By Raymond Ibrahim
Hudson New York, November 30, 2011
In 2011, the Obama administration adjusted its approach to national security training materials, aiming to address concerns raised by some Muslim advocacy groups about references to Islam. This decision followed the administration’s earlier choice to withhold photographs of Osama bin Laden after his death, citing sensitivity to Muslim communities, and extended to revising language used in law enforcement and security training.
The Daily Caller reported that the administration began reviewing training materials for law enforcement and national security communities to remove references to Islam that groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others had found potentially offensive. CAIR and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) were identified by some as having ties to the Muslim Brotherhood in the 2004 Holy Land Foundation trial. In a Los Angeles Times op-ed, MPAC president Salam al-Marayati emphasized the importance of revising these materials to maintain trust between law enforcement and American Muslim communities, suggesting that failure to do so could impact cooperation.
After discussions with Attorney General Eric Holder, Dwight C. Holton, a Department of Justice official, stated, "Training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence do not reflect the values of this president, this attorney general, and the Department of Justice. We are committed to ensuring they align with our principles." This reflected a broader effort by the administration to foster understanding, as President Obama had earlier noted the importance of winning the "hearts and minds" of Muslim communities in addressing global security challenges.
However, some expressed concerns that revising training materials might limit the ability to fully understand security threats. For example, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) focused on issues like climate change as a driver of global instability but did not address specific ideological motivations tied to Islamic doctrine, which some analysts felt was necessary for a comprehensive approach.
A 2008 government memo had previously advised against using terms like "jihadist" or "mujahideen" to describe adversaries, noting that "jihad" in Arabic means "striving in the path of God" and has broader meanings beyond warfare. The memo suggested that such terms could unintentionally frame the conflict in a way that aligns with adversaries’ narratives. Critics of this approach argued that restricting certain language might hinder analysts’ ability to accurately assess threats, as understanding motivations, methods, and affiliations often requires specific terminology related to Islam.
The debate reflects the challenge of balancing cultural sensitivity with the need for precise knowledge in security contexts. Effective intelligence work relies on detailed language to analyze threats, but fostering cooperation with diverse communities also requires careful consideration of how language is perceived. For instance, terms like "Islam" and "jihad" carry complex meanings—Islam refers to a faith centered on submission to God, guided by Sharia law, which differs from Western legal traditions, while jihad encompasses both spiritual and martial contexts.
Ultimately, this issue underscores the broader need to "know thy enemy," as the ancient saying goes, while also building bridges with communities to enhance national security. The Obama administration’s efforts aimed to navigate this balance, ensuring that training materials supported both accurate analysis and constructive dialogue with American Muslim communities.
Raymond Ibrahim, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Posted December 10, 2011
From a Deist perspective, I explore Islam through reason, not revelation, questioning its historical and political dimensions. While respecting individual Muslims, I critique the fusion of faith and governance, as seen in Mohammed’s ideology and the Koran’s origins. Deism values free will and rational monotheism, contrasting with Islam’s perceived fatalism and Sharia enforcement. I challenge myths like the “Golden Age” of Islam and examine why innovation lags in Muslim nations. Open dialogue, not censorship, drives this inquiry—mocking ideas isn’t hate, it’s a right. History and philosophy guide my lens.
