| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In "What I learnt from my stay with a Muslim family" in The Observer (thanks to all who sent this in), Tory leader David Cameron joins the large crowd of politicians, media figures, and law enforcement officials who believe that "Islam" or any related word should not be used in the same sentence with "terrorism." This is a deeply entrenched idea. Once I was speaking with an anti-terrorism official who in the course of our conversation referred to the jihadists as "Muslims." Then he looked at me sheepishly and said, "Well, I shouldn't call them Muslims..." and then trailed off into silence, since he didn't have an alternative.
Cameron's enlightenment came during his stay with a Muslim family in Birmingham:
The challenges of cohesion and integration are among the greatest we face. I wrote in these pages in January that we cannot bully people into feeling British: we have to inspire them. Last week, I spent two days staying with Abdullah and Shahida Rehman and their family in Birmingham. The experience has strengthened my conviction about the right way to build a more cohesive Britain.First, a concerted attack on racism and soft bigotry. You can't even start to talk about a truly integrated society while people are suffering racist insults and abuse, as many still are in our country on a daily basis. We must also be careful about the language we use. No Muslim I've ever met is offended by Christmas, or supports its replacement with 'Winterval'. But many Muslims I've talked to about these issues are deeply offended by the use of the word 'Islamic' or 'Islamist' to describe the terrorist threat we face today.
We do need greater understanding of the true nature of the terrorist threat. There's too much complacency about it among non-Muslims, and too much denial of it in the Muslim community. But our efforts are not helped by lazy use of language. Indeed, by using the word 'Islamist' to describe the threat, we actually help do the terrorist ideologues' work for them, confirming to many impressionable young Muslim men that to be a 'good Muslim', you have to support their evil campaign.
This might be true if only Western analysts and media reports linked "Islam" with "terrorism" -- as Muslim advocacy groups in the West have sometimes suggested. But in reality the ones making this link are the jihadists. So when non-Muslims pick up on this, does it confirm to "impressionable young Muslim men" that to be a "good Muslim" one must join the jihadists?
The flow of Cameron's thought here is strange. We have jihadists claiming to represent "pure Islam," and justifying violence by recourse to Islam texts and teachings. And by doing this they are challenging the Islamic bona fides of peaceful Muslims, and trying to position their course of action as the only legitimate path for Muslims today.
But Cameron apparently believes that peaceful Muslims and cultural Muslims will be impervious to this presentation unless non-Muslim analysts refrain from speaking about the Islamic character of the jihadist appeal. Apparently young cultural Muslims will not be convinced by the jihadists saying they represent true Islam, but if a non-Muslim official speaks not of true Islam but simply of the Islamic content of what the jihadists are saying, that will be enough to push a peaceful Muslim into the jihadist camp.
Anyway, this view has already been field-tested. Western officials have assiduously resisted linking Islam with terrorism. Has this blunted the jihadist appeal in the Islamic community? That question is hard to answer, as no one can know what might have happened if a different course had been followed. But jihadist recruitment does seem to be continuing, as witness the Fort Dix plot and other recent evidence of jihadist activity.
And above all, Cameron is here recommending something that will ultimately undercut the same peaceful Muslims he claims to be trying to support. For the jihadists are presenting themselves as the true Muslims. Peaceful Muslims have to confront and refute that if the force of jihadist recruitment is ever to be halted. But it cannot be confronted and refuted if everyone is afraid even to mention it in the first place.
Posted by Robert at May 14, 2007 7:49 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
OK, so start calling them Jihadists and "Jihad sympathizers". It's an accurate description, and might even cause people to take a look at what Jihad is about
Posted by: PapaBear![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 14, 2007 8:26 AM
The Camerons in the Senate are working on amnesty deals behind closed doors. Call your Senator today.
Talking Points Against: H.R. 1645 Flake-Gutierrez Amnesty STRIVE Act
at May 14, 2007 8:31 AM
The Senate amnesty is jihad on American workers, families and safety.
Archie-Bunker-esse-phobia: The fear of being Archie Bunker. This is what they use to kill. 3000 Americans, Brits and others were killed on 9-11 by ABEP. After WTC 93, we should have stopped immigration. Instead we gave into ABEP and 3,000 Archie Bunkers died on 9-11.
