"The State Department has issued a memo to all its employees cautioning them against using Islamic references whenever condemning terrorist attacks. The Department of Homeland Security has also advised its employees to avoid those same mistakes." -- from this NPR article by Jamie Tarabay
Note that Jamie Tarabay does not report; he editorializes. He tells listeners to NPR that DHS has advised its employees "to avoid those same mistakes." Those "mistakes." What "mistakes"? Oh, the "mistakes" of "using Islamic references whenever condemning terrorist attacks.
Jamie Tarabay had no need to endorse, slyly, this policy. He had only to report on it. That was his job. That was his proper function. He could have reported, accurately, that:
"The State Department has issued a memo to all its employees cautioning them against using Islamic references whenever condemning terrorist attacks. The Department of Homeland Security has also advised its employees to do the same."
That's one point.
There is another. Jamie Tarabay might have given some air time -- he might conceivably have acknowledged the existence of -- critics of this policy. These critics are not foaming-at-the-mouth "islamophobes" but include perfectly sane people. Among those people are all of the defectors from Islam, the charming, highly intelligent, perfectly articulate apostates such as Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq. Why not ask them what they think of the policy of "taking the Islam" out of Islamic terrorism?
Why not interview -- why not recognize the very existence of the work -- of Bat Ye'or, and her studies of non-Muslims under Muslim rule? Why not mention, even mention, the work, and the threats under which that work must be done, by Magdi Allam, a former Muslim who is one of the most important journalists in Italy? Why not describe the changing mood in the countries of Western Europe, where alone among all immigrant groups, Muslims have presented a problem that is apparently unsusceptible of solution, and have behaved in aggressive ways, attempting to change the institutions, legal and political and social, of the Infidel lands into which they have been admitted? Why not point out, further, that the same problem is experienced by Infidels in small countries as in large? Why not point out that Infidels have the same problem in countries that have made a state religion out of easygoing tolerance, such as Denmark and The Netherlands, perhaps even more than in countries historically less given to such behavior, such as Spain and Germany?
Why not?
And why not point out that since 9/11/2001, American government officials have failed to educate, to instruct, the public in the nature of the threat that comes from the texts and tenets of Islam? Even before these insidious State Department and Department of Homeland Security directives, the President set the tone when he fell all over himself praising Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance and so on, when he knew nothing about Islam, and was listening to an adviser -- an Ohio professor who also knew nothing about Islam -- and presumed to tell the public what he, what that professor, what Prince Bandar, what the Arab League, what the rulers of Saudi Arabia, what CAIR, all wanted that American public to hear.
The news, the daily Jihad news, the stuff you find covered in deliberately desultory fashion, and then only reported, laconically, without any sense being made of it, or any attempt to connect the dots, nonetheless does come through. And it comes through not only on the evening news and the increasingly irrelevant newspapers, but on the Internet. And therefore many have decided, slowly, to inform themselves about Islam, because the reality based on that daily Jihad News From All Over became too overwhelming. Such people have replaced the Potemkin village of Islam that the Administration had hastily jerrybuilt, and had to constantly plug leaks in the various roofs, and fix the plumbing, and go back for rewiring. They have replaced it with something that made sense, that both explained the data -- the accumulating news, from southern Thailand to southern Sudan, from Madrid and Amsterdam and London and Beslan, from here and there and everywhere -- and also had predictive value.
The worst thing, and the main thing, about the policy of deliberately misinforming the American public -- so as not "to offend" Muslims -- is that a decision has been made to keep misinforming the public, to keep them in the dark, to not give them the information they need, or even hint at it, but to actively work to suppress their ability to make sense of men and events. Yet this is an ability they will need if they are to properly judge the rightness of a policy or a response. How can one make a judgment about continued aid to Pakistan, or about what intelligently would constitute "victory" in Iraq, or about what are the main threats to the West, and what are the main instruments of Jihad, if Jihad is not to be discussed, much less to be correctly defined as Muslims have always understood that word, and if the instruments of Jihad other than terrorism -- the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest -- are simply ignored?
It's worse than the blind leading the blind. It's the willfully blind leading the blind. They don't dare to let certain things be known because they have no idea what to do if those things become known. They lack the imagination to figure out what policies might work to weaken the Camp of Islam and Jihad (that is, weaken it not only militarily, but also in its morale, in the unity of the Umma, such as it is, in its appeal both to Infidel targets of Da'wa and to Muslims themselves). The exploitation of pre-existing fissures, sectarian and ethnic and economic, within the Umma, appears to be simply beyond the ken, beyond the imaginings, of our bushes and rices and all the rest of them, in the party in power and in the party that wants to replace them in power.
