A militant and a Muslim

It's getting to a point where I think we're choosing to be lazy. The clubbing of just every act of terrorism by Muslim fundamentalists under "Islamic violence" is sickening. Over the past few days, I see everything — from the Glasgow attack to the 7/11 blasts — comfortably snuggling under a common headline, which, in every way, insinuates they must be read as related items. But of course, all of it is Islamic terror, it seems to say.For years now, since we started using the word in headlines and now comfortably in every line of copy, I've been wondering why we use the word "Islamic" if all we are trying to convey is that the perpetrators were Muslims. These are people who believe they are plying a religion-dictated crusade, and are we not reinforcing that idea and sending it out to the world everyday by calling it Islamic?We are forced to use Hindu (Hindu violence, Hindu fundamentalists), unfortunately, because that is the only word we have for the religion and those who follow it but at least, here there's a clear choice. I understand that the correlation between religion and violence is vital here but to call something "Islamic" signifies directly and immediately that there is an air of religious sanction. It is something that is part of the "Islamic" faith.I am not a believer but I cringe everytime somebody refers to something as the duty of a Hindu, or that it is part of Hindu scripture or the Hindu way of life. You might agree with it or not but when you enter a debate like that, you are automatically on the opposite side. I am definitely anti-Hindu if I begin to oppose somebody who tells me Lord Rama did not eat meat and it says so in such-and-such Hindu book. Which is why I think any Muslim would feel a queasy spot everytime we peddle out a terrorism story in the name of "Islamic militants", "Islamic" terror, "Islamic" world, "Islamic" beliefs...The other variation to this, as I recently read in The Guardian, is Islamist. Islamist seems more correct than "Islamic" but wouldn't Muslim be safest? And enough?Strangely, everytime we use "Muslim" in a copy, there is caution. Most of the time, we consider it safest to talk about a "minority community" rather than identify it, especially if it has to do with community clashes. The effort, I presume, is to make clear that the identity of the community itself had nothing to do with the clash. That they were Muslim or Christian, in itself, does not add to our understanding of how or why the clash happened. And also that it shouldn't bias our perception of the event per se.Wouldn't that argument apply all the more not to call terrorism "Islamic"? Refreshingly, prime minister Manmohan Singh warned against communitising such ideologies, thus weighing against the majority of moderates. By loosely terming as "Islamic", every act of violence carried out by a Muslim, we are black-marking everything else that is Islamic and a matter of faith for millions.An example. An intro in Guardian reads: Four Islamist militants who plotted to kill dozens of people on London's public transport network will each serve a minimum of 40 years.Change to: Four Muslim militants who plotted to kill dozens of people on London's public transport network will each serve a minimum of 40 years.I would still prefer to say just militants and later mention they were Muslim by faith but I guess that will not find takers at all.
Where words are not so much in question, it is our almost unwitting slanting of stories, our simplistic dissection of the issue. Day after day, I see stories that say so-and-so, though he plotted to kill, prayed five times a day. Oh and would you believe, the mullahs say so-and-so's father was a devout Muslim who gave away alms as a matter of principle. And his mother wears a veil though she's not known to subscribe to subversive ideology. Where is the dichotomy? Even if I can understand a Western gawky-eyed perception of such issues, why are we acting like reading namaaz, visiting a mosque or breaking the Ramzan fast is a matter of exotica? The Muslim in a lace cap is very photogenic but must we single it out as an attention-seeking element everytime there's a story that requires a visual element? (I am not even going into the thoroughly irresponsible or plain dumb captions).
PS: An almost similar angst is building over the overuse of the word Dalit. I understand empowerment, I understand mainstreaming, I understand vote politics. What I don't understand is how does it matter if a minor getting raped in a city is a Dalit or not? If she was say, raped by an upper caste zamindar, without recourse to justice, I understand. But you can't just improve the visibility of a crime by tagging Dalit because it suits popular imagination. Or can you?