In liberal land, Muslims were the true victims of the Orlando massacre. Why? Because people might be Islamophobic…. or something.
They never seem to be concerned about the Jews, who suffer ten times more hate crimes than Muslims in the U.S., but that’s a subject for a whole other article. Now, the Obama Administration is censoring speech to protect the sensibilities of Muslims at the expense of national security.
At Homeland Security, the advisory council recommends the feds stop using terms that frame the war on terrorism as an “us versus them” battle and that they avoid using terms like “jihad,” “Shariah,” “takfir,” and “umma.” The last two terms refer to apostasy and the Muslim community, World New Daily is reporting.
Amazingly – as if it matters even a little bit – they also recommended using the term “American Muslim” instead of “Muslim American.”
They offer a bunch of wiggly reasons for this wordplay – not to offend Muslims, not to single out one religion, etcetera. But the most idiotic is their claim that they want to downplay the success of Islamic radicals’ recruitment efforts:
In warning the DHS not to use divisive, “us and them” language, the advisory council said DHS must ensure their words are “properly calibrated to diminish the recruitment efforts of extremists who argue that the West is at war with Islam.”
As former DHS officer Philip Haney writes, the terrorists could not care less what terms we use to define them.
But keeping their words “properly calibrated” is a fool’s errand, according to Haney, because Islamic jihadists don’t care about the words used to describe them. Moreover, whether or not the West is at war with Islam doesn’t matter because Islam is at war with the West.
Liberals are the ones constantly reminding us that not all Muslims are terrorists – which is a claim none of us have ever made. If they really believe that, I think that moderate Muslims are capable of understanding that the words “jihad” aren’t being applied to them.