| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
When they start calling for Al-Zawahiri and other Islamic jihadists to stop using Islamic texts and teachings to call for violence, maybe they'll have a case against McCain.
"Muslims press McCain on 'Islamic' terror label," by Rowan Scarborough for the Washington Times (thanks to all who sent this in):
A coalition of American Muslim groups is demanding that Sen. John McCain stop using the adjective "Islamic" to describe terrorists and extremist enemies of the United States.Muneer Fareed, who heads the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), told The Washington Times that his group is beginning a campaign to persuade Mr. McCain to rephrase his descriptions of the enemy.
The Islamic Society of North America was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation jihad terror funding case last summer.
Also, in a Muslim Brotherhood memorandum outlining its strategic goals for the United States, ISNA was named as one of the groups participating in "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
"We've tried to contact his office, contact his spokesperson to have them rethink word usage that is more acceptable to the Muslim community," Mr. Fareed said. "If it's not our intent to paint everyone with the same brush, then certainly we should think seriously about just characterizing them as criminals, because that is what they are."An aide to Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee who is counting on his pro-Iraq war stance to attract conservative voters, said the senator from Arizona will not drop the word.
Steve Schmidt, a former Bush White House aide who is now a McCain media strategist, told The Times that the use of the word is appropriate and that the candidate will continue to define the enemy that way.
"Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda represent a perverted strain of Islam at odds with the great many peaceful Muslims who practice their great faith peacefully," Mr. Schmidt said. "But the reality is, the hateful ideology which underpins bin Ladenism is properly described as radical Islamic extremism. Senator McCain refers to it that way because that is what it is."
McCain in this, as inadequate and false as it is, comes closer to the truth than the present White House occupant or the other two aspirants to the throne.
Mr. McCain often uses the term "Islamic" to describe terrorist enemies. The two remaining Democrats in the presidential field, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, generally shun such word usage.President Bush also avoids the term, prompting criticism from some conservative pundits, who say the White-House-coined phrase "war on terror" does not sufficiently identify the enemy. Mr. Bush used the term "Islamic fascists" several times in 2006 and was criticized by Muslims....
Mr. Fareed, who is ISNA's secretary-general, said such usages are wrong.
"My own take on this is that we tried and failed to stylize this particular onslaught against the United States as one that has religious connotations and regional connotations," said Mr. Fareed, a former associate professor of Islamic studies at Wayne State University.
"I think this is just criminality, fair and square. We should just call them criminals. You want to call them terrorist criminals, fine," he said. "But adding the word 'Muslim' or 'Islamic' certainly doesn't help our cause as Americans. It's counterproductive. It paints an entire community of believers, 1.2 billion in total, in a very negative way. And certainly that's not something that we want to do."...
Painting everyone with the same brush? Come on, Mr. Fareed. This is so specious it reeks. As I've said many times before, the phrase "Islamic terrorists" no more paints all Muslims as terrorists than the phrase "Italian fascists" paints all Italians as fascists or "Conservative Democrat" paints all conservatives as Democrats. Basic grammar, apparently, must go out the window for the cause of PC mau-mauing.
Posted by Robert at April 21, 2008 1:54 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
This is what happens when the 'leaders' don't define our enemy, or name a war after only one of their tactics.
Posted by: R_not![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 21, 2008 2:23 PM
I would like to ask these American Muslims the following question:
In the movies "The Godfather" and "The Godfather Part II", was it wrong to portray the Don and his son as Italian-Americans with Italian-American names?
Law-abiding, decent Italian-Americans have just as much right to not be all associated with the Mafia. Yet to ignore the fact that the infamous Five Mafia Families of New York were Italian-American (Carlo Gambino, John Gotti, etc.) would have made those movies totally inauthentic.
You had to portray the Godfather as Italian-American.
And you have to portray the terrorists currently waging war against America as Islamic.
For the same reason.
Because that's what they were.
at April 21, 2008 2:26 PM
" The truth hurts." A very old truism.
at April 21, 2008 2:35 PM
" The truth hurts." A very old truism.
Posted by: credit man
Yes, and in this case ignoring it now will hurt a lot more in the long run.
Posted by: RalphInfidel at April 21, 2008 2:41 PM
More blathering, whining and whinging by the Islamists, solely because McCain is right… Bush and other apologists are dead wrong. As said many times, the terrorists of 9/11 and other heinous terrorist attacks on innocents were implemented by Muslims, not Christians, Jews, Buddhists or atheists.
These whiners and whingers should (if they care or dare) confront the politically-correct label the so-called “misunderstanders” of Islam; however, this will never come to the fore. Most, if not all, loathe freedom of speech because it exposes Islam’s, religion of peace, façade as unabashed propaganda.
at April 21, 2008 2:52 PM
ballzack said: "More blathering, whining and whinging by the Islamists"
Correct ballzack. They avoid the real problems, never condemn or prevent jihad which is "Islamic Extremism" just as McCain says. These tactics only go to prove the plans of the Muslim Brotherhood are really supported by these Muslim groups. If they would quit working against us all and quit hiding the truth and start dealing with the real problems, their so called problems would vanish. I won't hold my breath.
