|
U nited States Action |
|
| 084. Daily Kos and
Others on Jihad May 14, 2008 http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/05/daily_kos_on_jihad.php Daily Kos and Others on JihadBy Jeffrey Imm
What do the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC), and the
Daily
Kos all have in common? They are all seeking to
define the enemy as other than
"jihadists". A. Daily Kos: Jihad Not Terrorism Three weeks after AP's report of the NCTC/DHS recommendations to eliminate the term "jihadist" (among others) from the lexicon describing Jihadist terrorism, the latest salvo in this "war of ideas" was published on the popular Daily Kos web site by "Amad" on May 12: "Who Speaks for Islam? Part 3b: Jihad, Religion & Politics". The Daily Kos author states that to "most Muslims, jihad implies honor and sacrifice for others", and "[u]sing jihad and terrorism as synonyms is wrong and counterproductive" -- seeking to define the threat as "extremism". The article also expands on the real cause of "extremism" as "disrespect for Islam", "aggressive" U.S. foreign policy, and "double-standards exhibited by the US on democracy and human-rights". It quotes a student at the American University of Cairo as condemning U.S. foreign policy: "Bush has given Israel carte blanch to attack Palestinians and Lebanese. The war on terror is an open-ended war on Muslims." Daily Kos provides a biography on
"Amad" stating: "Amad runs MuslimMatters.org... [and]... was one of
the founders of Texas Dawah." Amad's blogroll on Daily Kos promotes
MuslimMatters.org and CAIR. What Daily Kos does not mention is who some
of the participants at Texas Dawah
meetings and at the
MuslimMatters.org website are, as they include supporters of
jihadist groups, unindicted co-conspirators in U.S. terror trials, and
supporters of the Taliban.
Texas Dawah 2007 convention speakers included: Another speaker at the Texas Dawah 2007 convention, who is also a regular contributor to MuslimMatters.org, is Musa Maguire. As Musa states in one of his articles on MuslimMatters.org, "I always get a special welcome from the folks at the airport...[t]o be fair, I can understand why I may have ended up on one of their lists". But MuslimMatters.org's Musa Maguire does not tell you why. Could it be because Musa (aka Thomas) Maguire is the cousin of American Taliban John Walker Lindh? In 2006, the Daily Telegraph reported on Musa Maguire and American Taliban John Walker Lindh: "Thomas Maguire, his cousin, also converted as a teenager, but said that Lindh found the rigorous path of Islam easier to follow. 'John exhibited a glowing innocence that propelled him to openly investigate the truth of Islam,' Maguire (known as Musa) wrote on a Muslim website. Maguire, who now hosts an English-language talk show on an Egyptian cable television network, praised Lindh's 'unswerving' faith and thoughtfulness. In words that would unnerve many Americans, he also described his cousin as 'one of the greatest success stories in the modern propagation of Islam in the West'." Musa Maguire calls American Taliban John Walker Lindh aka "Sulayman" - "a champion of Islam", has charged that "the case against Sulayman is nothing less than attack against our deen", and states that he "deserves the support of the Muslim community". The ideological influences of those associated with the MuslimMatters.org author and Texas Dawah co-founder writing in Daily Kos provide context behind his attempts to convince millions of Americans that Jihad is not terrorism, and that our only enemy is "extremism". Why does it matter what the Daily Kos reports? According to the latest blog traffic statistics for 2008, the Daily Kos is getting between 20 million and 30 million visits per month. Daily Kos has had its own meetings with Democratic primary candidates for president. Daily Kos contributors include current office holders such as: Nancy Pelosi, Richard Durbin, Tom Harkin, John Conyers, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Jim Moran, and Barack Obama.