And no one dares to say, or even think along the lines of spreading the understanding among Infidels, or at least of doing nothing to prevent the spread of such understanding, that the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Muslim peoples and polities is a result not of anything Infidels have done, but of Islam itself.
That statement is true, and it can be developed. It has been developed, for others to run with if they choose, at this website many times.
But the Administration wishes to keep the people it has a duty to instruct and protect from learning, from learning the very things they most need to know, if they are to choose leaders and support polices that make sense, and oppose those that do not -- and be able to explain, intelligently, what is wrong with those policies.
Instead, the Administration has chosen, over the people of the United States, assorted Muslims pashas and beglerbegs, and the potentates of the O.I.C. and the Arab League. It has proleptically put in place a policy that insures continued confusion among civilians, and continued demoralization of the military. For the soldiers know -- those who have been to Iraq and to Afghanistan -- not everything, but a good deal, about how Muslims behave and think. And one source of low morale is the gap between what the soldiers realize, and what they are told, or what they are prevented from learning.
This is a nightmare.
And NPR, and Jamie Tarabay, have done nothing to relieve the nightmare, nothing to fulfill their reporting function properly, and nothing to encourage intelligent debate that would soon enough, if the right guests were invited on, make clear who was making sense, who had a grasp of matters at hand, and who did not.
The critics of the policy are many and varied...and journalism 101 demanded mention of them if the article were in any way to be presented in an unbiased manner. But we're talking about NPR.
Is NPR alone in not giving a voice to the opposition of this policy?
[I'm not saying don't criticize NPR]
"After breaking from the group, Hamid has become an outspoken critic of Islamic fundamentalism. He says some Islamic legal books still continue to define "jihad" in its most violent contexts.
"When these books change the meaning of jihad into a pure and peaceful meaning and stop the other violent ones, then and only then the Western countries should say jihad is only peaceful," Hamid says.
"
Hugh, maybs you need to read a little closer?
"When these books change the meaning of jihad into a pure and peaceful meaning and stop the other violent ones, then and only then the Western countries should say jihad is only peaceful," Hamid says.
The problem is that doing this removes the entire rationale for the existence of Islam. As the only religion that relies on "holy war" to spread itself, "jihad" in the violent sense is its source of market differentiation in the "marketplace of ideas". Nothing else in Islam is original enough or sublime enough to justify calling it a real revelation from God, nor is it logical enough to justify itself to reason. Remove violent jihad and you remove the incentive to become or remain a Muslim. Islam is a base religion for base men. Remove violent jihad and base men will lack a religion to flock to and the base men who are slightly more intelligent than the average base man will lack a religion to preach. Ergo, it ain't gonna happen and policy should be set based on the assumption that it ain't gonna happen.
It used to be called "yellow journalism". Now, it's called "the news".
JW posting of article by Tawfik Hamid:
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/021098.php
Silly venividvici. They can still rape, beat and denigrate women, commit pederasty, stone adulterers, amputate extremities, cut off heads, honor kill, etc. It's not just about jihad.
Silly venividvici. They can still rape, beat and denigrate women, commit pederasty, stone adulterers, amputate extremities, cut off heads, honor kill, etc. It's not just about jihad.
True, there are other aspects of Islam that appeal to the typical base man out there, but without violent jihad against the infidel, the typical Muslim "civilization" would lack an economic base. They got lucky and sit on a lot of oil, but if it hadn't been for that, I wouldn't be surprised if Islam wouldn't have already ceased to exist, precisely because it lacks any of the tools to compete in the modern age. I believe there were scholars back in the days just prior to the discovery of oil who thought that was Islam's likely fate in the near future.
My thought is that the sooner Islam is gone, the sooner the future that Westerners have thought about since the eradication or pacification of our indigenous aristocratic class can arrive. So long as there are one billion plus maniacs running around believing in Allah, the world is always in danger of regressing to a more primitive state.
Hugh:
NPR is no different than the New Duranty Times (thanks for coming up with that phrase by the way--absolutely love it). Yes, the level of vocabulary is often higher, but otherwise is the radio equivalent of what you use to line a bird cage.
