When officials criticize the word jihad, they offend Muslims, Magid says. "You isolate so many people by using that. We need to discredit terrorism."

The list of things which offend muslims grows every day. I can't keep up! Soon calling muslims muslims will offend them.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at July 18, 2008 7:03 AM

"Th 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 the article above

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 refernces 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 -- 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, and 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, and in countries that have made a state religion out of easygoing tolerance, such as Denmark and The Netherlands, perhaps even more than in the case of 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 religioin of peace and tolerance and so on, when he knew nothing about Islam, 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 those who have decided, slowly, to inform themselves about Islam, because the reality based on that daily Jihad News From All Over became too overwhelming, and 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, 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, 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 inteligently 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 wilfully blind, who don't dare to let certain things be known because they have no idea what to do if those things become known, lack the imagination to figure out what policies might work to weaken the Camp of Islam (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 Administraton 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.

Posted by: Hugh at July 18, 2008 7:04 AM

The NPR types are usually one of the first to go when a facists segment of society takes over a counry, if they only knew they will be targeted first by islamists.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at July 18, 2008 7:36 AM

The liberal (and the Administration's) position on terrorism is to keep the good parts of Islam and get rid of the bad parts. This may be a noble effort but is it possible? I think not. Everyday we are watching new recruits in Jihad. These Jihadists metastasize and spread from one to another with the support of the Islamic community. Islam is after all a brotherhood and promotes comradery among those "Islamic soldiers" who are willing to go all the way for the sake of their religion. In all its 1400 year history, Islam has been spread by the sword in the name of Allah.

This is obvious to me and many others. But either it is not obvious to the liberal community (NPR et al) or these same liberals are intentionally sowing the seeds of our society's destruction because they don't like us. I choose to believe the latter. This is the same old liberal/conservative conundrum that we have faced since the 60's. But this time, this new ally of the left called Islam, will destroy all of us except those who wish to live in the 10th century. That is,unless we honestly confront Islam directly with conviction.

Posted by: Spot on at July 18, 2008 7:46 AM

Jihad..Jihad...Jihad....Jihad...Jihad...= danger
lol I am also running with sissors....walking in front of a black cat under a ladder.....This is a joke and a new reason to turn off the radio. If a person is arrested for murder... we call them a murderer...so what we do is call it like it is....so Jihad = Islam = death to infadels.....and anyone that does not go along willingly to the god of the moon........

Posted by: mountiangirl at July 18, 2008 7:50 AM

"You isolate so many people by using that. We need to discredit terrorism."

MUSLIMS need to discredit terrorism. If MUSLIMS cannot see that killing people is wrong then there is only one answer: kill them before they kill us.

No one anywhere is "preventing Muslims from practicing their religion" unless Muslims consider killing people of a different faith "practicing their religion".
On the contrary, it is Muslims everywhere who are doing their best to prevent others from practicing their own religions - best illustrated by the bombing of churches, synagagoues, temples, etc.

If referring to some groups as jihadists (and how do we avoid that when they start groups such as Islamic Jihad, which our own media keep translating as Islamic holy war?) "actually pays those groups a compliment in the eyes of some Muslims" then those who view the term favorably are the ones we need to worry about. That means the person who never picks up a gun or even considers strapping a bomb to himself is a danger to us because he cannot see the danger his fellow Muslims pose to human civilization.

It's them or us. We didn't choose this fight. They did.

Posted by: PMK at July 18, 2008 7:58 AM

Author Tawfik Hamid "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,"

But if even they, will that change the meaning of Jihad in the Koran? I dont think so.

Let us consider the hypothetical situation that ALL Muslims at present living in the West, accepted the call to clean up their communities of extremism. They even went further and made the changes in their teachings of the Koran and the Jihad. Such an outcome would no doubt come as a relief to many on this site, the government, the MSM, and elsewhere. But I counter, that all such changes were being done merely to protect the ummah while it grows at ever-increasing pace in the West. Once a near majority is achieved, that future generation of Muslims will simply revoke any changes, and return to the traditions of the unchanging and unchangeable Koran i.e., the canonical texts of Islam that cannot be changed, but only protected when under duress. That future generation of Muslims in the UK and the USA will even praise this generation of Muslims for having done what was necessary to protect Islam.

Islamic ideologues take the long view - in decades or centuries, or more. It is only right that we as well consider options keeping in mind Islam's long-term goals.

Posted by: DP111 at July 18, 2008 7:59 AM

NPR is not particularly relevant...

word jihad, they offend Muslims, Magid says. "You isolate so many people by using that. We need to discredit terrorism."

There are dingbats running the show.

What kind of reverse, backward and upside down thinkers produce these absurdities. They actually think not talking about jihad is a weapon against jihadists, and discredits terrorism? That somehow they plan on winning this war by verbal manipulations? Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, think no evil, about Islam, jihad, terrorism, is submission to Allah. " Islam is the Religion of Peace", is submission to Allah...ain't that right George...

And Barack is going to inherit these people? Oh boy, are we having fun yet?

These are just previews of coming attractions, the movie has not started yet...

Posted by: duh_swami at July 18, 2008 8:08 AM

As the NPR spokeswoman stated . . .Jihad,(2:19)

"what does it actually mean? Jihad is considered to be a religious duty, a struggle, striving in the path of god. A quest to quit smoking or drinking can be a jihad. So is resisting an occupying force or fighting someone who is preventing you from practicing your religion."

continuing with Imam

"Muhammad Majid is an imam with ADAM Center, a collective of seven mosques in Virginia. He says when officials criticize jihad, they offend muslims."

