The new British prime minister, Gordon Brown, has stated that his government will no longer employ the same language to describe terror attacks that was used by Tony Blair and his administration.
There will be no more "jihadist acts of war," but rather criminal acts on British soil. Brown has steered away from racist discourse constantly used by his predecessor and by President Bush.
Brown’s decision to call the act for what it is without pretext to the religious affiliation or ethnic background of criminals is an admirable step, what one could hope will echo to other governments.
A senior cabinet minister in the new British government said the new policies included such changes that they will no longer use the term "war on terror."
Brown has managed to redefine the terms not only in his favor, but also in favor of his citizens and others living in his country.
British Muslims have welcomed this toning down of rhetoric from what was the normative with his predecessor.
This change of tone will help bridge the gap between the British government and Britain’s Muslim population.
By dropping the phrase "war on terror," it will hopefully also change some of the feelings of alienation shared by Muslims worldwide.
The term has served to upset Muslims around the world who inferred that the West in general and the United States and Britain in particular have deliberately constructed a new enemy: Islam and Muslims.
Polls indicate that a majority of Muslims around the world think the war on terror is, in reality, a war on Muslims and Islam.
Because all of the targets identified in this distasteful war are Muslims countries, such perceptions are not unfounded.
The Bush administration’s constant use of these terms has alienated the U.S. Muslim population as well as Muslims abroad.
Usage of such divisive language has created an air of mistrust among Americans and their Muslim neighbors.
Poll after poll indicates a growing anger among Muslims worldwide with the Bush administration as it continues anti-Islam terms to frame the conflict.
The term "Islamic terrorist" was clearly designed to create in the minds of the Western public a strong association between terrorism and Islam.
And this has, in turn, successfully served the purpose of inducing support for an illegal and immoral war.
People began associating Islam with violent acts that were often exaggerated in the mainstream media. With support for the war waning worldwide, all people of conscience must work to dispel the false associations that link Islam and violence in the minds of many.
It seems that Brown has learnt from his predecessor’s mistakes in Iraq as well as from his misplaced support for Bush’s disastrous policies.
He appears to be contemplating pulling British troops out of Iraq.
While we do not know why Brown chose to cease usage of Blair and Bush’s rhetoric, we hope that it is his sincere belief that such damning language is sinfully wrong and detrimental to world peace.
One can only agree with Brown as he attempts to describe the conflict in logical and rational terms such as "criminal acts," not acts of "Islamic terrorists."
Let us also hope Brown’s government is not dropping these terms in favor of a more slick propaganda alternative.
We, as American Muslims, would also hope Brown’s meeting with President Bush would lead to a similar change on this side of the Atlantic Ocean.
And like the Muslims of Great Britain who have praised and welcomed Brown’s proclamation, American Muslims will welcome a similar change in rhetoric by Bush and his administration.
