The Society of Professional Journalists has rules of "truthiness" and diversity in reporting. Some highlights:
1. When writing about Islamic terror, be sure to include references to white supremacists and radical anti-abortionists.
2. Don't use terms like "Islamic terrorist" or "Muslim extremist".
3. Jihad means exertion to improve ones self or Islam.
4. Get Muslims to vet the article.
These guidelines are a mere formality, since they have informally been in place for some years now. Even the Republicans have been sure to mention the Oklahoma bombing and abortion doctor killings when speaking about jihad (the war jihad, not the improvement jihad). Since the comparison is made, look at the details.
How many events and deaths have been caused by supremacists and abortion doctor shootings since September 11, 2001? Fewer than 20 events and (throwing in the 1995 Oklahoma bombing for good measure) fewer than 300 killed.
And how many events and deaths by jihad and Islamic terror (yes, we used the forbidden terms) since 9/11? We have had 8708 attacks, 57,749 killed, 86,096 injured in over 42 countries. Hmmm.
The Society is right, they should be compared. But the media does not make any numbers comparison. No, one killing by a white Christian is morally equivalent to 57,749 deaths by brown Muslims. Take the town you live in. If one abortion doctor is killed today is that really morally equivalent to the terror of killing 57,949 in one day? Yes, according to the Society.
But it is not the numbers that are disturbing. All of the non-jihad killing by "white" people are random acts with no unifying thought. They are wackos. All of the jihad terror is based upon a formal doctrine that is at the core of Islam. A jihadist is not a wacko, but a Muslim who is carrying out orders from Mohammed and Allah.
Islamic violence is very coherent over time and place. It is so uniform since it springs from a central doctrine. What else can explain the consistency? A jihadist is executing a script he was taught since he was a child. He is not a wacko, but a fighter in the path of Allah.
Let's look at item 3, jihad is personal exertion for self improvement. Luckily, we do not have to depend on our media to get the right answer. We can go to Mohammed and the doctrine of political Islam. Every mention of jihad in the Koran refers to killing the kafirs. All of the jihad in the Sira (Mohammed's biography and a sacred text) refers to jihad as killing the kafirs. In Bukhari's Hadith, 3% of the hadiths refer to jihad are inner struggle for improvement; 97% of the jihad hadiths are about killing the kafirs. So inner struggle/jihad is less than 1% of the total doctrine, but it defines the whole doctrine according to the Society of Professional Journalists. They know that jihad is all self-improvement.
But, let's be fair here. The members of the Society don't know that there is a doctrine. They are merely parroting what the different Islamic groups demand of them. If the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) says that jihad is inner struggle, then the dhimmis at the Society make it the media law.
They may not know Islamic doctrine, but they know Orwell's 1984 and "newspeak". If you control the language, you control thought. That is what the Society of Professional Journalists are doing--controlling language and thought. But they are not using analytic thought or logic.
In further rebellion against the Professional Journalists newspeak, this article was not vetted by Muslims. At Political Islam.com we are kafirs, not dhimmis.
Source: Political Islam
H/T: The Intelligence Summit
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Posts
