic’ or ‘fundamentalist.’ The word ‘jihad’ is to be avoided altogether, according to some sources, because for Muslims the word can mean a personal struggle to live a moral life. One alternative, suggested publicly last year, is for the term ‘Islamic terrorism’ to be replaced by ‘terrorists who abusively invoke Islam’.” (Bruno Waterfield, “Don’t confuse terrorism with Islam, says EU,” The Daily Telegraph, March 31, 2007)

We tried to explain this to Mr. Shaharyar Azhar: He was unable to grasp the profound impact of using the wrong language. ARY must FIRE Shaharyar Azhar: The psychopathic obsequies pro-Indian Ghandian Azhar should be sacked for his incompetence, “Akhand Bharat” philosophy and his anti-Pakistan banal bilious blathering

Letter to Mr. Azhar. He cannot or will not what is going on in the world 

The media must never use Quran words to define evil or evil doers.