Los Angeles, California

  Islamist, orthodox, jihadist, conservative, Islamism, hardliner, Moslem, extremist, insurgent, fundamentalist, freedom fighter, infidel, moderate, liberal, progressive. All of these words mean nothing and everything at the same time - a testament to the power and mutability of language in the media, specifically when it comes to the words we use to describe Muslims and Islam in the contemporary world.

The potency and slipperiness of this kind of journalistic shorthand is apparent in a recent article from the Associated Press that was picked up in the World section of the Los Angeles Times. The headline reads: "Indonesian militant gets 8-year jail sentence for twin hotel bombings." This piece is a treasure-trove of over-used and under-defined jargon - Islamist, militant, extremist - that tells a poorly contextualized story and thereby plays to readers' assumptions instead of informing them or challenging their prejudices.

So what is an Islamist? According to Princeton University's WordNet, an Islamist is either "a scholar who knowledgeable in Islamic studies" or "an orthodox Muslim." So an "Islamist" is someone who most likely knows a great deal about Islam and probably adheres closely to its tenets. (Note: there is no mention of terrorism, violence, hatred or intolerance in this definition).

The Indonesian man who was sentenced to eight years is described as an "Islamist militant." What is a militant? An "activist (a militant reformer)."

So the individual in question is a fervent Muslim scholar with weapons training? How much Islamic knowledge and learning does he actually have? Does he have a degree in Islamic Studies from Harvard, or is he a sheikh (religious scholar)? How religious is he in terms of his practice of Islam? Perhaps he is just a man that happens to identify as a Muslim who was recruited to commit violent acts in exchange for money or to retaliate against perceived threats to his family or community. The article fails to provide these details, leaving readers to clarify the ambiguity with their own biases.

Finally, what is an extremist? Not surprisingly, I learn he or she is a "person who holds extreme views." By this definition, many people are extremists. The two most extreme Muslims who come to mind are Osama bin Laden (for obvious reasons) and Ayaan Ali Hirsi, who says that Islam is "not just ugly but monstrous" and that "the Christian leaders now wasting precious time and resources on a futile exercise of interfaith dialogue with the self-appointed leaders of Islam should redirect their efforts to converting as many Muslims as possible to Christianity."

Hirsi, a self-proclaimed former Muslim and current atheist, calls for the destruction of Islam through religious conversion. Sounds pretty extreme to me, but I am hard-pressed to find her consistently described in the Western news media as an extremist, hatemonger, bigot, racist and advocate for the subjugation of over one billion Muslims worldwide.

The aforementioned AP article is part of a broader news media trend toward sloppy (or nonexistent) contextualizing when it comes to Muslims and Islam. A recent piece on CNN refers to "radical Islamist groups" and "Islamic radical groups" committing "un-Islamic" acts of violence and intimidation. Even in absolving so-called "radical Islamists, Islamic militancy and Islamist rule" from responsibility for the current ethnic violence in Kyrgyzstan, Reuters still uses a series of equally vague, undefined terms that muddy facts instead of clarifying them. The BBC reports that a terrorism suspect "was ordered to be electronically tagged and live in the Midlands to keep him away from Islamist extremists in London."

So this suspected terrorist was to be kept away from ardently religious Muslim scholars? Thanks BBC, I feel so… informed.

In these and other mainstream news outlets I am unable to find examples of similar stock-phrases referring to Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism that carry the implication of something inherently negative or dangerous in those traditions. On the other hand, as we have seen, there are many journalistic stock-phrases that associate Islam with violence, oppression and subjugation. A critical question to ask is whether this state of affairs represents the actual experience and attitudes of the majority of Muslims in the world or, rather, the willful ignorance of the non-Muslim press and the audiences they serve.

Are there no positive stories to tell about Islam or Muslims worldwide? As a Muslim born and raised in the U.S. who works with and for Muslims in the U.S., I know many important stories that are simply not being told.

So what does all of this mean? The short answer is that the use of reactionary language in place of context is simply lazy journalism. But there is more at stake than that conclusion implies. These hollow phrases fail to portray Muslims as human beings or to accord Islam the same stature as other global faiths. They also perpetuate the infantile (and self-fulfilling) construct of a so-called "Clash of Civilizations."

