Author of this article, Mr.Enver Masud is founder and CEO of The Wisdom Fund, and the recipient of the 2002 Gold Award from the Human Rights Foundation for his book The War on Islam. He has BS and MS degrees from the University of Oklahoma, a BS from St. Stephens College in New Delhi, India, and has been on the Advisory Panel of the international journal Electric Power Systems Research. His father M. N. Masud worked with Maulana Azad, Nehru, and Gandhi, was ambassador to Saudi Arabia, a UNESCO Mission Chief, and an Olympic gold medallist. His mother Atiya Fatima was a volunteer social worker, educator, worked with Mother Teresa, and is descended from Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, founder of Alighar Muslim university.
The President and virtually every major U.S. news media persist in using oxymorons: Islamic extremism, Islamic terrorism, and now, in the President's October 6 address to the National Endowment For Democracy, "Islamo-fascism." The President repeated this rhetoric in his address today, October 25, at the Joint Armed Forces Officers' Wives' Luncheon. For anyone with sufficient knowledge of Islam, Islamic extremism, Islamic terrorism, Islamo-fascism, etc. are oxymorons. Muslims, as the Quran teaches (2:143), are "a community of the middle way." While some Muslims may properly be addressed as terrorists, etc., to define them as "Islamic" is an oxymoron. Perhaps this is a little difficult for non-Muslims to understand because, unlike other faiths, the faith and the believer have different names: Islam and Muslim respectively.
Leaving aside the definition of terrorism for the moment, Muslim terrorist would be more accurate, but then one should be consistent when referring to Christian, Jewish, or Hindu terrorists. However, what news media generally do is to refer to non-Muslim terrorists as belonging to a "cult", thereby, taking care not to smear non-Islamic faiths - Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhism.
As for Islamo-fascism, Islam has no central authority - it does not meet the definition of fascism. Lewis H. Lapham, editor of the American monthly Harper's Magazine, writes in the October 2005 issue that it is the U.S. that has become a fascist state. The term "Islamic fundamentalism" presents another problem. Christian fundamentalistism was defined in The Fundamentals - a 12-volume collection of essays written in the period 1910-15. There is no generally accepted definition of Islamic fundamentalism. In one sense all Muslims are fundamentalists because they believe that the Quran is the Word of God.
When news media use the term "Islamic fundamentalism" they are not stating a fact, but a conclusion about Islam. They should then be prepared to provide the reasoning behind such usage by a scholarly analysis of the Quran that indeed this is what Islam teaches. It would be more accurate to use the term Muslim fundamentalist, rather than Islamic fundamentalist. Hopefully, then the writer has checked out the fact that the person is a Muslim - "fundamentalist" is a conclusion they may draw independent of the Quran and/or Islam.
Looking at the issue from another perspective consider the terms "terrorism", "fundamentalist" etc. when applied to persons of other faiths or religions. Thus one would say Jewish terrorist - not Judaic terrorist. Judaic or Christianic terrorism would be the equivalent of saying Islamic terrorism. Jewish or Christian terrorist would be the equivalent of saying Muslim terrorist. Yet another way to look at the issue of "Islamic terrorism" is to ask: "What is the difference between Islamic terrorism, Christianic terrorism, and Judaic terrorism?"
Is the terrorism itself, somehow, different in each case, or is it merely the fact that it is being carried out by a Muslim, Christian, or Jew? If one cannot define the difference, then isn't the term "Islamic terrorism" synonymous with Christian (or Christianic?) terrorism and Judaic terrorism? Could a Muslim perpetrate Christianic terrorism or Judaic terrorism? Clearly, this leads to absurd statements. More importantly perhaps, the use of the term Islamic terrorism has a more pernicious effect. It paints an entire faith as suspect, lets governments off the hook too easily by not forcing them to more precisely define the "enemy," and it endorses the propaganda of the hate-mongers.
It also distorts the true nature of the problem, and thus proposed solutions do not receive the scrutiny they deserve, thereby, giving governments the freedom to conduct war or take punitive action for purposes that have little to do with the real threat. [. . . by surreptitiously justifying a policy of single-minded obduracy that links Islamism to a strategically important, oil-rich part of the world, the anti-Islam campaign virtually eliminates the possibility of equal dialogue between Islam and the Arabs, and the West or Israel. To demonize and dehumanize a whole culture on the ground that it is (in Lewis's sneering phrase) enraged at modernity is to turn Muslims into the objects of a therapeutic, punitive attention.--Edward Said, "A Devil Theory of Islam," The Nation, August 12, 1996]
[By making the disciplined effort to name our enemies correctly, we will learn more about them, and come one step nearer, perhaps, to solving the seemingly intractable and increasingly perilous problems of our divided world.--Karen Armstrong, "The label of Catholic terror was never used about the IRA ," Guardian, July 11, 2005]
Enver Masud, "Fatwa Against Terrorism: Questions," The Wisdom Fund, July 28, 2005 ,
David E. Sanger, "President prepares U.S. for conflict with 'radical Islam' from Spain to Indonesia," New York Times, October 17, 2005,
Enver Masud, "Letter on Oxymorons to Ombudsman, The Washington Post," The Wisdom Fund, October 23, 2005.
["Extremism is no more the monopoly of Islam than it is the monopoly of other religions, including Christianity,"--Andrew Alderson, "Prince Charles to plead Islam's cause to Bush," The Telegraph," October 29, 2005]
["Distinctions have sometimes been blurred by inflationary language and headlines such as Islamic terrorism, and in many cases the use of terms Islam, Muslim, fundamentalism seems to confuse rather than educate the reader," the report concludes.--Daisy Ayliffe, "EU praised for terror response," eupolitix.com, November 10, 2005]
[Others were white and so, following Phillips's description of the darker skinned rioters as 'Arab Muslims', should presumably be referred to as 'Caucasian Christians'.--Jason Burke, "France and the Muslim myth," Observer, November 13, 2005]
["In print stereotypes are not so obvious, except in cartoon caricatures, but they still occur and anti-Muslim bias is more insidious. The terms Islamic or Muslim are linked to extremism, militant, jihads, as if they belonged together inextricably and naturally (Muslim extremist, Islamic terror, Islamic war, Muslim time bomb).
"In many cases, the press talks and writes about Muslims in ways that would not be acceptable if the reference were to Jewish, black or fundamentalist Christians."--" Media has anti-Muslim bias, claims report," Guardian, November 14, 2005] [It's really amazing how much easier it has become to understand the myriad political situations between Morocco and Indonesia, or Nigeria and Chechnya since September 11, 2001. Gone are the tiresome days of having to study each country and its historical and social circumstances, its language and thought, before you can write authoritatively about it. You just whip out your Handy Islam Template and presto: everything falls into place.--Maher Mughrabi, "Confused about Islam? Get your HIT: How not to let facts get in the way of a good religious stereotype," The Age (Australia), November 16, 2005] [United States, in condemning IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland or Basque terrorism in Spain, does not describe it as "Catholic terrorism," a phrase that Catholics around the world would likely find offensive.--Zbigniew Brzezinski, "Do These Two Have Anything in Common?," Washington Post, December 4, 2005] Reprinted from http://www.twf.org/News/Y2005/1025-Oxymorons.html |
Friday, 22 August 2008
