In Theory: Is ‘radical Islam’ a fair term to use?

After the mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando last weekend, the term “radical Islam” has been a hot-button issue. Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has spoken out several times, criticizing President Obama for not using the term.

“People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can’t even mention the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism,’” Trump said last week.

In response, Obama said the term was “a political distraction.”

“What exactly would using this label accomplish?” Obama asked last Tuesday during a press conference. “Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”

Q: Is the term “radical Islam” a fair term to use? What, if anything, is gained or lost when those words are used?

I’m not even sure I understand the issue here. How anyone can speak publicly about the worst shooting massacre in American history, and identify the most important focus point as what term the president does or doesn’t use to refer to it, is mystifying to me.

I think that Donald Trump often speaks in code to his supporters, and this term sounds like code to me. Whether it’s code for bigotry against Islam, scorn for foreigners in general, or loathing of President Obama as ineffective, is hard to tell; it’s probably a mix of all these poisons, and more.

Is the ‘radical Islam’ harangue a smoke-and-mirrors act to draw attention from the obvious issue of desperately-needed bans on assault weapons? Is it meant to distract America from discussion of a heinous instance of backlash after same-sex marriage and other gay rights have gained ground recently? Maybe.

But I suspect that, as with all things ‘Trump,’ it’s not that well-thought-out a thing. He spouted something, people clapped, so he kept spouting it — a particularly transparent version of American politics as historically practiced by all.

MORE: Read previous In Theory discussions>>

Donald Trump seems to be the ‘Picture of Dorian Gray’ of our country and its political processes. Whatever critique we may have of him, he shows us our own uglier truths. Whatever we say of Trump, we must immediately turn our national attention inward, and ask next, “And what does this say about our country, about enough of our people to nominate someone as a presidential candidate, about our political machinations — the corrupt realities as well as the noble ideals?”

The particularities of Trump’s rhetoric are, at least for liberals like me, often hard to fathom. But let’s not think that we can just ignore them; their popular reception tells us it’s time to pay closer attention to the better, higher values of our country, and how they are, or are not, being transmitted to its current generations.

The Rev. Amy Pringle
St. George’s Episcopal Church
La Cañada Flintridge

--

President Obama had it right, in my opinion — what difference does it make, whatever we call it?

What I think the president was trying to do was not sink into the abyss of making it seem as though the West or Christian Civilization is at war with Islam. We are not. We are at war with radicals who have hijacked a religion, but we are not at war with Islam. Those on the political right, including Donald Trump, really believe that all Muslims are the same, and that they all want to bring down the West.

I categorically disagree that all Muslims are the same and that they all want to take us down.

That kind of thinking is paranoia at its worst, and it really appeals to people who have an “us vs. them” outlook. It may be good politics — wait, nasty politics — to try to claim that it’s us (the good guys, of course) vs. them (the Muslims, the bad guys, of course). But such a view is un-American as well as being un-Christian.

President Obama is trying to appeal to our higher nature, I believe. Donald Trump is trying to appeal to our fears. Oh, and by the way, the president finally used the term “radical Islam”. Is everybody over on the right happy now?

Rev. Skip Lindeman
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada

--

This is an issue of calling a spade a spade. If we avoid the use of the term “radical,” then what we end up with is a conflation of whatever regular Islam purports to be with what radical Islam seems to be.

If Islam is such the peace-loving religion, why is it that whenever it seems to gain majority influence, all hell breaks loose and people are killed? Perhaps the right suspects that Islam in general is not primarily peace-loving, except for those who accept its tenants and laws and who strive to impose them on Islam’s perceived infidels, i.e., all non-Muslims.

But given the culture of America, one would think that your average Muslim neighbor probably made the relocation to get away from such oppressive renditions of the faith they maintain. As a Christian, I am always going to oppose Islam as a false religion that lives to contravene my own, but I do so as I would any other view of God that denies what Christ has already revealed.

I and my constituents are an equal opportunity opposition that advances with divine words and good works, not any sort of mandate to physically harm pagans. And lest anyone think for a minute that Christianity is comparable to Islam and its apparent fruits, let me remind you that when so-called Christian groups get crazy and do whacko stuff, we as a community at large are quick to denounce it on biblical grounds.

The Waco siege comes to mind, as does the Westboro Baptist ongoing nastiness. When such things occur, the Christian community generally assesses the circumstance fairly quickly, and more often than not, recognizes the offending emanation as a cult of Christianity rather than a true expression.

“Cult;” that’s the word we might use in Christian circles. But most of our cults don’t do mass murders because the Bible doesn’t seem to provide any rewarded comfort for behaving that way. But if there be those in Islam who speak for Islam with any authority that wish to distance themselves from those who are responsible for our modern calamities, then I think they and the left should embrace the term “radical Islam” to distinguish themselves as not part of that group.

If I were speaking to a Muslim person in my own town and the subject of ISIS or 9/11 or the recent Orlando massacre came up, I would want to inject the word “radical” into the conversation lest my companion suspect that I’m lumping him in with those who would do such things. If the Muslim community denounces such “radical” behavior, then why not call it what it is?

I think the left has it backward. Adding “radical” to “Islam” would promote the idea that there is an Islam that is not radical. Or, we could just call it all “Islam.” Take your pick.

Rev. Bryan A. Griem
Tujunga

--

Did we hear “radical Catholicism,” or “radical Protestantism,” even during the worst of the sectarian fighting in Northern Ireland, or “radical Christianity” when a reactionary born-again Christian shot up a Planned Parenthood clinic? No.

But this is not really about terminology, and in any case President Obama is criticized by the right wing on everything he says.

Our most recent — unless another gun horror overtakes In Theory’s deadline; always possible given our lax firearm regulations and the abundance of powerful weapons floating around — mass killer was deeply confused about his politics, his religion and his sexuality, and was prone to violence. Many people in the U.S. are all these things.

The difference between yet another pitiable weirdo and a super-efficient murdering machine is the easy availability of weapons of war, guns without any useful civilian purpose except for enabling massacres like Orlando.

We have allowed this to happen and we can stop it. It takes only the will.

Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose

--

The term “radical Islam” is entirely accurate, and is thus a fair term to use. The terrorists are self-proclaimed Muslims who use their faith as the justification for merciless violence against innocent men, women and children.

Granted, there are numerous Muslims who denounce the way the terrorists practice their faith, who say they’re not really practicing Islam. It’s not the rest of the world’s place to determine what is or is not Islam. The terrorists perpetrate their deeds in no other name but the name of Allah, so we must take their words at face value.

Using the term “radical Islam” reminds us of the fact that gross extremism exists within that faith literally around the world. Nine out of the 10 countries with the worst records for Christian persecution have populations that are 50 percent Muslim or higher, and “Islamic extremism” is listed as the main cause of that persecution.

Using the term “radical Islam” informs the world what exactly the beliefs and the motives of the extremists are. The term keeps us grounded in reality. To denounce or avoid the term is a redaction and a distraction.

In Jesus’ parable of the nobleman and his servants, the nobleman condemned the wicked servant who disobeyed his master’s command, saying: “By your own words I will judge you” (Luke 19:22). When identifying who the terrorists are we must do the same.

Pastor Jon Barta
Burbank