Posted by: Sounder at April 21, 2008 3:04 PM
"Muslims press McCain on 'Islamic' terror label,"
For once I agree with them, he should drop the Islamic terrorist label when defining our enemies and just stick to calling them "muslims".
Posted by: walterc at April 21, 2008 3:17 PM
Who's life is closer to the example of Muhammad, Bin Laden or Mr Fareed?
Islamic Terrorist is the correct term.
Posted by: Ruebacca at April 21, 2008 3:26 PM
McCain may get my vote if he will stand up to these guys and simple say 'I am defining the enemy and I will not change the name of the enemy to satisfy you'.
Posted by: alaskan1000 at April 21, 2008 3:28 PM
This should be interesting to see if McCain has any gonads and doesn't listen to these groups.
My bet - I think Brigitte Bardot has more gonads than all the French, Europeans, UK, McCain, and our own lefties have.
Posted by: R_not at April 21, 2008 3:31 PM
You can't blame them for trying. Their British counterparts were able to work their magic on Gordon Brown. McCain just went up a notch.
What about the McCain statement is false? Robert, right at the end of this piece you point out again that not all Muslims are terrorists. I find it harder and harder to separate them but you consistently draw a line between peaceful Muslims and the terrorists.
Posted by: PMK at April 21, 2008 3:32 PM
It’s not the ‘War on Terror’;
It’s not the ‘War on Islamic Extremism’;
It’s not the ‘War on Muslims’;
It’ the ‘War on Some of the Teachings of Mohammed’.
These teachings parallel the Mafia. There are laws already on the books that could be used to mandate Islamic reform. ‘Moderate’ Muslims should, in theory, welcome the reforms.
Cue the crickets.
at April 21, 2008 3:38 PM
Ruebacca, I think it should be corrected - not 'islamic terrorist', but 'muslim terrorist'.
I get sick of all the different words for muslim and islam. They are muslims and the 'religion' is islam. Islamic is just disinformation.
I got an email today and this is what we should be asking all the 'moderates', or for that matter all the muslims (because 'moderates' support the jihadists by their 'muslim charities' and also wage jihad in other forms other than the violent and fear types of jihad):
from an email from American Congress for Truth
The “Radical Islam Support Test” (RIST)
Dear Sharon,
Dr. Tawfik Hamid, a former member of a terrorist organization who is now dedicated to reforming Islam, has written a book entitled “Inside Jihad.” We have had the privilege of receiving a pre-publication copy of the book and in reviewing it we enthusiastically recommend it to you once it is released.
In one section of the book he spells out what he calls the “Radical Islam Support Test,” or “RIST.” Instead of our settling for tepid, generic “condemnations” of terrorism by Muslims and Muslim organizations that purport to be “mainstream” and “moderate,” it would be more illuminating to see how such Muslims respond to the questions contained in the “RIST.”
Granted, thanks to the doctrine of taqiyya, one can never be sure if the Muslim respondent is telling the truth or being deceptive in order to advance the cause of Islam. But it is our opinion that generic denunciations of terrorism are virtually meaningless and meritless so long as the person issuing such denunciations holds to underlying radical principles.
Remember, these are questions to ask a Muslim who professes to oppose terrorism and radical Islam.
“Apostates”: Do you support killing them? Should leaving the faith of Islam be punishable by death?
“Beating Women”: Is beating women ever acceptable, and if not, do you reject those decrees of Islamic law that sanction the beating of women? Do you also accept stoning women to death for committing adultery?
“Calling Jews pigs and monkeys”: Do you believe that Jews are in any way sub-human and if not, do you reject Quranic interpretations that claim they are?
“Declaring holy war”: Do you support declaring war against non-Muslims to subjugate them to Islam? Do you believe that it is fair and reasonable to offer non-Muslims three options: Conversion, Paying the Jizya, or Death?
“Enslavement”: Do you support the enslavement of female war prisoners and having sex with them as concubines? If not, do you reject those interpretations in Islamic Law, for “Ma-Malkakat Aymanikum”, which justifies such actions?
“Fighting Jews”: Do you support perpetual war against Jews to exterminate them, and if not, should those Muslims who incite such war be punished?
“Gays”: Do you believe it is acceptable to kill gays, and if not, do you reject those edicts in Sharia Law which claim it is?
Posted by: R_not at April 21, 2008 3:39 PM
Robert,
Not all people who are both born muslims and terrorists are classified as muslim terrorists or islamic terrorists.
In Turkey there is a marxist group DHKP-C who have committed acts of terrorism and they are NEVER referred to as islamic terrorists though they are supposed to be muslims, at least nominal.
The reason is simply because they themselves say that their program is marxist and not islamic. In the same way there are Kurdish separatists who commit acts of terrorism in Turkey. They have a nationalist program and not an islamic program. So they are indeed NEVER referred to as muslim terrorists because they themselves do not identify as such.
So it is natural that terrorists who operate with an islamic program are named muslim terrorists in spite of the fact that moderate muslims say that they are not muslims.
Regards,
Jan
at April 21, 2008 3:40 PM
Robert,
Not all people who are both born muslims and terrorists are classified as muslim terrorists or islamic terrorists.
