Venomous Islamophobes who link Islam with violence
In Human Events today I discuss more obfuscation from Islamic apologists and their allies about the connection between Islam and terrorism.
Last week, a reporter of the Kuwait News Agency accused Sen. John McCain and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee of “linking Islam with terrorism as a tool to scare up support among US voters, an election style experts describe as ‘shameful.” But in her story, Heather Yamour invokes only one “expert” -- a Far-Left professor.Shameful style? Yes, if measured by Islamic standards and not those of American politics and free speech. Last Monday it was reported that the British government has drawn up a new handbook for government officials that forbids them to use phrases like “Islamist extremism” or “jihadi-fundamentalist” -- instead, police and others must refer to “violent extremism” and “criminal murderers or thugs,” so as to avoid giving the impression that anything Islamic is involved in, er, Islamic terrorism.
But over on this side of the pond, some of the presidential candidates haven’t gotten the message. They somehow still think their First Amendment rights exist.
Mitt Romney has referred to “jihadism” and “violent, radical Islamic fundamentalism” as “this century’s nightmare,” and has warned that the jihadists want to “unite the world under a single Jihadist caliphate.” Yamour took exception to Mike Huckabee’s (“an ordained Baptist minister”!) statement that Islamo-fascism was “the greatest threat this country has ever faced.” She even bristled at John McCain’s declaration that “I’m not interested in trading with Al-Qaeda.” Apparently the PC police, eager as they are to accommodate easily wounded Muslim sensibilities, will soon have us referring to Osama bin Laden’s network as the “anti-Islamic group,” in the spirit of UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s recent designation of, uh, Islamic terrorism as “anti-Islamic.”So why would Romney, Huckabee and McCain buck “expert” opinion on this? Are they that desperate for votes, that they would recklessly demonize an entire innocent population? Yamour thinks so: Republicans, she fulminates, are “fiercely attacking Islam as a religion interwoven with terrorism,” and are “targeting evangelical churches and conservative Americans seeking to preserve the strict Christian faith in the government and fear the possibility that the future president may open the door wider for Muslims to enter mainstream society.”
Horror of horrors! But it’s worth asking: where did the candidates get this idea in the first place? Where could these desperate, cynical men have gotten the idea that Islam had anything to do with terrorism? Let’s see. Could it have been from Osama bin Laden, who has praised Allah for the Qur’an’s “Verse of the Sword” (9:5), which instructs Muslims to “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”? Or maybe it was from Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, who once thundered: “Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you!...There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”
Maybe it was from the British Muslim Omar Brooks, who said in 2005 that it was imperative for Muslims to “instill terror into the hearts of the kuffar” and added: “I am a terrorist. As a Muslim of course I am a terrorist.” Or maybe it was from the Qur’an itself, which tells Muslims to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (8:60). Maybe it was from the perpetrators of the 10,000-plus terror attacks committed in the name of Islam since 9/11.
But for the Leftist professor Juan Cole, none of that is relevant. He says that to suggest a connection between Islam and terrorism is not just “shameful,” but “alarming,” because, says Yamour, “it presumes the essence of Islam and generalized Muslims, all 1.5 billion of them, as being related to terrorism.” Cole explains: “There are Muslim, Christian, and other terrorists. But the term ‘Islamic terrorist’ suggests there is something about Islam…If you put two things together in one word like ‘Islamo-fascism’ it implies that Islam is essentially fascist, but nobody talks about Christo-fascism, as they shouldn’t.”
What’s shameful and alarming is that Juan Cole peddles this sort of thinking and anyone takes him seriously. The quotes from Osama and Khomeini above illustrate that many Muslims around the world believe that there is “something about Islam.” And the term “Islamic terrorism” doesn’t suggest that “Muslims, all 1.5 billion of them” are “related to terrorism” any more than the term “Italian fascist” suggests that all Italians are fascists, or than the European designation “Christian Democrat” suggests that no Christians are monarchists. Cole’s implication here is contradicted by simple English usage and every compound term that has ever been used since the beginning of time. Try it at home, kids! Try to think of any compound term that implies that everyone in the first part of the term is part of the second part. Green coffee mugs: does that imply that all coffee mugs are green? Nope. Cute babies -- all babies are cute? Sorry. Clear-thinking professors -- all professors are clear thinking? Well, Juan Cole is a professor.
