| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
The new State Department/DHS guidelines forbidding use of the words "jihad" and "jihadist" have generated a great deal of discussion.
When I wrote this article about it in Human Events, many people wrote to me to say that this was not a matter of political correctness, but an attempt to delegitimize the enemy in the eyes of its supporters. However, the assumption that what the U.S. calls Osama bin Laden and his ilk will affect how they're viewed in the Islamic world is based on an ignorance of how Islam traditionally views unbelievers, especially when it comes to Islamic issues. The idea that Muslims in large numbers would be influenced by what State or the DHS calls the jihadists is absurd -- and even more absurd is the D'Souzaite idea that large numbers of peaceful Muslims will be so enraged by American officials using the word "jihad" that they'll join that jihad when otherwise they would not have done so.
The New York Post ably skewers that one:
Other terms, like "Islamo-fascism," are also taboo, on grounds that they're "offensive to many Muslims."Are they kidding?
As if Condi Rice letting slip the word "jihad" is going to rouse thousands of young Muslims who otherwise showed not the slightest interest to suddenly strap on explosives and start singing the praises of Osama bin Laden.
Excellent, detailed analyses of the new guidelines and why they're so wrongheaded can be found from Patrick Poole here and from Jeffrey Imm here.
Posted by Robert at May 1, 2008 6:36 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
OK, so our leaders are muddleheaded and misguided and refuse to use the "I" or "J" words. That does not mean the rest of us are obliged to follow suit. In fact, this makes it all the more important for informed and concerned citizens to use these terms in their correct contexts in public forums wherever and whenever they apply.
Posted by: Eastview![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 1, 2008 7:15 AM
Here's one who buys it, wholesale:
“Walking a dog across the street to ensure it doesn’t get hit by a fast-moving car is a jihad, one Islamic cleric told The Nation.”
* Not naming the enemy will save us all from Islamic terrorism:
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 1, 2008 7:19 AM
To the majority of freedom-loving persons of the civilized world - islam is offensive.
So ban islam!
At least the dhimmis could acknowledge the global islamosupremacists' calls for violence (against even themselves and their own people) and incessant pervasive irrational hatred of non-muslims and stop being sniveling opportunist-cowards and demand a ban on such activities. There will then be no need for thought control of words and thought police to attempt to stop freedom of speech and expresion.
And until then - islamofascism's j i h a d will be the most descriptive and accurate term used by civilized peoples (non-dhimmi, non-coward) to describe the main purpose of the "religion of peace".
Posted by: TINBH at May 1, 2008 7:26 AM
That NY Post article still gets it wrong:
"Jihadism is the religious-inspired ideology [that teaches] that it is the moral obligation of all Muslims to employ whatever means are necessary to compel the world's submission to Islam." That's not mainstream Islam, of course.
at May 1, 2008 7:32 AM
Can we really make the enemy like us - through erudite semantics? Can we make them like us, at all?
It would appear that our leadership thinks so. On the brighter side, this is as close as any of them have come to thinking strategically in eight years. The implication is that they recognize the problem is islam - but lack the courage to say so.
If one does not look a bully in the eye - maybe, he will leave you alone. This strategy might have given Neville Chamberlain pause. (He was not a compleat idiot.)
Posted by: HotSpur at May 1, 2008 7:35 AM
“Walking a dog across the street to ensure it doesn’t get hit by a fast-moving car is a jihad, one Islamic cleric told The Nation.”
-- from a posting above
This has, amusingly, a cadence and syntax reminiscent of that obnoxious television adm the onein which two young women -- one white, one black, both attractive and obviously blooming with yogurt-induced helath -- still in their wedding-party white dresses, spoon out the yogurt as they come up with different ways to praise that Yoplait, the object of their affection and presumably, therefore, of ours.
How is that Yoplait Yogurt good?
Oh, the advertisement lets them come up with different ways. Until they finally come up with this:
"It's [the yogurt in question] is "not-catching-the-wedding-bouquet" good.
One does not have to be Pope Benedict to be disturbed by this kind of anti-marriage propaganda, nor need one wonder why the birth-rate among educated women -- the kind depicted in the ad -- plummets, and dysgenics triumphs.
Posted by: Hugh at May 1, 2008 7:36 AM
dys·gen·ic
Variant: also dis·gen·ic /(')dis-'jen-ik/
Function: adjective
1 : tending to promote survival of or reproduction by less well-adapted individuals (as the weak or diseased) especially at the expense of well-adapted individuals (as the strong or healthy)
2 : biologically defective or deficient
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Perfect.
at May 1, 2008 7:49 AM
"That's not mainstream Islam, of course."
From the NY Post article.
The editor may have forced that disclaimer to be included. Too bad, because it weakens an otherwise pretty good piece.
