curious usage note

[Jonathan Lighter]

_New Oxford American Dictionary_ (2005):

"Jihadist...There doesn't seem to be a pressing need for this
English-friendly form since the Arabic term for a holy warrior, _mujahid_,
has already made it into English. in the plural forms (_mujahideen,
mujahedin_) along with _jihadi_, a form more in keeping with Arabic
morphology."

Weird, eh? Like being "English-friendly" could be a drawback, esp.
in contrast with a harder-to-spell-and-remember foreign word like "mujahid "
(my keyboard doesn't want me to include the diacritic over the "a.")

But what of this?:

"..._Jihadist_, however, is the preferred form for all writers who are
vehemently anti-Arab or anti-Islam."

Is this true? Do I even detect sarcasm? Doesn't the note imply that the use
of "jihadist" is an identifying mark of the racist and/or religious bigot?

On what basis specifically?

JL
--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org