'Islamic terrorism' an unacceptable term

What should we call terrorists, some of whom claim to be motivated by their religion? Can one be an Islamic terrorist? What about a Christian terrorist? Does what we call terrorists matter?

This is a difficult one. I think the Obama administration is right to decouple the religious description of terrorists from them, even if they claim to be motivated by their religion.

After all, some Muslims living in Palestine in the middle ages might have called the Crusaders terrorists- would they have been Christian terrorists? Or the Irgun, the radical liberation group in Palestine/Israel in the 1930s and 40s, has been described both as a Zionist and as a Jewish terrorist grouping. Using the language of religion coupled with terrorist suggests that terrorism is normative in that particular religion, and also gives no room for those within that religious grouping to dissociate form the actions of errant coreligionists. That would be bad enough, but it then leads to an even more difficult situation, that of 'the good Muslim', or 'the good Jew' being the only ones who denounce terrorism and repudiate what their coreligionists have done.

Decoupling 'Islamic' from 'terrorist' is the right thing to do. It is legitimate to talk about Islamic law, Islamic literature and Islamic art (though even that covers a huge geographical area.) But 'Islamic terrorism' is unacceptable as a term.

By Julia Neuberger  |  July 13, 2010; 4:41 AM ET Save & Share:                 
Previous: A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist | Next: Islamic terror is real, as is Jewish and Christian terror

Posted by: faith-on-space-ship-earth | July 15, 2010 10:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: ashleybone | July 14, 2010 7:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: fakher | July 13, 2010 6:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.