| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
My column in FrontPage this week discusses the Muslim outrage over remarks by McCain's friend Bud Day (news links in the original):
Muslim spokesmen in the U.S. are outraged over remarks made last Friday by Bud Day, a key supporter of John McCain. Day, a much-decorated Air Force Colonel and Medal of Honor recipient who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam with McCain, said during a conference call organized by the Florida Republican Party that “the Muslims have said either we kneel, or they’re going to kill us.” Day added: “I don’t intend to kneel, and I don’t advocate to anybody that we kneel, and John doesn’t advocate to anybody that we kneel.”The reaction was swift. Saif Ishoof, president of the Center for Voter Advocacy, said that Day’s remarks were “perpetuating a form of Islamophobia.” Khaled Saffuri, the Executive Director of the Islamic Institute (which he co-founded with Grover Norquist), was also deeply offended. “‘This is as close to racist as it gets,” he declared. “These are cheap street tactics. Even if this is called a mistake or a slip of the tongue, it shows a bigger problem with racism. McCain and the Republican party should denounce this.” (Keith Olbermann also termed Day’s words “racism and religious hatred,” although neither he nor Saffuri explained what race Islam is.)
Corey Saylor, national legislative director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), also called on McCain to distance himself from Day, stating that “CAIR would like to see Senator McCain come out and make a clear statement repudiating these remarks. We don’t believe they’re helpful at all in either putting out the campaign’s message or winning the hearts and minds in the Muslim world that America needs to be winning.”However, a repudiation from McCain was not immediately forthcoming. McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb said only: “The threat we face is from radical Islamic extremism.” However, a spokeswoman for the Republican Party, according to the Miami Herald, “said later that Day acknowledged he misspoke and ‘made an unfortunate mistake’ because he meant to say ‘terrorists’ and not ‘Muslims.’ The Herald itself took for granted that Day had said something wrong, calling his remarks a “gaffe on Muslims.”
Unnoticed, however, in the controversy over Day’s remarks was the fact that what he said was essentially accurate. While it is certainly true that not all Muslims are trying to “make us kneel,” there can be no legitimate question whatsoever that there are indeed Muslims who are engaged in such an effort. The Muslim Brotherhood in the United States is, according to a Brotherhood operative, engaged in a “grand jihad” aimed at “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.”
What’s more, there is considerable reason to suspect that some of the Muslim leaders who have been most indignant over Day’s words are involved in this “grand jihad.” Investigative journalist Kenneth Timmerman wrote in 2004 of Khaled Saffuri’s considerable influence in Washington, and then noted that “some of the very people Saffuri introduced to Bush and Rove are in federal prison on terrorism-related charges. Others have been expelled from the country. Still other former colleagues and donors have become subjects of a massive federal probe into U.S. funding of terrorist organizations that is code-named Operation Greenquest….Saffuri’s ties to radical Islamists and apologists for terror are neither superficial nor coincidental.” And CAIR, of course, was in 2007 named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas terror funding case, and has had several of its officials arrested and convicted on terrorism-related charges.
Why was none of this been mentioned in mainstream media coverage of this story? It isn’t really surprising that it wasn’t, given the tendencies and perspectives of the mainstream media – indeed, it would have been more surprising if they had mentioned it. But Bud Day’s remarks should have been judged for their accuracy: are there, or are there not, Muslims trying to make us kneel? No one would have objected in 1944 if a military spokesman had said that “the Germans are trying to make us kneel,” and someone who took offense to such a statement on the grounds that not all Germans were pro-Nazi would only have been ridiculed. However, CAIR has shown in the past that the accuracy of statements to which it takes umbrage does nothing to mitigate their hurt feelings. And now the primacy of hurt feelings has been enshrined into law in Canada: as we have seen in the Mark Steyn trials in Canada, truth and accuracy is no defense against charges of “hate speech.” In a sane world, instead of taking offense, Islamic spokesmen in the U.S. would have been assuring reporters that they were working energetically within Muslim communities against those who wished to make non-Muslims kneel. But sanity is at a premium in the public debate on Islamic jihad today.
Posted by Robert at July 23, 2008 8:51 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
No need to worry.
When Obama is elected we will not only have to kneel to him but also to the Muslims.
Then we will no longer be called racists.
Or will we?
Personally, I think Obama and his followers will turn up the racist accusations no matter what we do.
I'll just be a dhimmi white man.
Posted by: cybo![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 23, 2008 9:26 AM
Good--no swift and abject apology from McCain, whose instincts I basicallly trust. But, then again, I'm just a bitter, Islamophobic, typical white personliving in an America that is just downright mean.
Posted by: John C at July 23, 2008 9:38 AM
There are many of us who do not intend to kneel.
