This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/world/when-a-phrase-takes-on-new-meaning-radical-islam-explained.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| When a Phrase Takes On New Meaning: ‘Radical Islam,’ Explained | |
| (about 2 hours later) | |
| It was nearly 18 months ago, shortly after the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, when a reporter for National Public Radio, Mara Liasson, observed at a White House press briefing that President Obama and his aides had “bent over backwards” to avoid using the phrase “radical Islam.” The press secretary, Josh Earnest, said this was because “these terrorists are individuals who would like to cloak themselves in the veil of a particular religion,” opening a debate over the phrase that has taken on new rancor amid the massacre in Orlando. | It was nearly 18 months ago, shortly after the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, when a reporter for National Public Radio, Mara Liasson, observed at a White House press briefing that President Obama and his aides had “bent over backwards” to avoid using the phrase “radical Islam.” The press secretary, Josh Earnest, said this was because “these terrorists are individuals who would like to cloak themselves in the veil of a particular religion,” opening a debate over the phrase that has taken on new rancor amid the massacre in Orlando. |
| “In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words ‘Radical Islam,’ ” Donald J. Trump said in a statement within hours of when Omar Mateen killed 49 people at a gay nightclub and invoked the Islamic State in a 911 call. “For that reason alone, he should step down.” | “In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words ‘Radical Islam,’ ” Donald J. Trump said in a statement within hours of when Omar Mateen killed 49 people at a gay nightclub and invoked the Islamic State in a 911 call. “For that reason alone, he should step down.” |
| The next day, Mr. Obama called the focus on phrasing “a political distraction.” | The next day, Mr. Obama called the focus on phrasing “a political distraction.” |
| “What exactly would using this label would accomplish?” the president asked. “Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.” | “What exactly would using this label would accomplish?” the president asked. “Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.” |
| What does “radical Islam” even mean and why has it become so controversial? Is this argument just semantics, or does it go deeper? | What does “radical Islam” even mean and why has it become so controversial? Is this argument just semantics, or does it go deeper? |
| Let’s start with the words. “Islam” is a 1,500-year-old religion whose 1.6 billion followers worldwide observe a spectrum of customs and traditions. “Radical” can mean something very different or against tradition, or be defined as extreme views, practices and policies. | Let’s start with the words. “Islam” is a 1,500-year-old religion whose 1.6 billion followers worldwide observe a spectrum of customs and traditions. “Radical” can mean something very different or against tradition, or be defined as extreme views, practices and policies. |
| The words, absent political context, could be read as trying to distinguish fringe interpretations of Islam, including justifications for violence, from the mainstream majority view, which is peaceful. But that context — including who shouts the phrase and who studiously avoids uttering it — has ladened it with pernicious meaning in particular quarters. | The words, absent political context, could be read as trying to distinguish fringe interpretations of Islam, including justifications for violence, from the mainstream majority view, which is peaceful. But that context — including who shouts the phrase and who studiously avoids uttering it — has ladened it with pernicious meaning in particular quarters. |
| Shadi Hamid, a scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said that before the controversy began, he did not use the phrase “radical Islam” much, but neither did he find it overly objectionable. After two years of politicization, though, Mr. Hamid and other analysts say the phrase has worrisome connotations, potentially maligning all Muslims or Islam itself. | Shadi Hamid, a scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said that before the controversy began, he did not use the phrase “radical Islam” much, but neither did he find it overly objectionable. After two years of politicization, though, Mr. Hamid and other analysts say the phrase has worrisome connotations, potentially maligning all Muslims or Islam itself. |
| “Why would you feel such a need to use this particular combination of words, when the vast majority of us agree that this is terrorism and that it should be stopped or countered?” he asked. “These terms are being used as dog whistles.” | “Why would you feel such a need to use this particular combination of words, when the vast majority of us agree that this is terrorism and that it should be stopped or countered?” he asked. “These terms are being used as dog whistles.” |