Posted by: Eastview at May 1, 2008 7:52 AM
"...nor need one wonder why the birth-rate among educated women ... plummets, and dysgenics triumphs."
Posted by Hugh
Good point, and thanks justamomof4 for the precise definition of dysgenics. This is a sticky problem, because it tends to lead directly to unsettling calls to "doing something" about it. I wouldn't touch this issue with a ten foot pole.
Posted by: Eastview at May 1, 2008 8:08 AM
Eastview,
Oh, go for it. Why else do we think of Eurabia, where the natives have been suffering from "not-catching-the-wedding-bouquet" fever for decades?
Hugh,
See what you've started?
P.S. "Jihadism is the religious-inspired ideology [that teaches] that it is the moral obligation of all Muslims to employ whatever means are necessary to compel the world's submission to Islam." ~ Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, Editor of First Things
Posted by: Lex at May 1, 2008 8:54 AM
Rice was recently forced to put a dollar in the JIHAD Slip-Up Jar at State for saying:
"Gee, I had a better idea on how to fight terrorism: self-censorship."
-whihc a Muslim employee in the department mistook for Condi using the verboten word and that immediately caused them to join the forces of Al Qaeda in Islamo-linguistic outrage.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 1, 2008 9:08 AM
I counted the letters in jihad, and behold it is not a four letter word as we know them in the English language. But if we read the Quran and understand how the word is applied nearly 85 Pct. of the time as what many have termed the "lesser jihad". Jihad is a word that is applicable to a prescribed action in the Islamic world, thus one cannot necessarily describe it as the term Nazi.
But we can and should use the term Jihadist, or Islamic Jihadist to describe those within the umma who are bent on applying it.
It is a serious mistake to dismiss this word that so clearly is used as the term to attack the infidel, and non Muslim West.
In the past 48hrs. I heard President Bush use the term Jihad and Jihadist 3 times while giving a press conference in the Rose Garden and I hope he doesn't stop uing the terms.
Let us not appease any Muslim and tell it like it is, otherwise we will began to fall into the same foolish and pitiful trap of the overly zealous multiculturalistic British.
God save us from that nonsence!!!
Posted by: Mackie at May 1, 2008 9:15 AM
The city-state of Washington D.C. has just announced their desire to have an alliance with the Jihadist in their pursuit to oppress and subjugate the Kafur of the world. They must see great benefits in this new fascist system they are embracing with such open and loving arms.
I'm so pisst off, who would have thought on 9/11 that the biggest ally of Al-Queda would be Washington?
at May 1, 2008 9:30 AM
It's really great knowing that my tax dollars are going to such ninnies in these agencies. There are a lot of good reasons to criticize this prissiness, but I think the main one is that it's so obsequious.
An assertive government is a protective government. That's what I pay for, not this.
at May 1, 2008 9:32 AM
Even when I was five I never understood the 'strategy' of my younger brother who when afraid there was a monster in the bedroom dived under the covers.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at May 1, 2008 9:42 AM
Of course, Hugh, I never caught a bouquet in my life, and still got married. 25 years, this year, in fact. I just avoid weddings, is all. (We eloped.)
If you think about it, if yogurt is so much better than any man, you really have to worry what they are putting in the yogurt.
It seems the same mentality is at work with the State Department. They wish to avoid catching the bouquet, so to speak, and seem content to delude themselves that their "yogurt" will suffice.
at May 1, 2008 9:48 AM
Freedom of Speech, Condi.
"Jihad and Jihadist."
Have a nice day.
Posted by: darcy at May 1, 2008 10:29 AM
OK, so our leaders are muddleheaded and misguided and refuse to use the "I" or "J" words. That does not mean the rest of us are obliged to follow suit. In fact, this makes it all the more important for informed and concerned citizens to use these terms in their correct contexts in public forums wherever and whenever they apply.
by Eastview
What we say is irrelevant. Our leaders are the ones with the power of the purse and with the ability to dole out the cash and to defend our allies who promise they are not out to kill Americans, even as those same "allies" nurture jihadists who are. Our leaders are the ones whose words are given credence in Arab press.
Our leaders aren't likely ever to pay for their betrayal of America's heritage. They'll most likely escape any attack on America (unless it occurs during the SOTU address) and be the first to say we mustn't "judge others".
We can say "jihad" and "jihadist" all we want. It doesn't matter. Our leaders will tell any government that takes offense at our postings not to worry about those "bitter" Americans.
To add insult to injury, we are the ones paying for our own destruction. Our tax dollars are going to pay for government (whom we elected - we're not totally blameless) and to put our own soldiers on the line for people who are unworthy of their sacrifices.
at May 1, 2008 10:35 AM
From article: However, the assumption that what the U.S. calls Osama bin Laden and his ilk will affect how they're viewed in the Islamic world is based on an ignorance of how Islam traditionally views unbelievers, especially when it comes to Islamic issues.
