Washington Post Blogs | By David Gushee | 13 July 2010

Three reasons to not call terrorism ‘Islamic’

There is no doubt that the vast majority of people who have sought to inflict mass destruction on the United States and its citizens in the past two decades have claimed to be motivated by their understanding of Islam. If we were to accept the self-definitions and self-descriptions of the plotters and terrorists, they could fairly be described as Islamic (or “Islamist”) in their motivations.

But perhaps we should not accept their self-definitions. There could be three reasons for refusing to do so. One would be a refusal to accept self-described religious motivations at face value. I heard a lecture recently from Lee Ann Fujii, whose Killing Neighbors argues that participation in the Rwandan genocide was not the result of ethnic antagonisms, but social context, group dynamics, and local ties. The Rwandan genocide sure looked like it was based on ethnic tensions between Hutus and Tutsis, but Fujii argues that such appearances are actually belied by a deeper analysis. Similarly, one could argue that religion may look like the motivation for terrorist activity, and may be claimed as the motivation by some of those engaged in it, but other factors may be just as or more important.

The second reason for refusing to use the phrase ‘Islamic terrorists’ is the decision not to dignify evil by linking it to one of the world’s great religious traditions. I could argue for a similar move in relation to, say, the hardline ‘Christian’ fundamentalists who protest outside military funerals and scream that our military losses are due to our growing cultural acceptance of same-sex relationships. It does not seem right to dignify their hatred with the adjective “Christian,” no matter what the haters call themselves. It defames my religion.

Finally, the third reason for rejecting the phrase is simply American self-interest. If the term inflames relations with the Muslims of the world, and creates the context for awkward “civilizational” tensions that bring back painful historical associations, it might simply be unwise to use it.

On balance, I accept the Obama Administration decision on this issue, with the caveats mentioned. I would say that many of the terrorists claim motivation in their (Islamic) religious faith, and then go on to say why that self-definition might need to be rejected in our own discussions of the problem.

David Gushee is Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University; author of 12 books including “Kingdom Ethics”

Source: WP Blogs

Previous: Islamic terror is real, as is Jewish and Christian terror | Next: Say no to ‘Jihadis,’ ‘Islamic terrorism’ and ‘Islamo-Fascism’