By Supna Zaidi
Its been seven years since 9/11, but the Bush administration has insisted on fighting the war on terror without naming the enemy. Faced with fears of alienating moderate Muslims, "legitimizing" jihadis, and strengthening the argument that we are indeed in a clash of civilizations, no official in the American government calls the terrorist - Islamist, jihadi or Islamic in any way.
This has been a huge policy mistake and has allowed Islamists to not only commit further violence since 9/11, but also engage in non-violent attacks on western culture through litigation and a global "Islamophobia" movement intent on suppressing legitimate debate on the social, political, and economic global agenda of Islamists.
There is finally a sign, though, that analysts at least are getting tired of having their hands tied in defending American interests. The Washington Times, reports on Washington Times, October 20, that a U.S. military "Red Team" published a report ("Freedom of Speech in Jihad Analysis: Debunking the Myth of Offensive Words") pressing the simple point that they cannot assist in advising against the enemy if they cannot rightfully call the enemy by its name, stating:" We must reject the notion that Islam and Arabic stand apart as bodies of knowledge that cannot be critiqued or discussed as elements of understanding our enemies in this conflict".
The unnamed contractors and civilian analysts for U.S. Central Command, (responsible for the Middle East and South Asia), continue by stating, "The fact is our enemies cite the source of Islam as the foundation for their global jihad," the report said. "We are left with the responsibility of portraying our enemies in an honest and accurate fashion."
What prevents these analysts from doing their job is the Islamist lobby in the United States who claim that Muslims will be the victims of rampant hate crimes if associated with terrorism. Thus, "unidentified American Muslims," successfully prevented the unnamed authors of the report from using words like "jihadist," "Islamic terrorist," "Islamist" or "holy warrior" in their work.
Unfortunately, the government officials who pander to these alleged Muslim "ACLU"'s, do not bother to look into their own governmental statistics to counter their unwarranted fears. For example, 66% of hate crimes in 2006 were committed against American Jews. Only 11% of the cases that year were Muslim.
Consequently, something else is going on that the government does not recognize. The benefit of convincing Muslims and non-Muslims alike that the former are victims of discrimination justifies creeping Sharia in the name of religious equality. Consider the resolution proposed by the OIC at the UN. Currently, the Organization of the Islamic Congress, consisting of 57 Muslim countries are lobbying in the United Nations to pass a resolution against the defamation of religion, legitimizing antiquated blasphemy laws in the West.
Yet, these same OIC countries are notorious for violence against non-Muslims. Just this week a Christian aide worker was shot in the head in Afghanistan for alleged proselytizing. If such a resolution were to pass, "Islamophobia" would become a legitimate word in the discourse of Islam and politics. While, it is, in actuality, a word meant to censor critics of Islamism.
The irony the war of words pits Muslim against Muslim, and the Islamists still won't do what is right. The FBI recently called the murder of two girls in Texas by their father an honor killing on the wanted poster. They took it back, concerned that they didn't want to "label" the murder.
Yet, family members interviewed by the media clearly stated that the father killed his daughters because they were dating non-Muslim boys and disgraced the family. Again as FOX News reports, "Some Muslims have objected to the term 'honor killing' because they say it attaches a religious motive to a crime, which could lead to discrimination against Muslims". Yet, Muslim communities initiate no awareness campaigns within their own communities to ensure education exists to make sure Muslims understand that violence against women isn't acceptable.
Until then, words matter. So, as the analysts at CENTCOMM and the some Muslims quoted herein believe, words also have an impact on combating or supporting violence, whether it is the war on terror, or domestic violence at home.
If Muslim groups focused on educating the Muslim-American community away from domestic violence, they wouldn't have to fight about the phrase "honor killings" being used because it wouldn't be happening. Similarly, if the Muslim American community accepted the Islamic aspects of the war on terror, they could fight it head on and then finally decrease its influence and attraction within the community, regardless of how prevalent or minor it allegedly is.
Ignoring the problem, requires "outsiders", non-Muslims like the CENTCOMM analysts are left to do it. They shouldn't be suppressed by their own government.