In Turkey there is a marxist group DHKP-C who have committed acts of terrorism and they are NEVER referred to as islamic terrorists though they are supposed to be muslims, at least nominal.
The reason is simply because they themselves say that their program is marxist and not islamic. In the same way there are Kurdish separatists who commit acts of terrorism in Turkey. They have a nationalist program and not an islamic program. So they are indeed NEVER referred to as muslim terrorists because they themselves do not identify as such.
So it is natural that terrorists who operate with an islamic program are named muslim terrorists in spite of the fact that moderate muslims say that they are not muslims.
Regards,
Jan
at April 21, 2008 3:40 PM
Robert,
Not all people who are both born muslims and terrorists are classified as muslim terrorists or islamic terrorists.
In Turkey there is a marxist group DHKP-C who have committed acts of terrorism and they are NEVER referred to as islamic terrorists though they are supposed to be muslims, at least nominal.
The reason is simply because they themselves say that their program is marxist and not islamic. In the same way there are Kurdish separatists who commit acts of terrorism in Turkey. They have a nationalist program and not an islamic program. So they are indeed NEVER referred to as muslim terrorists because they themselves do not identify as such.
So it is natural that terrorists who operate with an islamic program are named muslim terrorists in spite of the fact that moderate muslims say that they are not muslims.
Regards,
Jan
at April 21, 2008 3:41 PM
"My own take on this is that we tried and failed to stylize this particular onslaught against the United States as one that has religious connotations and regional connotations," said Mr. Fareed, a former associate professor of Islamic studies at Wayne State University."I think this is just criminality, fair and square. We should just call them criminals. You want to call them terrorist criminals, fine," he said. "But adding the word 'Muslim' or 'Islamic' certainly doesn't help our cause as Americans. It's counterproductive. It paints an entire community of believers, 1.2 billion in total, in a very negative way. And certainly that's not something that we want to do."...
This crap is really beginning to grate on my nerves. I have said in the past that we should not learn about islam from muslims. This muslim is trying to tell us, you and me, what to think. His use of colloquialisms like "fair and square" only underscore just how deeply this enemy soldier understands his prey. And his disgusting claim to being an American citizen makes my skin crawl as he know very well just what he is here for and what his goal is. This sort of islamic lying makes me mad.
This muslim was not an associate professor of islamic studies. He is an enemy soldier who wants to kill me. He should be deported as should all muslims. We should no longer speak to muslims.
Allah is not God
Mohammed was not a good man
Islam is not a religion
Muslims are not citizens
Live these words.
at April 21, 2008 3:44 PM
"My own take on this is that we tried and failed to stylize this particular onslaught against the United States as one that has religious connotations and regional connotations," said Mr. Fareed, a former associate professor of Islamic studies at Wayne State University."I think this is just criminality, fair and square. We should just call them criminals. You want to call them terrorist criminals, fine," he said. "But adding the word 'Muslim' or 'Islamic' certainly doesn't help our cause as Americans. It's counterproductive. It paints an entire community of believers, 1.2 billion in total, in a very negative way. And certainly that's not something that we want to do."...
This crap is really beginning to grate on my nerves. I have said in the past that we should not learn about islam from muslims. This muslim is trying to tell us, you and me, what to think. His use of colloquialisms like "fair and square" only underscore just how deeply this enemy soldier understands his prey. And his disgusting claim to being an American citizen makes my skin crawl as he know very well just what he is here for and what his goal is. This sort of islamic lying makes me mad.
This muslim was not an associate professor of islamic studies. He is an enemy soldier who wants to kill me. He should be deported as should all muslims. We should no longer speak to muslims.
Allah is not God
Mohammed was not a good man
Islam is not a religion
Muslims are not citizens
Live these words.
at April 21, 2008 3:44 PM
A coalition of American Muslim groups is demanding that Sen. John McCain stop using the adjective "Islamic" to describe terrorists and extremist enemies of the United States.
________
When the top most wanted terrorists stop being Muslims - (They are ALL Muslims on the FBI List)- then we ca stop using the adjective "Islamic."
A Spade is a Spade.
Posted by: Monkeywho at April 21, 2008 4:13 PM
I called this story in on our north central Fla. radio station, WSKY, 97.3 FM. Also gave the website address recommending it to the SKY's listeners as the host has done in the past. Chip Morris, the host, says he's going to have Mr. Spencer on the afternoon program as a guest, though I have yet to see this come about.
Anyway, I read part of this article and the jihadwatch editorial comments. Mr. Morris asked what ISNA is recommending McCain call the enemy. "Criminals." After I finished the co-host said, as a Christian he is ashamed of some of the things people that call themselves Christians do in the name of Christianity, so he has a certain sympathy for this complaint.
The host, Mr. Morris appeared to take my side, suggesting these people not only do these things in the name of Islam, citing religious justifications, but these Muslim organizations like ISNA refuse to condemn terror groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic jihad, etc., that murder Jews in the name of Islam instead calling the jihadist terrorism legitimate resistance.
