“Moving away from the politics of fear.”

AP and CAIR Agree: Installing Global Sharia Law Is Not Radical

This is disgusting. Twitchy is reporting that the AP (under pressure from radical Islamist front group CAIR) has redefined Islamist. It was too ugly a word before, and now, thanks to AP, Islamist is all warm and fuzzy!  (GWP)

CAIR is not a civil rights group. The council for Islamic relations in America, is a front for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Under pressure from Hamas-linked CAIR, AP revises meaning of term “Islamist”

From “man-made disaster” to “overseas contingency operations” and “kinetic action”, the Obumbler regime is always good enough for change, to turn reality on its head and put a spin on everything.  While there has already been some discussion of the change in reference to “illegal aliens” to “undocumented workers,” another change has thus far received less attention.  This changed has been traced directly to campaigning by the Council on American-Islamic Relations against the use of a term it described as pejorative.

In a January CAIR press release, the organization which describes itself as a Muslim civil rights group, but which government officials have described as a front-group for Hamas, was unhappy with the way the AP Stylebook defined “Islamist.”

The AP added the term “Islamist” to its Stylebook in 2012.  The term was defined:

Islamist—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.

CAIR found that definition objectionable, and urged the AP to drop the term from its Stylebook.

The AP went even further.

Can’t Say Terrorism, Can’t Say War on Terror, Islamist Now a No-No

First they came for terrorism, then it was the war on terror, and now it is Islamism.

Robert Spencer:

The irony is that, as I have explained many times (as in this National Review article), the term “Islamist” is often used by those who believe that Islam is a Religion of Peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists, to create a distance between Islam, which is supposedly entirely benign and peaceful, and Islamism, which teaches political authoritarianism, subjugation of non-Muslims, and everything else about Islam that is unpleasant and at variance with Western principles of human rights.

You can see a recent example of this in Martin Amis’s fatuous statements here: “In ‘The Second Plane,’ a collection of nonfiction published in 2008, Mr. Amis noted that he is an “Islamismophobe,” not an Islamophobe. The events of Sept. 11 left him bereft and angry and in desperate search of distinctions. ‘Let us make the position clear,’ he wrote in an essay titled ‘Terror and Boredom.’ ‘We can begin by saying, not only that we respect Muhammad, but that no serious person could fail to respect Muhammad. . . . But we do not respect Muhammad Atta.'” No serious person could fail to respect Muhammad? Despite the fact that Atta and others like him look to Muhammad as their exemplar and inspiration, not without abundant justification for doing so from the canonical accounts of Muhammad’s life?

Anyway, now even the word “Islamist,” although it is usually used to exonerate Islam and distance its teachings from the violence and hate propagated in its name, is unacceptable for Hamas-linked CAIR, and they’re crowing today about their victory over AP. Clearly Hamas-linked CAIR’s amiable stomach-stapled beekeper, Honest Ibe Hooper, sees how successful he and his fellow Islamic supremacists have been in co-opting the media, government, and law enforcement in recent years, and is pressing on toward final victory: the total silencing of any resistance to the global jihad and Islamic supremacism.

“The Associated Press Revises Another Politically Charged Term, by Steven Nelson forU.S. News and World Report, April 4 (thanks to Robert Spencer:

…The term “Islamist,” the AP clarified in a Thursday afternoon alert to online stylebook subscribers, should not be used as “a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals.””Islamist” is frequently used as a label for conservative Islamic political movements, particularly Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, the group’s Palestinian offshoot. It generally carries a negative connotation.

The AP first added the term to its stylebook in 2012. The definition initially read:

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.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, an American advocacy group sometimes labeled “Islamist” by critics, previously lobbied for the AP to drop the term. In a January op-ed CAIR’s communications director, Ibrahim Hooper, wrote the term “has become shorthand for ‘Muslims we don’t like'” and “is currently used in an almost exclusively pejorative context.”

As of Thursday’s update, the AP definition reads:

An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists.

Where possible, be specific and use the name of militant affiliations: al-Qaida-linked, Hezbollah, Taliban, etc. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.

CAIR praised the AP’s update. “We believe this revision is a step in the right direction and will result in fewer negative generalizations in coverage of issues related to Islam and Muslims,” Hooper said. “The key issue with the term ‘Islamist’ is not its continued use; the issue is its use almost exclusively as an ill-defined pejorative.”

One thought on ““Moving away from the politics of fear.””

  1. I agree with this one: there was never any such thing as an “islamist” – that only ever really meant: “Someone who is sorta islamic but who misunderstands that islam is a religion of peace and somehow confuses all the clear extortion commands of the Qur’an as making it into a religion of war, so they’re really only sorta islamic-istic but not really islamic! Whee!”


Comments are closed.