Now it’s Islamophobic to use the word ‘jihadis’

The police have been asked to drop the terms ‘Islamist terrorism’ and ‘jihadis’ for fear they harm ‘community relations’.


Topics Politics UK

The police are considering dropping the terms ‘Islamist terrorism’ and ‘jihadis’ when describing attacks committed by, er, Islamist terrorists or jihadists, reports The Times this morning.

Apparently, these words are problematic because they can stir up ‘Islamophobia’. The National Association of Muslim Police asked for a change in terminology because, it says, those terms currently used ‘do not help community relations and public confidence’.

Some of the alternatives suggested are nothing short of hilarious. ‘Faith-claimed terrorism’ and ‘adherents of Osama bin Laden’s ideology’ are among them. But the most amusing is probably ‘terrorists abusing religious motivations’. Catchy.

But this is deadly serious. Increasingly, we are asked to pretend that Islamist terror is not Islamist terror. In turn, any discussion about whether Islamist extremism might have something to do with the religion of Islam itself is chilled.

Despite the fact that ‘Islamist extremism’ is a term used by counter-terror experts, the National Association of Muslim Police want the police to abandon any terms ‘which have a direct link to Islam’.

But what exactly motivates these attacks if not a radical, violent, medieval form of Islam? It may not be ‘good’ Islam, and Islamist terrorists may not be ‘good’ Muslims. But they are Muslims nonetheless.

Imagine the outcry if someone argued that we should not call the Crusaders Christians. Picture the chattering-class outrage if we were to say right-wing terrorists are not actually right-wing.

We should react with consistency, then, to the absurd idea that Islamist murderers are not Islamists.

Picture by: Getty.

Let’s cancel cancel culture

Free speech is under attack from all sides – from illiberal laws, from a stifling climate of conformity, and from a powerful, prevailing fear of being outed as a heretic online, in the workplace, or even among friends, for uttering a dissenting thought. This is why we at spiked are stepping up our fight for speech, expanding our output and remaking the case for this most foundational liberty. But to do that we need your help. spiked – unlike so many things these days – is free. We rely on our loyal readers to fund our journalism. So if you want to support us, please do consider becoming a regular donor. Even £5 per month can be a huge help. You can find out more and sign up here. Thank you! And keep speaking freely.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


Marvin Jones

25th July 2020 at 11:08 am

The only dangerous Moslem is the one who shows total allegiance to allah and to no one or no other deity. So, it has got to be the most ignorant utterance to suggest that jihadists and suicide bombers are not Moslem. I want an answer to my question as to why so many millions of Moslems are fleeing their Islamic lands to the lands of the infidel they detest everything about. The white western world dare not ask it either, WHY?

James McCarthy

21st July 2020 at 9:05 am

“The most dangerous Muslims are those who say terrorism has nothing to do with Islam”.

Nonie Darwish, ex Muslim and author of “Why I chose Biblical values over Islamic values”. A must read book.

Nonie Darwish’s father was a Brigadier in the Egyptian Army and the leader of Islamic terrorist groups operating in Gaza. He was blown up by a booby trapped parcel sent by Mossad.

Steve Hill

21st July 2020 at 2:31 am

It must be terrible for the feet to walk on eggshells all the time.

Geoff W

21st July 2020 at 12:09 am

This is the ONLY definition of jihad in Islamic sharia law. I think it speaks for itself!

“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims…warfare to establish the religion” manual of sharia

Vivian Darkbloom

20th July 2020 at 9:04 pm

“Supremacist” or “Fascist” works for me.

Stef Steer

20th July 2020 at 6:39 pm

The Times put a picture of Basu with this. Does anybody seriously believe this guy is going to be unbiased in dealing with terrorists. He and Dick should be gone as a matter of urgency.

Jerry Owen

20th July 2020 at 5:49 pm

People will still know what it refers to.

