Robert Spencer
The new State Department/DHS guidelines forbidding use of the words "jihad" and "jihadist" have generated a great deal of discussion.
When I wrote this article about it in Human Events, many people wrote to me to say that this was not a matter of political correctness, but an attempt to delegitimize the enemy in the eyes of its supporters. However, the assumption that what the U.S. calls Osama bin Laden and his ilk will affect how they're viewed in the Islamic world is based on an ignorance of how Islam traditionally views unbelievers, especially when it comes to Islamic issues. The idea that Muslims in large numbers would be influenced by what State or the DHS calls the jihadists is absurd -- and even more absurd is the D'Souzaite idea that large numbers of peaceful Muslims will be so enraged by American officials using the word "jihad" that they'll join that jihad when otherwise they would not have done so.
The New York Post ably skewers that one:
Other terms, like "Islamo-fascism," are also taboo, on grounds that they're "offensive to many Muslims."
Are they kidding?
As if Condi Rice letting slip the word "jihad" is going to rouse thousands of young Muslims who otherwise showed not the slightest interest to suddenly strap on explosives and start singing the praises of Osama bin Laden.
Excellent, detailed analyses of the new guidelines and why they're so wrongheaded can be found from Patrick Poole here (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/flying_blind_in_the_war_on_ter.html) and from Jeffrey Imm here (http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/04/jihadist_or_not.php).
No comments:
Post a Comment