Its been seven years since 9/11, but the Bush administration has insisted on fighting the war on terror without naming the enemy. Faced with fears of alienating moderate Muslims, "legitimizing" jihadis, and strengthening the argument that we are indeed in a clash of civilizations, no official in the American government calls the terrorist - Islamist, jihadi or Islamic in any way.
This has been a huge policy mistake and has allowed Islamists to not only commit further violence since 9/11, but also engage in non-violent attacks on western culture through litigation and a global "Islamophobia" movement intent on suppressing legitimate debate on the social, political, and economic global agenda of Islamists.
There is finally a sign, though, that analysts at least are getting tired of having their hands tied in defending American interests. The Washington Times, reports on Washington Times, October 20, that a U.S. military "Red Team" published a report ("Freedom of Speech in Jihad Analysis: Debunking the Myth of Offensive Words") pressing the simple point that they cannot assist in advising against the enemy if they cannot rightfully call the enemy by its name, stating:" We must reject the notion that Islam and Arabic stand apart as bodies of knowledge that cannot be critiqued or discussed as elements of understanding our enemies in this conflict".
The unnamed contractors and civilian analysts for U.S. Central Command, (responsible for the Middle East and South Asia), continue by stating, "The fact is our enemies cite the source of Islam as the foundation for their global jihad," the report said. "We are left with the responsibility of portraying our enemies in an honest and accurate fashion."
What prevents these analysts from doing their job is the Islamist lobby in the United States who claim that Muslims will be the victims of rampant hate crimes if associated with terrorism. Thus, "unidentified American Muslims," successfully prevented the unnamed authors of the report from using words like "jihadist," "Islamic terrorist," "Islamist" or "holy warrior" in their work.
Unfortunately, the government officials who pander to these alleged Muslim "ACLU"'s, do not bother to look into their own governmental statistics to counter their unwarranted fears. For example, 66% of hate crimes in 2006 were committed against American Jews. Only 11% of the cases that year were Muslim.
Consequently, something else is going on that the government does not recognize. The benefit of convincing Muslims and non-Muslims alike that the former are victims of discrimination justifies creeping Sharia in the name of religious equality. Consider the resolution proposed by the OIC at the UN. Currently, the Organization of the Islamic Congress, consisting of 57 Muslim countries are lobbying in the United Nations to pass a resolution against the defamation of religion, legitimizing antiquated blasphemy laws in the West.
Yet, these same OIC countries are notorious for violence against non-Muslims. Just this week a Christian aide worker was shot in the head in Afghanistan for alleged proselytizing. If such a resolution were to pass, "Islamophobia" would become a legitimate word in the discourse of Islam and politics. While, it is, in actuality, a word meant to censor critics of Islamism.
The irony the war of words pits Muslim against Muslim, and the Islamists still won't do what is right. The FBI recently called the murder of two girls in Texas by their father an honor killing on the wanted poster. They took it back, concerned that they didn't want to "label" the murder.
Yet, family members interviewed by the media clearly stated that the father killed his daughters because they were dating non-Muslim boys and disgraced the family. Again as FOX News reports, "Some Muslims have objected to the term 'honor killing' because they say it attaches a religious motive to a crime, which could lead to discrimination against Muslims". Yet, Muslim communities initiate no awareness campaigns within their own communities to ensure education exists to make sure Muslims understand that violence against women isn't acceptable.
Until then, words matter. So, as the analysts at CENTCOMM and the some Muslims quoted herein believe, words also have an impact on combating or supporting violence, whether it is the war on terror, or domestic violence at home.
If Muslim groups focused on educating the Muslim-American community away from domestic violence, they wouldn't have to fight about the phrase "honor killings" being used because it wouldn't be happening. Similarly, if the Muslim American community accepted the Islamic aspects of the war on terror, they could fight it head on and then finally decrease its influence and attraction within the community, regardless of how prevalent or minor it allegedly is.
Ignoring the problem, requires "outsiders", non-Muslims like the CENTCOMM analysts are left to do it. They shouldn't be suppressed by their own government.
Source: Muslim World Today
 |
Posts