Posted by: HotSpur at July 23, 2008 9:49 AM
To have Senator McCain throw Colonel Bud Day under the bus would be a seriously negative, and defining moment in his Presidential campaign. It would speak volumes as to whether Senator McCain is going to play the dhimmi card and appease these people.
Most of the media that reported on the Bud Day story are writing their stories as they hear them and very few could tell you why Colonel Day expressed himself on the matter in the way he did. Very few reporters set back as they write their stories and ask the question of themselves; why would this highly respected war hero respond the way he did, gaff or no gaff ? There's a lot of reporters out there, but very few of them would qualify as experienced journalists who take the time to research what should be the most important thing to understand in this dangerous world we are living in today. It is frustrating enough to have a looney left wing TV reporter such as Keith Olberman who thinks Islam, and Muslims are a race reporting on such matters on a major cable news channel. It always amazes me that this clown who displays a form of pseudo intelligence, and arrogance is anchoring a news program.
I wish we had more people out there in the MSM that have developed knowledge about the teachings of Islam. unfortunately many of those print journalists, or radio and television journalists who have done their homework are being attacked and thrown under the bus by the very people they are trying to WAKE UP to these ideological clashes such as Mark Steyn in Canada.
Canadian Human Rights Organizations:--- Who is the real victim here, Muslims or Freedom of expression?
Posted by: Mackie at July 23, 2008 11:10 AM
Olberman sets the perfect example of liberalism being a harmful disease. The only person I will kneel before will be Jesus Christ.
Posted by: Bonniea at July 23, 2008 1:14 PM
Robert
Correction - make that 'Bud Day vs. Muslim Radicals'. Just because Bud Day made the right statements about Mohammedans doesn't automatically make those McCain's: as you've yourself pointed out in the past, there is a lot wanting in McCain vis a vis Islam.
McCain 'admires the Islam', as he's himself said. Bud Day doesn't. Major difference.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 23, 2008 3:08 PM
To the great frustration of our Islamic enemies this country actually allows such things as Colonel Day said to be said without worrying about being hauled in before some "Human Rights Commission". The real purpose of these commissions, of course, is to suppress free speech by empowering certain minority groups to effectively punish those who say things that embarrass them. Except on university campuses (bastions of liberal fascism) the USA doesn't have such HR commisions. So keep telling us about Islam Colonel Day!
Posted by: FM at July 23, 2008 5:12 PM
McCain vs. 'Muslim' Radicals
".....McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb said only: The threat we face is from radical Islamic extremism. However, a spokeswoman for the Republican Party, according to the Miami Herald, said later that Day acknowledged he misspoke and ‘made an unfortunate mistake’ because he meant to say ‘terrorists’ and not ‘Muslims.’...."
This is yet another example of how ISLAMISTS have forced someone [who is a natural ally in this war] to 'back-pedal', due to some perceived ambiguity about a *definition*.
Due to some perceived 'offensive' implication, caused by the use of a term [in this case, 'muslim'], which is not clearly defined.
THE PROBLEM...
WE OURSELVES, are allowing devout muslims to take a tactical advantage, by *our* use of *their* own *obfuscatory* terms.
We are letting muslims define the terms in this war - a war of ideas, and words.
In this instance, for example, the term 'muslim' itself.
As we all know, the word 'muslim' describes a very 'broad church', so to speak.
EXAMPLE #1...
So, two muslims stand before you.
One is a Jihadist.
One, simply a 'nominal' muslim.
But you cannot tell one from the other.
It is the old problem again...
How can *anyone* know which is which???
We can not.
And wherever there is ever a shred of doubt, our opponents always rush to define 'muslims' as a community of peace loving individuals.
AND IT IS WE [non-muslims], who *still* describe ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE GROUP as 'muslims'.
...and i propose that we should not do that!
EXAMPLE #2...
The use of the word Jihad.
'Jihad'...Is this the 'inner struggle', or the Jihad against unbelief?
And whenever someone is associated with the term 'Jihad' through their [intended] actions, wherever there is ever a shred of doubt, our opponents always rush to define 'Jihad' as merely an inner struggle, on the path to perfection.
Why do we allow this ambiguity in terms, used to define our enemies [themselves!], and their actions?
Why can't *we* begin to define [for ourselves] those who hate us, and wish us harm?
MY SUGGESTION....
If we can define, or come to an understanding that all who support the spread of *Sharia*, are [without any doubt] our ideological enemies, then why not, wherever possible, seek to refer to those people [those ideological 'combatants', Jihadists] directly, in all of *our* communication about ISLAM, and the actions and endeavours of its followers???
My suggestion, is that we should define the group [of 'engaged' muslims, Jihadist] with a new word, or term.
i.e.