Posted by: monk at April 21, 2008 4:34 PM
McCain is a standup guy with a sitdown mind. He has a half-baked understanding of Islam. Just wait until he names Condhimmi Rice as his veep (he's expressed interest), and even before then I'll bet he caves and stops saying "Islamic Terrorist". His foreign policy will be Bush redux, but I hope I'm wrong.
The grit to hang tough comes from conviction, which only comes from insight.
at April 21, 2008 5:44 PM
Hey Fareed.. if you don't like that McCain calls u a terrorist - which is what u r - then u can always vote for Hussein Obama.
Or do I have to ask your permission to us his name?
Yes, Hussein Obama.
In the meantime I suggest you don't try to take words out of the mouth of the other candidate nor that you try to put words in his mouth.
I know u islamists like to dictate speech in order to influence thought. You have that in common with Politically Correct liberals but it doesn't work with me.
I am in fact glad to see that Mr. McCain has attracted your ire. May he continue to do so.
(The Real) God willing.
at April 21, 2008 5:48 PM
My bet - I think Brigitte Bardot has more gonads than all the French, Europeans, UK, McCain, and our own lefties have.
Posted by: R_not
----
BB IS French. And she is European. Oriana Fallaci was Italian. And European. Geert Wilders is European and Dutch.
Thank you very much.
Posted by: Ummah Gummah at April 21, 2008 5:53 PM
I ze callz it az I seez it: Islamic terrorists iz Muslims...yessirr..
Posted by: pulsar182 at April 21, 2008 5:53 PM
OK. Let's split the difference and just call them muslims.
Posted by: HotSpur at April 21, 2008 5:54 PM
Steven L. if you are old enough to remember 1971, you should remember the Italian-American Civil Rights League founded by Joe Columbo, boss of the Columbo crime family. This was a "civil rights" group set up to protest stereotyping of Italian-Americans. This was an organization founded by a criminal organization, just like the Islamic Society of North America was founded by terrorists. (An enabler of jihad is a terrorist just as much as any actual perpetrator of violence.) If there is a stereotype, the Islamic terrorists created it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian-American_Civil_Rights_League
The Italian-American Civil Rights League fell apart when Joe Columbo was shot at a rally in Columbus Circle in 1971. Shot on orders from fellow crime bosses.
There are some profound parallels between the Mafia and Islam.
Posted by: Pelayo at April 21, 2008 6:03 PM
"A coalition of American Muslim groups is demanding that Sen. John McCain stop using the adjective "Islamic" to describe terrorists and extremist enemies of the United States."
Confronting McCain is merely an attempt to deflect attention away from the real eneny. Just more smoke and mirrors from American Muslims, the anti-American coalition.
Posted by: champ at April 21, 2008 6:07 PM
Is Cheese offered with that Whine? Where's the Kleenex when you need it?
Wayne State University? Who are they and what is their claim to fame? Is it like NPR, always having a "Professor" who is an "Expert" from some "Higher Center of Education" Nobody ever heard of before.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at April 21, 2008 6:08 PM
>>Steve Schmidt, a former Bush White House aide who is now a McCain media strategist, told The Times that the use of the word is appropriate and that the candidate will continue to define the enemy that way."
Uh, yeah. Thanks to Steve Schmidt. The Terrorists are Islamic, end of story.
Posted by: darcy at April 21, 2008 6:08 PM
"Oriana Fallaci was Italian." --Ummah Gummah
She is still Italian. Just because she is deceased doesn't make her un-Italian.
Oriana Fallaci IS Italian. Rest in Peace, Oriana.
Posted by: darcy at April 21, 2008 6:12 PM
Words of wisdom from Michael Corleone via The Internet Movie Database -
"Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgment." Hate affected Halsey's judgement in 1944.
"Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in." Apostacy?
"Never let anyone know what you are thinking."
at April 21, 2008 6:14 PM
champ, I have to disagree. This gives McCain the opportunity to define himself. Without him having to make hardly a move.
He's not going to get a single moslem vote if Obama wins the nomination. So why even bother to act like he likes them?
Barack HUSSEIN NObama has the endorsement of every moslem group and organization in America.
That should tell us something.
He also has an interesting mox of radical gfringe groups that endorse him.. like FarraKKKan and the New Black Panters.. oh, and whatever the leftovers are of the Weather Underground...
LOL
This guy attracts a whole lotta fleas.
And we're all expected to act like we don't notice.
Good grief, you should read what the liberal Euro media are writing on the election.
In Gewrmany they are labeling Hitlery the witch already. They're braying that she is dragging BHO down by having a picture of bin Laden along with other historic events in one of her ads.
As liberal as McCain is.. I want him to win just to STICK it to the EUSSR media.
They are beginning to read like a mix of 'Pravda' and 'Der Stürmer'.
How DARE they try and influence an election in the USA. This country is STILL a sovereign Nation.
McCain is our best hope that it will stay that way. For now.
Posted by: Ummah Gummah at April 21, 2008 6:24 PM
If there were no Islam, they would not be terrorists.
They might have productive, intelligent lives.
Posted by: profitsbeard at April 21, 2008 6:48 PM
A believing Muslim, one who takes his religion seriously, is taking part in terrorist activity.
One way or another.
