Critically, the divergence in framing the problem and whether to use Islam in the context of terrorist attacks reflects a different vision of America and the West in general. Again, the ‘Clash of Civilisations’ thesis plays a prominent role in the framing and posits a fundamental difference between Islam, Muslims, and the West in general and America in particular. In addition, the same ‘Clash of Civilisations’ thesis is seamlessly applied to the Latino population in the US and the demographic threat they pose to white America moving forward. At the core, the demand for specific terminology or use of “Islamic” is intended to draw the clear distinction between the imagined Judeo-Christian America and those that fall outside the constructed religious, racial, and cultural walls.
As such, Donald Trump’s demands to frame the problem in relation to Islam is an appeal to a racial paradigm that is masquerading under the rubric of national security and opposition to political correctness. The fight over terminology is rooted in a deeper conceptualisation of the problem we face with terrorism and the possible remedies to be deployed to address it.
Insisting on using “Islamic” in the context of violent extremism is an important ideological construct for a cluster of individuals and groups who champion Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilisations’worldview. Thus, the problem for this group is defined through unresolvable core differences that are civilisational in nature. If the starting point is a clash between Islam and the West, then every violent act is interpreted and viewed through the lens of an already constructed conclusion.
According to the ‘Clash of Civilisations’, Islam is on a collision course with the modern and progressive Western worldview and nothing more is needed other than this distorted argument. The constructed binary fits neatly into this worldview, and no further analysis, studies or evidence are necessary to understand the motive behind any violent act. Islam is held responsible because it is deemed to be the negative opposite of the West, which has all the positive and progressive attributes.
Trump’s insistence on terminology precedes his arrival to the White House in 2017. As a matter of fact, after the Orlando attack, Trump demanded that we must use “radical Islamic terrorism” or “Islamic radicalism” to point at those responsible while implying that President Barack Obama was soft or possibly secretly involved with the terrorist. In a Twitter post, Donald Trump demanded that President Obama “mention the words radical Islamic terrorism” in reference to the Orlando attacks and to “immediately resign in disgrace”.
At the time, the then Republican presumptive nominee, Trump made sure to very quickly wade into the “blame Islam” terrain and again called for restrictions on Muslims entering the country. Trump then attacked his Democratic counterpart by stating, “The bottom line is that Hillary supports the policies that bring the threat of radical Islam into America and allows it to grow overseas”. Furthermore, according to Trump, “Clinton wants to allow radical Islamic terrorists to pour into our country. They enslave women and murder gays” (Donald Trump Speech 2016).48
In a CNN interview, Hillary Clinton inched closer in Trump’s direction by stating that “Whether you call it radical jihadism, radical Islamism, I think they mean the same thing”. Clinton clarified by stating, “I’m happy to say either. But what I won’t do, because I think it is dangerous for our efforts to defeat this threat, is to demonize and demagogue and, you know, declare war on an entire religion. That plays right into ISIS’ (DAESH’s) hands” (Clinton 2016).49
Trump’s insistence on the terminology comes directly from the Islamophobic and ‘Clash of Civilisations’ thesis, and the recipes fit perfectly into this distorted ideological box. There is no need to look for the causes, stimuli, and factors that motivated a violent act or ascertain the intent behind it. The reason is always simple: Islam is responsible, and there is a mad dash to ascertain the level of Islamic adherence by the perpetrators even when none is found. Islamophobia is an ideological construct used by the advocates of the ‘Clash of Civilisations’ to bring them into the driver seat in the post-Cold War era and have little to do with Islam and Muslims as a religion or a diverse 1.7 billion people living across the world. Finally, the observation of the late South African leader Nelson Mandela is very insightful for the American society: “I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man (woman) is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear”.
(Concluded)