Terrorism, fear and political correctness

What to call terrorists?

In its 2010 National Security Strategy, the Obama administration sought to sever the relationship between Islam and terrorism, rejecting the use of terms like 'Islamic terrorist' and 'jihad' to describe acts of terror.

The linguistic change was a policy shift from the Bush administration and part of Obama's overall strategy to reinvent America's relationship with the Muslim world.

But the policy change has its critics. On Monday, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy published a report rebuking the Obama administration's approach, suggesting that the new strategy dangerously ignores the religious motivations of terrorists.

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?

We live in a world where overt acts of violence are on the increase, as are the diverse types of "justification" for them. Nowadays, almost any violent action is justified by some cause or another, be it political, environmental, social, or religious. Without entering into a debate as to the validity or invalidity of any such acts, it seems obvious and fitting to identify them based on the primary motivation of their perpetrators of the acts. To do otherwise would only serve to obscure the reality of the violence and make getting to the root of the problem extremely difficult, if not impossible.

When Christian anti-abortion protestors killed abortion providers in the past, the murderers were rightly identified as such. When Catholic and Protestant terrorists in Ireland were killing innocent people in the name of the religious beliefs, the media and government officials did not seem to have any hesitation about identifying the acts for what they were. When pro-environmental activists destroy property and machines they see as symbols of a culture of pollution, they are identified based on their motivation. Why should acts by Muslim terrorists who make clear their motivations be treated differently?

In all forms of problem solving, accurate diagnosis of the underlying factors involved is the first fundamental step. Doctors, mechanics, plumbers, etc. all understand and utilize the process. Without it, any attempt to address the problem at hand will be, at best, hit and miss. Why can the Obama administration not do the same when it comes to terrorism? Either Obama is ignorant of the situation or afraid of the terrorists. If the first, then it is time for him to open his eyes. If the second, then he is giving into the terrorists, whose goal it is to inspire fear. Either way, his inability or unwillingness to accurately address the problem only serves to exacerbate it.

In the twelfth through the fourteenth centuries, the Catholic Church was responsible for the torture and execution of countless innocent people because of their beliefs. Although the vast majority of Catholics surely did not approve--many were the victims--the actions were nevertheless justified by a prevalent fundamentalist view within the Church hierarchy of the time. Islam today is near the end of the fourteenth century of its existence, and countless innocent individuals-many of whom are themselves Muslims--are being killed for their beliefs or sectarian affiliation. Here, too, such actions are being perpetuated and justified by a prevalent fundamentalist hierarchy within Islam. Promoters of this view can be found in mosques all over the world, including in the U.S., preaching hatred of Jews, Christians, western societies in general, and just about anyone who is not of their particular sect of Islam. They use the language of Islam to justify their hatred, and rare is the Muslim leader who speaks out against them. Some individuals have become media magnets, such as the radical preacher, Zakir Naik, who openly condones and even justifies the extermination of non-Muslims. In the world of political correctness, his supporters call his rhetoric of hate free speech, while those who criticize his unabashed support of violence are called intolerant.

The ideology that is fueling Islamic terrorism and violence is a fundamentalist belief system that denigrates all other belief systems, religious or secular, as inferior and even satanic. A logical outcome of such an ideology is a bifurcated world view that, in its extreme, justifies violence against all "non-believers." Again, it is not all that different conceptually than what existed in Christianity in medieval Europe. What is different is that extremists Muslims today have the reach, the media, and the weaponry to easily spread their hatred and its deadly results all over the world.

Obama's overall strategy to reinvent and recast America's relationship with "the Muslim world" by ignoring the evidence and all the pronouncements by the terrorists themselves is not only foolish, but dangerous, since it gives radical Islam cover to continue to spread its hatred. To acknowledge the religious roots of violence does not mean to suggest that all religious people are violent, but it does recognize that terrorists can find justification for their hatred in their religious beliefs. Obama's desire to improve relations with the Muslim world is a laudable one that should be encouraged, but it should not be done by genuflecting to terrorist elements. Instead, he should identify the culprits for who they are while enhancing dialogue with those Muslims who are against the sullying of the name of Islam by the terrorism of the extremists.

There are Muslims everywhere who want a peaceful world, and clearly most are against the terrorism that is being perpetuated in the name of their religion. Our media and our politicians need to both recognize the problem for what it is and also to recognize and give voice and support to those Muslims who want to work with us to help solve the problems of terrorism. Until such an approach happens, Muslim terrorism will continue to be a dominant and destructive reality in our world, and countless more innocent individuals will die as a result of hate.

Obama needs to either lead or get out of the way and make room for someone willing and able to do so. His refusal to acknowledge what most Americans and the rest of the world know only makes matters worse. America and the world needs leaders who can act through a combination of knowledge, compassion, and strength not because they are afraid or intimidated. A great teacher once advised me, "Be tolerant of everything but intolerance. If you allow the latter, then only the most narrow minded and hateful will survive."

By Ramdas Lamb  |  July 21, 2010; 9:17 AM ET Save & Share:                 
Previous: No religious basis for 9/11 | Next: Let 9/11 be mourned with monuments and mosques

Posted by: desimd | July 29, 2010 6:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: nodrog2 | July 24, 2010 2:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: muslim1908 | July 21, 2010 10:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: twforg | July 21, 2010 9:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: tlwinslow | July 21, 2010 3:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.