Whether he supports the jihad with money or writes letters to newspapers, or posts on JW as a taqiyya troll, or actively becomes involved with terrorism, is almost irrelevant.
Islam is an open ended mandate from Allah to kill disbelievers to make the world Islamic, and none of that can be, or should be condoned in any country, west or east, that has not yet been conquered by the RoP...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 21, 2008 7:21 PM
"When they start calling for (Insert Muslim leader or cleric Name here) and other Islamic jihadists to stop using Islamic texts and teachings to call for violence...then"
I have read this generalization for years now...it was true then and it is true now..
Posted by: pulsar182 at April 21, 2008 7:22 PM
"My own take on this is that we tried and failed to stylize this particular onslaught against the United States as one that has religious connotations and regional connotations," said Mr. Fareed, a former associate professor of Islamic studies at Wayne State University.
"I think this is just criminality, fair and square. We should just call them criminals. You want to call them terrorist criminals, fine," he said. "But adding the word 'Muslim' or 'Islamic' certainly doesn't help our cause as Americans. It's counterproductive. It paints an entire community of believers, 1.2 billion in total, in a very negative way. And certainly that's not something that we want to do."...
-- from the article above
Criminality is the work of individuals, who break the law because they feel like it; it is prompted not by ideology, but rather by what has prompted criminal activity since the beginning of time.
Terrorism by Muslims is quite different. It is the act either of a collective, of Muslim, acting in concert, and supported financially and morally by other Muslims who may prefer to participate in violent Jihad indirectly (the better, for example, to participate in other, non-violent, just as dangerous and possibly more effective methods of Jihad to remove all obstacles to the spread, and dominance, of Islam). Where an individual Muslim may be acting, he is doing so not on his own behalf, not to enrich himself, but to further what he has learned -- and learned fro the texts, not mistranslated and not misunderstood, of Islam itself: Quran, Hadith, and Sira.
Furthermore, it is important that Infidels understand that they are having war made upon them, and that the war is not limited to what non-Muslims correctly identify as "terrorism" but that many, or most Muslims, are easily persuaded is not terrorism at all but rather a form of qitaal, or combat, simply updated to meet modern conditions, where the Infidels have military superiority -- so unfair! -- and bombs in restaurants and on busses and planes smashed into buildings is merely a form of "equalizing," of levelling the grimmest of playing-fields.
It is important to use the phrase "Muslim terrorism" if the only alternative is "terrorism." But it would be most helpful to speak and write of Jihad, to explain what Jihad means -- means and has meant, to Muslims, over the past 1350 years (and to quickly get over the ludicrous business of those who pretend the word's main meaning is something about an interior struggle to maintain a virtuous life, or somesuch variant).
Why is it important to use the word "Jihad"? Because emphasis, exaggerated emphasis, on "terrorism" makes people pay no attention to much more effective and dangerous instruments of Jihad -- the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa aimed at the psychically and economically marginal, and demographic conquest. The latter is especially worrisome. Consider the Netherlands, where there were 1,500 Muslims in 1960, 15,000 in 1970, 800,000 in 2004, and over a million today.
It is unfortunate that none of the political leaders in the West, and few in the press, radio, television, feel they have a responsibility to learn the contents of Islam, or to learn something of the history of Islamic conquest, and subjugation of non-Muslims, over the past 1350 years. A great deal could be learned. It requires some effort and some time, and nowadays how many, in the class of people whose responsiblity it is to protect and instruct us, would take that time, and make that effort?
The answer is: very few.
And we will all pay, we have already in the countries of Western Europe -- in Great Britain and France, in Germany and Spain, in Belgium and Italy and the Netherlands and Denmark and Norway and Sweden -- all paid and will be grimly paying, for the fact that the political and media elites were so criminally negligent, over the past 35 years, as Muslim immigrants, by the millions, were allowed in, and given every conceivable benefit, and allowed to build mosques and madrasas, to settle in, without anyone questioning what this meant, what Islam was all about, whether or not the "problems" -- as they are demurely called -- with Muslim migrants were merely, as some continue to pretend, the same problems that all immigrants experience or present, or whether there was something about that "problem" that had to do with the nature of Islam, as a Total Belief-System, inculcated with a brainwashing, and reinforced at every level, in states, societies, communities, even families suffused with Islam, that explains why, in every Infidel land, no matter what its makeup or what its politics or what the attitude of its citizens, the same problems are posed by one particular group of immigrants and by no other group -- not by Chinese, Hindus, Vietnamese Buddhists, not by Caribeean blacks, nor by non-Muslim blacks from sub-Saharan Africa, not by Mexicans, not by Central Americans, not by Andean Indians, not by any group at all -- but posed by Muslims, to the extent that they take their Islam seriously, wherever they come from.
