Though it is used to describe moderate political movements, it has, in recent times, taken on a completely different meaning.
Tony Blair once suggested that extremism remains a first-order security threat to the west. While he’s not wrong, his approach, logic, and lexicon regarding the matter are troubling.
But it isn’t just Blair who pursues these terms; the media, government, and public also accept such sermonised commentaries.
In his first term as president, Anderson Cooper asked Donald Trump, “Do you think Islam is at war with the West?” The framing of this question is, in itself, prejudiced and loaded, designed to create negative conversations around this subject to stir debate and increase viewership. This behaviour is irresponsible journalism and warrants a correction that never came.
This Term Is Offensive
The term I am referring to is ‘Islamism’ and its derivative ‘Islamist’. The use of this word is not only divisive but also regressive, denoting a lack of understanding of the circumstances it can give rise to, and a willingness to stoke the flames of centuries-old propaganda invoked as far back as the so-called ‘crusades’.
The psychology of similarity works through not only shapes, faces, and objects but also vocabulary. By fusing the terms ‘terrorist/ism’ and Islam, this linguistic pareidolia creates the perception of a relation between the two words—despite clear differences—in the public mind.
The use of such terms form connotations with Islam and distorts understanding of the religion. It ferments perceptions of conflict, insurgency, and terrorism as synonymous with the faith, which is far from the truth.
Its Use Is inciting Hate Speech
Right-wing publications including The Spectator, Sky News, and BBC are not exclusively culpable for writing and repeating the word. The left, including publications like The Guardian, Novara media, and The Canary also regularly use it.
Without pause for thought as to why it is regularly employed, the demeanour of its use accelerates misrepresentation, increasing Islamophobic attacks and remarks without consequence. Its endemic presence fosters acceptability within journalism and governance.
What Can We Do?
So what is the way forward? Rejecting its use is of utmost concern if we’re to distinguish between the narratives of ultra-conservative values and their opinions of Islam.
It will not only separate the notion of synonymy but begin the eradication of unconscious bias and hearsay, regarding practices that are broadly associated with culture and politics, rather than to religious practice.
Removing it from the English lexis will insist upon a new definition of insurgency and politically motivated acts of violence. Not only will it demonstrate the differences between faith and terrorism, but also subdue developing prejudices.
Leave a Reply