Home

A U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) report obtained by The Jewish State challenges the recent spate of opinion holding that words like jihad and other Islamic indicators should be removed from the discussion of Islamist violence.

A growing movement, covered previously by The Jewish State in August ("Military and security analysts react to proposed 'paradigmatic shift'") has been supportive of a change of terminology when, for example, the U.S. military or government officials attempt to frame a conflict with Muslim terrorists. The crux of that argument is that some words may be offensive to Muslims and enable terrorists to obtain legitimacy for their cause in their countries or communities of origin.

The new CENTCOM report, the authenticity of which was confirmed by The Jewish State, reveals that there is a disagreement about that hypothesis.

"While there is concern that we not label all Muslims as Islamist terrorists, it is proper to address certain aspects of violence as uniquely Islamic," the report states (emphasis in the original document).

The reason for that, the report states, is that "our enemies cite the sources of Islam as the foundation of their global jihad. We are left with the responsibility of portraying our enemies in an honest and accurate fashion."

Are we demonizing moderates?

The report tackles the question of whether Islam itself is impugned for radical Islamist violence simply by noting the religious affiliation of Muslim terrorists. The authors of the report, who are members of CENTCOM's Red Team, believe that oversensitivity to such a demonization may be responsible for that perception.

"These assumptions appear to be based upon emotional or political responses to criticism, rather than based on intentional active or passive acts of bigotry, as they seem to imply," the report states (again, emphasis in original). "A feeling of demonization is not the equivalent of an actual act of the same."

The report notes the importance of avoiding unfair generalizations, however, such as labeling all Muslims terrorists. But certain forms of violence, the authors believe, are uniquely Islamic and should be addressed as such.

"That the results of [violent jihad] are temporally repugnant does not dismiss their existence within the traditions of Islam," the authors write.

On whose shoulders is the burden of proof?

The report states that if the Islamic teachings from which Islamists extricate a call to violence are being misunderstood, they are misunderstood by the Islamists, not Westerners. As such, Muslims have some responsibility to correct the Islamists' comprehension of sacred Islamic texts.

"The onus is on Muslims to disprove, within their own communities, that those who undertake source-prescribed warfare (jihad) are patently incorrect in their actions in accordance with all norms of social behavior," the authors write. "The resources for them to do so, today, rival those of the USG (U.S. government) in their reach and effectiveness and their voice on these matters is demonstrably more credible that that of any USG agency or department."

A Muslim 'expert' - according to whom?

The report mentions the ubiquitous nature of supposed Muslim "experts" in reports decrying the demonization of Muslims and the misuse of Islamic terms, such as jihad.

These experts' status as such could be challenged by members of their own theological community - if only they were identified. They are usually nameless, however, according to the report.

"Much of what the memos [interpreting Islamic violence] contain is, at the very least, open to serious examination and debate, perhaps more so due their expert claims," the report states. "It is uncertain from reading the documents whether or not the assertions, suggestions, and recommendations contained within them were subjected to critical review."

Is Islam an exception to free speech and a free press?

The report states unequivocally that a fear of reprisal or offense should not govern the decision to examine Islam and its place in the discussion of Islamic violence. The terms should be used accurately, the report states, as much for the safety of terrorist targets as for the intellectual honesty of the analysis.

"If these are terms being extracted from Islamic sources by terrorists, then the intelligence and diplomatic communities have a responsibility to report where we believe the terrorists have accurately understood the sources," the report states.

The authors further state that if terms like jihad are being misused by Westerners who are simply echoing their subjects, then the terms are being misused originally by the Islamists. Would Western "experts" who proclaim the folly of using "jihad" assume they know Islam better than hundreds of thousands of Muslims?

"If we can accurately demonstrate that the Islamic sources serve to incite or motivate extremists to violence, then we owe our citizens no less than to be as sensitive to the sources' results as we are asked to be to its origins," the report states.

Legitimacy isn't ours to bestow

The report states that the legitimacy sought by Islamic terrorists can be found in Muslim texts; it is to the Muslim ummah (Islamic community) that the jihadists dedicate their actions, and from the ummah they seek approval.

In fact, according to their interpretation of the Quran, jihad is an obligation, not extra credit.

"This community-wide obligation is referred to in Islamic law by the term fard al-kifaya and it must be preformed until the whole world is under the rule of Islam," the report states. "Modern apologist[s] may dispute this and in so doing they may also be very wrong."

In addition, the U.S. government isn't a Muslim entity, the report points out, which should disqualify it from having the ability or authority to grant credibility to anything derived from an Islamic source, such as the Quran.

The report concludes that the U.S. government must reject the idea that Islam should be above critique or careful analysis. Additionally, the report states that those seeking to analyze the actions of jihadists should refrain from claiming that the jihadists misunderstand Islamic texts, or from asserting that only those who speak Arabic can be trusted to understand it. That, the report notes, would exclude the majority of the world's Muslims.

"The use of Arabic words and terms, where they are appropriate and within the learning capabilities of our professionals, should never be discouraged and should actually be encouraged where it increases our understanding of our enemies, particularly those who employ the sources of Islam to justify their hostility against us," the report closes.