Are terror police really dropping the term ‘Islamist’?

Analysis: Reports that the terminology surrounding attacks could be changed have sparked furious debate, writes Lizzie Dearden

Flowers and messages are left at the scene of last November’s terror attack on London Bridge (Reuters)

Police have opened up a discussion on whether the term “Islamist terrorism” should be replaced, sparking furious debate. Authorities in the UK and other countries apply the description to attacks and plots inspired by Isis and al-Qaeda.

But the National Association of Muslim Police raised concern that the term was inaccurate and drives perceptions of Muslims as a threat, amid rising hate crime in Britain.

At a virtual meeting on 18 June, around 70 members of the Counter Terrorism Advisory Network (CTAN) including police, counter-extremism workers, academics and attack victims, discussed the issue.

As first reported in The Times, alternatives were put forward including “faith-claimed terrorism” and “terrorists abusing religious motivations”.

Counterterror policing representatives told The Independent that no change is currently planned and a formal review is not under way. But media reporting has already sparked intense debate and an immediate backlash.

“Absolute state of this,” Tommy Robinson wrote to his followers on Telegram, while Britain First called the prospect “Islamic appeasement”.

Theresa May’s former adviser Nick Timothy called the potential change in terminology “mad and dangerous”.

But the national coordinator of the Prevent counter-extremism programme hit back on Twitter by writing: “During my career I have learned it’s ‘mad and dangerous’ not to listen to your communities.”

In a statement, chief superintendent Nik Adams said senior officers had “encouraged honest and open discussion from all sides” and wanted to define threats accurately while avoiding alienating communities.

He said the UK’s counterterror police chief, Neil Basu, had “not at any point suggested that terminology was definitely going to change – simply that it was right that we have an evidence-based discussion about it”.

Islamism normally describes political, rather than violent, movements that broadly advocate for guidance by Islamic principles – which themselves are subject to wide interpretation.

Many Islamist groups have publicly denounced Isis, which could more accurately be described as a Salafi-jihadi group, and its interpretation of the Quran.

Linking Isis-inspired attacks to Islam is further complicated by the prevalence of terrorists who are not religiously educated or observant, committing crime, smoking, drinking and dealing drugs.

A cache of Isis documents containing the personal details of more than 4,000 foreign fighters who joined the “caliphate” in 2013 and 2014 showed that 70 per cent described their religious knowledge as “basic”.

In its calls for low-technology terror attacks on non-believers, which sparked an international wave of atrocities from 2014 onwards, Isis has used the bombing of its territories as a primary justification rather than religious doctrine.

But supporters of “Islamist” as a continued description warn that even if British police stopped using it, international authorities would continue and the creation of “euphemisms” could do further harm.

“People do not like to feel that they are being treated with kid gloves, or that public agencies are not being frank with them,” said David Toube, director of policy at the Quilliam counter-extremism think tank.

“That sort of conduct, whatever the motivation, results in a huge cratering of confidence. It goes without saying that this would be a terrible outcome: it would result in the likes of Katie Hopkins claiming that they are the only ones who can be trusted to ‘tell the truth’.”

There may be a growing consensus that the term “Islamist” is vague at best, and inaccurate and severely harmful at worst, but finding a replacement would prove a much tougher task.