| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
From Human Events:
In a new TV commercial, Mitt Romney utters one of television’s new forbidden words. “It’s this century’s nightmare: jihadism. Violent, radical Islamic fundamentalism,” he says. “Their goal is to unite the world under a single Jihadist caliphate. To do that, they must collapse freedom-loving nations like us.”The forbidden word? Jihadism. Romney says in the commercial that in response to this threat he’ll beef up America’s intelligence services, monitor Al-Qaeda’s calls into the U.S. (a clear reference to a controversial Patriot Act provision), strengthen the armed forces, and stop Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. None of these recommendations, however, are likely to arouse as much controversy as his use of that word. Romney has now grasped the third rail of the public discourse by using a word related to jihad in a clear reference to terrorism, and throwing in “Islamic fundamentalism” on top of that.For we all know and must always avow, you see, that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and that jihad is a spiritual struggle, a fight within the soul of the believer to conform his life to the will of God. It has nothing whatsoever to do with attacks like 9/11.
American Muslim advocacy groups have made it their business to call any American on the carpet who suggests that global jihad terrorism has anything to do with Islam, and the Left has played along willingly. On the "Hannity and Colmes" show Thursday night, the house liberal, Alan Colmes, took issue with the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, which begins October 22 on over one hundred campuses all over the country. Colmes said that many people found the term Islamo-Fascism “offensive,” and referred to the “inherent racism” of the phrase. Neither Islam nor Fascism is a race, but Colmes’s point was clear: he was objecting to the “equation of Islam with terrorism.” He and those who think like him are likely to look with no less a jaundiced eye on Romney’s “radical Islamic fundamentalism.”This denial prevails in Europe also. European Union guidelines direct governments not to use the word “Islamic” in conjunction with “terrorism,” and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown likewise directed his cabinet ministers to avoid using the word “Muslim” and “terrorism” together. Such initiatives proceed from the unexamined but nonetheless iron dogma that the terrorists are hijacking Islam, but the most uncomfortable fact they ignore is that Islam and terrorism weren’t equated by black-hearted non-Muslim “Islamophobes,” but by Muslims.
The only reason why anyone is ever tempted to speak about “Islamic terrorism” or “radical Islamic fundamentalism” or “jihadism” in the first place is that Osama bin Laden and other Muslims who share his ideology explain and justify their actions by making copious reference to the Qur’an and the example of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. They even gain recruits among peaceful Muslims by presenting themselves as the exponents of “pure Islam.”
Pretending that this is not happening is not going to make it go away. The only way the Islamic jihadists’ use of Islamic texts to incite violence can be ended is not by ignoring it, but by confronting it. The jihadists will continue to present themselves as the representatives of “pure Islam” until peaceful Muslims begin to oppose them in sufficient numbers -- and this will never happen as long as no one is even allowed to point out that there is a problem they, and we, need to deal with in the first place.
Mitt Romney deserves applause. All the presidential candidates should all be discussing the jihad -- the ideology of those who would destroy us. They should be doing so openly and freely, and what can and must be done about it -- so frequently that the use of the word “jihad” by one of them shouldn’t even be news at all. The fact that six years after 9/11 it is shocking when a presidential candidate uses the word “jihad” is a measure of how all-pervasive fantasy-based analysis has become.
His rivals should follow Romney’s lead in this and begin to face reality.
Posted by Robert at October 16, 2007 7:05 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Reality is always difficult for a politician to face. He fears the loss of the votes of half a percent of the electorate more than eternal incarceration in the ninth circle of Hell. There are always voters who won't accept reality, and who can easily find a pliable sort to tell them comforting fables in exchange for their money and votes.
Romney has some good qualities, but his convictions still seem too mutable, too easily tuned to the needs of the campaign, for me to trust him with the Oval Office.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 16, 2007 7:17 PM
Good. Now if he'll support the Fair Tax he's got my vote for sure. In fact, I'll let his campaign office know that I approved that message.
Brian
Posted by: J. Brian at October 16, 2007 7:27 PM
words of a true politician - long and full of hooey.
imagine where we might be if he (and other politico-wannabe "leaders") were to just tell the simple truth? for example: "the problem is 14 centuries old and it is called islam...".