Whenever we [non-muslims] are tempted to use the word 'muslim[s]', wherever possible, WE SHOULD INSTEAD REFER TO THIS GROUP AS,
Lovers Of Sharia [or simply, LOS].
[Or we could define devout muslims, Jihadists, using *another term*. But we need to develop and use some 'mechanism', to change the rules of this 'game', which the Jihadists are playing *so well* against us. We must start to use terms which help ourselves, to *clearly* define who are Jihadists themselves, their intended actions, and which can expose ISLAMS lies and obfuscation!!!]
Think about this concept for a moment...
Lovers Of Sharia [or simply, LOS]
All Jihadists *are* LOS.
If we determined to use terms such as this, then any 'nominal' muslim, who *claims* to embrace pluralism would be 'called out', so to speak.
...because no true 'nominal' muslim, would be willing to be identified within that LOS 'grouping'.
...because no true, 'nominal' muslim, can be a 'Lover Of Sharia'.
...because 'everyone' knows, that Sharia mandates intolerance of everything un-ISLAMIC, and Western.
Use of such a term[s], would immediately, and irrevocably, identify those violent hateful people [Jihadists, LOS!], within that diverse group we currently define broadly as, 'muslims'.
at July 23, 2008 9:24 PM
Down with Sharia Supremacists!
Posted by: John C at July 23, 2008 11:24 PM
"Call them 'sharia-pushers'?"
Whatever dumbledore.
But we need to use a term which will clearly define people as ISLAMIST's, and clearly identify their allegiance's,
.....WHEN WE REFER TO THEM IN OUR 'COMMUNICATIONS'.
Unfortunately, terms like 'Muslims', and 'Jihadists', are to ill-defined today.
Posted by: Zuk2 at July 23, 2008 11:59 PM
dumbledore,
For example, look at Roberts lead-in, to this thread,
"My column in FrontPage this week discusses the Muslim outrage over remarks by McCain's friend Bud Day (news links in the original):"
Who are 'the muslims'?
This is such an ill-defined term today.
WHY NOT SOMETHING LIKE THIS?....
"My column in FrontPage this week discusses the outrage of those LOS, over remarks by McCain's friend Bud Day (news links in the original):"
People who read anti-ISLAMIST blogs like JW, would soon come to understand who 'LOS' are.
....'LOS' could defined as 'Lovers Of Sharia', at the top of an article, until it became .
And it would be difficult for ISLAMIST's to 'rebuke' us, for identifying them, as those 'who love Sharia'.
....Sharia itself, defines ISLAMIST's, as those who are intolerant and cruel.
Allah's way = Sharia
Surely those who disbelieve and turn away from Allah's way, then they die while they are unbelievers, Allah will by no means forgive them.
And be not slack so as to cry for peace and you have the upper hand, and Allah is with you, and He will not bring your deeds to naught.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/047.qmt.html#047.034 & 35
at July 24, 2008 1:26 AM
Bud Day said “the Muslims have said either we kneel, or they’re going to kill us.” Maybe part of the reaction is inspired by the word "the": "the Muslims", which sounds like "all". It does sound like "all".
Even if that is so, we have the familiar chant "Islam is the religion of peace." Aside from that's not so, the word "the" here suggests an exclusive intent, as if to say that Islam is the ONLY religion of peace. Let's ask to hear that much retracted by those Muslims who know better.
And then, can we conclude that the Muslim reaction - THE Muslim reaction - to Bud Day is negative? No, we can't. So many Muslims have not reacted, it begins to look like the all-negative reaction that surfaced represents only a tiny minority of Muslims. Come on, let's hear from some Muslims who get it and who are willing to speak to the issues.
at July 24, 2008 3:00 AM
Who cares if the Muslims or their dogs at CAIR are outraged, upset or angry over anything anyone says or does? Muslims were born angry because they at the bottom of the pyramid which is headed by Jews.
Now suppose we anger the Muslims here or there, is that really news? An angry Muslim should feel home. Muslims were born angry and born to be angry for the rest of their lives. That is why they feel their lives are worthless - they will kill themselves at a chance to injure an American or a Jew.
So, angry Muslims should be no big deal - have anyone ever seen a non angry Muslim?
at July 24, 2008 1:14 PM
If these Islamic arses had wanted to win over Day and the rest of us, they should have acknowledged the atrocious history of Islam and said something to the effect of, "We understand why you would feel that way, and we wish to work with you to improve our relationship. We are not interested in making you kneel or taking over your country."
But NO! Instead these Muslim psychos had to entirely prove Day's point by becoming belligerent, hostile, aggressive and potentially violent.
Way to go! Bud Day was obviously right.
Posted by: Suziq at July 26, 2008 2:51 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)