New State Department lexicon forbids use of the words “jihad” or “jihadist”. Talk about head in the sand!
comment by Jerry Gordon
Talk about Orwellian newspeak, looks like the striped pants brigade in Foggy bottom has put its head ostrich-like in the sand with this bonehead move: editing terms like; “jihad” and “jihadists” out of their lexicon.
According to Bob Spencer at Jihad Watch the reasons that State is doing this bespeak of ‘diplobabble’ and dhimmi-like intimidation. Witness his observations:
The argument, of course, is the old Streusand/Guirard claim that by using the word jihad, we’re validating the jihadist claim to be waging jihad. Of course, it’s ridiculous to think that the U.S. State Department carries any validating authority within the Islamic world to determine what is Islam and what isn’t. This would be the first time that unbelievers have set the meaning of Islamic theology for Muslims.
Also, the claim is that by using the word “jihad,” we are insulting the peaceful Muslims who are waging the daily jihad of the struggle against sin, the struggle against the dirty dishes, etc. And that’s great, if that’s what any Muslim actually believes is the sum and substance of jihad, but it is an understanding of jihad that is at odds with the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
As Tom Hanks in the character film role of Forest Gump says: ‘stupid is as stupid does’.
by Bob Spencer, JihadWatch, April 22, 2008
A reliable source has informed me that Condoleeza Rice has approved a new lexicon for State Department usage, absolutely forbidding the use of the terms “jihad” and “jihadist” by any State Department official.
The argument, of course, is the old Streusand/Guirard claim that by using the word jihad, we’re validating the jihadist claim to be waging jihad. Of course, it’s ridiculous to think that the U.S. State Department carries any validating authority within the Islamic world to determine what is Islam and what isn’t. This would be the first time that unbelievers have set the meaning of Islamic theology for Muslims.
Also, the claim is that by using the word “jihad,” we are insulting the peaceful Muslims who are waging the daily jihad of the struggle against sin, the struggle against the dirty dishes, etc. And that’s great, if that’s what any Muslim actually believes is the sum and substance of jihad, but it is an understanding of jihad that is at odds with the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Will Muslims be insulted by a reference to other Muslims using the traditional primary meaning of jihad? Answer: probably. But that doesn’t negate the traditional status of that meaning, or the influence of that traditional view in the Islamic world.
I will publish more information on this when possible.
April 23rd, 2008 at 5:16 • opinion • State Department lexicon • excludes Jihad and Jihadists • dhimmitude • 0 Comments •
Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of American Congress for Truth, Brigitte Gabriel or the Editor or the staff of American Congress for Truth. Any comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, harassing or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted at the sole discretion of the Editor. However, the fact that comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Brigitte Gabriel, the Editor or the Staff of American Congress for Truth.
No Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
You need an OpenID login to post a comment. Learn more about setting up an OpenID
You must be logged in to post a comment.