As POTUS - M.R. will give us nothing - but more of the same we have endured for the past 15 plus years ...
at October 16, 2007 7:37 PM
I'm mit Mitt. Too bad he's Mormon, though; he'll never be elected on a account of that, but at least he's broken the ice for those similarly inclined to see, hear and speak about evil.
Posted by: jewdog at October 16, 2007 7:38 PM
Mitt refers to Jihadism. Fred likes the phrase Islamo-fascism. Rudy uses Islamic terrorism. All are improvements over the War on Terrorism. I prefer Islamo-fascism because it includes the softer threat of creeping Sharia.
However, Fred has former Spence Abraham as one of his co-campaign manager. Rudy wants to expand NATO to include more Islamic countries. Mitt seems a bit too willing to say what the audience wants to hear.
No one really stands out, although all three seem incrementally better than President Bush.
We should keep tabs to see which candidates utter the phrase "religion of peace." If its not clearly meant sarcastically, use of the phrase means elimination from my list of potential candidates.
Posted by: JSobieski at October 16, 2007 7:41 PM
Haven't got the link handy, but Mitt aleady copped a lot of flak, even ridicule over his jihad statement. The delusional left is stuck on stupid, incurably.
Did you know that Muhammad was a profit after all?
Here is a Muslim website that lists all his prophecies:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/prophecies_muh.htm
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 16, 2007 8:10 PM
A step in the right direction, but only a step.
Posted by: Wellington at October 16, 2007 8:18 PM
It's a good start. Now let's see what "corrections" his campaign issues after CAIR issues its condemnation of Romney's "bigotry".
Does he have the guts to face down the Democrats and the Saudis and even GWB? Seeing is believing.
See what the New York Times and Washington Post make of his statement.
Posted by: PMK at October 16, 2007 8:20 PM
sheik,
Great link. Who knew that whenever we board an airplane we are fulfilling Muhammad's prophecy that man would one day "hop between the clouds and the earth"?
It's supposed to be one of the signs of the end times, but how long do the end times last? We've had civilian air travel for decades.
Posted by: PMK at October 16, 2007 8:37 PM
Mitt need only ask his critics to prove him wrong.
Mitt might even have the right Quotes to prove himself right.
Mormons would understand religous persecution in a way most Americans would not.
It does not suprise me that Romney speaks of these matters as they are.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at October 16, 2007 8:45 PM
Why "Jihadism"? Why not "Jihad"? Or, if that will require a little more time to explain, then what about the phrase "Islamic supremacism"? It's accurate. That's what the Jihad is supposed to ensure.: Islamic supremacy. Jihad is the "struggle" to remove or tear down any conceivable barriers to both the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam, and to rule by Muslims. I call that "Islamic supremacism." What would you call it?
Posted by: Hugh at October 16, 2007 8:52 PM
We'll know that the median voter is aware of the clear and present danger when national political leaders stop using the suffix "-ism" when they discuss the Islamic canonical doctrine of jihad.
Posted by: DrMack at October 16, 2007 8:59 PM
Bashir: “listen up, you filthy kuffars…!”
Abu Bakar Bashir: The infidel country must be visited and spied upon. If we don’t come to them, they will persecute Islam. They will prevent non-Muslims converting.
SA: What can the West, especially the US, do to make the world more peaceful?
ABB: They have to stop fighting Islam. That’s impossible because it is sunnatullah [destiny, a law of nature], as Allah has said in the Koran. If they want to have peace, they have to accept to be governed by Islam.
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/10/17/bashir-listen-up-you-filthy-kuffars/
at October 16, 2007 9:02 PM
It's good that this is becoming part of the candidates' issues.
What I didn't see in Romney's proposals is to STOP Muslim immigration.
However, I imagine that the ensuing media and Lefty frenzy would be almost too much to bear.
But it is a step in the right direction.
