The Investigative Project has obtained two government memos about an recent decision that officials will not use words like Islamic terrorism, Islamists, jihadist, fundamentalist, Islamism, Islamofascisim and so on which, by the way, accurately describes the long struggle we are waging against Islamic forces who seek to change our country and the world as we know it.
Our government is now in compliance with sharia law - where all you are allowed to say is "Islam is peace". In Islamic countries you cannot criticize Islam with these type of descriptive words. That's exactly what they have done here in America.
Our government also has followed the very same recommendations of the Council of American Islamic Relations, in their "sharia compliant" journalist guide which advises the media that none of these words should be used. This derogatory terminology is an affront to Islam. Terrorists are acting outside of Islamic teachings, according to the EU, the guides says. If this is so why is it taught this way in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine and on and on? Why is there a daily supply of martyrs who die for the sake of Allah or Islam? Why do some mosques in America, like the Islamic Society of Tulsa, put in their newsletter that to die while fighting for Allah or Islam is a good way to go as a Muslim?
The type of Islam CAIR and other Muslim leaders try to convince Americans about is not practices in any Islamic country in the world! Not one country. This needs to be confronted.
CAIR advises journalists that Muslims do not like Islam being associated with violence. What? I hate to break it to them but Islam has been associated with violence for much of its 1400 year history. There's a video that covers this quite well here. It also ties in the history of Islamic domination with what's going on today.
IPT said it's not known who the American Muslims were who advised the government. But from the DHS memo itself, we learn there was a meeting Chertoff had with a group of "influential" Muslims on May 8th, 2007. At this meeting Chertoff wanted to discuss the terminology used the memo said. Chertoff then asked these Muslims to reflect on what terminology to use.
The DHS memo starts off by saying how important it is to accurately identify our enemy, or how they put it, to accurately identify the nature of the challenges we face:
It is critical that all Americans properly understand the gravity of the threats we face, and prepare themselves to take the steps necessary to build a secure future. We are facing an enemy that holds a totalitarian ideology, and seeks to Impose that ideology through force across the globe. We must resist complacency. The language that senior government officials use can help to rally Americans to vigilance.
Americans must understand the seriousness of the now unidentified by the correct terminology enemy! Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
The memo went on to say Muslims believe officials and commentators indict all Muslims in discussing Islamic terrorism. This is so clearly off-base it isn't even funny. Our government bought into it, though. Scary.
One of the most common concerns expressed by Muslims in America, and indeed the West, is that senior government officials and commentators in the mass media regularly indict all Muslims for the acts of a few.
Can anyone give me just one example of this - when a government official indicted all Muslims for an Islamic terror attack?
The memo goes on to say after the May 8th meeting the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties met with other Muslim leaders and came up with 9 tecommendations on why we should not identify our enemy with accurate descriptive words. One that stands out is #3 where government officials should not use Islamic theological terms because they don't have the religious authority to be taken seriously! Now if Muslim leaders use it that's another thing it said.
Information about the first meeting with Certoff was found on altmuslim where we find the participants were Shahed Amanullah, 39, an Austin blogger and editor of Altmuslim.com. Akbar Ahmed, 64, an American University professor and former ambassador from Pakistan. M.J. Khan, 57, who is in his second term as a Houston city councilman, and Reza Aslan, author from San Jose, CA:
After nearly six years of intense law enforcement scrutiny of Muslims in the United States, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is reshaping his agency's approach to Muslims and invited four prominent Muslims to help the agency prevent homegrown radicalism.
The four leaders Chertoff called on -- a former ambassador from Pakistan, a Santa Monica author who grew up in San Jose, a Houston city councilman and an Austin, Texas, blogger -- suggest increasing youth services, working with bloggers to fight extremist ideology on the Web and even changing the terminology the government uses to describe terrorists.The May 8 meeting -- the first of its kind the Homeland Security secretary has called with Muslims -- was part of a series of gatherings that Chertoff told Congress in March would be "an unprecedented level of cooperation" with various ethnic and religious communities to "prevent radicalization.
...Starting the conversation about terrorism is problematic. The term "Islamofascism," used by President Bush and others, offends Muslims who believe their faith condones no violence and other religions are rife with examples of terrorism. Many Muslims also reject terms such as "Islamic terrorism," "Islamist terrorists" or "Muslim terrorists" for the same reason...
If our government has bought into the "Islam condones no violence" version of Islam that is not practiced in any Islamic country, heaven help us all.
Regarding the words, Islamists or Islamism - although legitimate descriptive words - Muslim leaders told our government the general public is probably unable to make the academic distinction between Islamism and Islam so these terms shouldn't be used! Meaning we are too stupid to discern the religion of Islam from the goal of Islamic domination over societies.