“Islamo-” in “Islamo-fascism” is a simple modifier referring to the fact that those terrorists are operating, by their own account, in the name of Islam and in accord with Islamic teachings. They are, after all, the ones who destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11, and have wrought so much havoc around the world. If the people who were doing these things were Christians who quoted the Bible to justify their acts of violence, it would be perfectly legitimate to call them Christian terrorists. But they are Muslims who quote the Qur’an to justify their acts of violence, and it is therefore perfectly legitimate for the presidential candidates -- and everyone else -- to call them Islamic terrorists.
I love my First Amendment. Thank You, Forefathers.
Let me add:
And I hate Islam, Mohammed, Koran.
Yep, I can say that! I can freely choose what I like, dislike, love, or hate. And say so.
McCain will say and do anything to tell us that he is not the Dodo Bird, the Cuckoo Bird, but is The Real Deal.
He is the weird stopped clock which can be right twice a day.
Who do you believe will understand the challenge of islam better, a beltway spotlight seeker or a person of some intellect and understanding ?
Here it is who is saying it and at what time in a campaign.
Like the conductor on a death train telling the passengers a made up story of the train's true destination.
McCain is a beltway shill trying to bribe the electorate with a convenient truth.
The truth is vital, but the messenger is Iago.
O, SHAME! Shame on you, ROBERT, you invidious Christian Supremacist! O, horrors! "Seeking to preserve in the government the strict Christian faith"? Refusing to "open the door wider to" oppressed, victimised "Muslims to enter mainstream society"?
Just WHAT kind of America is this, anyway? Yeah, we gotta do away with our religious government and our religious policing of faith and morals. Yeah, we gotta liberate those poor, huddled, wretched masses of opressed Muslims yearning to be free! Yeah, we gotta be more like--Kuwait!!
And the term “Islamic terrorism” doesn’t suggest that “Muslims, all 1.5 billion of them” are “related to terrorism” any more than the term “Italian fascist” suggests that all Italians are fascists, or than the European designation “Christian Democrat” suggests that no Christians are monarchists. Cole’s implication here is contradicted by simple English usage and every compound term that has ever been used since the beginning of time. Try it at home, kids! Try to think of any compound term that implies that everyone in the first part of the term is part of the second part. Green coffee mugs: does that imply that all coffee mugs are green? Nope. Cute babies -- all babies are cute? Sorry. Clear-thinking professors -- all professors are clear thinking? Well, Juan Cole is a professor.
“Islamo-” in “Islamo-fascism” is a simple modifier referring to the fact that those terrorists are operating, by their own account, in the name of Islam and in accord with Islamic teachings. They are, after all, the ones who destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11, and have wrought so much havoc around the world. If the people who were doing these things were Christians who quoted the Bible to justify their acts of violence, it would be perfectly legitimate to call them Christian terrorists. But they are Muslims who quote the Qur’an to justify their acts of violence, and it is therefore perfectly legitimate for the presidential candidates -- and everyone else -- to call them Islamic terrorists. --posted by RS
Brilliant. Committing these Spencerian passages to memory so as to be armed about "compound terms" in any future verbal skirmish with a PC MoonBat.
Just a reminder, make sure you vote if your state has an election today.
When I met Mike Huckabee at Dartmouth College in the Fall, I asked him, "What do you think is the main source that drives Islamic terrorism?"
He then proceeded to go on a rant about how "There is nothing violent in the Qur'an" and that "Islam is a 'religion of peace'." He went on to explain that American presence in the Middle East is probably the main reason as to why the West is attacked by radical islamists.
