Sam asks whether terms like 'Islamic terrorist', 'Islamofascist' or 'Islamist' can be replaced by "culturally sensitive" alternatives.
I think they can, but first of all let me say why I think they should be:
The terms 'Islamist' and 'Islamism' are unhelpful and confusing to most people. It is by no means obvious why the suffix '-ic' should apply to the religion, while the suffix '-ist' should apply to a violent political movement that takes the religion as its inspiration. I'd guess that most people are unsure or unaware of the distinction between the two. As a result, condemnation of 'Islamists' and 'Islamism' could well sound like a condemnation of Islam itself.
As it happens, 'Islamism' was once in common use as a name for Islam, and to this day we still use the '-ism' suffix for many other religions including Buddhism and Hinduism. I wonder what we would call a terrorist who claimed Buddhism as an inspiration – a Buddhistist?
So, on all sorts of levels, this is a flawed terminology and it should be dropped.
The same goes for 'Islamofascism', but for different reasons. Fascism should be used as a specific term for a specific ideology. It makes no more sense to speak of 'Islamofascism' than 'Islamocommunism'. 'Islamototalitarianism' might be a better term if it weren't for the excess syllables, but, in any case, I don't think it helps to incorporate the word 'Islam' into the word we're looking for. Clearly, we cannot conceal the fact that the phenomenon in question is one that involves self-declared Muslims, but we should focus on the accurate labelling – and, hence, the isolation – of a political programme rather than a worldwide religion.
Thus instead of 'Islamists', I think it is better to talk about 'Muslim supremacists', as that is exactly what they are. There is a precedent here in the term 'white supremacist', which makes clear that the problem is not with being white, but in the belief that white people should have supremacy over people of other races. The use of the term 'Muslim supremacist' would also describe the nature of the problem concisely and precisely, while simulateously validating the idea of political equality between individuals of all faiths and none.