What happened in Belgium this week is a tragedy, and I understand the frustrations and anger being felt worldover on this issue. I don’t understand enough to offer tremendous insight into these situations — but what I do know is that terminology matters here.

Please, don’t use the word “Islamic” in describing these attackers. Whether or not that term is accurate doesn’t matter any more than their genders or their hair color. There is a better word to describe them, and a best word to describe them.

The better term is “Islamist,” and the difference between “Islamic” and “Islamist” is the same as the difference between “Jewish” and “Zionist.” One refers to a religion, the other to a religiously motivated political belief. But even this term “Islamist” is not the best word to use here because it stereotypes millions of Islamists as militarists, which they are not.

The best term I can think of for these attacks is Radical Jihadist. Not Jihadists: that is a difficult term to use because of its multiple interpretations. A friend who practices Islam recently recently told me that, as Jihad had been taught to him, waking up for an early morning class can be a Jihad: A personal struggle of great importance. Jihad has multiple interpretations, but when I say Radical Jihad and Radical Jihadist, I hope it is clear what I am referring to: Individuals seeking to spread Islamism through war and violence.

We are not at war with Islam, we are not at war with Muslims — We are at war with a twisted group of individuals who will use any tool at their disposal to facilitate the end goal: A global, theocratic, Islamist state. Let’s not make their job easier by claiming that practitioners or Islam, or even non-violent political Islamists, are a part of the problem.