Journalists pride themselves on being informed so that they can inform others. Many of them might renew that sense of mission by taking a close look at the language - and assumptions - they bring to their coverage of Muslims and Islam.

(Photo: Carole Reckinger)

What word should I use to describe a Muslim who believes that it is the religious obligation of Muslims to (abruptly or by degrees) replace man-made legal systems with Sharia law?

That, by the way, is my definition of an Islamist. In other words, if you accept that nations that do not govern by Islam (such as the world's many secular democracies) must be allowed to keep those legal systems in perpetuity if they so choose, then you are not an Islamist.

So my definition of Islamist describes people who are, for the most part, non-violent.

"So my definition of Islamist describes people who are, for the most part, non-violent."

Finally, we're making some progress! Yes, Islamists are essentially non-violent. But your 2nd paragraph needs some work though. I consider my-self an "Islamist" and like many others "accept that nations that do not govern by Islam (such as the world's many secular democracies) must be allowed to keep those legal systems in perpetuity if they so choose..."

Then what do you mean when you call yourself an Islamist? Or do you feel that all Muslims are Islamists, in which case, how do you describe those Muslims (and we know they exist) who do not accept that secular nation have such a right?

Oh! A game of semantics! Let me give it a try...

Perhaps someone like Ayaan Ali Hirsi can be best described as "a Somali-born advocate against the Islamic faith who has a very bad disposition and a mutilated clitoris". How's that for context...

Or perhaps Osama Bin Laden can be re-classified as "a former Saudi industrialist with way too much time on his hands and who also has the world's most obsessively devoted fan club".

Perhaps someone like Anwar al-Awlaki can be called a "suicide (and mass-murder) promotion counselor". He's apparently very good in that department.

Now I know the ongoing debate of what makes a person an Islamist is a very thorny issue, so here is my definition that may be the best compromise.

Term: Islamist (political)
Definition: A humorless/sad figure that is mostly resistant to any form of earthly pleasure that exist outside of their religious rituals/practice. Islamists are often opponents of any legal/political system that explicitly forbids arranged marriages (for which they desperately need).

I know these descriptions are a little verbose but I hope my contribution to this discussion helps : )

Victor >>> who do not accept that secular nation have such a right?

Well, what do you call those people who say a religious state, or a socialist state do not have such a right? Don't you think you have a bull by the tail here? Isn't it Afghanistan, Iraq an Palestine that are occupied in the "name" of democracy?

>>> "so my definition of Islamist describes people who are, for the most part, non-violent."
>> Finally, we're making some progress!

Asif was very cleverly pointing out, that you're proven the point of the article. The media bands about terms without consideration for its meaning, and consequently villifys the whole Muslim community. And that's why you don't hear of Jewish or Christian or Hindu extremists, even though those might even outnumber Muslim extremists. Purely because the idea of the clash has sparked imaginations and fuelled profits, while the difficult work of honest and objective reporting has become redundant.

Crow >>> Islamists are often opponents of any legal/political system that explicitly forbids arranged marriages (for which they desperately need).

lol ... So which legal systems forbids arranged marriages?

Crow >>> Perhaps someone like Ayaan Ali Hirsi can be best described as "a Somali-born advocate against the Islamic faith who has a very bad disposition and a mutilated clitoris". How's that for context...

And what's the context of a young talib fighter whose seen his village bombed or possobly his sister or mother raped by an American Marine? Or a child year old growing up in occupied Palestine, having to see his parents endure checkpoints and abuse by young angry hebrew speaking white boys (possibly born in Chicago or Texas)?

Crow >>> I know these descriptions are a little verbose but I hope my contribution to this discussion helps

A discussion is a mutual exchange of ideas. You have to consider and acknowledge others ideas, not just contribute your own. That's helpful to a discussion. And NO, your descriptions were poor.

To Ghulam:

You stated, "And what's the context of a young talib fighter whose seen his village bombed or possobly his sister or mother raped by an American Marine?"

