The term Islamist militant is a misnomer. It was coined in the West and portrays Islam to be linked to terrorism and violence, aimed at tarnishing the image and presenting Islam as a barbaric religion. On the other hand, the terms Christian, Jewish or Hindu militants have never been used. This duplicity leads Islam to be portrayed negatively even in the minds of neutral observers. Lets briefly examine the causes of this linkage. Wikipedia defines Islamic terrorism as the common term for violence rooted in Islamic fundamentalism, and aimed at defending, or even promoting, Islamic culture, society, and values in opposition to the political, allegedly imperialistic, and cultural influences of non-Muslims, and the Western world in particular (Dar al-Harb). It elaborates that political dimensions to the ideology, specifically the history of Western influence and control after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, is the common stated reason used within the ideology to justify and explain its use of violence as resistive and retributive against Western, non-Muslim imperialism and political influence. Wikipedia quotes examples of Islamic terrorist acts as hijacking airliners, kidnapping, assassination, suicide bombing, and mass murder. The most prominent act attributed to Islamic terrorism is the hijacking of commercial passenger airliners and their use in the destruction of the World Trade Centre which claimed 2,998 lives leading the US to declare a war on terrorism. This explanation squarely blames Islam as a religion and needs to be refuted logically. Ordinary Muslims who have nothing to do with militancy or terrorism find it reprehensible because it forces upon them a label simply because they, too, are believers of Islam. In fact, the common Muslim believes that he is being turned into a racial hate target by using the word Islam with militancy. Islam as a religion neither encourages militancy nor condones terrorism. The perpetrators of militancy and extremism may be committing their acts of terror in the name of Islam, but are misusing the garb of Islam to justify their deeds. Modern Muslim scholars Jamal R Nassar, (Globalisation and Terrorism: The Migration of Dreams and Nightmares), and Karim H Karim, (Islamic Peril: Media and Global Violence) contend that because there are over a billion adherents of Islam, the phenomenon describes political ideologies rooted in interpretations of Islam. In this vein, describing terrorism as Islamic may confirm a prejudicial perspective of all things Islamic. Karen Armstrong, author of Muhammad: A Prophet for our Time, in her article The label of Catholic terror was never used about the IRA, infers: Fundamentalism is often a form of nationalism in religious disguise, and that using the phrase terrorism is dangerously counterproductive, as it suggests those in the West believe that such atrocities are caused by Islam, and hence reinforces the viewpoint of some in the Muslim world that the West is an implacable enemy. Armstrong also believes that the terrorists in no way represent mainstream Islam. Islam indeed has nothing to do with terrorism and it is only certain misguided souls, who spread violence in the name of Islam. Qurnic verse (Al-Midah) ordains: If anyone slew a person, (whether Muslim or not), it would be as if he slew the whole mankind. However, some western commentators claim that Islamist militancy is inspired by numerous Qurnic verses which preach Jihad against non-Muslims. They quote Qurnic verses out of context to further their argument. An oft quoted verse is (Al- Anfl: 60): Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies. This must be read in the total milieu. The Holy Qurn ordains Muslims to exhort disbelievers to enter the fold of Islam. This exhortation is not to be implemented through coercion or use of force but by reasoning, and personal examples of good conduct. In case the non-Muslims opt for practicing their own faith, their wishes must be respected and they should be facilitated in following their religion, faith or creed without hindrances. It is only if they make mischief and plot or machinate against Islam, Jihad is permissible. It must also be clear that any individual or group does not carry the authority to declare Jihad against non-Muslims. It is only the government that has the final word in declaring Jihad and that too if all implications for peace have been exhausted. Criticism of terrorism on Islamic grounds has also been made by Muslim scholars such as Abdal-Hakim Murad, in his publication: Bin Ladens violence is heresy against Islam. He declares: Certainly, neither bin Laden nor his principal associate, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are graduates of Islamic universities. And so their proclamations ignore 14 centuries of Muslim scholarship, and instead take the form of lists of anti-American grievances and of Koranic quotations referring to early Muslim wars against Arab idolaters. These are followed by the conclusion that all Americans, civilian and military, are to be wiped off the face of the Earth. All this amounts to an odd and extreme violation of the normal methods of Islamic scholarship. Had the authors of such fatws followed the norms of their religion, they would have had to acknowledge that no school of mainstream Islam allows the targeting of civilians. An insurrectionist who kills non-combatants is guilty of baghy, armed aggression, a capital offense in Islamic law. The phenomenon of suicide bombers though in constant use now, did not originate in the Islamic world. It was first practiced by Sri Lankan rebels, the Tamil Tigers, in style of Japanese Kamikaze pilots during the Second World War. It has not been preached or permitted by any Islamic scholar of repute except in the state of war, which is not an individuals prerogative. Islamic militancy is a malicious term and its usage by the media or governments must be discontinued while such terms must be disassociated from Islam. The writer is a political and defence analyst.