ABEP kills. Call the Senate today and say no to Amnesty. Say no to being killed by ABEP. The Archie Bunker you save may be yourself.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at May 14, 2007 8:35 AM
The Islam Online version of the story is even more sickening: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1178724079612&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout
Posted by: scaramouoche at May 14, 2007 8:42 AM
It is virtually impossible to fight an enemy if you don't know who he is. You must be able to name your enemy. It is time to stop this politically correct crap and tell the world we are fighting islamic or muslim terrorists. Not all muslims are terrorisms of course, but lately, ALL terrorists have been muslims. Name your enemy or prepare to die and not know why.
Posted by: CelticCoyote at May 14, 2007 8:57 AM
I just called the offices of both my Senators and said I was opposed to amnesty and legalization. I didn't have to pass a test on why.
I was not struck by lightening. FBI agents didn't come out of the phone, I didn't lose my job, and I wasn't slapped with a CAIR lawsuit.
But 3,000 people were killed on 9-11. That did happen.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at May 14, 2007 9:10 AM
islam terrorist muslim jihad islam terrorist jihad islam terrorist jihad... etcetera etcetera etcetera
whew I just had to get that off my chest!
Posted by: R_not at May 14, 2007 9:15 AM
I agree PapaBear, Jihadist is better than not giving them a name at all (such as the anonymous 'war on terror').
I think the article shows why readers in the UK can't rely on the Tories to progress anti-jihadi actions (not that they could anyway - Thatcher did nothing to stop the arrival and spread of the jihadis).
As for how to reduce the inclination for young muslims to join the radical groups, my response is to demonstrate through aggressive law and order that the government intends to win against the insurgency.
Children of immigrants have always had issues to work through about which culture they belong to, and most usually end up adopting most of their new one, provided they're allowed to, with the second born generation usually almost fully integrated.
Cultures with a heavy hand often delay the assimilation for a couple more generations but this is nothing new.
What's changed over the past few decades is that the govt policies of multiculturalism and the left's philosophy of cultural relativity mean that no-one is out there promoting the home culture or its philosophical foundations anymore.
Not understanding what their freedom is built on, the more stupid members of our societies argue they should give up their freedom of speech on the basis that they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. They don't realise that all speech and debate hurts someone's feelings and that if you don't allow that, then open thought is dead and you're already living in Orwell's 1984.
However, even that doesn't cause the most damage. That's done by various government's soft policing actions which have left the radicals controlling the agenda in their communities and pushing things along at their own pace.
As the British anti-insurgency expert Sir Robert Thompson wrote: “What the peasant wants to know is: does the government mean to win the war? Because if not, he will have to support the insurgent.”
Translate that to modern day britain and the young muslims that David Cameron is concerned about, and it reads:
"What the young muslim wants to know is: does the government mean to win the war? Because if not, he will have to support the insurgent.”
Translate it for the 'moderate' muslims and it becomes:
“What the moderate muslim wants to know is: does the government mean to win the war? Because if not, he will have to support the insurgent.”
So the questions for David Cameron are:
Does he really understand who he is fighting, what their tactics are and how to counteract them?
Does he understand how to attack their religious justifications and destroy their anti-female culture?
Will he publicly denounce Sharia as being equivalent to apartheid for women and non-muslims?
Will he push for life in prison or deportation for anyone threatening someone for apostasy?
Will he push for life in prison or deportation for anyone who tries to pressure a woman under 18 into marraige?
Will he push for life in prison or deportation for anyone threatening someone for insulting their religion?
Will he push for life in prison or deportation for anyone who has knowledge of jihadist activity but does nothing to stop it?
Will he push for life in prison or deportation for anyone advocating jihadist activity anywhere in the world?
In short, does he understand the war he has to win and will he do what is needed to win it?
Because otherwise, as Sir Robert Thompson wrote, the 'peasants' will not be confident that he means to win and will support the insurgents.
The British were able to show the way in Malaya against the communists, can they do the same in their own country against the Jihadists?
Posted by: veil416 at May 14, 2007 9:18 AM
I wonder if any of Cameron's hosts attend any of the Birmingham mosques featured in Channel 4's 'Undercover Mosques' documentary, where popular imans were filmed preaching jihad and Islamic takeover of Britain? Or do they ever attend Birmingham Central Mosque where pro-terrorist publications were found several years ago?
After the 7/7 bombings, one of the London police chiefs, either Ian Blair or Brian Paddick said that there was no link between Islam and terrorism. Did that help matters? Two weeks later another quartet of suicide bombers had a go on London transport trying to kill and maim even more people.
Cameron reminds me a lot of a showroom dummy, just an airhead, wearing whatever is deemed trendy. His suggestion that by saying that there's a link between Islam and terror we are somehow encouraging it, is just parroting what Labour MP Hillary Benn said a few weeks ago.