These Muslim leaders suggested to our government the following terms might best describe the massive problem our country and the world face:
...senior officials might use terms such as "death cult,'' "cultlike," "sectarian cult," and "violent cultists" to describe the ideology and methodology of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
In testimony before the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security Appropriations on April 10, Sec. Chertoff said our nation's number one goal is to protect the U.S. from "dangerous people". Dangerous people? Yep, that's helpful.
Oh My God, my fellow American citizens. We do have a very serious enemy! They are Islamists who have infiltrated our country and the never ending supply of Islamic terrorists driven to act out against others with violence for the "sake of Islam". In fact, we could be a war with the entire Islamic world which could be seeking global Islamic rule under the leadership of different factions. It's more difficult to determine the extent and reach because it's all masked by doubletalk and trickery.
Not all Muslims fall into these categories it's important to point out. There are many, many Muslims in America and the world who just want to practice the religion of Islam. But Islam for many is the total package; politics, laws, rules, economics and everything else in-between which puts them in the Islamism category. These people, however, don't want you to talk about it or figure that part out.
These so-called Muslim experts have convinced our government that our problem is not between Islam and the West; but between a dangerous cult-like network of bad people! It's hush, hush now to mention the driving force behind these terrorists is, of course Islam.
I wonder how leaders of countries felt centuries ago as Islamists took over much of Europe and instilled one of several Islamic Caliphates to rule over the land. Do you think those leaders referred to and fought against those that gradually and/or violently took over their land - as cult followers? Please!
This is an odd and dangerous step our government has taken. It was just last December when Chertoff said, "But if we're not candid about the threat that we face, we cannot then ask our own citizens to take the measures that are necessary for our own security".
Update 5/16/08: US Officials Urged to Avoid Linking Islam and Jihad with Terrorism
"There are still competing schools of thought on the question" within the administration. "One view is that you have to be more absolute" in describing the enemy. Others, the official said, recognized that "this is not a black and white world" and that the administration had to be "careful and judicious … navigating the rocks and shoals of terminology to avoid unnecessarily alienating a large segment of the Muslim community."
"In this broad ideological battle," said Sutherland, "we need to be very strategic in the way we describe the enemy. ... We need to use language that will hurt them, not help them."
To that end, the document urges officials to consider describing al-Qaida's ideology as "Takfirism" -- the practice of declaring Muslims who disagree with extremism apostates who can be killed.
...Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security policy paper -- drafted with the help of anonymous "influential Muslim Americans" -- not only makes the current struggle more difficult but also is riddled with outright falsehoods. The document states, "The civilized world is facing a 'global' challenge, which transcends geography, culture, and religion." That statement defies reality. We didn't label al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Jemaah Islamiyah and Mahdi Army murderers (to name just a few of the groups I have seen in action) Muslim holy warriors; they did. We didn't call their savage suicidal bombing campaign an Islamic jihad; they did.
The Department of Homeland Security document insists that "Islam and secular democracy are fully compatible -- in fact, they can make each other stronger. Senior officials should emphasize this positive fact." That "positive fact" simply isn't. Save for Iraq and Afghanistan, where U.S. troops have become the protectors of Muslim women and nascent representative political institutions, there is no Islamic majority country where "secular democracy" flourishes. We didn't create these realities; Muslim leaders did.
...If we succumb to this kind of mindless mumbo jumbo and doublespeak to describe the Islamic radicals who are trying to kill us, we're courting uncertainty and defeat. Or as one very politically incorrect soldier put it plainly during a book signing this afternoon, we're screwed.
Resources about those who attended to May 8th meeting:
In Memory of Edward Said by Shahed Amanullah
Bush Still doesn't get it by Akbar Ahmed
...The problem is that Bush has relied on ill-informed advisers and out-of-touch experts. By substituting their false expertise for his own sensible intuitions, he has failed to understand the Muslim world -- which means he has failed to understand the arena in which the first post-9/11 presidency will be judged. Instead of seriously explaining Muslim societies that are profoundly split in complex ways, Bush's aides have offered a fatally flawed stereotype of Islam as monolithic and violent.
Part 2
...The profound un-sophistication that you have about this region --- to think that there is a connection to al-Qaeda to the Muslim Brotherhood...
Part 3
Good discussion on Israel and hear Reza side-step the issue.
The fundamental problem is that most U.S. presidents have almost no FIRST-HAND experience of the outside world.
In a saner world, nobody would be elected U.S. president without at least three (3) years of experience living outside the U.S. as an adult.
In the current election, McCain clearly meets this criterion. Obama and Clinton do not. As a result, Obama and Clinton would be massively handicapped in dealing with foreign regimes.
And no, a president cannot just hire such expertise since the ultimate decision - bomb Qom or not? - is made by the president.
Posted by: Ben Friedman | May 02, 2008 at 05:41 PM