My latest in FrontPage:
You might have thought that Absurd Britannia couldn’t possibly get any more absurd. You’d have been wrong. The Daily Mail reported Monday that British “police are considering dropping the terms ‘Islamist terror’ and ‘jihadi’ because they ‘don’t help community relations.’” The cops were apparently mum about whether jihad terrorism and jihadis themselves “don’t help community relations.” They’re much more concerned about nomenclature. If we don’t offend the poor dears, you see, all will be well, and jihad will become a thing of the past.
Well, that is, not “jihad,” but whatever Britain’s politically correct elite decide to call it. Maybe they could take a page from the Washington Redskins and call jihadis The London Football Team. The Daily Mail notes that “alternatives suggested include ‘faith-claimed terrorism’, ‘terrorists abusing religious motivations’ and ‘adherents of Osama bin Laden’s ideology.’”
What exactly is Osama bin Laden’s ideology? Don’t expect the British police to tell you. This entire rebranding endeavor is an effort to ignore and obfuscate the answer to that question. Now who would want to do that? The Daily Mail tells us that “a Muslim police organisation claimed today’s official terminology fuelled negative perceptions, stereotypes, discrimination and Islamophobia.” Why, we can’t have people thinking ill of people for blowing up commuters on buses and subways and little girls at concerts. And so “the 3,000-strong National Association of Muslim Police advocated ‘a change in culture by moving away from using terms which have a direct link to Islam and jihad. These … do not help community relations and public confidence.’”
The National Association of Muslim Police is ready with just the right phrase: “It instead suggested an Arabic word, ‘Irhabi,’ could be deployed. It is used throughout the Middle East to describe those with extremist views. The group said that the word ‘jihad’ was complicated by its figurative meaning of the ‘struggle’ of being faithful, as well as being used to to [sic] denote self-defence in the context of a physical struggle.”
Labeling jihadis “irhabis,” those who wage unlawful warfare, of course assumes that jihad activity goes against the teachings of Islam. The U.S. chose this willful ignorance nearly a decade ago. On October 19, 2011, Farhana Khera of Muslim Advocates, who had complained for years about supposed Muslim profiling and entrapment, sent a letter to John Brennan, who was then the Assistant to the President on National Security for Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism. The letter was signed not just by Khera, but by the leaders of virtually all the significant Islamic groups in the United States: 57 Muslim, Arab, and South Asian organizations, many with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, including CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society, the Islamic Circle of North America, Islamic Relief USA; and the Muslim Public Affairs Council.
The letter denounced what it characterized as U.S. government agencies’ “use of biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam.” It criticized “the FBI’s use of biased experts and training materials.” Khera complained that my books could be found in “the FBI’s library at the FBI training academy in Quantico, Virginia”; that a reading list accompanying a powerpoint presentation by the FBI’s Law Enforcement Communications Unit recommended my book The Truth About Muhammad; and that in July 2010 I “presented a two-hour seminar on ‘the belief system of Islamic jihadists’ to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in Tidewater, Virginia,” and “presented a similar lecture to the U.S. Attorney’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council, which is co-hosted by the FBI’s Norfolk Field Office.”
These were supposed to be terrible things because I was bigoted and hateful. But many of the examples Khera adduced of “bigoted and distorted materials” involved statements that were not actually bigoted and distorted at all, but simply accurate. What was distorted was Khera’s representation of them. For instance, Khera stated,
A 2006 FBI intelligence report stating that individuals who convert to Islam are on the path to becoming “Homegrown Islamic Extremists,” if they exhibit any of the following behavior:
- “Wearing traditional Muslim attire”
- “Growing facial hair”
- “Frequent attendance at a mosque or a prayer group”
- “Travel to a Muslim country”
- “Increased activity in a pro-Muslim social group or political cause”
But the FBI intelligence report Khera purported to be describing didn’t actually say that converts to Islam were necessarily “on the path” to becoming “extremists” if they wore traditional Muslim attire, grew facial hair, and frequently attended a mosque; it simply included these behaviors among a list of fourteen indicators to “identify an individual going through the radicalization process.” Others included “travel without obvious source of funds’; “suspicious purchases of bomb making paraphernalia or weapons”; “large transfer of funds, from or to overseas”; and “formation of operational cells.” Khera selectively quoted and misrepresented the list to give the impression that the FBI was saying that devout observance of Islam led inevitably and in every case to “extremism.”