The turning of the tide will be when NPR does a story re: an honor killing in the US. When that happens, it will be a sign that the public is mobilized in a way that government and the chattering classes cannot ignore. Until then, what is good for the jihadists is the correct policy according to NPR, and what is bad for the jihadists is a mistake.
IMO whats occurring at the State Dept, DHS and NPR points to a systematic attempt to silence debate about the Muslim problem we face here in the west.
Much the same way the MSM has refused to look into all the radical associations of Obama including his endorsements by Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran and North Korea. And it and the gov'ts refusal to investigate all the overseas donations that Obama is getting - the under $199.00 that receive no scrutiny whatsoever.
Or notice how the term Muslim has almost vanished from the MSM with the exception of FoxNews?
Why?
Arab money thats why. Remember a few months back when some major financial houses needed a massive cash infusion to stop them from going under. Well the white knight was a Arab Sovereign Wealth. And since several other Arab Sovereign wealth funds have been pumping billions into Wall Street to keep it from imploding.
And I bet there was a price for their "investments" - that being putting the kibosh on reporting anything Muslim.
Just a guess though.
Some people here claim how biased this article is so I went and read it closely. Then I posted a quote in the article which contradicted the claim about the article but the same people kept ignoring it making the usual claims. Maybe the likes of Mr. Sobieski, et al should practise some reading comprehension skills before parroting the usual banal slew of cliches and generalizations.
MorrisMinor:
A one sentence quote does not a proclamation of truth make.
When NPR does a report with that one sentence quote as its THEME, MEME, etc. I will whole heartedly endorse NPR as a source for information.
Context. Context. Context.
Even the New Duranty Times published an occasional negative article about Stalin's USSR.
Then I posted a quote in the article which contradicted the claim about the article but the same people kept ignoring it making the usual claims.
Posted by: MorrisMinor
Let's see. Hugh, Cornelius and Vince were ahead of your 11:43 post, and have not posted since.
"usual claims"
"usual banal slew"
Been reading a lot of commentaries on this article, have you? I agree, Hugh's selective ignoring of Tawfik Hamid's comments within the article was unfortunate, but he is competent to defend himself. (Personally, I found his use of the term "desultory" implied a variability unseen; I would have used "lockstep").
I think the main, most interesting observation on this article should be:
NPR SUPPORTS STATE DEPARTMENT POLICY!! WTF!!
Perhaps you could explain to us, Morris, why they choose this particular issue to indulge the administration; also, please explain your perceived errors in Mr. Sobieski's comment:
MorrisMinor:
Lets conduct an analysis of the article in terms of emphasis.
The portions of the article that actually serve to shed light on Jihad are as follows:
"But there are critics [ONLY ONE IS MENTIONED] of the change in policy.
Author Tawfik Hamid was once a member of Egypt's Jemaah Islamiyah, which is considered [CONSIDERED? MORE HEDGE LANGUAGE] a terrorist organization by the U.S. and other governments.
After breaking from the group, Hamid has become an outspoken critic of Islamic fundamentalism. He says some Islamic legal books [LIKE THE KORAN?]still continue to define "jihad" in its most violent contexts.
"When these books change the meaning of jihad into a pure and peaceful meaning and stop the other violent ones, then and only then the Western countries should say jihad is only peaceful," Hamid says."
Note that the article only quotes one person--what happened to critic(S)?
Note that the books being referenced but not mentioned are the Koran itself, the Hadiths, etc.
So even in its helpfulness, the article covers the meaning of what is being said by the "critic" and is otherwise filled with hedge langauge.
Now, look at the unhelpful "brush under the rug portions" that we come to know and expect from NPR:
"Meanwhile, there are other Muslims [HOW MANY? WHAT ORGANIZATIONS IN THE US REPRESENT SUCH A VIEWPOINT?]who are trying to show that jihad can be peaceful [WHAT HOLY BOOKS TO THEY POINT TO?].
Filmmaker Pervez Sharma is an Indian who spent six years traveling to 12 different countries documenting gay and lesbian Muslims. He called his film A Jihad for Love [CAN THIS BE THE BEST EXAMPLE OF THE WORD "OUTLIER" IN THE HISTORY OF LANGUAGE?].
"For me, it's a really powerful tool, if you will, and a very conscious and deliberate political tool to take that word back and apply it in the context of Islam's most unlikely storytellers, which are gay and lesbian Muslims," Sharma says.