And that is the fix that Western Europe, and therefore the historic West, is now in. It was a problem that, had the handful of cassandras -- see for example the writings of Jacques Ellul -- been heeded, could have been avoided. Entirely manageable once, manageable -- with great difficulty---today, but only if Muslmig mirgation is halted, funds from Saudi Arabia and other rich Arab states prevented from being used to build up a fifth column within the Infidel lands -- through mosques, madrasas, propaganda, and armies of Western hirelings, some of them merely venal, some of them somoething worse, all of them traitors to the West, who deserve to be seen, and to be treated, as we would have treated those who were in the pay of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.
at April 21, 2008 7:25 PM
The tension between the west and islamic countries worsens, particularly with more attacks on innocent Christians, both in the west and in countries with heavy populations of muslims. The violence against non muslims continues until a backlash begins. Those who can be identified as muslims are killed and injured on public streets and mosques and anywhere else that muslims tend to gather. The civil police and other authorities want to counter act this violence and they appeal to the public for co-operation. They need to give a name to this violence in a way that describes it accurately so that the public will know what they are talking about and understand the scope of the problem.
Question...what do you think they will call it?
1.Christian terrorists
2.Christian vigilantes
3.Radical Christian extremists
4.criminals
at April 21, 2008 7:58 PM
This explains why McCain must be elected.
Montjoie!
Posted by: Godfrey Boullion at April 21, 2008 8:02 PM
If the jihadists had not destroyed two New York landmarks plus a wing of the Pentagon and thus killed approximately 3000 people, perhaps they would be on their way to complete conquest. Had 9-11 not happened, would Jihad Watch and all the other defensive websites exist? If there never had been the train bombings in Britian and the other countless acts of violence, whould we have even noticed them until it was really too late? Even after the first WTC attack, I had not grasped the true meaning of Islam. It took 9-11 to get me to study this cult. I soon realized that Mohammed had more in common with Jim Jones and Charles Manson.
In certain ways we can be morbidly grateful that these creatures have a propensity for violence. It certainly opened my eyes.
Hillary Clinton was walking down the street one day when she saw a little boy with some puppies he was trying to give away. In her coy little way she asked him what kind of puppies they were. The little boy had a bright idea and told her that the puppies were Democrat puppies. A week later Hillary saw the boy and asked him if he had any more of those Democrat puppies. He said yes but they were Republican puppies. Hillary asked what happened, and the little boy said that they became Republican puppies when their eyes finally opened.
Posted by: Pelayo at April 21, 2008 8:02 PM
So we can call these terrorists anti-islamic moslems?
That should make both Gordon Brown and these 'American' moslems very happy..
Posted by: Ummah Gummah at April 21, 2008 8:18 PM
Very good, Jan. I agree with your point, and it's one Robert has made repeatedly: Calling them "Islamic Terrorists" is appropriate because the religious rationale behind their acts is one that THEY THEMSELVES reveal by referring to Islamic texts and beliefs.
I think the real issue here is one of responsibility, in that many Muslims, being decent people, want to disassociate themselves from terrorists, and they are offended when rudely reminded that there may indeed be a relation between Islam and terror.
Well, the truth hurts, but...no pain, no gain.
at April 21, 2008 8:24 PM
A coalition of American Muslim groups is demanding that Sen. John McCain stop using the adjective "Islamic" to describe terrorists and extremist enemies of the United States.
as long as Moslems follow the Koran and Muhammad's teaching about striking terror into the hearts of nonbelievers Senator McCain is right in describing Islamic terrorists and the Muslims should stop wanting you to change the wording until they are willing to face and admit their religion teaches terrorism to those who want violent jihad
at April 21, 2008 8:28 PM
Mr. Fareed, here's the deal.
We'll call them terrorist criminals who cite the Qur'an as a divine justification for their terrorist criminality, and we'll leave it to you and yours to convince us that these terrorist criminals have grossly misinterpreted the Qur'an. Deal?
Posted by: Lex at April 21, 2008 8:39 PM
My prediction is that McCain will cave in just like Boris Johnson did:
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/04/21/londonistan-mayor-defends-his-jihadist-friend-qaradawi/
at April 21, 2008 8:40 PM
Hugh wrote: "..no matter what its makeup or what its politics or what the attitude of its citizens, the same problems are posed by one particular group of immigrants and by no other group -- not by Chinese, Hindus, Vietnamese Buddhists, not by Caribeean blacks, nor by non-Muslim blacks from sub-Saharan Africa, not by Mexicans..."
I don't know how many Jihadwatch readers get radio talkshow host Michael Savage in their area.
According to Mr. Savage, Mexicans (most of whom are of the Catholic faith; here in my area Mexicans appear to be fine neighbors) are America's worst, most deadly problem.
Posted by: monk at April 21, 2008 8:49 PM
Anybody remember this?
"I summon my blue-eyed slaves anytime it pleases me. I command the Americans to send me their bravest soldiers to die for me. Anytime I clap my hands a stupid genie called the American ambassador appears to do my bidding. When the Americans die in my service their bodies are frozen in metal boxes by the US Embassy and American airplanes carry them away, as if they never existed. Truly, America is my favorite slave." King Fahd Bin Abdul-Aziz, Jeddeh 1993
See also this site:
Posted by: Suziq at April 21, 2008 8:49 PM
"Muneer Fareed, who heads the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), told The Washington Times that his group is beginning a campaign to persuade Mr. McCain to rephrase his descriptions of the enemy."
Wow, what a relief. For a moment there, I thought we had to worry about islamic terrorists, when in fact, we only need to worry about terrorists...who are muslim.
