Many have a new-found need for identifying the incidents of terror with adjectives of religion. The phrase Islamic terror, or Islamic terrorism has been used for a few decades and until recently I didn’t find many reasons to object to the use of the phrase, but the recent hectoring towards using the phrase has convinced me to use it as sparingly as possible. No, I am not living in denial and most who refuse to use the phrase understand the religious motivation and inspiration of the terrorists in question. That religion has a potential to foment violence and Islam re-confirmed this hypothesis over the past few decades is also conceded by most of us. Yet, the crude excitement of those who cajole others into identifying terrorism with religion can only prompt resistance from me. Importantly, it is not only a question of aesthetics. The insistence on using the phrase Islamic terror to describe terrorism of a certain kind also makes it harder to understand and combat the problem.
The usual arguments made by the proponents are the religion of the terrorist, the sources of motivation and the long-term ambitions of the terrorist organisations. However persuasive the argument, suffixing terrorism with the name of religion inadvertently suggests a sanction from one and a half billion people. It has to be asked what does this christening achieve? Using the phrase will not make terrorism disappear magically instead this clubbing will exacerbate the distrust that already exists. The semantics of the term may find multiple explanations but once a phrase like Islamic terrorism is legitimised by political leaders, separation of the of the two words would take some time. Such coupling of terrorism and faith actually gives the terrorist the legitimacy of a large population, creates long-standing differences, and yet does not make us any more intelligent about the causes of such violence.
Essentially the arguments on terror and religion have been impatient. A commentator from a strategic-affairs and economic freedom think tank recently argued that terrorists have religion and they take it more seriously than others. This is overlooking the observations that the violent terrorists do not necessarily come from devout backgrounds. Many who crossed the Turkish border into Syria were from families which were essentially non-religious. Further, a peaceful priest or a devout middle-aged lady would be rightly offended by this argument. There are various reasons to criticise religion and religion based traditions, but to appropriate other people’s faith and to judge who is more serious about it is dishonest.
Arguments on obviously regressive practices in the Muslim societies have been used to justify the relationship with terrorism. Relationship between these practices and political terrorism, if any exists, has to be established before making assertions. It is entirely possible to criticise the state of gender inequity, LGBT rights, and so on without directly attributing terrorism to these social practices. In fact, the enthusiasm about drawing relations between society and terrorism is delaying the conversation on societal changes. Some of these changes are happening even as many of us want the members of the religion to take responsibility for the crimes of one who shares their religion.
The Bottomlines 