| Will McCants, another Brookings scholar, told The Washington Post in December 2015 that “every bit of that phrase is analytically unhelpful” because of its lack of specificity. “Is this the wine-drinking Islam of the poets?” he asked. “The court Islam of the caliph? What kind of Islam are you even talking about?” | Will McCants, another Brookings scholar, told The Washington Post in December 2015 that “every bit of that phrase is analytically unhelpful” because of its lack of specificity. “Is this the wine-drinking Islam of the poets?” he asked. “The court Islam of the caliph? What kind of Islam are you even talking about?” |
| Republicans who invoke “radical Islam” seem to be trying to telegraph certain arguments about Muslims, political correctness, and the United States’ failure to stop the march of extremist groups across the Middle East. At the same time, Democrats who reject it are also making a political statement, one touching on Islamophobia and inclusiveness. | Republicans who invoke “radical Islam” seem to be trying to telegraph certain arguments about Muslims, political correctness, and the United States’ failure to stop the march of extremist groups across the Middle East. At the same time, Democrats who reject it are also making a political statement, one touching on Islamophobia and inclusiveness. |
| If it seems unlikely that a single phrase with no fixed definition could contain all that information, the fight over “radical Islam” becomes easier to understand when examined in its initial context: as a way to make sense of the rise of the Islamic State. | If it seems unlikely that a single phrase with no fixed definition could contain all that information, the fight over “radical Islam” becomes easier to understand when examined in its initial context: as a way to make sense of the rise of the Islamic State. |
| Throughout late 2014, as the group, also known as ISIS and ISIL, conquered much of Iraq in a campaign of shocking violence, Americans struggled to discern what role, if any, religion played in its ideology. Because only 38 percent of Americans personally know someone who is Muslim, according to a 2014 Pew poll, most have little firsthand knowledge to go on. | Throughout late 2014, as the group, also known as ISIS and ISIL, conquered much of Iraq in a campaign of shocking violence, Americans struggled to discern what role, if any, religion played in its ideology. Because only 38 percent of Americans personally know someone who is Muslim, according to a 2014 Pew poll, most have little firsthand knowledge to go on. |
| Mr. Obama, then and now, has tried to separate the terrorists from Islam, urging tolerance of Muslims in the United States and abroad. | Mr. Obama, then and now, has tried to separate the terrorists from Islam, urging tolerance of Muslims in the United States and abroad. |
| “And all of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam, because that is a falsehood that embraces the terrorist narrative,” he said in February 2015. | “And all of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam, because that is a falsehood that embraces the terrorist narrative,” he said in February 2015. |
| Republicans slammed him for either ignorance or a misplaced sense of political correctness. In part because the president refused to use it, the phrase “radical Islam” became a shorthand for everything he would not say about ISIS, and therefore, a way to accuse him of privileging sensitivity over forthrightness when discussing the threat the group posed. | |
| In its simplicity, the phrase reframes the daunting, confusing litany of problems that contribute to terrorism — faraway failed states, complex ideologies, a prevalence of guns — as something much easier to understand. | In its simplicity, the phrase reframes the daunting, confusing litany of problems that contribute to terrorism — faraway failed states, complex ideologies, a prevalence of guns — as something much easier to understand. |
| “We are at war with radical Islam,” Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, then a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, said after the attacks in Paris last November. He likened Mr. Obama’s avoidance of the phrase to “saying we weren’t at war with Nazis, because we were afraid to offend some Germans who may have been members of the Nazi Party but weren’t violent themselves.” | “We are at war with radical Islam,” Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, then a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, said after the attacks in Paris last November. He likened Mr. Obama’s avoidance of the phrase to “saying we weren’t at war with Nazis, because we were afraid to offend some Germans who may have been members of the Nazi Party but weren’t violent themselves.” |
| Over time, the phrase morphed into a way for critics to explain why the Obama administration had failed to anticipate or stop the rise of the Islamic State. | Over time, the phrase morphed into a way for critics to explain why the Obama administration had failed to anticipate or stop the rise of the Islamic State. |
| “You cannot fight and win a war on radical Islamic terrorism if you’re unwilling to utter the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism,’ ” Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, said in January, back when he, too, was clamoring for the White House. | “You cannot fight and win a war on radical Islamic terrorism if you’re unwilling to utter the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism,’ ” Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, said in January, back when he, too, was clamoring for the White House. |