Run that by me again?
Posted by: PorkFatRules at April 21, 2008 9:18 PM
I have the feeling that the more they try to browbeat and intimidate McCain into submission, the more he will stiffen.
I'm looking forward to these dirtbags trying to play footsie with McCain. He's going to eat their lunch.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a repeat of 1981, when the cowards of Tehran negotiated a deal with Dhimmy Carter, so that they wouldn't have to face a real man, Ronald Reagan.
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at April 21, 2008 10:01 PM
So it is natural that terrorists who operate with an Islamic program are named Muslim terrorists in spite of the fact that moderate Muslims say that they are not Muslims.
Well said, Jan. It's none of my business what religion anyone belongs to as long as they follow the laws of our land and don't pass it on to me. But terrorism comes with all the Islamic fixings by the cooks who say they are devout Muslims. It's not my job to enter the argument of what is a "real Muslim" . Terrorism by professed Muslims is Islamic terrorism plain and simple.
Posted by: Briars at April 21, 2008 10:12 PM
McCain's stock line is "radical Islamic extremists" which he trots out robotically any time the topic comes up. TWO qualifiers every time. And don't be mean to them once you catch them!
Posted by: alexon at April 21, 2008 10:40 PM
Hugh is right.
Let's just call the Jihad - the relentless drive, sanctioned by Muslim sacred texts, undertaken by Muslim individuals, non-state entities and certain states, to use force or any and all other means available, to subjugate and/or destroy non-Muslim populations and polities and impose sharia law willy nilly - the Jihad.
And since mujahideen is too awkward for English speakers, and speakers of other languages, let's call all of those wannabe Dominators-of-the-Infidel, 'Jihadis'.
In every comment on every talkback, every letter to the editor, every conversation, that bears on the Jihad, let us use those terms - Jihad - and 'jihadi'. For those are the terms that the jihadis use amongst themselves.
Furthermore, since Jacques Ellul argued that the present wave of Muslim expansion, which he dated as beginning from the Partition of India, and which he saw as involving a massive propaganda assault as well as physical force, was the third such major expansion of Islam, we should in all our conversations with friends, families, workmates, classmates, pupils, etc etc, refer casually to "The Third Jihad", and be prepared to explain, when they boggle at us.
Conversely, when others speak of the 'war on terror' we must join in the conversation by speaking of 'the War of Self-Defence Against the Jihad'. When a 'terrorist' plot is thwarted, or a wannabe 'terrorist' captured, as just now in the UK, we must speak instead, to our friends and acquaintance, of 'jihad plots' and 'wannabe jihadis', and be prepared to expand.
A reminder, since we are talking about terminology:
Those of us who concur, as I do, with Hugh's analysis of the Arab Muslim jihad against the Jewish state of Israel (an analysis recently confirmed by the latest book by Benny Morris, of all people) should also be freely using in all our political conversation and writing, whenever the subject comes up, Hugh's corrected and exact terminology.
To wit: 'the lesser Jihad' (i.e. Muslim war on Israel, as opposed to 'greater' or 'main' Jihad, i.e. war against all other Infidels); 'slow jihad' (mostly by deceit, exemplified by Fatah); 'fast jihad' (mostly by ultraviolence, exemplified by Hamas); and for the local Arabs, as appropriate, either "'Palestinian' Arab" [if one can be reasonably sure some 'Palestinian' Arab/ised Christians are involved], or "'Palestinian' Arab Muslim" [if the Christians are manifestly NOT involved, e.g. a jihadi suicide-murderer]; and of course, "'Arab-occupied Judea and Samaria". When others talk of 'Arab East Jerusalem', shoot back with, 'and so, of course, you would agree that we should talk about 'Chinese Lhasa?'
We will know we are winning when a mainstream media outlet begins regularly saying 'jihad' and 'jihadi' or 'jihadist' in headlines where they would once have written 'terror', 'terrorism' or 'terrorist'. We have just one little thing on our side - 'jihad' is 5 letters long, whereas 'terror' and 'terrorism' use, respectively, 6 letters and 8 letters. Headline editors pushed for space may, one day, opt for the shorter words.
at April 21, 2008 10:43 PM
If the terrorists call themselves Muslims and they say they are fighting for Islam, let ISNA and all peace loving Muslims tell the terrorists to stop calling themselves Muslims. If the terrorists can do it without there being any up-roar from the rest of Muslim world, don't complain when non-Muslims do it, too. When Muslims start protesting as loud against the terrorists, maybe then they would be justified in protesting when McCain and other non-Muslims make the same association.
Posted by: Joe61 at April 22, 2008 1:15 AM
R_not... And everyone...
I've used those question in correspondence with a muslim named Anthony (?) from the west bank...
1.Do you support the death penalty for apostasy?
explain more about that.
2. Is beating women ever acceptable, and if not, do you reject those decrees of islamic law that sanction the beating of women?
If she cheats on the husband abosolutly its 80 stripes across the back by the shariah penalty unlike other religons its ok to dishonor the family.
3.Do you believe that Jews are in any way sub-human and if not, do you reject quranic interpretations that claim they are?