Majid:

"You isolate so many people by using that. We need to discredit terrorism"

Actually, it's not 'terrorism' Majid is concerned with discrediting as much as he is concerned with discrediting criticism of jihad.

At this point I just had to turn it off. The stench of b.s. was too thick and heavy, triggering dry heaves.

From the written article above:

"Just like you wouldn't call Josef Stalin a hero of the revolution, you don't want to call Osama bin Laden a jihadist. He loves it," says Duncan MacInnes, a spokesman for the State Department's Counterterrorism Communication Center.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at July 18, 2008 8:23 AM

Terrorism is not the only, not even the main, problem. The doctrine of Jihad, and the view of Infidels inculcated by Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, are the problems.

The monomaniacal focus on terrorim almost wilfully encourages the peoples and governments of the Western world to ignore Jihad in the broader sense, and the other instruments of Jihad that are employed to attain the same goals as those sought by terrorists.

These instruments include deployment of the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest from within the Lands of the Infidels, the Bilad al-kufr, in order to remove all obstacles to the spread, and dominance, of Islam.

If there is indeed nothing at all disturbing or worrisome about Islam and all one objects to is one particular means of arriving at the goal -- the means of terrorism - then by all means, let's forget about Jihad, and talk only terrorism. For that would mean that we accept all other attempts to change our legal and political institutions and social arrangements, all other means taken to assure the same end, that all obstacles to the spread of Islam are removed, and Islam not only spreads, but dominates everywhere.

So before you decide whether or not this worries or disturbs you, you need to know something about Islam. You need to look at the texts and tenets. You need, that is, to have some acquaintance with the Qur'an and Hadith and Sira, and to understand how these texts are received by the audience of Believers. You need to study some history, the history of Muslim conquest of non-Muslim lands, and the history of the subsuquent subjugation of non-Muslims by Muslims, in order to see if there are striking similarites,or differences, in the treatment of those non-Muslims, either through time, or across space. You need to not only learn, but to have time to take in, to make your own, to assimilate, the material you have learned, so that it all begins to make sense.

So do look at Islam, steadily and whole. Take a look at the habit of mental submission, take a look at the collectivism and the indifference or even hatred for the idea of individual rights, take a look at the attitude toward free and skeptical inquiry, at the attitude toward most forms of artistic expression, at the moral code of Islam, in which whatever Infidels do, they remain Infidels and must ultimately be subjugated, though not necessarily eliminated entirely, and put in the position, at best, of dhimmis, that is given a status that includes permanent degradation, humiliation, and physical insecurity.

Posted by: Hugh at July 18, 2008 8:28 AM

As long as a jihadi is trying to kill you (which has been the case since the 7th century),

The best jihadi is a dead one.

Pass the word.

And keep your powder dry.

Posted by: dgene at July 18, 2008 8:42 AM

Hugh has said it perfectly in his above post. The main problem we have in this fight is the use of the word "terrorism" to define the enemy. It is impossible to fight if you have not identified the enemy and you will end up wasting time swinging at shadows allowing the real enemy to illude you and kill you.

Posted by: Spot on at July 18, 2008 9:47 AM

"We need to discredit terrorists..."

We need to talk to them, we need to give them money and education, we need to discredit the 'bad' things they do, we need to do this and we shouldn't say that. Blah blah blah.

The NPR crowd never says, we need to KILL them. Even if they know sometimes that is necessary, THEY will never be the ones to say or do it - that's for others. Let someone else kill the Jihadist bulldozer driver, NPR is there to 'understand' him. The NPR crowd only say 'nice' and 'pretty' things because they are so wonderful.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at July 18, 2008 9:56 AM

What's left? Calling them Not Nice People?, or would that be too judgemental.

Posted by: Balrog at July 18, 2008 10:13 AM

Reminds me of the movie Aliens the sequel where space marines go to a colony that is infested by these species and are told to use low yield firearms than their usual high powered weapons. They respond by saying we should use harsh words to combat a deadly enemy.

We are whitewashing the problem and undermining the onerous that falls on Muslims to address these tenets in their Koran and Islamic jurisprudence. The Muslims have instead used fault finding and blaming west and other nations of the problem. They have named jihad as freedom fighters, they have named jihad as a fight against oppression by the west, Israel or India. They have named jihad as fighting western tyranny etc.

Posted by: savsiv at July 18, 2008 10:47 AM

Hugh wrote:

"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."

Here is what *I* would like to see happening.

I'd like to see Duntroon, Australia's officer training college, hiring Ayaan Hirsi Ali to present a compulsory, intensive course to ALL the students, and the faculty as well; a course about Jihad and where it comes from, and how Muslims are taught to view infidels (especially Jews), and women, and about strategic lying, and all the rest of it, chapter and verse, from the Quran, the Sira and the Hadith.

Then she does a tour of all our army camps and talks to the diggers and their officers: especially all those who have served in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and those who went into East Timor to try to pick up the pieces, after the jihadist mass-murderers and vandals had pulled out. I'd like to see her giving tutorials to the likes of General Cosgrove.

Wouldn't that be luvverly!

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 18, 2008 8:15 PM