CJ Hawes

20th July 2020 at 8:12 pm

Fully agreed but my take on this is that it is an opportunity for people to come up with all sorts of witty alternatives. I’m sure that the fan base can work out a few alternatives, unlike the British Ladies Club of Luxembourg who (albeit a few years back) announced with great fanfare that it was to change its name given that it was a club open to all nationalities. In the end they settled for the rather radical – British Ladies Club.

George Whale

20th July 2020 at 10:11 pm

Not necessarily – the media already does a pretty good job of hiding violent criminals’ race (if non-white).

Gordon O Gopher

20th July 2020 at 5:19 pm

Yeh yeh definitely. If you don’t want to stop it, deny it’s existence and stop anyone being able to identify its adherents.

Same with when they target underage girls to get raped by their mates. Anyone who works for social services, support workers, care workers in kids homes; don’t let on they need to watch out for Muslim men in taxis picking girls up. God no, just say it’s ‘people’ who they need to watch out for. That’ll definitely ensure it carries on unabated.

Who cares about stopping innocent & vulnerable people getting killed and raped as long as you can protect community relations?


20th July 2020 at 4:22 pm

>>So, the British state is unwilling to call it ‘faith-based’, which would acknowledge that people may have ‘faith’ in ‘beliefs’ that are totally contrary to the current dogmas and interests of the state. <<

I think you'll find a much stronger reason is that they don't want to acknowledge that there might be any foundation IN the faith or any of its key texts for murderous actions

Mor Vir

20th July 2020 at 6:01 pm

I think that you will find that everyone else has already made your point and that I made a further point. : )

In2 Minds

20th July 2020 at 4:14 pm

The police and the language they use. Recently Dame Cressida Dick spoke to the Home Affairs Committee. Some of us remember the comedy sketch by Peter Cook about Judges and how he lampooned the language they use. Well to me it looked as if Cook had written the words from Dick. The great weight of PC jargon must be hard to bear on a daily basis. Perhaps we thank Common Purpose for that? There was a time when all Trade Union leaders went to Ruskin College and all sounded the same on radio, the speak your weight approach to language!

Andy Tuke

20th July 2020 at 4:00 pm

I don’t think the police are getting the issue, its not the use of the term islamist or jihadi that is sullying the name of their religion, its the sadly regular killing of citizens of this country by people loudly claiming to be doing it in the name of that religion. While I’m happy to accept that this isn’t representative of the majority of muslims its not as if the peaceful members are queuing up to denounce it loudly. Where are the ‘Not in my name’ protests etc?

S. Garside

20th July 2020 at 5:19 pm

▲This × times 1000.

James McCarthy

21st July 2020 at 9:23 am

Although most Muslims aren’t involved in terrorism, the reality is that the terrorists are surrounded by fundamentalist Muslims who share their beliefs. Fundamentalist Muslims in Britain are a very large minority (33 to 40%) judging by survey results. By population, a large majority of Muslims in the Muslim World are fundamentalist in their beliefs. Lebanon and now Nigeria show us what happens when Muslims become 50% or more in a country. They use violence to take over.

jamie murray

20th July 2020 at 3:57 pm

“As it’s plainspeakingophobic to use the term “grooming gangs”, we shall forthwith be using the term “rape gangs” to give a more accurate representation of what they’re actually about and to stop misleading the general public”, a spokesman [sorry, spokesperson] for the fair, honest and impartial bbc didn’t say!

Dominic Straiton

20th July 2020 at 2:28 pm

Il be carrying on using the proper terms ie Jihadi rape gangs.

CJ Hawes

20th July 2020 at 3:40 pm

Dominic – as you’ve clearly been opressing these guys for milennia I think it’s time to see the error of your ways. Any response to this friendly advice will prove beyond any doubt (not just reasonable) that you urgently need to get with the programme.