Cameron really seems a cold person who believes in nothing apart from his own egotistical desire to become Prime Minister.
at May 14, 2007 10:02 AM
Esdrujula Explanation:
1) Stupidity. 2) Timidity. 3) Cupidity. I forget the other one -- can anyone remind me? Oh, yes, it was specifically about the Bush Administration's policy: 4) Rigidity.
In Cameron's case, I'd bet on #2 as the winning explanation, with #1 coming up strong on the outside.
Posted by: Hugh at May 14, 2007 10:21 AM
As far as I know, all jihadists are Muslims - although some infidels in Europe are coming pretty damn close.
Posted by: Jan Sobieski at May 14, 2007 10:49 AM
Sounds to me like Pee Wee's BIG ADVENTURE.
When some of you are calling your Congressmen, I think it would be wise to sharply distinguish muslim immigration from all others.
We have a problem along our southern borders because of the sheer numbers, and because of the national security ramifications of having a completely open frontier.
But Hispanics AREN'T muslims. They're not out there a hooten' and a hollerin' "Allah Akhbar" all hours of the day and the night.
Sure there is some criminality present in the Hispanic community. But that's been the case for just about all ethnic groups that hit these shores.
Islam is completely different.
And we need to start distinguishing it ourselves, BEFORE we can finally get our government to start viewing it differently.
Posted by: Dan at May 14, 2007 11:05 AM
It's amazing what can be accomplish with a few samosas and a sprinkling of taquiyya... ::rolleyes::
Posted by: Un:dhimmi at May 14, 2007 11:05 AM
accomplishED :)
Posted by: Un:dhimmi at May 14, 2007 11:06 AM
President Ahmadinejad: "The Anger Of Muslims May Reach An Explosion Point Soon … [And] The Waves Of The Blast Will Not Remain Within The Boundaries Of Our Region."
Its really hard to get one’s hands around the concept that there is an unyielding ideology that has taken root in our societies that has tens if not hundreds of thousands of men willing to fight for it. Its disturbing to know that, deep down, a good percentage of the millions of the followers of this ideology feel a stronger allegiance to the would be fighters than they do the host countires. And it is troubling to know that the solution to the growing problem runs counter to everything we have been force fed about peace, love, and tolerance for the last forty years.
Se lets just ignore the problem and hope things turn out OK.
Deep down, I think that the Islamic challenge is a positive thing for the West. Our real issue is with ourselves. In the time it has taken for us to ring up $880 billion in Iraq, we have incurred $15 trillion in unfunded social liabilities, which will be impossible to pay for. Our world is going to change, and the sooner it happens, the easier it will be for all involved. Thanks for the help Mahmoud.
o/t the 'pez' link is now to pictures and lessons learned from the ongoing construction of a backyard brick oven. It's a great project.
at May 14, 2007 11:08 AM
here's to the new boss, same as the old boss!
i actually try and tell so many people not to vote for the con/lab/lib alliance but rather send their message with a vote for the BNP.
but many people think that the BNP are fascist/skinhead nazis/rascists so now i don't bother, in fact the UK really will never recover from the islamic onslaught and people have literally been told to put up or shut up.
but you gotta still keep trying but if that cameroon ever gets in power, his first job will be to go after the BNP, the fourth largest party and the greatest challange to his leadership and power.
the con/lib/lab alliance will next time around use illegal measures to shut down hte BNP, they will use the islamics to silence them, either through assaniations or through changes in the law.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at May 14, 2007 11:09 AM
Leon
Reading articles like this, I agree with you. On one hand, I don't pretend to like what the BNP thinks about non British racial groups in Britain. But if that's the only thing Britain has in dealing with those who want to colonize them back, that's what they should use.
I don't live in UK, and don't pretend to know what they really are well enough. If they did have any secret understandings with Muslims a la Le Pen in France, I would not advocate preferring them. But those who say that the BNP would be as bad as the Muslims if they ever got to run Britain have absolutely no clue about what Muslims are capable of. The worst I've read about the BNP is that they want to deport all foreigners, letting them take their earnings with them. Contrast that with minority groups among the Ummah, who, when they are expelled, have to leave everything behind. And that's just for starters.
I know that Brits here have an understandable aversion to the BNP. But whether you recognize it or not, picking an existing Dhimmi leader as your Prime Minister - be it Cameron or Brown - is going to see you not partition - a la India of 1947 - but totally Islamize. And when that happens, you'd be thinking that the BNP was Florence Nightingale.
