Militants, terrorists, Islamofascists, or takfirists?
Timothy Garton Ash writes another well argued and important article, this time on what we should call those inspired by the ideology behind al-Qaida, and comes I think to mostly the right conclusion.
First, Islamofascist is mostly a laughable term. The main argument for its use tends to be that many moons ago, some Islamists had a grudging respect for the Nazis or were even in some cases inspired by them, as Maududi was. Slightly more persuasive is that the idea of a worldwide Islamic caliphate, especially if it is to be imposed by force, with Sharia law forming the legal system in such a state, as laughable and implausible as the concept is, more than bears resemblance to Lebensraum, a key component of Nazi ideology.
While Ash outlines a number of other reasons why the term doesn't ring true, I think he leaves an important one out. The main use of "Islamofascist", is directly or not, to infer that the threat we now face from al-Qaida is somehow comparable to that which manifested itself in the 1930s. This fantasy isn't just confined to the neo-cons who most liberally use the term: Sir Ian Blair has claimed something highly similar, and while Jonathan Evans wasn't entirely clear, he also said that the current threat level was the highest in MI5's existence. Most crucially, "the enemy", whoever it is has been since 1945, except in the case of the Soviet Union, has always been compared and made out to be the new Hitler. Go through them all, whether it be Gaddafi, the Ayatollahs, Saddam Hussein and numerous others, all have been the Nazis reincarnate. Mostly it's just laziness, but it's also borne out of a desire to scaremonger and resort to propaganda, looking for a false equivalence which motivates support for action.
Islamists is mostly covered by Ash, who rightly says that to use Islamists when referring to those who murder either 572 Yazidis or 52 commuters is to link those who do so with the likes of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir, the Muslim Brotherhood, or indeed, even the Justice and Development party in Turkey. We might not agree with their politics, and while some who were formerly members of the first two have become terrorists, they're still in no way comparable to the violence advocated and justified by the ideology behind al-Qaida.
Ash then prefers "jihadists", or especially "jihadist extremists" and "jihadist terrorists" and I think he's mostly right. Even there though there are slight problems. You could describe the likes of Hamas as jihadists, and while they're certainly terrorists or have been terrorists, considering they haven't launched a suicide bombing inside Israel now for a number of years, there's again a distinct difference between the aims of Hamas and the aims of al-Qaida. Similarly, there are jihadist groups in Iraq like the Islamic Army of Iraq (now widely believed to have turned almost completely on the Islamic State of Iraq), the 1920 Revolution Brigades and numerous others that are jihadist in ideology, but are completely opposed to attacks on civilians and have never used the tactic of suicide bombings. Regular readers might have noticed that I'm partial to the use of takfirist, at least in one definition of the word, that those who adhere to the ideology behind al-Qaida don't care who they kill, and exemplified by how the Islamic State of Iraq has murdered thousands of Shias through the specific targeting of Shia dominated areas in Iraq by suicide bombers. If such attacks even kill Sunnis, that's unfortunate, but that can still be justified by the belief that like the bomber they will be martyrs to the cause. The most accurate way to my mind to describe them then is "jihadist takfiris" or "takfiri jihadis", whichever you prefer, although jihadists is more than acceptable shorthand.
Ash ends the article with a flourish:
Indeed.
First, Islamofascist is mostly a laughable term. The main argument for its use tends to be that many moons ago, some Islamists had a grudging respect for the Nazis or were even in some cases inspired by them, as Maududi was. Slightly more persuasive is that the idea of a worldwide Islamic caliphate, especially if it is to be imposed by force, with Sharia law forming the legal system in such a state, as laughable and implausible as the concept is, more than bears resemblance to Lebensraum, a key component of Nazi ideology.
While Ash outlines a number of other reasons why the term doesn't ring true, I think he leaves an important one out. The main use of "Islamofascist", is directly or not, to infer that the threat we now face from al-Qaida is somehow comparable to that which manifested itself in the 1930s. This fantasy isn't just confined to the neo-cons who most liberally use the term: Sir Ian Blair has claimed something highly similar, and while Jonathan Evans wasn't entirely clear, he also said that the current threat level was the highest in MI5's existence. Most crucially, "the enemy", whoever it is has been since 1945, except in the case of the Soviet Union, has always been compared and made out to be the new Hitler. Go through them all, whether it be Gaddafi, the Ayatollahs, Saddam Hussein and numerous others, all have been the Nazis reincarnate. Mostly it's just laziness, but it's also borne out of a desire to scaremonger and resort to propaganda, looking for a false equivalence which motivates support for action.
Islamists is mostly covered by Ash, who rightly says that to use Islamists when referring to those who murder either 572 Yazidis or 52 commuters is to link those who do so with the likes of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir, the Muslim Brotherhood, or indeed, even the Justice and Development party in Turkey. We might not agree with their politics, and while some who were formerly members of the first two have become terrorists, they're still in no way comparable to the violence advocated and justified by the ideology behind al-Qaida.
Ash then prefers "jihadists", or especially "jihadist extremists" and "jihadist terrorists" and I think he's mostly right. Even there though there are slight problems. You could describe the likes of Hamas as jihadists, and while they're certainly terrorists or have been terrorists, considering they haven't launched a suicide bombing inside Israel now for a number of years, there's again a distinct difference between the aims of Hamas and the aims of al-Qaida. Similarly, there are jihadist groups in Iraq like the Islamic Army of Iraq (now widely believed to have turned almost completely on the Islamic State of Iraq), the 1920 Revolution Brigades and numerous others that are jihadist in ideology, but are completely opposed to attacks on civilians and have never used the tactic of suicide bombings. Regular readers might have noticed that I'm partial to the use of takfirist, at least in one definition of the word, that those who adhere to the ideology behind al-Qaida don't care who they kill, and exemplified by how the Islamic State of Iraq has murdered thousands of Shias through the specific targeting of Shia dominated areas in Iraq by suicide bombers. If such attacks even kill Sunnis, that's unfortunate, but that can still be justified by the belief that like the bomber they will be martyrs to the cause. The most accurate way to my mind to describe them then is "jihadist takfiris" or "takfiri jihadis", whichever you prefer, although jihadists is more than acceptable shorthand.
Ash ends the article with a flourish:
There is an obligation on those of us who are non-Muslims living in open societies like Britain, to choose our words carefully. Until someone comes up with a better one, I think "jihadists" is the most appropriate shorthand. There is, however, an equal and matching obligation on our Muslim opinion leaders. That is to condemn, audibly and unambiguously, the jihadists who threaten us all.
Indeed.
Labels: al-Qaida, jihadists, language of terror, takfirists, terror, Timothy Garton Ash
| Permalink
