Current definition of terrorism needs a new update

Our current understanding of terrorism has strayed from its conventional definition.

When terrorism is mentioned, the first things people think of are the likes of Omar Mateen and the 2016 mass murder at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, the Tsarnaev brothers who executed the Boston bombing in 2013 or Osama Bin Laden and the others behind the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The one thing these incidents have in common is that all of the perpetrators are Muslim.

In the wake of these widely publicized attacks, it’s become evident that the definition of terrorism has been altered to fit a specific kind of incident. The word has gone beyond its Merriam-Webster’s definition as being “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion” and now has turned into any act associated with a follower of Islam.

Our President-elect said in an interview with CNN last year that “I think Islam hates us … radical Islam is very hard to define … because you don’t know who is who.” His comments echo a sentiment that millions of Americans carry. This thinking has continued to group the religion of Islam and terrorism as one — and to disassociate other religious extremists from their religions as often as possible — something that is simply not the case.

Our generation’s understanding of the link between terrorism and Islam is largely rooted in our memories of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and the following wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that plagued the news during our childhoods. Trump’s rhetoric has become widespread, fueled by attacks carried out by Muslims and self-proclaimed followers of ISIS in the years after 2001.

But the Quran — the holy book of the Islamic faith — certainly doesn’t endorse terrorism. Its rhetoric is used on both sides. It’s impossible to avoid running into the endless number of articles online providing lines from the Quran pushing for or against violence.

The Quran, like the Bible or any other holy text, is long and complicated. Muslims disagree about what different verses in the Quran mean and what actions they do or do not justify. As a non-Muslim, when I tried to understand it for myself, I realized that I can’t simply look at a couple articles or read the Quran to disprove beliefs thousands of members of ISIS carry or even some of these “lone-wolf” attackers have — it’s all a matter of interpretation.

During a Presidential town hall in September 2016, President Obama explained in a hypothetical scenario, “if you had an organization that was going around killing and blowing people up and said ‘we’re on the vanguard of Christianity’ … as a Christian [myself], I’m not gonna let them claim my religion and say you’re killing for Christ. I would say that’s not what my religion stands for,” he continued. “Call these folks what they are, which is killers and terrorists.”

Yes, the men who carried out the attacks in Florida, Ohio and Massachusetts were terrorists. But not because they were Muslim. Though President Obama made up a hypothetical situation, there are real life examples of shootings that have led to death at the hands of Christian extremists — the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting in 2015 where three people were shot dead by Robert Dear, an extreme pro-life Christian Evangelical, is just one example.

Neither the media nor popular opinion on social media labeled this a terrorist attack, instead many questioned the mental stability of Dear and labeled his actions an anomaly. But by the definition of terrorism, Dear’s attack would certainly be considered a terrorist attack. President Obama’s logic applies here: There are millions of Christians who don’t use their religion to commit violence and stand against those who do.

There is a very small number of extremists that create violence in the name of Islam. After the 2015 Paris attacks where 137 people were killed, before ISIS was even proclaimed the attacker, Muslims took to social media to denounce the actions as not representative of Islam. President Joko Widodo of Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation in the world, condemned the actions of ISIS.

In order to change the perception that terrorism is a specifically Muslim-perpetrated crime, we need to abandon our anti-Islamic mindsets. Many followers of Islam, including President Widodo, are just as adamant about stopping ISIS and terrorism as Trump claims to be — though their suggestions for doing so would, of course, vary greatly. When we refuse to call acts committed by mentally ill people or white supremacists terrorist attacks and simply recategorize them as domestic issues or singularities, we reinforce the narrative that only those who follow Islam are terrorists.

Islam is a religion, and terrorism is a political tactic. Some people may try to use the former to justify the latter, but the majority of Muslims reject these ideas completely. We cannot describe an entire religion, belief system or group as terrorists simply because a few represent that.

Being conscious of this association is the first step to combatting it. We can talk to our Muslim allies about what their religion means and become more critical of news, movies or social media that consciously or unconsciously perpetuate these tropes.

Religion — like people — are complicated. Don’t regard either as monoliths.

Saket primarily writes on politics for The Pitt News.

Write to Saket at smr122@pitt.edu.