Warren Alexander

20th July 2020 at 2:21 pm

All you people getting hot under the collar for no good reason. There is no intention to censor what people say, the authorities just want to make sure that everything that is said has been properly approved by those that know about these things. You’ll all be so much happier if you just follow instructions, voluntarily of course, but if you don’t we might have to educate you so that in the future your behaviour corresponds to what is expected of good, obedient, compliant citizens of our free and democratic country.

Andrew Mawdsley

20th July 2020 at 1:35 pm

Another question would be: why is there a Muslim police association? Faith should have no place in the policing of a society.

This constant slicing of institutions into ever smaller indentitarian cliques is having a hugely deleterious effect.

If you’re the old bill, that’s it. You’re not a black police officer, a muslim police officer etc. You’re just a police officer.


20th July 2020 at 3:46 pm

>>Another question would be: why is there a Muslim police association? Faith should have no place in the policing of a society. <<
Yes! Yes! Yes!

"Faith-claimed terrorism"



Gordon O Gopher

20th July 2020 at 6:19 pm

“Another question would be: why is there a Muslim police association“

I’d never heard of them before but clearly we know the answer to that now; to deny the existence of Islamic terrorists.

Margaret Potter

27th July 2020 at 5:39 pm

If you are a white police officer you do not have an ‘association’, you are just a police officer. Discrimination or what ?

Mor Vir

20th July 2020 at 1:14 pm

Also notable is the use of the phrase ‘faith-claimed’ rather than ‘faith-based’. The instinct of the state is to control the language used about ‘faith’, as about ‘truth’ more generally (eg. fake news).

That extends to what is legitimately seen as ‘faith’. So, back in the Middle Ages, only Christians were seen as having ‘faith’, which was a gift supposedly infused by god through ‘grace’. Muslims were called the ‘infidel’ (Latin, ‘in’ -without, ‘fides’ -faith) along with pagans, J ews, heretics, schismatics, apostates and anyone else who dissented from ‘the faith’ as the credal, dogmatic religion that was proposed by the approved authorities.

Any dissent was seen as a crime of ‘infidelity’, faithlessness. RCC went so far as to define ‘faith’ as the ‘supernatural virtue’ by which RCC dogma is compliantly ‘believed’, to the exclusion of infidel ‘heretics’ like Protestants. Control over what is seen as ‘faith’ is an expression of power, to dominate and to control the population and their beliefs.

So, the British state is unwilling to call it ‘faith-based’, which would acknowledge that people may have ‘faith’ in ‘beliefs’ that are totally contrary to the current dogmas and interests of the state. So it is termed ‘faith-claimed’ which phrase withholds any legitimacy of ‘faith’ from the dissident. Thus the state maintains its own supposed prerogative to deliminate ‘faith’ and to distinguish it from ‘infidelity’.

That may seem understandable to many in the present case but it is a dangerous tendency that broadly lends itself to state power over society and to the repression of dissidents.

David Wolcott

21st July 2020 at 12:21 am

Prince Charles seems to have wrestled with related issues, but I’m not sure where he ended up. I recall him planning to reject “Defender of the Faith” and use “Defender of Faiths” when he becomes King, but the last I heard this was scaled back to “Defender of Faith”, which is as vague as it is dangerous. The implication is that if you have faith, in anything at all, he will defend you.

Mark Lambert

20th July 2020 at 1:12 pm

Who has managed to make this happen?

There is an imam who is used by all media as some sort of “moderate”.
Some months ago, he told three separate LBC presenters that they should not use the words “Islamism” or “Islamist”. One of the presenters said, “I will change my words”. Good grief. With another presenter, I had to chuckle because he had always bragged that he uses “Islamism” and not “Islam” as a sort of separator from the perfect religion itself. Then he got a surprise when the imam came on his show some minutes later.

At the very least, all three presenters initially asked “how are we supposed to report on specifics?” The answer was to simply call them terrorists. The reason is obvious – this is all about defence of the faith and not having Islam associated with anything bad.

This had better not happen.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.

Deplorables — a spiked film