| Over time, “radical Islam” has taken on darker connotations. Mr. Trump, according to Mr. Hamid of Brookings, “invested these words with new meaning.” | Over time, “radical Islam” has taken on darker connotations. Mr. Trump, according to Mr. Hamid of Brookings, “invested these words with new meaning.” |
| As his campaign of anti-Muslim policy proposals and speech gained traction, Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals sought to match him. Mr. Cruz, for example, urged refusing Syrian refugees if they are Muslim. Ben Carson suggested Muslims should be barred from the presidency. They often invoked “radical Islam” at the same time. | As his campaign of anti-Muslim policy proposals and speech gained traction, Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals sought to match him. Mr. Cruz, for example, urged refusing Syrian refugees if they are Muslim. Ben Carson suggested Muslims should be barred from the presidency. They often invoked “radical Islam” at the same time. |
| The phrase does not explicitly say there is an intrinsic link between terrorism and Islam. But it suggests religion is the core issue, and by using the vague modifier “radical,” there is an implication that any adherent can be suspect on grounds that are unclear and open to interpretation. | The phrase does not explicitly say there is an intrinsic link between terrorism and Islam. But it suggests religion is the core issue, and by using the vague modifier “radical,” there is an implication that any adherent can be suspect on grounds that are unclear and open to interpretation. |
| “To term something ‘radical Islamic violence’ condemns a religion,” Steven Cook, a Middle East scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in December, “and leaves one with the erroneous impression that the competing modern interpretations of Islam that specifically refute violent Islamism’s worldview do not exist.” | “To term something ‘radical Islamic violence’ condemns a religion,” Steven Cook, a Middle East scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in December, “and leaves one with the erroneous impression that the competing modern interpretations of Islam that specifically refute violent Islamism’s worldview do not exist.” |
| Mr. Obama and others say that condemning “radical Islam” does not make clear who is being condemned. That, they argue, risks exacerbating anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States, which has already grown violent. | Mr. Obama and others say that condemning “radical Islam” does not make clear who is being condemned. That, they argue, risks exacerbating anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States, which has already grown violent. |
| It also risks alienating Muslims abroad. Washington has long battled a perception in the Muslim world that it is at war with Islam, a perception that can feed anti-American sentiment and politics. | It also risks alienating Muslims abroad. Washington has long battled a perception in the Muslim world that it is at war with Islam, a perception that can feed anti-American sentiment and politics. |
| At the same time, labeling ISIS “radical Islam,” in some eyes, legitimizes the group’s claims to represent an entire religion, when in fact most of its victims and enemies are themselves Muslim. | At the same time, labeling ISIS “radical Islam,” in some eyes, legitimizes the group’s claims to represent an entire religion, when in fact most of its victims and enemies are themselves Muslim. |
| “If we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims with the broad brush, and imply that we’re at war with an entire religion, then we’re doing the terrorists’ work for them,” Mr. Obama said on Tuesday. | “If we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims with the broad brush, and imply that we’re at war with an entire religion, then we’re doing the terrorists’ work for them,” Mr. Obama said on Tuesday. |
| Even before Mr. Trump took up the phrase as a mantra, Mr. Obama and others resisted it as part of a larger hesitation to discuss the Islamic State’s use of religion as anything but false and cynical. | Even before Mr. Trump took up the phrase as a mantra, Mr. Obama and others resisted it as part of a larger hesitation to discuss the Islamic State’s use of religion as anything but false and cynical. |
| But it is impossible to understand the Islamic State’s ideology and recruiting power without acknowledging the role of religious beliefs that, while rejected by the overwhelming majority of Muslims, are often earnestly held. | |
| “I’ve always been of the view that ISIS does have something to do with Islam,” Mr. Hamid said. “We just have to talk about what that something is and do so in a nuanced, constructive way.” | “I’ve always been of the view that ISIS does have something to do with Islam,” Mr. Hamid said. “We just have to talk about what that something is and do so in a nuanced, constructive way.” |
