Why The Change In Discription?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2286746/Four-Islamic-terrorists-planned-attack-British-soil-guns-home-bombs.html

/// Four Islamic terrorists planned attack on British soil with guns and home-made bombs ///

Recently I have noticed that the Daily Mail has ceased referring to terrorists as 'Muslim Terrorists' and now call them 'Islamic Terrorists'.

Is this tactic to be been seen as less offensive to the Muslim communities?

The Guardian however play especially safe by not mentioning their faith whatsoever.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/01/four-discussing-terror-attack-uk

Whereas the Telegraph have choosen to call them "Four British al-Qaeda inspired fanatics"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9903497/Four-British-al-Qaeda-inspired-fanatics-face-jail-after-admitting-terror-plot.html

[woofgang]

or "description"?

[anotheoldgit]

There's always one to correct me, must be great to be so 'clever'?

Now if I were to pick on all the mistakes that I see................

[douglas9401]

It's what keeps our country great. :)

[THECORBYLOON]

Islam is the religion and a Muslim is a follower of that faith. I would have thought that it is more accurate to say a Muslim terrorist rather than Islamic as the latter suggests that terrorism is a part of the faith which it is not. A Muslim terrorist is a terrorist who is also a Muslim. I am no expert so I am willing to be corrected by those who have more knowledge on their use.

[Old_Geezer]

I'm still unclear what the difference betwen an Islamist and Muslim is anyway.

[Old_Geezer]

Should only pick on errors if it's an amusing comment.

[sp1814]

Why would the term 'Islamic' be less offensive to the Muslim community?

Do you think that the Mail gives two hoots about who it offends?

Lastly, why would Muslims be offended anyway? Surely they would only be upset if the paper twisted stories to show Muslims in a bad light, and no-one could accuse the Mail of that.

[douglas9401]

I'd guess at pressure from the chattering classes who have no clue what's going on in the world outside their dinner party circuit.

[sp1814]

doudlas9401

The 'chattering classes'?

I would argue that they aren't really the Mail's key demographic.

[douglas9401]

May I draw your attention to the links for The Grauniad and Torygraph si1814?

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// Lastly, why would Muslims be offended anyway? Surely they would only be upset if the paper twisted stories to show Muslims in a bad light, and no-one could accuse the Mail of that. ///

I liken all this to the recent child grooming gangs, where the perpetrators were described as 'Asian gangs' instead of Pakistani gangs.

This did in fact offend all other Asians.

[FredPuli43]

Islamic ? Does the paper not mean Islamist? Islamic is just pertaining to Islam. Islamist has come into use to mean jihadist, as one who is waging war on infidels.

[FredPuli43]

"This did in fact offend all other Asians" aog? You are speaking in defence of the whole community of 'Asians'. Is this a step towards you defending all Muslims and all immigrants?

[ludwig]

// I'm still unclear what the difference betwen an Islamist and Muslim is anyway. //

A muslim is an adherent to the islamic faith.

The term Islamist is a fairly new one, used to describe someone who's inspired by Islam ito do various things that don't necessarily correspond to it's teachings - typically acts of terrorism.

It's like calling someone a 'Christian-ist' terrorist instead of a Christian terrorist on the grounds that they can't accurately be described as a Christian having just blown up a load of children.

My guess is that the various media have been bombarded by complaints along the lines of 'stop calling these people muslims! they can't be because Islam doesn't teach these things!', and rightly or wrongly depending on your viewpoint they've conceded the point.

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

/// "This did in fact offend all other Asians" aog? You are speaking in defence of the whole community of 'Asians'. Is this a step towards you defending all Muslims and all immigrants? ///

Do you go out of your way to try and be confrontational towards me or does it come natural?

I was just pointing out a known fact, that the describing of evil acts committed by Pakistani men, as being committed by Asians, was offensive to all other Asians, just the same as accusing all Muslims of committing these acts would be, seeing that Muslims come from a variety of nations, not just Pakistan.

For your information I will defend anyone who I consider is being falsely accused, it is only a pity that some on AB choose not to do likewise.

[sp1814]

AOG

"This did in fact offend all other Asians".

Did it?

Really?

Not sure that's entirely correct.

[anotheoldgit]

ludwig

/// It's like calling someone a 'Christian-ist' terrorist instead of a Christian terrorist on the grounds that they can't accurately be described as a Christian having just blown up a load of children. ///

By that remark, which I find most offensive, seeing that it makes all Christian Bomber Crews during WW2, nothing more than Christian terrorists.

[sp1814]

Actually AOG - you may have hit upon something.

Sikh and Hindu community leaders have expressed anger at the label 'Asian' because in the recent grooming stories 80% of those accused have been from Pakistan: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/08/asian-sex-gangs-on-street-grooming

Also, racist organisations (specifically, the BNP) have used the term to conveniently tar all those of Asian descent with the same brush.

Perhaps by redefining the term to 'Pakistani grooming gangs' we can prevent such organisations from disseminating 'blanket blame'?

[sp1814]

But getting back to your question, do you think there's a difference between the terms 'Muslim terrorists' and 'Islamic terrorists'?

I ask because they seem like synonyms to me...or at least, the difference is so subtle as to be negligible to the average reader.

What difference do you see in the two terms?

[LazyGun]

To me, the term "Islamic" or "Islamist" is a more accurate description, since the word Islam tends to be reserved to describe the faith itself, or actions taken on behalf of or in the name of the religion.

So, Islamic art, Islamic community, Islamic terrorism would be a correct use, Islamic man an incorrect use.