It is still not clearly known who the reported Muslim American sources and groups are that have recommended the removal of "jihadist" from the terror lexicon of DHS, NCTC, and the U.S. Government. DHS reportedly refused to tell Steven Emerson. Although there are public reports from the San Francisco Chronicle on Secretary Chertoff's meetings in May 2007, DHS Civil Rights and Civil Liberties states that it "has consulted with some of the leading U.S.-based scholars and commentators on Islam to discuss the best terminology to use when describing the terrorist threat." Who are these "scholars and commentators"? Why are they anonymous? We still don't know who is providing the basis for the NCTC and DHS recommendations to define the enemy as other than "jihadists". Why won't they reveal their sources? Why wouldn't they want to hold up such sources to public scrutiny and discussion to make their case as to the validity of their position? Surely a subject as important to a democracy as the definition of an enemy at war with your country deserves full and open discussion with the public that such government serves.
The NCTC/DHS "terror lexicon" recommendations to end the use of the term "jihadist" are also supported by: -- Muslim American Society (MAS) -- founded by the Muslim Brotherhood whose motto is "Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." -- Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) -- whose spokeswoman Edina Lekovic was managing editor for Al-Talib when it instructed Muslim readers to "defend our brother" Osama bin Laden, and "refer to him as a freedom fighter, someone who has forsaken wealth and power to fight in Allah's cause and speak out against oppressors. We take these stances only to please Allah." Moreover, as Steven Emerson has pointed out, MPAC "repeatedly has lobbied to remove Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hizballah from the U.S. list of designated terrorist groups." -- Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) -- unindicted co-conspirator in Holy Land Foundation terror trial, whose 2007 convention speakers included supporters of Hamas, supporters of 1993 WTC terrorist "Blind Sheik" Omar Rahman, and a speaker who seeks to replace U.S. government with an Islamic caliphate -- Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) -- As CAIR-Chicago stated in "Taking Islam out of Radicalism", "[t]o use the word Islam to qualify the problem of radicalism is highly problematic". CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in Holy Land Foundation terror trial. The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has a 10 part, 118 page expose on CAIR and its links to Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi-funded groups "whose U.S. offices have been raided to investigate possible links to Hamas and Al Qaeda", "CAIR's involvement in radical conferences and denigration of moderates", "CAIR's Extremism and Anti-Semitism", and "CAIR's denial of the challenges posed by Radical Islamists" Oh, yes, and reportedly, also include in that list of those who agree with the NCTC/DHS "terror lexicon" guidelines -- President Bush. On May 12, UPI's Shaun Waterman reported that "a senior administration official involved in counter-terrorism policy, who was authorized to speak anonymously to the media, told United Press International that President Bush had been 'absolutely at the forefront' in promoting and using the kind of language the guidelines recommend." The reason why the unknown administration official had to "speak anonymously" regarding guidelines to provide terminology defining the enemy was not explained. Nor was there an explanation as to why President Bush used the term "jihadists" in defining the enemy in an April 29 press conference (five days after the AP reported on the NCTC/DHS guidelines stating that using the term "jihadist" legitimized Jihadist terrorist efforts). It is speculated that President Bush's reference to "jihadists" on April 29 was merely an error, but since neither the President nor the UPI-interviewed administration official won't go on the record about any of these issues, we don't know. Perhaps UPI can ask their "administration official" source about this.
How much of the terror lexicon recommendations by groups within the administration are reactions to bullying efforts by groups claiming "Islamophobia"? What has the impact been of groups aligned with groups such as CAIR, ISNA, MAS, MPAC, and others in influencing such NCTC/DHS terror lexicon recommendations?