| He called it “problematic” that many Americans, including the president, do not seem “comfortable speaking about religion as a motivating force or how it inspires violence or extremism, or that religion has a certain kind of power in everyday life in the Middle East.” | He called it “problematic” that many Americans, including the president, do not seem “comfortable speaking about religion as a motivating force or how it inspires violence or extremism, or that religion has a certain kind of power in everyday life in the Middle East.” |
| Hillary Clinton, perhaps in tacit acknowledgment of these concerns, has this week tried to take a middle path. She described the Orlando attack as “radical Islamism” — a small but meaningful distinction; Islam is a religion, whereas Islamism a political ideology calling for Islamic government. She also declared, “It matters what we do, not what we say.” | Hillary Clinton, perhaps in tacit acknowledgment of these concerns, has this week tried to take a middle path. She described the Orlando attack as “radical Islamism” — a small but meaningful distinction; Islam is a religion, whereas Islamism a political ideology calling for Islamic government. She also declared, “It matters what we do, not what we say.” |
| When I asked Mr. Hamid this, he countered with a different question. Given how many labels already exist to describe terrorists that draw on Islam, why insist on this one? | When I asked Mr. Hamid this, he countered with a different question. Given how many labels already exist to describe terrorists that draw on Islam, why insist on this one? |
| He listed several — “radical jihadists, Salafis, Islamist extremists, jihadis, jihadi-Salafists” — none of which, he said, carry the baggage of “radical Islam.” | He listed several — “radical jihadists, Salafis, Islamist extremists, jihadis, jihadi-Salafists” — none of which, he said, carry the baggage of “radical Islam.” |
| But if it’s that baggage that repels scholars, it may also be what draws others. “Radical Islam” has come to imply certain things about issues that are closer to home than abstract terrorist ideology: political correctness, migration, and the question of who belongs. | But if it’s that baggage that repels scholars, it may also be what draws others. “Radical Islam” has come to imply certain things about issues that are closer to home than abstract terrorist ideology: political correctness, migration, and the question of who belongs. |
| Those same issues have animated debates over terrorism and terminology in other societies. In Germany, “multiculturalism” has become shorthand for larger questions of how to absorb migrants and whether there is a degree of minimum assimilation. There is endless sparring over “British values,” and what sort of burden this puts on migrants before they will be welcomed into society. | Those same issues have animated debates over terrorism and terminology in other societies. In Germany, “multiculturalism” has become shorthand for larger questions of how to absorb migrants and whether there is a degree of minimum assimilation. There is endless sparring over “British values,” and what sort of burden this puts on migrants before they will be welcomed into society. |
| France has had its own parsing of “radical Islam,” though the fight over “secularism” is even fiercer. | France has had its own parsing of “radical Islam,” though the fight over “secularism” is even fiercer. |
| Even majority Muslim societies have had versions of this same argument, Mr. Hamid pointed out. In Egypt, he said, the struggle over terms is, in part, a way of litigating whether parties like the Muslim Brotherhood are ideologically akin to terror groups — and therefore whether they should be allowed to participate in society. | Even majority Muslim societies have had versions of this same argument, Mr. Hamid pointed out. In Egypt, he said, the struggle over terms is, in part, a way of litigating whether parties like the Muslim Brotherhood are ideologically akin to terror groups — and therefore whether they should be allowed to participate in society. |
| What these debates have in common is that arguing about how to define terrorism becomes a way to push and pull the contours of national identity, determining who is invited in to that identity and who is kept out. | What these debates have in common is that arguing about how to define terrorism becomes a way to push and pull the contours of national identity, determining who is invited in to that identity and who is kept out. |
| In every case, the debate is framed as one of pluralism versus security. Pinning terrorism on “multiculturalism” or non-secularism or foreign values or “radical Islam” all portray inclusiveness as somehow threatening and exclusiveness as safer. | In every case, the debate is framed as one of pluralism versus security. Pinning terrorism on “multiculturalism” or non-secularism or foreign values or “radical Islam” all portray inclusiveness as somehow threatening and exclusiveness as safer. |
| The question of whether pluralism and security are indeed in tension, or whether pluralism in fact enhances security, is one that people around the world have long grappled with. But it’s hard to discuss because it is so core to national identity. Debating semantics is much easier. | The question of whether pluralism and security are indeed in tension, or whether pluralism in fact enhances security, is one that people around the world have long grappled with. But it’s hard to discuss because it is so core to national identity. Debating semantics is much easier. |