Amid the global stereotyping of Muslims and Arabs, I ask that everyone be discriminating in the use of the term Islamic. It means 'of Islam', which has no part in acts of terror.
Some of the terrorists are Muslims, but their acts are not Islamic. That such people call themselves Islamic does not mean they represent the religion. They do not. In fact, while the extremists' methods are abhorrent, their objectives are political. For example, as outlined on American television, the extremist Osama bin Laden's three main aims are the removal of American forces from Saudi Arabia, the cessation of the bombing of Iraq, and a change in United States support for Israel over Palestine.
These are not mysterious religious demands. They are political, meaning they are - however fraught with difficulty - manageable. Bin Laden himself appears to be beyond management.
Why do extremists address themselves in Islamic terms? It is the language of political rhetoric in many Muslim countries, the basis of good versus evil. It also helps them to pitch their message across borders to the Muslim world, presumably in the hope of gaining wider support. Some people suspect that the extremists who carried out the attacks in the US want to bring about a confrontation between the Muslim world and Western governments.
By repeatedly using terms such as 'Islamic terror', governments and the media play to the terrorists' base aims and risk arousing sympathy for these groups in the newly-agitated radical fringe of Muslim countries. Also, it surely is confusing for the citizens of a Western country to hear their leader ask people not to hold Islam - or Muslims in general - responsible for terror, then have members of that same government and the media label the enemy 'Islamic'.
To describe the attacks of September 11 as Islamic is hurtful to Muslims. And it reveals a misunderstanding, or misjudgment, of the roots of the world's current tense predicament.