The Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, war on the truth about Islam and jihad continues: Now it has announced that it is insulted by the term “Islamist.” Or at least by its negative usage to refer to Islamic supremacists who want to impose Islamic law on free people.
In an op-ed, Hamas-CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper whined that the term was “currently used in an almost exclusively pejorative context.” Hooper complained about AP’s stylebook, which defines the term as a “supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.”
What would CAIR call them?
The irony here is that for a long time the only acceptable term, as far as the dhimmi press were concerned, has been “Islamist.” The media and political elites struggle to obscure the political, violent and supremacist aspects of Islam, jihad and the Shariah, and twist themselves into knots to obscure the real motive and ideology that claims the lives of hundreds of thousands of infidels, kuffar and apostates from Islam.
As part of their long-standing efforts to exonerate Islam from any responsibility for the violence committed in its name, they have long settled on the ridiculous term “Islamist” for violent Muslims and supremacist advocates of Shariah. I have long had an issue with such intellectual dishonesty. Essentially, what does it mean to say that someone or something is “Islamist” as opposed to “Islamic”? Nothing, really, except that the person speaking doesn’t want to offend Islam by speaking unwelcome truths about the political nature of the religion.
As Robert Spencer explains, the term “Islamist” implies “that Islam itself, in its authentic form, has no requisite political aspect, and no incompatibility with Western values or democratic government. The problem with this is that it is a Western, artificial distinction, imposed by non-Muslims upon the Islamic world and lacking any real substance with reference to Islamic law as it has always been formulated by the Sunni and Shi’ite madhahib (schools of jurisprudence). Islam has always been political, and the union of religion and the state has always been essential to its political program; the idea that all this can and should be separated from Islam proper is the wishful thinking of Western analysts who do not wish to face the implications of the fact that these ideas represent mainstream Islamic thinking.”
But what is interesting is that now even this whitewashed term “Islamist” is unacceptable to our Islamic overlords. Muslim Brotherhood groups in the United States like Hamas-CAIR have gotten so brazen and supremacist that they are condemning the use of a word that has been widely and generally used to do what they have for years tried to bully and intimidate everyone into doing: denying any connection between Islam on the one hand and jihad violence and Islamic supremacism on the other.
And why shouldn’t they do this? They have gotten their way in everything. The media have capitulated to Islamic demands in everything. They have self-enforced the Shariah, silencing themselves in covering jihad and Shariah, always studiously ignoring the root causes of jihad violence within Islamic teaching. At the same time, they have condemned, libeled and smeared the few brave souls who have been speaking out against the ideology that commanded 9/11. A media doing the bidding of Muslim Brotherhood groups again and again eviscerated those of us who had resolved to fight for our American dead after Sept. 11.
Do we expect Islamic supremacists to have any concern or respect for, or fear of, the weak and spineless media pundits and political cows who for years have been only too willing to be at their beck and call?
Of course, Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the United States don’t like the use of the term “Islamist.” They are insulted by it because they sanction jihad and the murders that are regularly committed in the cause of Islam. They will demand that media and politicians never mention Islam – except to praise it – even if thousands die in the cause of Islam and the jihadists are screaming “Allahu akbar” while blowing themselves up.
Meanwhile, the Hamas-CAIR #myjihad ad campaign, one of the most ridiculous and insulting to the intelligence of every American and freedom-loving human being, has now been posted in San Francisco. Hamas-CAIR launched this joke in Chicago last month. Our counter campaign was submitted in Chicago more than three weeks ago and we are still awaiting approval (or rejection). But these tools can’t get the Hamas-CAIR ads up fast enough. Bend over, boys.
We have submitted the ad to San Francisco as well. Knowing what gutless wonders the officials of the SF transit authority are, this should prove interesting, I wouldn’t be surprised if the SFMTA posted its own ads to counter ours, saying, “#myjihad is trying to keep AFDI’s ads off our buses!”
According to reporter Laird Harrison, “the understanding of ‘jihad’ in English seems to be evolving.” Tell that to the 270 million victims of jihadi wars, land appropriations, cultural annihilations and enslavements.
Harrison attempts to “broaden” the meaning of jihad, but Islamic law is clear that its primary definition refers to holy war. But the Islamic supremacist war in the information battle-space has been successfully launched. Imagine, they are passing off this garbage in post-9/11 America. It’s appalling. Oceans of blood dismissed by these ghouls.
Muslim groups are now commanding that we dare not speak their name, and want to fool people into thinking that the jihadists have nothing to do with Islam. Unfortunately for them and their whitewash campaign, the jihadists themselves keep insisting otherwise.