Jihad et. al. are the very words the terrorists use to describe themselves and their actions.

A rose by any other name...

So, if they instead called themselves "The most righteous people in the world who never do anything wrong and are always on the side of good and against evil", we should refer to them as such?

Letting your enemy define how they are described in your own propaganda is a terrible idea, for reasons I hope I don't have to expand upon.

Its proponents are obsessed with an idea - an image, if you will - of 'The West' 'backing down' in the face of some alledged fundamentalist intimidation, and they mindlessly superimpose that image onto everything they see.

Jihadists want to be called jihadists because it's an historically complimentary term in their tradition. There are much more insulting and condemnatory terms to be used available in the Arabic language. The strategic disinformation these people cite is there: and they themselves are swallowing in it. To call violent Muslim extremists "jihadists" is the act of 'capitulation' they're so obsessed with. But because they *enjoy* using that word, because it sounds so nice and evil to them, they can't possibly imagine that that's a complimentary term.

In case I haven't made this absolutely clear: Al-Quieda chose the term 'jihadists' themselves, and the "American thinkers" suggestion that Al-Quieda is slipping in the idea for these alternate terms is one hundred percent backwards.

These people are fundamentally not interested in the Arabic audience. They're not interested in winning the battle of perceptions with moderates. They're interested in self-congradulation and domestic propaganda.

And you only look foolish by humoring them, Dave. Call a spade a spade. They have no leg to stand on, no history, no media. They just make it up as they go along.

I definitely think that using a more precise word--e.g. irhab--that doesn't go into the realm of religion, even if the act under discussion is sometimes religiously motivated, is the better tack. The issue isn't pissing off some Islamic terrorist, it's avoiding pissing off Muslims who don't support terrorism, but do support their religion.

And Dave, you're semantically correct, but as John points out, jihad is the term the terrorists themselves have adopted. And while there's merit to the idea of not letting a few asshats subvert an otherwise legitimate term & smear an entire religion with their extremism, the US doesn't really have a lot of investment in maintaining the purity & correctness of Arabic. It's something a lot of other countries besides just us are going to have to care about...

To endeavor, strive, labor, take pains, put oneself out, to overwork, overtax, fatigue, exhaust

All the evolving forms of the word (Arabic 'works' by using prefixes and infixes--in as many as 13 different ways--to modify the basic meaning of a verb as well as to make nouns of verbs) are rooted in that concept. Over the history of the word jihad, it has taken on meanings as disparate as 'to fight a nationalistic war of independence' to 'to struggle within oneself for correct behavior' to 'holy war' to municipal clean-up campaign. Not quite as expansive as 'crusade', but pretty much the same, as English permits a 'crusade' to save, for example, spotted owls as well as the Holy Land. If the word 'campaign' were substituted for either, not much meaning would be lost, just historical referents.

Whether jihad is a useful term in English, I think, depends on both the context and the intent of the person using the word. It is ambiguous until those variables are sorted out.

I definitely think that using a more precise word--e.g. irhab--that doesn't go into the realm of religion, even if the act under discussion is sometimes religiously motivated, is the better tack. The issue isn't pissing off some Islamic terrorist, it's avoiding pissing off Muslims who don't support terrorism, but do support their religion.

When it's necessary to distinguish the motivation of the terrorist--e.g. 'eco-terrorist', 'animal rights-terrorist', etc.--then why not use the English Islamic terrorist? But be sure the motivation is, in fact, religious, not political disguised as or confused with religious motivation.

To endeavor, strive, labor, take pains, put oneself out, to overwork, overtax, fatigue, exhaust

All the following forms of the word (Arabic 'works' by using prefixes and infixes to modify the basic meaning of a verb as well as to make nouns of verbs) are rooted in that concept. Over the history of the word jihad, it has taken on meanings as disparate as 'to fight a nationalistic war of freedom' to 'to struggle within oneself for correct behavior' to 'holy war'. Not quite as expansive as 'crusade', but pretty much the same, as English permits a 'crusade' to save, for example, spotted owls as well as the Holy Land.

Whether jihad is a useful term in English, I think, depends on both the context and the intent of the person using the word. It is ambiguous until those variables are sorted out.

I definitely think that using a more precise word--e.g. irhab--that doesn't go into the realm of religion, even if the act under discussion is sometimes religiously motivated, is the better tack. The issue isn't pissing off some Islamic terrorist, it's avoiding pissing off Muslims who don't support terrorism, but do support their religion.

When it's necessary to distinguish the motivation of the terrorist--e.g. 'eco-terrorist', 'animal rights-terrorist', etc.--then why not use the English Islamic terrorist? But be sure the motivation is, in fact, religious, not political disguised as or confused with religious motivation.

Why not just call them "terrorists"?

A rose by any other name...