He considers jihad a Muslim's internal struggle to become a better person [NOTE NO TEXTUAL AUTHORITY IS CITED--DID THEY EVEN LOOK FOR AN ABROGATED VERSE IN THE KORAN?].
And then there's Ani Zonneveld, a singer/songwriter based in California. Zonneveld, who's also head of a group called Muslims for Progressive Values {HOW MANY MEMBERS? WHAT IS THEIR POSITION ON CAIR?], says she realized just how entrenched the idea of jihad equaling violence was when she watched a recent episode of the show Desperate Housewives. In it, housewife Lynette (played by Felicity Huffman) is in her yard, trying to root out a possum with a pellet gun. Her husband is horrified, saying to her "You've declared jihad on a possum!" [SO JIHAD IS JUST VIOLENCE IN GENERAL, NOT RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED VIOLENCE--MORE WHITE WASH]
Zonneveld said she laughed at first. "It was like, 'Oh great, if Hollywood takes that meaning in the sense of violence, it's just about over. It's game over,'" she says. But Zonneveld says she'll keep pushing to break stereotypes through her music. [HOW ABOUT MENTIONING THAT OVER 90% OF THE REFERENCES TO JIHAD IN THE KORAN ARE IN A CONTEXT OF VIOLENCE?]
One of her songs, called "Ummah Wake Up," is about encouraging the Muslim community to stand up and use jihad to do the right thing [THE RIGHT THING ACCORDING TO WHICH TEXT?]. She says when she performs the song at mixed-faith gatherings, the reaction isn't always enthusiastic.
"People cringe," she says. "I can see that when they're sitting down. But once they start singing, they clap along and sing along."
She says she'll keep singing her songs until there is less cringing and more clapping."
BOTTOM LINE: Using your analytical framework, I can take a baseball bat and bash your skull, but if between blows, I compliment you on something, my interactions with you are kind.
In an inkblot test, focusing on only a small part of the inkblot is not a good sign of mental health.
I am not accusing you of being mentally unhealthy. I am accussing you of trying so hard to re-interpret the general impression of the article that you are twisting context and proportion in ways that are not rational.
The article cites three highly unusual "Jihad can mean love" Muslims and gives each of them more time and space then the one "Jihad means violence in the text" former Jihadist.
Fair and balanced? I think not. Plus, the US government position is the same as the 3 Muslim unicorns.
So you have one quote from a former Jihadist on one side, and several paragraphs relating to the policy of the U.S. government and the purely annecdotal stories of three unicorns on the other.
This is your idea of an article meaning the OPPOSITE of what Hugh said?
MorrisMinor:
In summary, it is you who needs to work on reading comprehension. Reading one sentence from an article and concluding that it is the theme of the article is neither good reading comprehension nor sound logic.
JSobieski,
The probability that MorrisMinor is actually interested in "reading comprehension" and not "continuing obfuscation" is the exact same as the probability that Laetitia Casta is going to show up at my house tonight lookin' for love. Zero.
The fact is, as you point out, any "text" that doesn't make clear that 97% of all references to jihad in the "Muslim trilogy" are to violent jihad is a "text" that obfuscates. If "peaceful" Muslims don't like that message, here's a tip: Nothing in the universe ordains that you remain Muslims and certainly by now research has shown that your prophet was a charlatan. Name me one law of physics or nature that requires you to remain with the fold of a religion that is essentially a monotheistic, and hence even more boring than the original polytheistic, version of Spartanism?
I think arguing over whether Jihad is peaceful or violent misses the point, which is that UBL loves being called a Mujahid. When we call him that, whether it fits or not, gives him legitimacy that he does not deserve in the eyes of those we want to influence. He doens't give a rats a__ what we call him, and we don't want to influence him -- we want to kill him and his ilk. But the Muslim masses that we want to engage should not hear us calling him a Mujahid. They should hear us call him by his rightful title, Irhabi, terrorist.
If calling Usama/Osama a Mujahid gives him "legitimacy", then that source of that "legitimacy" is in question. If we do not call him a Mujahid, how does that effect how the Ummah regards him? Do they take their ques from the State Department and DHS?
I think YOU are missing the point. Osama is only PART of a MUCH larger problem, which is the LEGITIMACY of JIHAD itself. Playing lexical political games will not solve that problem, and it will substantially hinder logical threat assessment of Mujahids and Political Islam.