Why does America use the term "Islamic terrorist", but preaches not to call Muslims terrorists?

I am confused by this. according to Wikipedia it:

is religious terrorism by those whose motivations are rooted in their interpretations of Islam

source

Ok lets look at the definition if Islam:

the religious faith of Muslims, based on the words and religious system founded by the prophet Muhammad and taught by the Koran, the basic principle of which is absolute submission to a unique and personal god, Allah.

source

So depending on how I interpret the Koran is the difference between being an "Islamic Terrorist" and a "Muslim Terrorist"
You will never hear the media say "Muslim Terrorist" because many Muslims will get offended, not mentioning the amount of ignorant hatred that will become associated with the word "Muslim".
But when I hear "Islamic Terrorist" some how its ok, or makes more sense?

I would assume to differentiate them from say, Irish terrorists? American terrorists like Tim McVey? Christian terrorists like the anti-abortion nuts that blow up clinics? That sort of thing?

reply to post by Zenagain


But we're talking about religion, not ethnicity. - It would be like calling them Arabic terrorist vs. middle eastern terrorists. I honestly think it is word-play. I just don't know why it is so widely accepted, when the other isn't.

Originally posted by juveous

I am confused by this. according to Wikipedia it:

is religious terrorism by those whose motivations are rooted in their interpretations of Islam

source

There you go you answered your own question. It is mass generalisation to call someone a "Muslim terrorist" as the implication that all Muslims are terrorists. There are many texts in Islam (Quran and ahadith) that support and encourage terrorism, so if one accepts these portions and followed them, they would be a terrorist. Since these are in the Islamic texts, it is correct to call them an "Islamic terrorist".

Ok lets look at the definition if Islam:

Why? You need to examine the texts if you want to find out if Islam at all supports terrorism. If I look up the definition of Christianity, does that tell me all I need to know about the bible?

So depending on how I interpret the Koran is the difference between being an "Islamic Terrorist" and a "Muslim Terrorist"

No, read above. Also you forgot the ahadith. They are Islamic texts also.

You will never hear the media say "Muslim Terrorist" because many Muslims will get offended, not mentioning the amount of ignorant hatred that will become associated with the word "Muslim".

No, you wont hear them say it because it is a mass generalisation and quite worthy of the backlash it would cause.

But when I hear "Islamic Terrorist" some how its ok, or makes more sense?

yes I have explained above. For examples of "terrorism supporting" Islamic texts, click here, here, here, here or here. There are of course examples in the Quran as well, but there are many sects of Islam with different interpretations of the Quran (and some differing ahadith). Since the terrorism can be sourced to their own religious texts, it is correct to say "Islamic Terrorist" if they have indicated Islam was their motivation.

Originally posted by Hesperonis

Originally posted by juveous
There are many texts in Islam (Quran and ahadith) that support and encourage terrorism, so if one accepts these portions and followed them, they would be a terrorist. Since these are in the Islamic texts, it is correct to call them an "Islamic terrorist".
For examples of "terrorism supporting" Islamic texts, click here, here, here, here or here. There are of course examples in the Quran as well, but there are many sects of Islam with different interpretations of the Quran (and some differing ahadith). Since the terrorism can be sourced to their own religious texts, it is correct to say "Islamic Terrorist" if they have indicated Islam was their motivation.

Hey, thanks for the info, this makes more sense now. I was under the impression of the whole "all who follow Islam are Muslims" deal, so thats why I was confused. I also wasn't trying to say that Islam didn't support terrorism, but more of the etymology behind what is considered "Islamic" and what is considered "Muslim". But thanks I should've actually looked in the texts

It's cowardice, plain and simple. One of the things I first found Bush to be guilty of was in his first speech after the towers fell, and he absolutely lied about Islam.

The religion compels Muslims to fight until all religion is for Allah alone.

Islam is a war on mankind.

You don't have to believe it, you don't have to like it, but to do so exhibits a complete ignorance on the subject. You've fallen for Islamic apologists BS. They state falsehoods, because they know most Americans are ignorant about their religion and its actual teachings.

That's alright. Some day.

@juveous: No problem! There are many texts to wade through so I don't expect everyone to have read all of them (there are thousands of ahadith alone!)

@dooper: I agree. Bush also misquoted the Quran in order to 'prove' Islam was a religion of peace (the verse was 5:32). He cut out the middle part and omitted the next verse (out of context). Funnily enough this is a common apologetics tactic employed by Muslims to 'prove' the exact same thing! Bush quoted:

whoever slays a soul, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men;

The actual quote is:

For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
Source

"Mischief in the land" according to the ahadith is considered to be any "unislamic" behaviour. Indeed, listed above are many Shariah punishments for unislamic behaviour. Making "mischief" in the land is defined in the ahadith also as something so small as doubting Islam/Muhammad/Allah/the Quran etc...

So of course these verses does not mean Islam is peace at all.... unless everyone you live around is a devout Muslim of course.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by Hesperonis]

[edit on 24-11-2008 by Hesperonis]

[edit on 24-11-2008 by Hesperonis]

What do you want us to call them? It helps to differentiate between the different terrorist groups. Are you seriously peeved about this?

We call them Islamic terrorists because there are a certain group of those practicing Islam who are in fact terrorists. That isn't to say that they all are.

We call a certain group of people African Americans, but we don't call all Americans African.

I think you are being a little too literal, and a bit too picky in trying to create some more "America is evil" controversy.

reply to post by nyk537


haha, absolutely not. - I had thought all Islam followers were Muslim. My question was completely out confusion. It was to bring clarity of controversy. There are a lot of people who do belief that all who follow Islam are Muslim. I was not insinuating that Muslims should be associated with Terrorism, but rather, if it was correct or not to say Islamic terrorist, without them being a Muslim or a misunderstood Muslim. - If their beliefs support terrorism so be it, but it was about the question I asked in the beginning, of whether it was how they interpreted it that made the difference or was there a difference at all.
now saying "religious extremists" does not insinuate any associate between a specific belief practice.
My whole argument was about political correctness.
Maybe I should have re-worded the title.