This is exactly right. And further, because it is an obligation on all muslims to support and participate in jihad, as spoken by Allah in Quran and illustrated by Mohammad, it is an insult to call the holy warriors of Islam anything but jihadists. And any acts they commit in the name of Allah, Islam and the Prophet, are Holy acts. They are all 'Hizbollah The Party of God', all of them, just as all muslims are Abdallah, slave to Allah. Allah does not punish jihad, he rewards it.
Jihad cannot be a criminal activity unless laws of Allah are violated. That's what Sharia is for.
Muslims worked out their systems of Sharia, and belief in Allah's instructions way before the invent of the Bush administration. For infidels to try and redefine Islamic laws and traditions by 'word magic', is almost laughable. To try and 'word' away Islam wont work because Islam does not want to listen to you, and cares less what a filthy kuffar, who's destined to Allah's furnace,
has to say about much of anything. Unless it can be turned into something profitable, or furthers the cause of Allah, then it may be halal.
at May 1, 2008 12:13 PM
"...many people wrote to me to say that this was not a matter of political correctness, but an attempt to delegitimize the enemy in the eyes of its supporters..."
I say we keep the words jihad and jihadist. Enemies must be identified. Why not keep adding filtering adjectives until something works. How about illegitimate-jihadist?
Anybody with half a brain knows there is an association with Islam and Jihad in these matters. I know I've seen "Misunderstanders of Islam" quite often. I just wish one of these could condense into a politically correct acronym in its own right. Then we would only need to occasionally expand the acronym until everybody knew what it was.
Ex. Laser - Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation
at May 1, 2008 1:43 PM
I was thinking about some of Roberts prior articles over lunch, like "Why Muslims can't debate". It made me think of the term 'mental midget'. Then it all fit together.
MIJIT as in:
M = Misunderstanding
I = Illegitimate
J = Jihadic
I = Islamic
T = Terrorist
Makes for some interesting formulations, such as MIJIT fighter, MIJIT combatant, etc.
Are we disparaging Islam? No, we are saying these individuals misunderstand Islam. Are we misusing the word Jihad? No, we are saying these individuals are illegitimate jihadists.
Posted by: ProtectAmerica at May 1, 2008 4:18 PM
The new State Department/DHS guidelines forbidding use of the words "jihad" and "jihadist" - JW
That appears to be the trend, not sure if you've read " US in a bind over Pakistan militants"?
at May 1, 2008 4:23 PM
*sigh*
I don't bother with terms like "jihadist" or "islamist."
I call the enemy by thier name: Muslims.
at May 1, 2008 5:02 PM
thEIr. Sheesh.
Preview is your friend.
at May 1, 2008 5:03 PM
An good essay on the Islamization of Europe.
http://www.trouw.nl/service/english/article975616.ece/Islamization_crept_in_a_long_time_ago
at May 1, 2008 5:57 PM
Borg,
Good link. Islamization has been going on for a long time but I looked for more facts.
Turkey, as the author described it, was not encouraging. The only way it remained secular was under the boot heel of the military. 140,000 people out of how many million (?) protested saying they feared social pressure to wear the headscarf. Not that they would refuse. That they needed an excuse not to wear it and laws gave them their out. Turkey isn't secular. It was Islamized centuries ago. Ataturk tried to reverse it but he wasn't successful. He stifled it for a time, but it's rising again.
I thought there would be more analysis of what made Europe go along with this Islamization, after centuries of struggling against Islamic conquerors who sought to bring Europe under Islam's domain. What made them give up?
Especially the Western Europeans. The Grand Mufti allied himself with Hitler. They fought Hitler and stopped there.
at May 1, 2008 7:45 PM
The words are in the Islamic books. The words describe exactly what we see today. The words need to be debated in Congress before the people. The words need to be debated with Muslims everywhere.
Now.
at May 2, 2008 4:27 AM
Jeffrey Imm, a counterterrorism expert who frequently writes on the Counterterrorism Blog, was amongst a number of analysts who rightly warned of the dangers of defining the enemy as “extremism”. The failure of the American Government, he said, “is the inability to understand that Islamism is an activist ideology. Islamism is not just a supremacist way of thinking like racism or other supremacist viewpoints … [It is] an activist conflation of Islam with a political form of governance driven by imperatives for control and action” (emphasis added). But whilst Imm is correct to identify Islamic terrorism as jihadist, he is wrong that this is the result of a “conflation” of Islam with political aspirations, since this assumes Islam is a priori a politically independent “faith”.
Posted by: dlp at May 2, 2008 4:48 AM
I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2008/05/re-jihadists-or.html
Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at May 4, 2008 3:13 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.)