What's new

The terms Islamists, Jihadists

TruthSeeker

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
6,390
Reaction score
3
Country
United States
Location
United States
I have used, in the past several months, the term "jihadi" and "islamist" to label the people who carry out such acts as the Sri Lankan cricket team attack. However, several colleagues here on the Forum will tell me not to use such pejorative terms. So, please tell me, what is an acceptable term for terrorists who carry our their acts in the name of Islam?
 
TS, if you don't mind, I felt this could be an interesting topic and sometimes we get so accustomed, to racially derogatory terms that after some time they just become acceptable.

My take? You call them terrorists, maybe a better word will need to be invented, but these two terms misrepresent things and will club in even the good guys. What do you call a member of the KKK? A white supremacist, not a Whitist. What do you call a member of the Vishva Hindu Prasad? A Hindu Fundamentalist, not a Hinduist.

1) Muslims need to disown terrorists conducting terrorism in their name. The majority of us do disown them as non-Muslims. The remaining who do consider them muslims, feel fit to condemn them from an Islamic point of view.

Either way is not wrong, as the condemnation gets through. However I feel, non-Muslims would eventually start clubbing all of us together, and we'll all eventually become the bad guys. Next thing you know, Tableeghi Muslims (equivalent of missionaries) would be clubbed as Islamists, since they are going house to house talking up Islam.

Jihadi, too, grossly misrepresents the literal meaning of the word. Jihad is any struggle against something wrong. Conducting neighborhood watch can be considered Jihad. Writing emails to your congressman, and reporting a problem of graffiti in the neighborhood too can be Jihad. Its a very broad term.

Of course your concern is with the ones that will blow you and me up justifying that this serves Islam. Again why define them as anything more than terrorists and mix them up with an originally noble label?

Also would you condemn a Jihadi armed fighter, fighting in some jungle of Africa to protect his village from ethnic cleansing?

So basically what I'm saying is, these things are situational. Removing the situations can grossly misrepresent things and become a trouble for us, who are otherwise neither, but are Muslims, pray five times a day and in all appearances, Muslim. What happens when we're looked at suspiciously? My brother was attacked by drunkards chasing him with a crowbar, shouting "Go back to Saudi Arabia". People in America can hardly talk coherently about Islam, so you can understand the cautionary alarm bells when we say "Islamists, and Jihadists" will cause confusion.
 
I have used, in the past several months, the term "jihadi" and "islamist" to label the people who carry out such acts as the Sri Lankan cricket team attack. However, several colleagues here on the Forum will tell me not to use such pejorative terms. So, please tell me, what is an acceptable term for terrorists who carry our their acts in the name of Islam?

if any nonmuslim departmet carryout these attacks in the name of Islam so we u will called them Islamists nd jihsdists...this is amazing ..:victory:
Oh i c u r Truthseeker:pop:
 
its only propeganda against islam..the terrorist only work for money not for islam..islam is peace full religion..u can say them terrorist only...b they have nothing to do with islam
 
How about Urdu?

Terrorism: Dehshat
Terrorist: Dehshat Gardh
Extremist: Intiha pasand
Fundamentalist: Bunyaad pasand

Or Hindi:
Terrorist: Aatankvaadi!
 
¨Extremists¨ or ¨Terrorists¨ I think are fine.

FYI: Jihad is a very important aspect of Islam! It literally means struggle, and all Muslims must believe in Jihad, but to call a Terrorist a ¨Jihadi¨ is undermining a very important aspect of Islam.
 
¨Extremists¨ or ¨Terrorists¨ I think are fine.

FYI: Jihad is a very important aspect of Islam! It literally means struggle, and all Muslims must believe in Jihad, but to call a Terrorist a ¨Jihadi¨ is undermining a very important aspect of Islam.

yes thats the point..actually the terrorists have no religion at all
 
Ironically, many of you who object to the press, and westerners in general, using the label "jihadi" end up, instead, favoring "terrorist", i.e agreeing with the George Bushism: "War on Terror". So, I guess ole George W. was using your preferred label. Right?
 
^^ The term "terrorist" is preferred, probably, because it disassociates religion from immediate perception.

Asim Aquil said:
How about Urdu?

Terrorism: Dehshat
Terrorist: Dehshat Gardh
Extremist: Intiha pasand
Fundamentalist: Bunyaad pasand

Or Hindi:
Terrorist: Aatankvaadi!
I am not sure, if a mere translation (English to Urdu or Hindi) changes anything, other than making it a tad difficult for the westerners to pronounce.
 
Ironically, many of you who object to the press, and westerners in general, using the label "jihadi" end up, instead, favoring "terrorist", i.e agreeing with the George Bushism: "War on Terror". So, I guess ole George W. was using your preferred label. Right?
Thats mostly just to keep the argument going. Hehe I think most of us wouldn't shy from calling this a War against Islam as apparently only terrorists from Muslim countries are being targeted and heavy interference is being done by the US within new governments that are being formed as a result of this war on whatever.
 
^^ The term "terrorist" is preferred, probably, because it disassociates religion from immediate perception.


I am not sure, if a mere translation (English to Urdu or Hindi) changes anything, other than making it a tad difficult for the westerners to pronounce.
You missed the point. Just pointing out that the word terrorist actually has an equivalent, but not Islamist.

Its right up there with George Bush's Islamic Facists. Very simply put, the old camp in the white house had these PR scaremongering guys. They came up with this nonsense, and these became fashionable and catchy terms. Axix of Evil, was another.
 
Thats mostly just to keep the argument going.

Actually, the only real reason that I made my above post was I wanted to go over 1000 posts before I went to bed. So good night! I hope I wake up tomorrow and find that Pakistan is quiet and peaceful now that the judiciary is to be "completely" reinstated and Sharia Law prevails in Swat ......
 
Actually, the only real reason that I made my above post was I wanted to go over 1000 posts before I went to bed. So good night! I hope I wake up tomorrow and find that Pakistan is quiet and peaceful now that the judiciary is to be "completely" reinstated and Sharia Law prevails in Swat ......
meeh, I'm not happy. People aren't keeping the big picture in view. They'll find out Zardari Kuroh outfoxed em again!
 
Assalam O Alaikum,
This is bulbul from:usflag: Oakland,(origin KHI). I am new here, and willing to make friends. As I was going over the posts. I just asked myself one thing. Why is this happening to Us(muslims)?
I agreed, wiat Aqueel said;( 1) Muslims need to disown terrorists conducting terrorism in their name.) Western Media uses such words to discourage young Muslims to practice their religion. I bet they really know the essence of jihad and all , but they dont want muslim to get united. I do condemened terrisom, and whoever do such act, I wont call dat person Muslim. As Allah SWT says; "Killing one people is killing all the humanity. " Let other knows what Islam really is by your action and deeds. May Allah restore muslims diginty. Ameen Bijahin Nabiyelameen
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom