Jihadist on Bush's Jihad Againt the Term

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/05/19/2008-05-19_call_radical_islam_by_its_name.html

Recently, the Bush administration opened up a sad new front in the war on terrorism: a battle against words. Yes, the federal government has begun a concerted effort to make certain terms effectively off-limits in official communications. It’s all included in a new memo prepared by the Extremist Messaging Branch of the National Counter Terrorism Center, called “Words that Work and Words that Don’t: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication.”

“It’s not what you say but what they hear,” says the memo, in bold, italic lettering.

Among the verboten (or think-twice-before-you-say-them) words: “Jihadist” and “Mujahedeen” (which should be replaced by “violent extremist” or “terrorist”) and “Islamo-fascism.”

In the eyes of the feds, the use of such terminology boosts support for radicals by giving them an air of religious credibility, and turning off moderate Muslims who might otherwise sympathize with our anti-terror cause.

As a Muslim reformer - who once counted himself among the world’s Islamists and jihadists before turning away from terrorism and toward liberalism - I consider this a tragically flawed understanding of the war on terrorism in which we are now engaged.

The real way to strengthen moderate Muslims in their fight against the radicals is to spotlight radical teachings and flush out those who believe in them.

Among the most important qualities of any professional are honesty, objectivity and forthrightness - the ability to determine and present facts as they are, irrespective of the preconceived notions of any particular audience.

This is especially true in war: define your enemy correctly, and you will rally legitimate allies to your side. Blur what a battle is about and, stuck in the muddle, you are bound to lose.

Yes, the word “jihad” has several, including some peaceful, meanings - but that doesn’t change the fact that most authoritative Islamic texts and systems of jurisprudence maintain that its primary meaning is “warfare to subjugate the world to Islam.” Closely allied with this predominant concept of jihad is the threefold choice given to infidels: conversion, submission and tribute or death. And it is simply a fact that jihad, as taught by Sunni Islam’s four schools of jurisprudence, is either a war to defend Muslims or to impose Islam on non-Muslims.

It may be uncomfortable to admit these facts - and doing so may run certain risks. But it is true, and the costs of ignoring reality are far higher than the benefits of glossing over it.

Islamists are not waiting for “infidel” Americans to define jihad for them; they defined it themselves, a very long time ago. If Muslim leaders wish to insist that the word refers primarily to a peaceful struggle against the self, they have that option. Let them clearly and publicly denounce the current doctrine and establish a new one. That’s the answer - not redefining reality.

Where does the word game end? Should we also stop calling militant organizations - such as Egypt’s “Islamic Jihad” - by their own chosen names?

The movie “The Usual Suspects” may have put it best: “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”

One of the most devious tactics used by the Islamists is scaring their enemy out of speaking the plain truth about this virulent strain of Islam, for fear it might alienate or offend millions of moderate Muslims. But this ensures that no one will directly confront their violent ideologies and the books that contain them - since, under Islamic Sharia law, no one is even allowed to challenge their contents.

Calling angina a “common cold” does not change its nature. It only prevents us from taking the necessary steps in treating it, which will only lead to further sickness, and possibly death.

Playing word games with jihadists is not only meaningless, but plays right into the hands of the radical Muslim terrorists - who, to be defeated, must first be called by their true name.

Hamid, a onetime member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group, is a medical doctor and Muslim reformer living in the West.

how the hell are the muhajadeen, islamo-fascism?

Fascism is a respectable philosophy in all honesty, and is based around things such as praise for the Roman Empire, glorification of Western culture, placing money as basic value for man, and not God or something else and respect for the Catholic church.

Jihad and Muhajadeen have nothing to do with Fascism.

If anything was Islamo-Fascism, it was the Baath party, I could see that…however, I’d call that Arab Fascism or Socialism. Arab Socialism would be better.

Fascism is a term that is unique to Italy and Italian history (MAYBE Spain…and thats a big fuckign MAYBE), the poetic license the AngloSaxon world takes with that word is pretty appalling and quite insulting.

[quote]Guerrero wrote:
how the hell is muhajadeen, islamo-fascism?

Fascism is a respectable philosophy in all honestly, and is based around admonition for the Roman Empire, glorification of Western culture, placing money as basic value for man, and not god or something else and respect for the Catholic church.

Jihad and Muhajadeen have nothing to do with Fascism.

If anything was Islamo-Fascism, it was the Baath party, I could see that…however, i’d call that Arab Fascism or Socialism. Arab Socialism would be better.

Fascism is a term that is unique to Italy and Italian history (MAYBE Spain…and thats a big fuckign MAYBE), the poetic license the AngloSaxon world takes with that world is pretty appalling.[/quote]

I pretty much agree. Baathism was really closer to Fascism than anything else, though it did root its ideology in Islam.

Our Western leaders like to pretend that there’s some moderate Islam lurking out there like the white whale to which we must pay lipservice, hence the term “Islamic fascism.”

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Guerrero wrote:
how the hell is muhajadeen, islamo-fascism?

Fascism is a respectable philosophy in all honestly, and is based around admonition for the Roman Empire, glorification of Western culture, placing money as basic value for man, and not god or something else and respect for the Catholic church.

Jihad and Muhajadeen have nothing to do with Fascism.

If anything was Islamo-Fascism, it was the Baath party, I could see that…however, i’d call that Arab Fascism or Socialism. Arab Socialism would be better.

Fascism is a term that is unique to Italy and Italian history (MAYBE Spain…and thats a big fuckign MAYBE), the poetic license the AngloSaxon world takes with that world is pretty appalling.

I pretty much agree. Baathism was really closer to Fascism than anything else, though it did root its ideology in Islam.

Our Western leaders like to pretend that there’s some moderate Islam lurking out there like the white whale to which we must pay lipservice, hence the term “Islamic fascism.” [/quote]

I concur, there is no moderate Islam only a contained Islam, which is seen as ‘impotent and castrated,’ by their people. The idea of a moderate Islam is of the Muslim immigrant communities who live in a place such as Canada and seperate their religion from their daily lives, and seperate their faith from political ideology.

As numbers swell, these groups will become emboldened, and begin to implement largely Islamist initiatives…usually if not always, these conflicts come into conflict with a Western society but are tolerated.

Back to Fascism, why is it okay to bomb on fascism like they do? I don’t get it.

The Baath party was the ‘islamo-fascism,’ they speak of, but I mean, just in larger context, what the fuck is wrong with fascism?

Corporatism, National Syndicalism, National Socialism, or by it’s more specific terms for nations, Falangism, Fascism etcetera.

I guess my take on it is entirely different, because as someone who studies politics and of a Spanish background, to me Falangism (Phalanx-ism, Spanish Fascism), seems like the only reasonable political philosophy for the Spanish world.

It doesn’t carry the horrendous connotation for us, that it seems to carry for Anglo-Saxons, which is odd to me.

Why is Fascism misused so widely in the Anglo-Saxon world and villified to a comical degree?

I find it hard to believe that there are “no moderate muslims”.

The fact that large groups, of nearly any composition, will have hard-liners among them isn’t surprising.

[quote]vroom wrote:
I find it hard to believe that there are “no moderate muslims”.

The fact that large groups, of nearly any composition, will have hard-liners among them isn’t surprising.[/quote]

Shhhh. You’re disturbing the glass house that is PRC’s world view. If you’re not careful, he may throw a stone or two.