If I were Juan Cole or Heather Yamour, I would be praising this dhimmi! God help us if he or McCain are the Republican candidates. WAKE UP!!!!
I MUST take exception to the thugophobe attitude of the British Government. The followers of Kali have had their feelings hurt! where is that garotte?
sarcasm off
For those of you likely to vote in the Republican primary, and who have yet to make up your minds, I think it fair to suggest that you should not be considering two of the five possibilities pictured above. It's been a long and sometimes confusing primary season, I admit, but really...
Instead os “Islamist extremism” I propose: "Islam."
In lieu of “jihadi-fundamentalist” a simple "Muslim" will do.
Once again Mr. Spencer you thoroughly cover everything very well. The only thing I can add, and I know you and all your readers already know is the "clear thinking" part. Muslims swept up in a rage every day and especially after Friday night prayers do not think clearly. In fact they do not think at all, just act on their programmed brain washing.
Good day to all and Happy Mardi Gras!
What's interesting is that on February 1, Juan Cole, Heather Yamour's expert source, published a piece in the online magazine Salon on what appears to be the same subject as the Yemeni journalist.
In "Blowback from the GOP's Holy War" (the browser tab adds "Against Muslims" to the title), Cole claims that certain Republican candidates' use of "wild-eyed," "demonizing" bigotry against Muslims is causing their failure in the polls. His primary example is Tancredo's hypothetical about returning a terrorist attack upon America with an attack upon Mecca and Medina -- a hypothetical I found pretty repugnant, too -- but then goes on to tar the use of the word "Islamofascism" (and some other barely-relevant statements) by other Republicans with the same "bigotry" brush. Why is what they are doing bad? Cole explains, in a somewhat mystifying paragraph, that:
""Islamic" has to do with the religion founded by the prophet Mohammed. We speak of Islamic ethics or Islamic art, as things that derive from the religion. "Muslim," on the contrary, describes the believer. It would be perfectly all right to talk about Muslim terrorists, but calling them Islamic terrorists or Islamic fascists implies that the religion of Islam is somehow essentially connected to those extremist movements."
In a promising development for the Salon commenters' thread on this article, not everybody bought Cole's thesis or his rather murky differentiation of "Islamic" vs. "Muslim."
As I don't have access to Yamour's article, it's hard to determine which came first, Yamour's chicken or Cole's egg.
Sorry, should have been "Kuwaiti," not "Yemeni" journalist above.
This just in...
Islam linked to terrorism!
Sun rises in the East!
The sky is blue!
I don't know who the two guys on the ends are, but the three in the middle are Larry, Curly and Mo.
Who said the Republican party was dead, it looks like the party is just starting...
Shemp and Curley Joe.
Hugh,
"For those of you likely to vote in the Republican primary, and who have yet to make up your minds, I think it fair to suggest that you should not be considering two of the five possibilities pictured above. It's been a long and sometimes confusing primary season, I admit, but really..."
LOL
At least we would hear the truth about islam...
Hobson's choice for us anti-Jihadis. #3!
To re-emphasise the point of Elric 66;
If you do vote today - and before you cast that vote - think of socialism - and what its leaders and perpetrators are currently doing in Western Europe!!. I know - I'm here!!!.
Fancy some of that at a Mosque near you???.
Stone Rose,
I dont fancy a mosque in the US. Since you are a Brit, maybe you could shed an insight into the mind of the average Brit. Are they on the same page as the "leadership"?
Unfortunately, the only one worth voting for was Tancredo.
Our spineless politicos, as those of decades ago, are repeating the same errors as their predecessors. By doing so, they are setting-up western-democracy for a catastrophic end, which need not be. Their wanton kowtowing to Islam, not unparalleled to the appeasement of Hitler in the ‘30’s, has handed the momentum to our present-day nemesis.
Therefore the death of western-democracy will not be, in total, by the heinous actions dealt out by Islam. It will, also in part, be by our own hands… a suicide, of sorts; solely because we, the west, are suffering from a self-inflicted disease; namely, political correctness.
