The Archbishop of Canterbury honed his negotiating skills by successfully inaugurating talks with terrorist predecessors to Boko Haram in Nigeria. This would have set him up nicely for his discussions with the warring factions in the Church of England over women bishops and sexuality. Justin Welby says Boko Haram are “irrational” but  “many-layered” and that some layers might be a little more amenable to talks than others. I have no idea whether he is right about this, but perhaps it’s worth a try if it increases the likelihood that the captive girls might be released.

But I would not describe the terrorist group as “irrational.” They are perfectly rational according to their own lights: and these lights – the lights of experience – have told them that terrorism works. A more accurate description would be “evil.” Unfortunately, that word is not often to be found on the lips of senior churchmen these days who tend to be Enlightenment Progressives and the only sins they recognise are Islamophobia, Homophobia and In equality. All this is well-known and I won’t harp on it. But I do have a question:

The whole of the mass-media refers to this terrorist group (and other such groups) as “Islamist.” What I should like to know, please, is whether there is any connection at all between being “Islamist” and being a devotee of the Muslim ideology? The usual answer given is “Of course not: these terrorists are not representative of Islam which is a noble religion of peace and love.”

Really? Well, if that is the case, then what practical – and, as the Archbishop might say, rational – purpose is served by the neologism “Islamist”? It appears to be meaningless. Or is it being used as a way which helps us not to notice that the members of these terrorist groups are, in fact, Muslims?