I'm guessing this young Talib fighter that you speak of (for which you have offered no name, articles, links, interviews or profile) wasn't the Taliban member who arranged this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/jul/30/time-magazine-news-photography

"I'm guessing this young Talib fighter that you speak of (for which you have offered no name, articles, links, interviews or profile) wasn't the Taliban member who arranged this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/jul/30/time-magazine-news-photography"

I'm quite sure that whatever more I will say about this story will trivialize the trauma this girl and many like her have gone through. But I'm also quite sure that the people at Time have already done this anyway.

"Aisha posed for the picture because she wants the world to see the effect a Taliban resurgence would have on the women of Afghanistan." Yeah, she actually says and means this, right?

What shall I say? - the audacity of being a d__k - comes to mind. The white idiot in shining armor coming to rescue the brown foolish woman (bfw) who needs democracy and secularism. Yeah, you heard me right bfw, forget your shariah. Oh heck, it doesn't matter, because when you get married we're going to bomb your wedding party anyway because we know your children will be leaders of the taliban. We're just sharing your photo with our ignorant citizenry to reinforce the message that we're doing some good even though our stated mission now is only to bomb and not help build your country.

Time would probably never do a front cover of this lady:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malalai_Joya

You know why? Because she doesn't see any benefit from the American forces being in Afghanistan - she wants them out. She sees the American forces as an occupying force and has publicly said that if they don't leave then the people will kick them out just as they did to the British and the Russians. Aaah! I can hear good ol' Sarah Palin right now: "Gosh darnnitt! Peaceful Afgaaans, please refudiate this woman from Af-Paak, she will stab my heart and yours cuz she's one of them Talibanistani-Afgasnistinians! You becha!

Cheers!

To asifsheikh:

Based on what I read, Aisha's mutilation was the reward for attempting to escape from what I am sure was persistent and unrelenting abuse from her in-laws.

You derisively stated that: "Yeah, she actually says and means this, right?"
(In response to this portion of the article)
"Aisha posed for the picture because she wants the world to see the effect a Taliban resurgence would have on the women of Afghanistan."

I ask you asifsheikh, is it really beyond the scope of your imagination, or capacity for reasoning, that a person who has been both the victim of domestic abuse and the evil of a self-styled arbiter of justice (like that Taliban commander) might want some measure of justice/retribution against her tormentors?

Please asifsheikh... tell me who else could she go to in a Taliban dominated community in Afghanistan to help her punish those who would mutilate and destroy her for wanting basic human rights? Does she not have the right to go to the media and at least shame those responsible for her disfigurement?

Or will you as a coreligionist of this woman, suggest that by exposing her injuries graphically to the world she turns herself into a tool of the "dirty western media"?

I find it fascinating how some people (like Ghulam) accuse the mainstream media/public of being naive of the consequences of military action in Afghanistan, while being equally naive (or willfully ignorant) of the nature of the Taliban movement's misdeeds.

"I'm guessing this young Talib fighter that you speak of (for which you have offered no name, articles, links, interviews or profile) wasn't the Taliban member who arranged this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/jul/30/time-magazine-news-photography"

And more commentary on the Time crap:
http://tabsir.net/?p=1208

"I find it fascinating how some people (like Ghulam) accuse the mainstream media/public of being naive of the consequences of military action in Afghanistan, while being equally naive (or willfully ignorant) of the nature of the Taliban movement's misdeeds."

No one's being "equally naive" here. Maybe you just can't read or are "willfully ignorant" so I'll refer you to it again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malalai_Joya

What does her personality (i.e. Malalai Joya) tell you about Aisha? More specifically, do you think Time represents her interest and her cause for justice faithfully or does Malalai Joya. I heard Joya speak months ago in the U.S. before the surge happened. You know what she said? She told us to get out. She's fought against patriarchy in her country and despises the taliban.

"Aisha posed for the picture because she wants the world to see the effect a Taliban resurgence would have on the women of Afghanistan."

But this statement by the Time folks says we should stay. You think Aisha wants Time to represent her or do you think she'd look up to Malalai Joya? A speculative question, I agree. But usually people look to their own in crisis instead of the people who are bombing you.

"You derisively stated that: "Yeah, she actually says and means this, right?""