Only disagreement I have with you - Leon - is that the BNP hasn't stated whether the likes of Abu Abdullah or Yvonne Ridley belong in Britain, or should be deported to Mecca. If the former, they aren't really worth supporting either.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 14, 2007 12:22 PM
I see the emperor has new clothes. Wonder who the Fashion Designer of that wardrobe is...
Posted by: never_submit at May 14, 2007 1:13 PM
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.
So said Thoreau.
David Cameron is hacking at the branches.
Robert Spencer is hacking at the root.
Or so it would seem to me…..
at May 14, 2007 1:43 PM
Islamofascism by any other name (Jihad; Muslim Terrorism / Islamic Extremism) still stinks the same.
And still kills, leaving mangled corpses in its wake.
Until people wake from their Multicultural Coma, the body count of the infidels will only continue to grow.
Aided by the denial of the name and nature of the true enemy:
Muslims who believe most strictly in their intolerant, violent "faith".
If Muslims don't like being associated with terrorism and terrorists, then they should kill the bastards, themselves.
But, as long as they leave it up to us to do, we'll call the homicidal s.o.b.'s anything we want.
Islamofascists covers both edges of this danger: Islam and fascism, withIslam being the root of Holy Terror; the Ummah being the ultimate binding "fasces".
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 14, 2007 4:15 PM
Ewww....
Posted by: kafir_kelbeh at May 14, 2007 4:19 PM
sadly, Mr Cameron is what Mrs Thatcher (of whom i am not a great fan, i agree with veil416) might call "wet".
i would not vote for him, but for the need to get people like David Davis into government.
with Davis as Home Secretary, i think we could hope for some years of firm and steady action against the Jihadis.
i doubt that those years would seem tranquil, but we cannot afford a continuation of our present weakness, which only serves to invite attack.
at May 14, 2007 5:26 PM
'David Cameron stayed TWO days with Abdullah & Shahida Rehman and their family in Birmingham...'
Now Mr Cameron is an EXPERT ON ISLAM! What a twit-HE IS AN EXPERT ON BEING A DHIMMI-bet his hosts are still laughing at stupidity of Infidels. Take note,British voters.
at May 14, 2007 8:04 PM
The people who commit terrorist acts every day say they are muslim. THEY SAY IT.
The supposedly ‘moderate’ muslims don’t rise up screaming against this.They scream about cartoons but not about the many DAILY deaths committed in the name if islam.
While ‘moderate’ muslims behave this way the are practising complicity. They are the accomplices in the acts of terrorism and are equally guilty.
I am sick and tired of people trying to whitewash reality.
We are at war,in our own countries and we had better stop the constant appeasement of an evil ideology which would have us all submitting to sharia law.
Attempts have and are being made to introduce sharia into Australia.
I have every right to oppose this and every right to offend people who would strangle the western way of life.
I have every right to oppose murderers and the people who support them.
I have the right and the responsibility.
at May 15, 2007 12:44 AM
Melanie Phillips digs deeper and posts a Cameron addendum.
Posted by: Shy Guy at May 15, 2007 1:35 AM
Oh?...we're helping them by calling a spade a spade?
There they go again!
...yeah, right...once again, as logical as flies causing garbage.
LOL
at May 15, 2007 6:47 AM
Cameron's article is sadly indicative of the official "thought" here in the UK. I read his article in the Observer, and his op ed on the Guardian blogsite Comment is Free. The amount of vicious and hateful comment levelled at him by Muslim bloggers and their Trotskyite anarchist sympathisers was hair-raising.
I agree with Marilyn who says that the people who want all of us to be Muslim and be governed by Sharia Law, and if we do not agree they threaten to kill us, are Muslims, so why not say so? This persistence in compromise and "understanding" their motives will cost us dear. We are dealing with an ideology totally opposed to the democracy we defend, and the more we try to "understand" them the more they despise us and what we stand for. Melanie Phillips is absolutely right, but she is reviled by the Muslim/Trotskyite bloc, not just because she is Jewish, but because she dares to speak the truth and the Islamists are finding they can no longer hide behind the mask of moderateness.
Infidel Pride, many Brits now see the BNP as a viable alternative to the liberal attitudes which they see enable extremist Islam to get a foothold in the UK. These are ordinary people who would never have dreamed they would take such a direction. But they are frightened for their future in their country.
Posted by: Ehup at May 15, 2007 8:54 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.)