Dualisms in Jihad

Abstract

This paper explores how metaphors are employed in jihadist magazines to promote a dichotomist worldview of ‘us’ versus ‘them’, ‘good’ versus ‘bad’, ‘east’ versus ‘west’ and ‘right’ versus ‘wrong’. It argues that juxtapositions in both language and thought help writers to reaffirm and/or challenge certain paradigms. The approach uses critical metaphor analysis (Charteris-Black 2004) to investigate qualitative evidence of conceptual metaphors, focusing on the domains life is a seed, conflict is a relationship between predator and prey, and faith is light/lack of faith is darkness. Dichotomous language in these domains (e.g., ‘seed’ versus ‘weed’; ‘sheep’ versus ‘wolves’; the ‘spark of Jihad’ versus the ‘shadow’ of Western governments) helps to position extremist groups on the right side of a number of paradigms. The use of binary metaphors also permits simultaneously conflicting conceptualisations; for instance, jihadists are both innocent victims and merciless defenders of their faith, depending on with whom or what they are juxtaposed. The research concludes that the use of binary metaphors serves to underscore entrenched paradigms of ‘good’ versus ‘bad’, thus allowing the writers to frame their discourse in a way that justifies and promotes their extremist agenda.

Pragmatic linguistic analysis of the videos by terrorists of the Barcelona and Cambrils attacks

“…Qualitative studies have found that different forms of jihadist discourse include features like merging group and individual identities (Rothenberger et al, 2016); tailoring content to the addressees' perceived gender, as well as perpetuating a differentiation of the social roles of each gender (Johnston, Iqbal & True, 2020; see also Bermingham et al, 2009 on gender differences in radicalized individuals online); a polarized worldview in which agents are ascribed to opposing parties, such as 'good ' or 'bad', 'us' or 'them' (El-Nashar & Nayef, 2019;Etaywe & Zappavigna, 2021;Patterson, 2022); elements that convey negative polarity and explicit judgment in relation to the authors' religious and moral standards (Etaywe & Zappavigna, 2021); legitimizing violence by drawing on moral principles (i.e., a particular understanding of the Islamic religion; Rothenberger et al, 2016;El-Nashar & Nayef, 2019;Etaywe & Zappavigna, 2021); and presenting the Muslim community as a victim of the 'West' (cf. Lorenzo-Dus & Macdonald, 2018;Lorenzo-Dus, Kinzel & Walker, 2018), as a key element of a narrative that may lead radicalized individuals to take on the role of 'righter of wrongs' (Renaut, 2019;cf.…”