Moreover, we hold ourselves hostage thanks to our own obsessive-compulsive-disorder and an illogical want to shoot ourselves in the head, not in the foot; the latter would give us a chance to, at least, survive.
This self-inflicted, coup de grace is a machination of madness perpetuated within the inner-sanctums of the elitist left. Then, it is distilled of any truth and reason; subsequently, disseminated and mainlined to the naïve or dumbed-down multitudes. The latter, whose dependence of truth via information has one, source the major cable and network news pipelines.
Elric 66;
It's a hard subject on which to try and explain, to those that aren't familiar with the ins, outs, and workings of the modern day U.K. - However I will have a stab; - So here goes.....
The U.K. is made up of four individual countries England - Scotland - Wales - & Northern Ireland, to this point I am sure you are aware.
This issue is often used by Scottish - Welsh - and Irish politicians to stir up nationalism against what is intrinsically their "Big Brother" of England. Therefore and straight away, - without any foreign influence, there are already divisions.
Over the last decade, this current Labour government - firstly under Blair - and now under Brown - have set out to widen these divisions even more, by introducing Scottish and Welsh assemblies that are able to introduce legislation's for their own countrymen that differ from what their English counterparts are forced to endure. To this point I must add that a vast amount of our current government over the last ten years were born in Scotland, giving rise to English allegations that they in fact have been doing nothing less than looking after their own.
This is born out by the fact that parts of both Scottish and Welsh law are now vastly superior to that of their English counterparts living on the same shores. Perhaps this could be thought of as divide and rule by our socialist elite.
So now to introduce immigrants into this equation, clouds the picture even more. Especially the issue of Muslim immigrants.
South Asian Muslims - Pakistani/bangladeshis were imported to our shores in the 1950s, when there was a shortage of workforce, in certain professions. These peoples it was assumed by our politicians at the time, would relocate to their places of birth at a latter date - perhaps voluntarily, but almost certainly, if their work in Britain should ever "run dry". This of course didn't happen, and so from the 1950s onward, Britain has had a rising Muslim population. (current estimate 2.5% of the total population).
What distorts this issue even further, is that Muslim enclaves are vast and engulfing in some parts of the country, yet in others, Muslims barely exist at all, so by revealing this one statistic alone, regionalized opinions of Islam and Islamists tend to differ to a huge degree.
In the North West of England, in places such as Manchester - Burnley - Bradford - Blackburn or Dewsbury, Muslim strongholds have had a dramatic effect on the culture and personalities of these towns, and therefore the indigenous populations are far more likely to by Islamophobes and sympathetic to the words of the B.N.P.(Fascist party). To this degree our Labour government are starting to lose their grip on their core votes of the White working class populations, that until now, they could always rely upon.
Go East, perhaps for 200 miles to the cities of Newcastle - Sunderland - Durham or York and Islam is not an issue. Muslim habitation of these areas is limited, to zero so to North East England, their view is polarised to a enormous degree to that of the North West. In this respect the working class of this particular area still vote, as they always have done, in support of the Labour party.
If I as a Brit, were to go out into the street and question the peoples of this Nation as to the effects of Islam in Britain, I would get a diluted and mixed response. Those whom had witnessed Muslim ghettos and enclaves first hand, would be far more clued up to the situation, compared with those who had not.
People in British society, certainly do not realise how seriously and zealously Muslims take their all engulfing religion.
We, as a Nation are in effect, "lapsed Christians", and with this in mind, religion means to the average Brit, little to nothing.
That, they assume, is how Muslims portray Islam.
When I reveal the true facts, they are both astonished and shaken, and their first response is; - "Why are we not informed of all of this?".
So there you are!! - the views of the average Brit on the subject of Islam is usually that of outright ignorance. Do they want to learn?. Do they want to oppose?. Perhaps with the vast majority of them, the answer is - Only when they have to!!.
Robert,
Your conservativism is showing.
That's a good thing.