Posted by: atheling at October 16, 2007 9:38 PM
Still no one dares address the precise sources of Islamo Fascism,or Islamic terrorism; the Qu'ran, and hadiths. For some insane reason these sources are off limits to the MSM including Fox News because they are the sacred teachings of a religion. Have you ever heard a news commentator openly discuss any of the surahs, or hadiths that promote jihadism? Some commentators come very close but do not step out and quote the surahs as they are written in the Qu'ran. I heard a commentator sitting in for Sean Hannity a few months ago during a heated discussion about Islamic terrorism, she started to quote out of the Qu'ran and suddenly caught herself, and said "whoops I'm not suppose to bring that up". I havent seen her since. The media tells us daily that this happened here and a terrorist blew up that or this but they never ever talk about what drives the terrorist to commit thses acts, they never talk about the actual source thatr drives a suicide bomber. To me its like trying to drive in the dark without your headlights on.
"Know your enemy and know him well"
General Douglas MacArthur
Posted by: Mackie at October 16, 2007 10:23 PM
Shiek - thanks for the link to Muhammad's prophecies. This one really might make me reconsider Islam:
"The worst and most ignorant will become leaders and they will be oppressors. Bill Clinton, Saddam Hussain and majority of worlds Leaders are prime examples."
Gotta give'em that one. ;)
-- Clay
Posted by: Clay Marley at October 16, 2007 10:31 PM
Robert mentioned that Muslims must acknowledge and confront the violent aspects of Islam before they can reform it - assuming that the ordinary Muslim even wants to reform it.
Every event throughout American history where a corrupt political machine has been defeated has required the public acknowledgement that it is corrupt. Fiorello LaGuardia tackled the corruption in the New York City Democratic Party that was centered in the political club known as Tammany Hall. He was successful; he was also a Democrat. About thirty years after LaGuardia was elected, Tammany Hall ceased to exist.
Here is a question for the ages: How can Islam be reformed without untimately causing it to cease to exist? It must be changed from within because a milion Spencers, Fitzgeralds, and Horowitzes cannot do it. There are about five (less than ten?) prominent Muslims or former Muslims doing their part to do something. What can ten people do against millions if the millions continue to insist that Islam is peaceful?
Posted by: Pelayo at October 16, 2007 11:07 PM
I can see the rest of them cowering behind red white and blue bunting ,to see how badly he gets cut down before they venture onto the ice to see if it will hold them
Posted by: GrennBeck at October 16, 2007 11:17 PM
I've had my sights on Romney for quite some time, and after reading this, I'm definitely more inclined to vote for him. We need someone who gets it.
Posted by: champ at October 16, 2007 11:21 PM
As governer of Massachusetts, Romney ordered the State Police to NOT give any assistance or protection to the visiting ex-Pres of Iran, Khatami, when he came to Boston to give a speech. So Politically Incorrect and verry ballsy.
Posted by: Xero G at October 16, 2007 11:45 PM
I'll take any of the Republicans concerning this over the Dhimmicrats. Atleast they will authorize a war and give us a fighting chance.
Sheikyermami I clicked on that link of supposed prophecies uttered by the Madman...ROFL!!!
They are more vague than Nostradamus stuff. What a silly cult Islam is.
at October 16, 2007 11:58 PM
Romney will be ultra-tough against jihadism...err...of course once "the lawyers" agree on what he can actually impose upon them.
Skeptical.
Posted by: awake at October 17, 2007 12:14 AM
"Skeptical."
Posted by awake..
As you should be. Words are cheap, some use them better then others.
But, what he has already done to support his words are what to look at. Research his past comments on islam, what he has said and done. It may suprise many.
He has taken actions, not just words.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1
at October 17, 2007 12:46 AM
I did not see Mit make that statement. Did his make-up crack? If the make up did not crack, he was sincere.
Pelayo asks: Here is a question for the ages: How can Islam be reformed without untimately causing it to cease to exist? It must be changed from within because a milion Spencers, Fitzgeralds, and Horowitzes cannot do it.
My take on this is that it can't be reformed from within either. No muslim or group of muslims are going to assume the risk of offending Allah, by changing most anything. If they can't change anything, then Islam can't be reformed. Besides how can you reform the perfect? Why would you want to reform the perfect? If Islam can be reformed, then it is not perfect and not supreme. We can't have that, so lies, taqiyya, ect are employed to maintain the 'perfect' image. When lies run out violence begins, because one way to keep Islam perfect and supreme, is to eliminate any opposition. Eliminating the opposition is the consolidating of power, but it is not the kind of reform we might like. Islam can be reformed only forward to Wahabbism. It can be made 'more Islam', but it can't be made 'less Islam'. To do that looses superiority and defiles perfectness...
