Language
and Message
In
the American Strategy to Combat Terrorism
Sadek J. Sulaiman
Muscat,
August 29, 2004
... American strategy to combat terrorism can stand review
and
improvement: in language, message, policies, and actions. However, I
shall address here only language and message.
Language
Extra care needs to be taken to ensure non-offensive, proper, and
effective use of language in U.S. pronouncements on matters Islamic.
Particular attention should be paid to how the Arabic translation of any
English composition would turn out. Where sensitive connotations are
present, descriptive phrases, rather than single word adjectives, should
be used to preclude misinterpretation. For example “terrorists acting
falsely in the name of Islam” is more forthright and less open to
misinterpretation, or misrepresentation, than “Islamist terrorists.”
“Islamist” and “Islamic” usually come out the same in the Arabic translation. Thus, “Islamist terrorists” (the term the 9/11 Commission
has used) would come out as ĹŃĺÇČíćä ĹÓáÇăíćä. This risks unjustified
generalization, because a good many ordinary Muslims who do not condone
terrorism nonetheless consider themselves Islamist. An Islamist, in
this sense, is one who is committed to the Islamic view and way of life
without admitting terrorism as an instrument of that view and way.
Another example. “Muslims who are true to their religion” is to be
preferred to “moderate Muslims” in terms of both precision and
accuracy. In the current pervasive culture and literature of extremism
a “moderate Muslim,” or for that matter, a “moderate Arab” is suspect.
He/she is portrayed as weak, less authentic, less committed, and less
solidly established in communal faith or convention.
How do you in the West describe the nature of the terrorist adversary,
you ask I say, as a rule, contemporary language addressing contemporary
problems invariably ought to be brisk, precise, direct and above all
truthful. Truth should never be camouflaged or compromised. To call a
spade a spade is still the best way to bare facts and expose things for
what they are. But one must then call all spades by that name. Where
terrorism comes from perpetrators other than Muslims it too should be so
branded. Like the state terrorism being perpetrated by Israel against
the Palestinians by way of coercive occupation, and lately by the
Sudanese government through the Janjaleed against the population of Darfor.
To answer your other question: no, it is not presumptuous of you to
describe some Muslims as terrorists. It is not presumptuous of anyone
of us to describe persons of whatever religion they happen to be as
terrorists when they actually commit acts of terrorism. Perverted
versions exist in all the major religions, and in all of them, not just
Islam, they continue to be used for justification of terrorist crimes.
They should be so exposed, and disowned. But we should not tarry there
long before we shift responsibility to where it really belongs: to the
perpetrators of terrorism themselves. Besides, often enough, terrorism is inwardly directed, within the same religion, moved by sectarian
divisiveness and zeal. Muslims, more than people of any other religion,
continue to be victims of such terrorism.
Message
Generally speaking, in all American comment on matters Islamic reference
should be made to Muslims rather than to Islam. The people should be
the subject of comment, and the object of attention, not the religion. I
suggest, that should be the standard, whether the judgment that is
passed is positive or negative. Criticizing a people for their failings
is less problematic, and ultimately perhaps more remedial, than
criticizing a religion for its shortcomings. This is universally true,
whoever the people, whatever the religion. On the other hand, outsider
praise for a religion in a public relations context is rarely received
as genuine; more often than not such praise is seen not far removed
from a banal form of condescension.
Again, the legitimate and universally shared aspirations of the mass of
humanity who happens to be Muslim to a safe, democratic, and prosperous
national environment is what needs to be highlighted. When more is said
about Muslims as a people aspiring to peace, political reform and
economic progress, and less about Islam as their particular brand of
religion, the focus shifts from a religion oriented identification to a
rational and humane identification of shared real life concerns.
Differentiating radicals and terrorists (reference King Abdulla,
President Bush in your note) does not help half as much as
differentiating sound and unsound ideas and fair and unfair policies
and practices. We need to do more of the latter in addressing our
common problems and finding our path to solutions.
Finally, the asymmetrical juxtaposition of Islam and the West should
once and for all be dropped from our discourse. That the one is a
religion, unbounded by geography, and the other a hemisphere,
constituted of certain peoples and states, makes any comparison
meaningless. Though predominantly non-Muslim, people in the West are
cognizant of Islam, and the hemisphere is home to a great many Muslims.
A more coherent approach would be to discuss the Islamic Civilization
and the Western Civilization as two of humanity’s greatest enterprises. Huntington did not get it exactly right. Civilizations do not
clash:
they form complementary and cooperative relationships. They reach out,
borrow from one another, and compete for excellence. It is states and
religions though that clash when they become less civil, less
civilized. That I think is the lesson we must heed and the truth we
must tell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Sadek J. Sulaiman is a former ambassador in Washington DC)