Despite the factual accuracy of the material about which they were complaining, the Muslim groups signing the letter demanded that the task force “purge all federal government training materials of biased materials”; “implement a mandatory re-training program for FBI agents, U.S. Army officers, and all federal, state and local law enforcement who have been subjected to biased training”; and more — to ensure that all that law enforcement officials would learn about Islam and jihad would be what the signatories wanted them to learn.
Brennan immediately complied. In a November 3, 2011, letter to Khera, that — significantly — was written on White House stationery, Brennan promised that the government would “ensure that federal officials and state, local and tribal partners receive accurate, evidence-based information in these crucial areas.”
Numerous books and presentations that gave a perfectly accurate view of Islam and jihad were purged — and the Assistant to the President on National Security for Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism was complying with demands from quarters that could hardly be considered authentically moderate.
It’s the same situation in Britain now. Obligingly calling jihadis irhabis will prevent British authorities from being able to confront or challenge the fact that jihadis make recruits among peaceful Muslims by presenting themselves as the authentic exponents of Islamic teachings. Pretending those teachings don’t exist does nothing to blunt their influence.
This is just still more Islamopandering in Britain, which seems determined to commit societal suicide rather than discard its politically correct fantasies.
terry sullivan says
islam is a cancer
JamesC. says
Some good old British bien pensant self-delusion from 2017: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/islam-muslim-terrorism-islamist-extremism-quran-teaching-violence-meaning-prophet-muhammed-a7676246.html?amp
3 years later, it is still deluded.
toomanyhobbies says
so do they really think that renaming dog poo the expectant from a K9’s backside stink any less when you step in it???
CALL IT WHAT IT IS MORONS
Roger Woodhouse says
oh how life could be made so much simpler and peacefull just by changing a few words but then ,we are talking about Britain where anything is possible.Problem solved overnight.Change the wording! Why didnt we think of this much earlier.?Non of those bombings would have occured.Terrorism banished.Oh joy of joys.
Wellington says
Three clueless, subservient dhimmis and one religious barbarian. Not a good combo.
Hate to say it, really hate to say it, but I think between Leftism and Islam, coupled by ignorance and cowardice, Britannia may be finished. I dearly hope I am wrong.
mccode says
Wellington,
I share your assessment and I also will include France, Sweden, Belgium, Germany, Spain…….Probably more as well….
JamesC. says
So do I !
Rufolino says
The conquest of Britain is well underway.
At a guess it will be completed in about 30 years.
It’s heartbreaking. B.Johnson is another failure like his recent predecessors.
Antiislamicman says
Makes no difference they will still kill you as that’s what their false prophet did. Wake up UK Islam is a cancer to the world
AleX says
According to same logic of re-labeling terms KKK would then be the acronym for Klan’s Kommunity Koordinators.
J Morgan says
I hope Robert Spencer doesn’t have to change from Jihad Watch to Irhabi Watch because we all know it is really Jihad.
Merri-joy says
By dropping the terms the UK Police show themselves to be weak and shameful!
To avoid offending the Criminals the Police would rather Offend the VICTIMS!
The British Police will OFFEND those who have been BRUTALIZED by Muslim grooming gangs, they will OFFEND all who have had loved ones MURDERED by Muslim’s carrying out Jihad as per the Quran!
By choosing the pathetic actions the POLICE will OFFEND the Buddhists, Sikkh’s, Jews & Christian’s of Britain and their QUEEN who is by CORONATION OATH DEFENDER of the FAITH!