Unindicted HLF terror trial co-conspirator CAIR has a
position paper on "Islamophobia" which defines Jihadist terrorists
as "extremists", where it accuses "Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, Judith
Miller, and Bernard Lewis among many others" of "Islamophobia", and also
states: Unindicted HLF terror trial co-conspirator ISNA has a similar position, as described by ISNA Leadership Development Center (ILDC) executive director Dr. Louay Safi. Per Dr. Safi, "Islamophobes are keen to turn the war on terrorism into a war on Islam", and Dr. Safi recommends the focus be fighting against "extremism and terrorism". Yet in 2004, this same ISNA official, Dr. Louay Safi, stated "the assertion by 'world leaders' that the war on terrorism is not a war on Islam is nothing but a piece of propaganda and disinformation that was meant to appease Western Muslims and to maintain the coalition against terrorism". Indeed, even the term "war on terror" is an Islamophobic slight and conspiracy according to ISNA. This demonstrates the inch-by-inch bullying by such groups to define the enemy, the issues, and most of all, the war. Clearly, per the NCTC/DHS terror lexicon guidelines, that approach is succeeding, and (directly or indirectly) groups like CAIR and ISNA are increasingly defining who America is (and should be) fighting.
If indeed the UPI's anonymous administration source is correct regarding President Bush's position, will it mean that Sheila Musaji can remove him from "The American Muslim" (TAM) list of those committing "Islamophobia" and list of those making "distorted claims about Islam"? Or does President Bush's April 29 "jihadists" comment still keep him on such lists? President Bush is on two of Sheila Musaji's lists on "The American Muslim" (TAM) website - the "Islamophobia" list, and her "Responses to Claims Made BY Specific Individuals and Organizations ABOUT Muslims" list. On TAM's "Islamophobia" list, Sheila Musaji has President Bush, along with Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Frank Lautenberg, Representative Peter King, Representative Tom Tancredo, a host of various media commentators and authors, and "U.S. government officials refer to specter of 'the caliphate'". Sheila Musaji doesn't name who such "U.S. government officials" are, just includes them on her "Islamophobia" list. Perhaps she was referencing such comments by Senator Barack Obama - that the enemy "seek[s] to create a repressive caliphate"? (It is interesting to note that the NCTC/DHS terror lexicon guidelines would condemn Senator Obama for using such language.) On TAM's "Responses to Claims Made BY Specific Individuals and Organizations ABOUT Muslims" list, Sheila Musaji states that individuals and groups provide "distorted claims about Islam", including President Bush, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, Congressman Anthony Weiner, Steven Emerson, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Rudy Giuliani, Muslims M. Zuhdi Jasser and Irshad Manji, Muslims Against Sharia, New York Times, Freedom House Report on Saudi Publications, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), and a host of others. So with the context that TAM's condemnations would view presidential candidates Senators Obama, Clinton, McCain, as well as current President Bush as either "Islamophobes" or having made "distorted claims about Islam", The American Muslim (TAM) also provided its support this week for the NCTC/DHS terror lexicon guidelines. TAM's Sheila Musaji, who claims that she is "not a 'moderate' Muslim", agrees with the NCTC/DHS terror lexicon guidelines stating "Terrorism is not Jihad, it is Hirabah". In her article "Thank God Someone Is Listening to Us - Terrorism Is Not Jihad", she provides such sources for her argument as Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, Hamza Yusuf, and Jim Guirard. (Interestingly, Sheila Musaji forgets that she previously listed Jim Guirard on her list of individuals who "make distorted claims about Islam".) Who are Sheila Musaji's sources,
Muzammil Siddiqi and
Hamza Yusuf, to support her claim that Jihad is not terrorism? The
Investigative Project on Terrorism reports that it has a video
recording of Siddiqi from 15 years ago stating: "When people really carry on Jihad, they carry on the Islam in its peak in its totality. And that’s why in the hadith the Prophet (SAS) said (Arabic), ‘No people have ever neglected Jihad except they became humiliated.’ And people leave, renounce Jihad, they became humiliated. That means in order to gain the honor, Jihad is the path, Jihad is the way to receive the honor."
-- Hamza Yusuf -
per Steven Schwartz, in "1991, he delivered a classic oration titled
'Jihad is the Only Way' to a local group of the Islamic Circle of North
America (ICNA), an arm of the Jama'at-i-Islami movement in Pakistan,
which in turn is an al Qaeda ally." This is the same Hamza Yusuf who
claimed that WTC terrorist "Blind Sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman was
"unjustly tried". And after the 9/11 attacks, the FBI wanted to
question Hamza Yusuf "about a speech he had given two days before
the Sept. 11 attacks, in which he said that the U.S. 'stands condemned'
and that 'this country has a great, great tribulation coming to it'."