Ha! What a play on words! I "derisively state"? To add some sense of moral high-ground in your crappy arguments you freely impute derision against Aisha in my arguments. Re-read my post. Did you ever pass grade-school?

If there's any derision in my argument, it's against Time and its audacity to being Aisha's "savior". It's not. Get over the white man's burden crap alright. White man is defaulting on his mortgage these days. He needs brown man to save him.

Crow~ You just ignore opinions and facts that go against your view. You represent the worst of what people expect of dogmatic Americans ... completely blown over by propoganda and flashy news, possessing little critical reason, naive, dogmatically opposed to non-American views and cross cultural co-operation.

That's what this article is about. That you can't distinguish between shariah/law/deen or cultural extremism, Islamist and terrorist, practicing Muslim and dogmatic wife-beater. You're so lost in your own propoganda, that you know others/outsiders as your enemies, and your enemy only in the ways that promote YOUR war.

Crow >>> "I find it fascinating how some people (like Ghulam) accuse the mainstream media/public of being naive of the consequences of military action in Afghanistan, while being equally naive (or willfully ignorant) of the nature of the Taliban movement's misdeeds."

What's fascinating is that you want me to get on a bandwagon that most Muslims are already on! Not a single person on this site supports the Talibans extremism. I don't support Republican extremism either.

Crow >>> I'm guessing this young Talib fighter that you speak of (for which you have offered no name, articles, links, interviews or profile)

Yes, 20 year olds pick up arms and fight because they're crazed religious fanatics seeking to bring the world under the cloud of fanaticism. They don't want to work or to start families or see the world or have some dignity for their identity amongst others. The impact of seeing their families die, mired in poverty at the hands of clean-shaved outsiders ... is a non-issue as per you (its sarcasm btw).

So you reckon that because its not in represented in mainstream in American press, the view is either evil or non-existent? Do you think that Time magazine would interview Taliban commanders or Taliban friendly people, or victims of American bombings and ask them what they think?

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/saj/2010/00000038/00000003/art00003

yes ... Aisha needs a voice, Aisha needs a vote, Aisha needs her rights, Aisha needs her dignity, Aisha needs justice ... how does that or change the fact that western media, and particularly the American press is biased and pro-war, and prejudiced towards Muslims? How does that make the ridiculous

Like your comments on the cartoon topic, its not the principles that's missing from the arguments. Its your views that are missing. Do you think that Muslims deserve to be demonised, marginilised and attacked in the public sphere? DO you support media projections of practising traditional Muslims as crazed fanatics? Do you think Muslims must be delivered from savagery by your noble western enlightened hand? Cut the bull and stand by your brand of fascism so we can at least feel heard and talk to you ... not time magazine. Like I said, a discussion is a mutual exchange of ideas.. not sabotage and the closed handed propoganda you constantly present to us.

The way I see it, people pursue more division and less mutual dialogue, or people pursue more co-operation and more mutual dialogue. You along with extremists only see fit in supporting the first type of exchange. What you don't see however, is that this is typical of the racist western establishment of the past four hundred years.

http://www.yvonneridley.org/
http://www.alemarah-iea.com/english/

not what I think ...but something to broaden your horizon. If you were truly a liberal considered with human rights, you wouldn't really want anyone to shut down the second site, would you?

ASIF >>> You think Aisha wants Time to represent her or do you think she'd look up to Malalai Joya?

I think she'd want to represent herself firstly. And I think she'd want to be represented by her own.


>>> If there's any derision in my argument, it's against Time and its audacity to being Aisha's "savior". It's not. Get over the white man's burden crap alright.

What's troubling is that all you've actually ever been about is exchanging ideas and giving people space to understand each other. But you're also being pushed into a corner and forced to pick your own identity alongside the extremist or adopt the better western one. Its a false choice, but Muslilms are being given it all the time. Its very easy to see how dogmatic people are radicalised, when ordinary Muslims are forced to such flippant rhetort.