Rufolino says
The Coronation Oath has always included the maintenance of the Christian Faith, yes.
The Coronation Ritual is woven into the Rite of Holy Communion, the two rituals are combined, so the Coronation is a deeply Christian service. The wording of the Coronation is centuries old, like Westminster Abbey where it always takes place.
The title “Defender of the Faith” awarded to King Henry VIII by the Pope and used by every British Sovereign since, does not feature in the Coronation Ritual.
However, how the next Coronation Ritual will be worded nobody yet knows. Given the profoundly Christian nature of the Ceremonial, how on earth “diversity” could be reflected is very difficult to imagine.
Given the changes to the British population, this question is likely to be giving Prince Charles nightmares.
James Lincoln says
Rufolino,
Has Queen Elizabeth fulfilled her oath? Will Prince Charles?
Following is the text of the Oath taken by Queen Elizabeth II in 1953:
================================
Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.
Archbishop. Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
Queen. I will.
Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen. All this I promise to do.
Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Arch-bishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words:
The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.
=================================
https://www.conservapedia.com/English_coronation_oath
CogitoErgoSum says
Are there any plans to de-fund the police in the UK? The money would probably be put to better use elsewhere … like paying the Jizya. The Muslims may as well be in charge of law enforcement there. I’m sure those yellow-vested cops would rather be doing something else … like picking up trash or inspecting the sewers; jobs like the ones in Pakistan that are reserved for the dhimmis.
Michael Copeland says
When training materials are withdrawn the police are handicapped.
They are left with no dots to connect.
“A Triple Unsolved Murder: Unconnected Dots”
(from shortly after the Boston Marathon Bombing):
https://gatesofvienna.net/2020/07/a-triple-unsolved-murder-unconnected-dots/
elee says
Muslims are going to get offended and oppressed and all if we call them Muslims? Well, I guess I’d be offended too if you called me a Muslim.
Walter Sieruk says
It’s very important necessary and to call people and things as hey actually are .This in keeping with reality .For jihadists who engage in the violence and killing pf the jihad for Islam are following the instruction of the Qur ‘an. as seen in Sura 2:292. 4:89. 5:33. 9: 5,111,112. 47:4.
The truly are Muslim terrorists
Edmund says
Today they want to hide meaning of Jihad. When Muslims will be majority, this term will return again to public. And every child will know that it is the most holy thing, which man should do.
So it’s nothing to worry about. Future is certain.
Michael Copeland says
‘terrorists abusing religious motivations’ is a straight-out wrong description.
The Manual of Islamic Law, “Reliance of the Traveller”, o9.0, says:
“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims”.
Jihad is a “communal obligation” (o9.1).
A muslim making an act of war against non-Muslims is FULFILLING his religious obligation.
Edmund says
Sure, and I bet they know exactly about it. But when amount of Muslims is growing exponentially, they understand that they must bow to their demands. Anyway, why would they object, when
they themselves agreed to the Islamization of the country ?
gravenimage says
UK Cops Consider Dropping Terms ‘Islamist Terror’ and ‘Jihadi’ to Avoid Offending Muslims
………………
More dhimmitude and suicidal insanity.
And if Muslims were *really* against Jihad, they would not make these kinds of demands.
Peter Dale says
As Mark Steyn says, Britain is the place where the police police everything except crime. It’s also now the place where free speech and thought go to die.
tony says
UK is already doomed..the prevalence of islam in prisons will cause deadly consequences in near future
David says
Many now think of them as an arm, of Social Services.
I always thought till I read this the police were obliged by Law to seek the truth, aparently not from now on.
James Lincoln says
So, according to the feature article:
“UK Cops Consider Dropping Terms ‘Islamist Terror’ and ‘Jihadi’ to Avoid Offending Muslims.”
Just one question:
Just how does changing the name of the terrorist act actually change the terrorist act?
