April 21, 2008
Muslim Groups Complain About McCain Referring To "Islamic terrorists" As "Islamic TerroristsTopics: Understanding Islam
A coalition of American Muslim groups that are in fact themselves supporters of jihad, sharia law in American, and Islamic terrorism, are demanding that Sen. John McCain stop using the adjective "Islamic" to describe "terrorists and extremist enemies of the United States."
[...] A coalition of American Muslim groups is demanding that Sen. John McCain stop using the adjective "Islamic" to describe terrorists and extremist enemies of the United States.In order to place ISNA's complaining into an appropriate perspective, let's recall that ISNA was established in 1981 by the Saudi-funded Muslim Students' Association of the U.S. and Canada with the help of one of Palestinian Islamic Jihad's founding students, Sami Al-Arian. MSA's role is restricted to college campuses where it acts to advance the cause of radical Islam and lead the effort to stigmatize Israel. ISNA, on the other hand, enforces extremist Wahhabi theological indoctrination in a large percentage (some say 80%) America's mosques. Many of these mosques were built with Saudi money and are required, by their Saudi benefactors, to strictly follow the dictates of Wahhabi imams -- an edict that affects the tone and content of the sermons given in the mosques, the selection of books and periodicals that may be read in mosque libraries or sold in mosque bookshops, and the policies governing the exclusion or suppression of dissenters from the congregations. Another indication of ISNA's activities in America comes from the fact that ISNA was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation jihad terror funding case last summer.
Muneer Fareed, who heads the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), told The Washington Times that his group is beginning a campaign to persuade Mr. McCain to rephrase his descriptions of the enemy.
"We've tried to contact his office, contact his spokesperson to have them rethink word usage that is more acceptable to the Muslim community," Mr. Fareed said. "If it's not our intent to paint everyone with the same brush, then certainly we should think seriously about just characterizing them as criminals, because that is what they are."
An aide to Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee who is counting on his pro-Iraq war stance to attract conservative voters, said the senator from Arizona will not drop the word.
Steve Schmidt, a former Bush White House aide who is now a McCain media strategist, told The Times that the use of the word is appropriate and that the candidate will continue to define the enemy that way.
"Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda represent a perverted strain of Islam at odds with the great many peaceful Muslims who practice their great faith peacefully," Mr. Schmidt said. "But the reality is, the hateful ideology which underpins bin Ladenism is properly described as radical Islamic extremism. Senator McCain refers to it that way because that is what it is."
Related: Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim who is taking a stand against Islamists and their radical allies in organizations like CAIR, ISNA, etc...., is a moderate Muslim. They do exist, but CAIR, ISNA, the MSA, and the Muslim Brotherhood are not one of them.
As Robert Spencer notes, in a Muslim Brotherhood memorandum (scroll down at link for translation) outlining its strategic goals for the United States, ISNA was named as one of the groups participating in "a kind of grand Jihad in 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." Indeed, "... the phrase "Islamic terrorists" no more paints all Muslims as terrorists than the phrase "Italian fascists" paints all Italians as fascists or "Conservative Democrat" paints all conservatives as Democrats."
And just as relevant to the "lack of legs to stand on" given these groups' deep roots in Islamic extremism, is the fact that never a word is heard from them condemning "all" acts of terrorism and intolerance by jihadists, and the violent passages in the Koran (check out "Fitna" the movie). Clearly, these groups have consistently shown themselves to be on the wrong side of the war on terrorism; they continue to protect, defend and support both accused and even convicted radical Islamic terrorists and have not spoken out against jihadism, its goals, and the violence and intolerance inherent in so many parts of the Koran.
As Spencer offers, "At such time that these groups demand that Islamic jihadists stop using Islamic texts and teachings to call for violence, maybe they'll have a case against McCain." Until then for these groups to say that calling Islamic terrorism - Islamic terrorism, is painting everyone with the same brush is so specious it reeks:
... the phrase "Islamic terrorists" no more paints all Muslims as terrorists than the phrase "Italian fascists" paints all Italians as fascists or "Conservative Democrat" paints all conservatives as Democrats. Basic grammar, apparently, must go out the window for the cause of PC mau-mauing.What we're seeing, once again - as has been the modus operandi of Muslim groups in America such as ISNA, MSA, and CAIR, is an attempt to use intimidation and deceit to shut down the direct link between Islam - as interpreted by the jihadists (which, of course, they themselves are ...), close down public debate about Islam and the Koran, and the direct link between verses in the Koran and violence, intolerance, and terrorism, advance the cause of radical Islam, lead the effort to stigmatize Israel, and advance the implementation of sharia in America.
Posted by Richard at April 21, 2008 5:40 PM
While I admit it's not a big deal, the phrase "Islamic terrorism" can be misleading. A more precise phrase would be "Radical Islamic terrorism". It's like refering to the Nazi's as a "Christian group," when is should be a "Radical Christian group."
Posted by: Ed G at April 21, 2008 7:06 PM
Regarding Ed G's suggestion, on the other hand one could consider "radical" Islamic terrorism as Islamic terrorism that is more radical than just plain old vanilla "Islamic terrorism."
I think I see where Ed G is trying to go, but I don't think it takes us there. IMHO, the term Islamic terrorism is appropriate since it is terrorism based on the theoideology of Islam.
Posted by: Abdul at April 21, 2008 9:29 PM
Wikipedia (admittedly not always the most reliable source, but more often than not is a decent one):
Islamic terrorism (also known as Islamist terrorism or Jihadist terrorism) is religious terrorism by those whose motivations are rooted in their interpretations of Islam ...Works for me!
Posted by: Mike in Iraq at April 21, 2008 9:37 PM
And by the way, there is no way whatsoever that the Nazis could actually be called a radical Christian group, even given some intellectual associations by its founders based on misinterpretations. It was more than anything else, a pagan cult that ultimately planned to exterminate Christianity the way they planned to do first with the Jews.
Posted by: Mike in Iraq at April 21, 2008 9:43 PM
Articles Related to Understanding Islam:
- Muslim Groups Complain About McCain Referring To "Islamic terrorists" As "Islamic Terrorists - Apr 21, 2008