| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Orwellianism is in the saddle in the EU, and the solons are busy sharpening their Newspeak lexicon. An update on this story. "Fighting terrorism one word at a time: The European Union balks at 'Islamic terrorism' and other phrases. It's working on a lexicon that counters the terrorists' terminology." From the Christian Science Monitor, with thanks to all who sent this in:
Officials in Brussels have embarked on an unusual exercise, combing their dictionaries to excise words and phrases that could cause offense.When the review is complete and the rules laid down, you will not, for example, hear EU officials talk any more about "Islamic terrorism."
That sort of shorthand reference to the bombings in Madrid and London, and other outrages committed in the name of Islam, is commonplace today. But EU policymakers worry that it lumps all Muslims into the same category, and angers them.
"There is no justification at all for including all law-abiding Muslim citizens in our messages about terrorism," says Friso Roscam-Abbing, an EU spokesman. "The politically more correct term will be 'terrorism that abusively invokes Islam.' "
"That may be all very long and cumbersome," he acknowledges. "But millions of Muslims live in the EU, and they are simply not terrorists."
To speak of "Islamic terrorism" doesn't include "all law-abiding Muslim citizens in...messages about terrorism." It merely acknowledges the fact that the perpetrators of this terrorism justify and fuel it by reference to Islamic concepts. The idea that they "abusively" invoke Islam is highly questionable, since these "law-abiding Muslim citizens" have come up with no effective refutation of their theology on Islamic grounds, and have not made any move to bar them from their communities. If they are abusively invoking Islam, why aren't these law-abiding Muslim citizens leading efforts to resist them?
Mr. Roscam-Abbing may be prepared to admit to political correctness, but he rejects accusations that the EU is soft-soaping "Islamic radicals" - another phrase that is coming under the microscope."We are very tough on combating terrorism," he insists. "We will absolutely continue to detect the bad guys and prevent them from committing terrorist acts. But at the same time we are respectful of citizens' beliefs."
Sure, Roscam-Abbing. But unfortunately, pretending that you don't have the problem that you have will not make it go away.
Posted by Robert at April 24, 2006 10:14 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
But EU policymakers worry that it lumps all Muslims into the same category, and angers them.
Better not do that, otherwise they might commit acts that abusively invoke otherwise peaceful anger.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 24, 2006 10:52 AM
The fact is that these attempts to remove meaning by altering language - PACE good old George Orwell himself - always, always fail. The word "homosexual" was invented to avoid the negative overtones of "invert" or "pervert", which in turn are artificial formations designed to avoid even older negative terms; in turn, it became so offensive that the homosexuals demanded to be known as "gays" - and now anyone familiar with the language of 13-year-olds in state school playground knows that "gay" has become a sangunary insult and a description of a bad, frustrating or sickening situation. (For instance, a boy losing in a sport or videogame will cry out in frustration: "This is SO gay!") By the same token, the Nazis tried to avoid the terms "massacre" and "slaughter" by describing what they were doing as "the final solution to the Jewish problem" - and immediately "Final Solution" became a term even more sinister than "massacre" or "pogrom". The instances are endless: the BBC started referring to Unionist and Republican murderers in Northern Ireland as "paramilitaries," with the result that now "paramilitary", from being a neutral word describing an army-like organization such as a militia or police force, has become just another word for terrorist, murderer, thug. But people never learn from history; probably because they never studied it.
Posted by: Paolo at April 24, 2006 12:28 PM
Funny how the new phrase is "terrorism that abusively invokes islam" Why the world abusively? Why not say, "terrorism that involes islam"
By inserting the workd 'abusively', the new lexicon is making a political statement superfluous to the point of the exercise which is to separate all islam from terrorism.
The inclusion of the adverb 'abusively' implies that islam should never be associated with terrorism and that terrorists that have done so, have committed an 'abuse'. So the EU lexicon goes beyond its mandate of political correctness to a mandate of completely disassociating islam from terrorism. So we know that mere political correctness is not behind this new initiative. What is behind it is a political movement to whitewash islam altogether.
Posted by: thethinker at April 24, 2006 1:14 PM
"Muslim terrorism" works for me as the logical alternative.
"Koranic Terrorism" as well.
"Mohammedan Terrorism" has too many syllables, and blurs the understanding of the core message in the Koran, and the root desire of Islam to dominate the entire globe with their intolerant theocratic tyranny.
The E.U. is forgetting one of its greatest poet's insights into language (to paraphrase the Bard):
"A stinkhorn by any other name still smells like crap."
Ditto, Islam.
The skunkcabbage of 'religions'.
Call it what you will, it is still ill.
Mentally, morally, spiritually.
And the EU has invited this predatory panther into its living room, mistaking it for a tame tabby.
Putting a 'pink bow' in its neck will not stop it from eating your children.
You do not change the nature of a thing by renaming it. You only make it harder to defend against.
(I think George Orwell just hit 50,000 rpm's, and increasing.)
Posted by: profitsbeard at April 24, 2006 1:31 PM
By failing to strongly reject all so-called Islamic Terrorism, the Law-abiding Muslim in effect supports the Terrorist. It is about time that Islam is identified as a ‘Hate Group’ much like the KKK, their assets seized, their leaders arrested, all meetings banned, and their organizations disbanded.
at April 24, 2006 3:44 PM
Paolo, of course you're right that one of the big problems today is that so many people are ignorant of history. Unfortunately, this applies to many self-styled historians. Look at Kamal Salibi or Tony Judt. Some historians may know their own narrow field and are accurate when writing about it. But know little, yet think they much about other fields/periods/regions in history.
But good old Philip Hitti, author of a History of the Arabs, testified for the Arab side before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine that there was "no Palestine in history." I'm for that. However, nowadays the Arabs and their Western supporters have invented a whole Palestinian mythology which takes the "palestinian people" back to the stone age. Some of us believe, to be sure [certo], that the Arabs today are in a new Stone Age. And if they're not, it seems, at least to me, that they would like the rest of us into it with them.
Posted by: Eliyahu at April 24, 2006 5:48 PM
"The politically more correct term will be 'terrorism that abusively invokes Islam.' "
This is nothing less than European political correctness run AMUCK!
This is a very disturbing story.
Let us cut right to the heart of what it really means.
It states as a matter of fact the following statement: Terrorism is an abusive form of Islam.
This statement implies that the true, non-abusive form of Islam has nothing to do with supremacy or violence.
How inaccurate!
How misinformed!
How whitewashed!
You simply can not remove supremacy and violent texts from the Koran and say that the true non-abusive form of Islam is all about equality and peace.
Read some these passages from the Koran and see how the Koran clearly inspires supremacy and violence.
There is no way to sugar coat the following passages....... its exact meaning is crystal clear to the non-Muslim or Muslim:
The Victory
[48.13] And whoever does not believe in Allah and His Apostle, then surely We have prepared burning fire for the unbelievers.
The Victory
[48.28] He it is Who sent His Apostle with the guidance and the true religion that He may make it prevail over all the religions; and Allah is enough for a witness.
The Immunity
[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
Quran 47:
SHAKIR: So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.
at April 24, 2006 11:50 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)