So Islam can't be reformed and remain Islam. One has to die so the other can be born...somehow, I don't think that is going to happen...
at October 17, 2007 2:31 AM
Frank,
In his speeches on the issue of expanding NATO, Giuliani suggests incorporating Australia, South Korea, Israel, Japan and Singapore. See for example here and here. Nowhere have I seen him suggest including Islamic nations in NATO.
at October 17, 2007 3:49 AM
Muslims Against Sharia commend Governor Romney for clearly defining the enemy and standing up to Islamist lobby and PC establishment.
Posted by: Muslims Against Sharia at October 17, 2007 4:23 AM
(Robert- You should make a video of your essay on Mitt and the J word. Show the commercial, too.)
I think that his next 'first' will be using the word "reciprocity" in dealings with Muslim nations. As a church leader himself, he is keenly aware that Mormon missionaries could be arrested and executed over there, while Muslims are free to build mosques in Salt Lake City and recruit new members if they desire. This will surely slip out in a future debate, and I can't wait.
at October 17, 2007 5:46 AM
Let's explore an idea that seems anathema.
Gordon Brown has resticted the use of "Muslim" together with "terrorism". When the second word is modified by the first word it indicates a specific source for the terrorism. Irish terrorism was utterly deplorable. Both sides of that dispute were horribly wrong and had their terrorism wings. Identifying them helped deal with the problem. And it isolated the concept of "Irish" from taking on the meaning "Irish Terrorist".
Disallowing "Muslim terrorist" as a term then one word or both words take on that meaning. Muslim begins to mean "Muslim terrorist." And "terrorist" begins to take on the same meaning. So when I say "terrorist" alone it is obvious I mean "Muslim." Or, perhaps worse but still perhaps accurate, when I say "Muslim" I am taken as meaning "Muslim Terrorist".
I rather suspect that the "official intent" of that decree may be self defeating. I believe that "Muslim" and "terrorist" will soon be both fully synonymous with the full and accurate description "Muslim terrorist."
So we have the next question: "Is this the intent of the more radical Mohammedans who have coerced this declaration from Brown and the EU? Or did they make a mistake?"
{^_^}
Posted by: jdow at October 17, 2007 7:29 AM
I don't like Mormonism at all, but I do like Mitt.
Posted by: Kepha at October 17, 2007 8:41 AM
This might change some of the most important landscape in the race to the presidency, and give us anti jihadists reasons to celibrate.
Getting to like the top three GOP candidates more and more.
Way to go Mitt.
Posted by: dgene at October 17, 2007 9:15 AM
The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Romney Bashes Harvard in New Ad
Presidential candidate criticizes last year’s campus visit by Iranian leader
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=519669
It took balls for the Governor of Massachusetts to take on the Dhimmis at Harvard and the People's Republic of Cambridge!
--
CT Yankee
at October 17, 2007 9:57 AM
Romney gained a lot of points with me by saying that. Certainly it's positive he's willing to mention the "I" word (Islam). Rudy has too. Maybe the Republicans will finally awaken from the GW / Condi induced fog and name the enemy.
I don't expect any Dhimmicrat will.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at October 17, 2007 10:31 AM
I want someone in a very high government position to come right out and say on national TV that Islam and Democracy as it exists in the West are incompatible. That Islam wants to dominate, not share or tolerate. And that as a society we either choose to defend out way to the death (whicjhwill be necessary) or be prepared to submit. No, all these politicians, the Presidential candidates, especially the Democrats, want to accomodate, group hug, understand, co-exist, etc. I would dare say that during the Cold war that although both political parties disagreed on how best to deal with Communism, there was at least agreement, that this country and others in the West did not or want to fall under its control. We recognized the enemy, but differd on how best to fight it. Not these days.
Posted by: HOV Dummy at October 17, 2007 11:04 AM
memo to tinbh:
Romney has given us the truth via the media. That is more than you have done.
at October 18, 2007 4:30 PM
"Republican White House hopeful Mitt Romney called the United Nations a failure on Thursday and said he would support a new coalition of the free nations of the world."
He looks to be seeing very clearly.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at October 18, 2007 5:13 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)