Not surprisingly (in retrospect), after the 9/11 attacks, Hamza Yusuf
was at the White House, along with Muzammil Siddiqi, arguing how much
they were against the same Jihadists that they had been supporting. (And
of course, President Bush believed them.) Regarding his less radical
comments after 9/11, to use
Yusuf's own words: "There are times when you have to live like a
sheep in order to live in the future like a lion." According to reports, Dr. Hassaballa understands Jihad all too well. CAIR Watch reports that "Hassaballa has promoted Hamas-related charities on his website, including Islamic Relief and KindHearts"; Hesham Hassaballa's blog since "has been removed" according to Google. In addition, CAIR Watch reports that Dr. Hassaballa was "a co-founder and former Executive Board member of CAIR-Chicago (CAIR-Illinois) and former writer for CAIR's (dissolved) Independent Writer's Syndicate (IWS)".
As previously reported, on May 8, the Democratic majority in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence rejected Congressman Hoekstra's amendment to the 2009 Intelligence funding bill that "would prohibit the intelligence community from adopting speech codes that encumber accurately describing the radical jihadist terrorists that attacked America and continue to threaten the homeland." Congressman Hoekstra was referencing the NCTC/DHS "terror lexicon" guidelines that were reported by AP and UPI. UPI reported that "every GOP member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence voted for an amendment to an intelligence bill that would have banned the use of federal cash to produce documents like the terminology guidelines from the U.S. National Counter-Terrorism Center that recently leaked and were posted online. The amendment, authored by Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., the GOP ranking member, was defeated on a party-line vote." What the UPI did not report was that Democratic representatives on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence voted to have funding for intelligence on global warming, but did not view the definition of our enemy as a priority. This is precisely why organizations like CAIR, ISNA, and others have been able to gain influence in defining the enemy for us. Last week, I challenged Democratic Congressmen Reyes, Boswell, Cramer, Holt, Ruppersberger, Tierney, Thompson, Langevin, Murphy, Schiff, and Democratic Congresswomen Eshoo and Schakowsky, to provide an explanation as to why the consistent understanding of the jihadist enemy is not a priority in our intelligence operations. Their silence has been deafening. The UPI report concluded with "'Representative Hoekstra believes in free speech and accurately defining our enemy,' spokesman Jamal Ware told UPI Sunday. 'He will continue to fight against speech codes'."
In addition to
Congressman Hoekstra's efforts, there have certainly been advocates
within the anti-jihadist community that have recently spoken out on the
NCTC/DHS
"terror lexicon" issue, including: But I have special thanks for a different fighter against jihadism that gets very little recognition: the average American citizens who know that this is their war too. Last week, after the defeat of the Hoekstra amendment by the Democratic majority in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I invited the average American citizen to sign a petition demanding that those Congressmen and Congresswomen who voted against the Hoekstra amendment explain themselves. To those who think the American people don't care about the issue, I have proof that this is not true. To date, over 870 average American men and women have signed this petition demanding that those who seek to ignore the importance of defining the Jihadist enemy explain themselves -- and more sign the online petition every day. While the long history of jihadist apologist infiltration continues to be revealed in parts of our government, among some members of Congress, through "expert consultants", through cultural attaches, and through special interest groups and lobbyists -- those of us who stand against Jihad must never forget our strongest ally -- the American people. To many, many American people the NCTC/DHS "terror lexicon" guidelines were a wake-up call in the war of ideas, and an alert to the dangerous levels of jihadist apologist influences in our government. Those concerned Americans say "Enough". And they have just begun to fight.
Site
Meter Web Traffic Statistics on Daily Kos
|