But the thing about crow is that he really is only interested in the propoganda, as proven on other posts. He shouldn't be the reason we become closed to discussion. What's obvious is that he hasn't expressed his racist views ... purely because racism is banned on the site and wrong. So rather than being open and honest, he'll just flood and destroy the dialogue. He's not concerned with ending the conflict .. only in promoting it with the foolish certainty that "he" must and will defeat the viral Muslims. That's the background of the western press.

I read a time article where they described the Afghan army as useless "canon-fodder", with abosulte no concern for their lives outside of their strategic significance. Muslim life is increasingly meaningless in their eyes if it doesn't serve that message of western enlightenment. But has it ever been different for non-westerners?

The cover of Time concludes that if the the US military leaves Afghanistan, than incidents like Aisha's will happen. The brutality that happened to Aisha happened on the watch of the US occupation. The question should be if the US is fighting for women's rights (which it does not at all)in Afghanistan, why is this happening?

The media and government continually ask questions that do not need answers and continually ignore questions that demand answers. And it's not only with Muslims, it's on a plethora of issues.

I volunteer for a domestic violence advocacy in the grand ole US. What occurs here in the US by the hands of American males is as atrocious and cruel. Too bad Time doesn't want that on it's cover.

Ghulam:
"Its a false choice..."

Yes, it's the same old trick and muslims continue to fall into it unfortunately.

The Time cover story is simply a way for the American establishment to salvage the Wikileaks debacle. The American MSM was harping about it all last week about how Wikileaks confirmed the ISI's double game and how because of it we're failing in Afghanistan. Uh...it's an intelligence agency and that's what intelligence agencies do maybe?? But reading over Wikileaks page, it makes no mention of ISI's duplicity. It clearly states:

1. "The reports describe the majority of lethal military actions involving the United States military."

2. "The material shows that cover-ups start on the ground. When reporting their own activities US Units are inclined to classify civilian kills as insurgent kills, downplay the number of people killed or otherwise make excuses for themselves."

And so Time conveniently runs a story about Aisha. A picture obviously is worth a thousand words and Wikileaks' war diary can't compete for the latte'd short American attention span.

KAT>>> what occurs here in the US by the hands of American males is as atrocious and cruel. Too bad Time doesn't want that on it's cover.

But Oprah says American women are the luckiest women in the world ;-)

Asif >>> A picture obviously is worth a thousand words and Wikileaks' war diary can't compete for the latte'd short American attention span.

I don't want to fall into the same trap of generalisations regarding culture and views, that Americans tend to fall into with Muslims. That said, I think this is a publications like Time magazine's fault. Presenting the better story these days, is not necessarily related to presenting the true story.

Publications like TIME actually do a great disservice to the American public by being such vocal ideologues for westernism (my word I just made up :-))

>>> But reading over Wikileaks page, it makes no mention of ISI's duplicity.

What troubles me here, is that Americans are aware of what happened in Korea and Vietnam. They know what their government has done in the past and continues to do... but they also have this restored hope that they are in the right and will succeed .. that their success is everyones success.

Regardless of what Americans think however, whether its on their axis of good (Israel), or their axis of evil (Syria and Iran and Al-qaeda), the tide of this war is that America stay the course of war and occupation so they either become weaker or more polarised.

Interesting discussion re the Time magazine piece, but in returning to the original article we're posting about...

Mir writes:
"Are there no positive stories to tell about Islam or Muslims worldwide? As a Muslim born and raised in the U.S. who works with and for Muslims in the U.S., I know many important stories that are simply not being told."

Muslims have to own their part in this dialogue, because Muslims by and large don't want their stories to be told. As I've written before, the ummah tends to isolate and insulate itself, and we dont really engage with our non-Muslim neighbor. Get on your school board, your PTA, your neighborhood association, run for city council, get on the chamber of commerce, invite a neighbor to dinner, lend him a lawn mower when he needs it, do some civic engagement so that bit by bit you're known primarily as an engaged and active concerned citizen.

Muslims are feared because we don't take the responsibility to let them know any other kind of Muslim other than what makes the news.

Norumba >>> Muslims have to own their part in this dialogue, because Muslims by and large don't want their stories to be told. As I've written before, the ummah tends to isolate and insulate itself, and we dont really engage with our non-Muslim neighbor.

Great point and an even better practical suggestion!