DR. WALID PHARES
April 9, 2013
In a stunning move, the Associated Press (AP) capitulated to
pressures by Islamist group CAIR to drop the use of the term "Islamist"
when describing self-declared Islamist militants and movements.
The AP's retreat is indicative of a crumbling of parts of the
so-called "mainstream media" in its reporting about the Middle East, the
Arab world and the Muslim world. By retreating from describing the
Islamists as Islamists, the AP isolates itself from the rest of
international media, which uses the term "Islamist" naturally and
consistently with its Arabic translation and meaning. More importantly,
the AP is isolating itself from Arab media. For while media in the
region uses the term Islamy or Islami (Islamist) to identify all
movements that aim at the establishment of an "Islamist" state,
regardless of these various movements' strategic agendas, from the more
political Muslim Brotherhood to the radical Salafists and the extremist
al-Qaeda, The AP will be entering the foggy zone established and
encouraged by advisers of the U.S. administration, where definitions are
twisted by "Islamist lobbies" backed by petrodollars' power.
The term "Islamist" is the most accurate translation of "Islami" and
"Islamy," which in the original language mean a militant movement
working towards an ideological goal, particularly the establishment of a
government based on a strict version of sharia law. The term "Islamist"
was created in Arab political culture, precisely to distinguish the
militants from regular Muslims whose goals do not necessarily include
establishing an Islamist state. All Arab media, in addition to European,
Asian, African, Russian, and Latin American presses, use the term on a
daily basis. It clarifies to their readers and viewers that not all
Muslims are Islamists inasmuch as not all Christians are fundamentalists
or all Hindus ultra-nationalists, etc.
By eliminating the term "Islamist" from the media and political
dictionary, the public will revert to using more ambiguous terms, such
as Muslim radicals or extremists, among others, which would actually
have two negative effects. One, it will blur the difference between
moderates and extremists in the Muslim world, and two, it will provide
the actual extremists or militants a cover within society. In short, by
eliminating the term "Islamist" as identification of "militants," we run
the high risk of having the actual Islamists merging with Muslim
society and claiming they are simply devout individuals.
In the Arab world and the rest of the international community, a
clear distinction has been established between the "Islamist militants"
and the rest. Even the Islamists themselves are proud of this
terminology. Brotherhood, Salafists, jihadists, and Khomeinists all use
this term while disagreeing who among them deserves it. Hence, the
concept is as rooted as all well-established categories in Middle East
politics.
So why would Islamist lobbies in the United States wage a campaign to
ban the use of the term for what it means and force media, particularly
the influential news agencies, to refrain from identifying the
militants as "Islamists"?
The narrative strategy employed by the Brotherhood-inspired pressure
groups, such as CAIR, ISNA and others in Washington, is to deny the
public the ability to distinguish between Islamists and Muslims or to
understand that there is an ideological movement that is attempting to
drive politics within a much wider and diverse community. In short, the
lobbies aim at establishing as an accepted reality that all true Muslims
are Islamists, and hence criticism against their own brand of Salafism
is a criticism against the entire community. In the region, a
long-established political narrative has made a difference between
Muslims who follow Salafism, and thus are called Islamists, and the rest
of the communities who happen to be Muslims but do not subscribe to the
Salafi Islamist brand. When the West has identified the former brand or
political ideology, it can operate strategically and isolate the
extreme from the mainstream.
However, by forcing the media and the government in the U.S. to blur
the difference, the Islamists will be wrongly perceived as more
religious Muslims than usual, not as an ideological current with a
political agenda. This would have significant negative consequences on
de-radicalization domestically and clearly affect U.S. foreign policy.
Washington will be incapable of distinguishing the radicals from the
moderates.
The AP move, according to observers, "is part of a wider push to
remove the capacity to identify the Jihadi threat from the public
narrative." We warned about this propaganda warfare waged by the lobbies
as early as 2005 in our book Future Jihad, as well as in our 2007 book
War of Ideas. Observers in the region, particularly in Egypt, Tunisia,
and Lebanon, noted that while an uprising is brewing against the
Brotherhood and the Salafists in the Arab world, Western governments,
particularly the U.S. bureaucracy, are making concession after
concession to the pro-Brotherhood lobbies in America.
Dr Walid Phares is an advisor to the US Congress on Counter Terrorism, and the author of ten books including
Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America and
The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East.
Dr Phares appears on national, international and Arab media. He
teaches at several universities and briefs US Government agencies on
Terrorism and the Middle East.
Read more:
Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-ap-capitulates-to-the-muslim-brotherhood-on-narrative?f=must_reads#ixzz2PyEC9kFe
Under Creative Commons License:
Attribution
No comments:
Post a Comment