Allah calls jews and apes and pigs not all just the ones who killed the prophets unjustly in the past, but some muslims misinterpretit by meaning all jews.
4.Do you support declaring war against non-Muslims to subjugate them to Islam? Do you believe that it is fair and reasonable to offer non-Muslims three options: Conversion, Paying the Jizya, or Death?
Yes, why because God accepts one religon. Our war agaisnt non muslims is embracement as what we see today and through war if they dont accpet but against civilians is un Islamic Muhammed always went on the battlefield as he was commanded by God and yet he won all 78 battles some say they saw angels fighting next to the prophet. Why, because in Islam every other religon outside of Islam is the anti christ. Why, because there are no proper laws on humanity and no penalty for example: adultery, gayness,intoxicants,gambling,abortions,pre meritalsex,robbery,
illegal sexual intercourse and drugs. These are the religons that cause massive corruption in the world. In Islam the Dajall anti christ is America and every other nation. How? because Americas war on terrorism is a cover up they are trying to spread democracy that allows filth through war!! Muhammed said the dajjal is a anti christ system with one eye. And if you look at the back of a US dollar bill there is a one eyed pyramid! Allah will cause all religons to pass away except Islam. Muslims know that the US is satan. They die for God americans die for democracy. Jesus will return and kill the anti christ! a man who will appear and the signs are near according to Allah.
5.Do you support the enslavement of female war prisoners and having sex with them as concubines? If not, do you reject those interpretations in islamic Law, for "Ma-Malkakat Aymanikum", which justifies such actions?
LOL ofcourse not this wasnt in Muhammeds time period, he would kill anyone who did this we see this in Africa alot. Muhammed said end of times Islam knowledge will be taken away while ignorance will increase.
6.Do you support perpetual war against Jews to exterminate them, and if not, should those Muslims who incite such war be punished?
Yes Muslims should kill jews in war not civilians, Muhammed forbade in a hadith the killing of woman and children.
In Islam Allah will prevail the entire world tot he true religon until the world is in a state of purity. But no this I dont agree with bombs being strapped to children this is ignorance for example in the battle of badr youngers wanted to die for God and Muhammed said you are to young to die, when you grow up a little more then make your choice. It does seem like Islam is a death cult but its all in defence like in hamas. Remember they sacrafice their life for God not freedom which leads them to hellfire Im going to send you a amazing story on a sign of Allah in gaza strip!
_________________
There it is folks, when the time arrives don't take any prisoners, don't hesitate to exert your free will, and never forget that they're 'bloody' zombies...
Posted by: eloivsdiablo at April 22, 2008 2:29 AM
Update'
1- Do you support the death penalty for muslims who leave the faith?
Yes because if they go to hell for leaving Islam then their penalty is death in this world but heerafer if greater.
at April 22, 2008 2:52 AM
But, they do have a point...
What's the point of saying "Islamic" terrorism when ALL the terrorism is being committed by them.
Posted by: Stefcho at April 22, 2008 5:05 AM
"April 21, 2008
Muslim groups whine
and they are good at it...too bad they do not whine about any of the Islamic terrorist groups who are trying very hard to destroy the world..
Posted by: pulsar182 at April 22, 2008 5:59 AM
Mr. Fareed's usage of American/English idiom isn't as correct as he may think it is.
"I think this is just criminality, fair and square."
"Plain and simple" would have been more correct. Clearly, someone who has problems with our language should not dictate to us the words we use to describe our would-be murderers.
Posted by: Abscedere at April 22, 2008 10:21 AM
Long live McCain! Not only am I planning to vote for the Hero but I will campaign for him. May God (the real God not Allah) bless McCain.
My campaign sine will read like this:
Vote American, Vote McCain or Vote Anti American!
at April 22, 2008 10:32 AM
But, they do have a point...
What's the point of saying "Islamic" terrorism when ALL the terrorism is being committed by them.
Posted by: Stefcho
They are not the first and they won't be the last terrorists people reading this site have come across. It's important to define them as "islamic" because you have to know your enemy. Their cause is Islam which, on its face, is antithetical to American values.
Compare that to the IRA. The IRA wasn't out to rule Europe. Its members were terrorists but they had a specific enemy and a finite goal. They were of a different religion but their religion wasn't what they were fighting for. Irish immigrants to the US didn't come here to create an Irish outpost and rule this land in the name of Ireland. This is in stark contrast to Muslims who seek sharia law in American cities.
at April 22, 2008 11:37 AM
Live these words.
Posted by: mike trivisonno
---
That was a GREAT summation! I just reread what you wrote there. It expresses exactly how I feel about islam. They do the same in Europe. Acting as if they are suddenly "part" of our culture and society.
They are NOTHING but! They are ENEMY SOLDIERS indeed.
Don't let me meet one in a dark alley.
It will be "Two men enter one man leaves".
My advantage, they think we "infidels" haven't figured them out yet and therefore will fight with fairness and restraint.
I think I do no need to say anything more.
Posted by: Ummah Gummah at April 23, 2008 12:43 AM
eloivsdiablo,
Thanks for sharing that interesting and scary look into the mind of your average muslim. Most enlightening.
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at April 23, 2008 7:47 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)