Declaring war on “Radical Islam”

(RNS) Why it makes sense to use scare quotes.

Political Islamophobia, by Stephen Alcorn
Political Islamophobia, by Stephen Alcorn

Political Islamophobia, by Stephen Alcorn

(RNS) There can be no doubt that a U.S. administration will soon be inveighing against “radical Islam.”

President-elect Trump, after all, has attacked President Obama for refusing to use the term. And Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson did not shy away from it at his confirmation hearing last week.


“We need to be honest about radical Islam,” Tillerson said. “It is with good reason that our fellow citizens have a growing concern about radical Islam and murderous acts committed in its name against Americans and our friends.”

Among those who have gotten with the program is GetReligion’s Terry Mattingly, who on Monday criticized the news media for putting the term in scare quotes.

Never mind that Mattingly’s case in point, a November 29 Atlantic article, uses quotation marks simply to identify different terminology, including Obama’s “violent extremism.” Tmatt’s claim is that the MSM, like Obama, is not prepared to take “radical Islam” at face value.

So if you scare quote the term radical Islam, what is the meaning of those quote marks? Are you saying that it is the mere opinion of a public figure who uses this term that radical Islam exists and that readers should doubt that? Is the goal to suggest that it is mere opinion that groups such as ISIS represent a radical form of Islam?

Help me out here. Help me understand.

OK, tmatt, I’ll help you out.

Let’s suppose the New York Times described the bombing of a Planned Parenthood facility by a Christian anti-abortion activist as “an act of radical Christianity.” Would you bristle? I’m thinking you would.

I know I would if the killing of an unarmed Palestinian by some Jewish settlers on the West Bank were described as an act of “radical Judaism.” And my Buddhist colleague Elli would too if anti-Muslim violence in Burma were described as “an act of radical Buddhism.”

What all three of us might say is that “radical” indicates an intense, even essential version of our faith. You might even insist that “radical Christianity” properly refers to a prayerful life of poverty and service to others.

To identify anti-abortion extremists or Christian Identity racists as “radical Christians” is to insult all those Christians who do not share their agendas.


There are, to be sure, less problematic ways to identify members of a particular faith tradition with sociopathic behavior. “Jihad” and its cognates, for example.

Thus, during the recent president campaign, Hillary Clinton declared, “We are at war against radical jihadists who use Islam to recruit and radicalize others in order to pursue their evil agenda.”

For extremists who use Judaism to recruit and radicalize,”religious Zionist” is a relatively neutral identifier. “Christianist” (analogous to “Islamist”) has been proposed for extremists who use Christianity to do the same.

“At this point, does anyone disagree with the idea that radicalized forms of Islam exist?” asks Mattingly. “At this point, does anyone doubt that the Islamic State, al Qaeda, Boko Haram and similar groups can be called examples of radical Islam?”

The answer to both questions is yes.

Most Muslims would say, to the contrary, that the groups in question are illegitimate manifestations of their faith.

Just as most Jews would say that religious Zionism and most Christians would say that Christian Identity are illegitimate manifestations of their faith. And that calling them examples of “radical Judaism” and “radical Christianity” expresses hostility to their faith.


“Radical Islam” is no different. Put it in scare quotes.

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!