Pray Hard says
There are no police in the UK. They are a RuPaul drag show in cop uniforms.
gravenimage says
My grandfather was a police superintendent in England–but those were different times…
dapto says
Can we while we’re at it change the name of police people to plod(s) ?
Jayell says
They’ve already been called ‘plods’ by a significant proportion of the population for quite some time now, especially since they announced that they could no longer investigate most house burglaries, car offences and quite a few other kinds of offence against the person. They’ve been called a few other names after they were caught out deliberately failing to protect all those grooming gang victims (and even threatening distraught parents when they complained) and now they’re seen as a total offensive joke after ‘taking the knee’ at illegal BLM demos whilst standing around and doing nothing as the thugs deface or demolish historic statues. Frankly, the UK police now make ‘Keystone Kops’ films look like a serious crime documentaries, to put it mildly – except the keystone Kops were just plain incompetent and not bent into the bargain.
By the way, it’s interesting to see how these people play with semantics to twist public perceptions their way. As soon as muslims started committing their atrocities in the UK, their crimes were correctly identified as ‘islamIC’ (i.e., directly related to islam). The muslims of course didn’t like that because it correctly drew attention to the true character of their beliefs, so someone invented the spurious term ‘islamIST’ as a white-washing exercise to create an equally spurious differentiation between the muslims who got caught out by not bothering to cover their tracks and the rest who carry on trying to pull the wool over peoples’ eyes. Now everyone’s seen through that little ruse they’re now trying to lead everyone up the garden path by dropping all direct references to islam and dragging in meaningless arabic ‘technical’ words in an attempt to blind people with some kind of contrived self-righteous islamic science’ (whatever that’s supposed to be!). Except they’ve already tried that sort of thing too many times already, and no one’s going to fall for it anymore. Perhaps the next time one of their noble martyrs’ decides to create a bit of murder and mayhem by blowing something up, they’ll be referred to as an ‘unauthorised demolition contractor’.- and nothing whatsoever to do with Religion of Peace, of course!
jacintejacinte@gmail.com says
With experience and knowledge behind us, we dont need to call them either names because they are all islamists and jihadi.
dfhdnjdn says
I am more than sorry to say that the phrase ‘useful idiots’ comes to mind looking at that photo.
The same when they are at so-called pride marches.
Richard Courtemanche says
The islamization of western civilization one big inch at the time. Wonder if politicians and police officers will be eventually willing to transform from Kafirs to Muslim subordinates!
Giacomo Latta says
”National Association of Muslim Police”
Well, it’s comforting to know that while I’m in Britain I get to choose which set of laws I get to break. Once I spot someone in a blue frock and blackjack I’ll know I’m in sharia territory. Roughing up Jews and homosexuals back on the to-do list. British police just need to call infractions of the law perpetrated by muslims ”definitely not muslim activity.” We are aware of the euphemism already.
David says
The police are supposed to seek the truth, not no more eh.
melek-ric says
My money’s on ‘terrorists abusing religious motivations’ because it can be abbreviated to a nifty acronym, TARM, which can then be rhymed with words such as harm, warm, farm or perhaps other reassuring and benign propaganda terms.
Istvan Vogel says
And I thought they were Muslin terrorists! Now I’m looking forward to my re-education. Shades of George Orwell’s “1984” and “Newspeak”.
Shakti Swami says
Two things never ceases to amaze me:
1. Reach & tentacles of Left, in academics and MSM, in almost all the countries.
2. Others should change & adapt to accommodate muslims but they would never change any of their practises, which might not be acceptable to people of other faiths.
I guess not a lot of people would be fan of halal method, I might be wrong it’s just an assumption, but to me animals withering in pain doesn’t seem a merciful way of killing them. Especially, doing it in public view & not closed spaces, in countries like India, making people who watch it, discomforted.
OLD GUY says
Why are we so concerned about offending muslims or any other groups of people who are involved in terrorism? The muslims have no problem offending me or anyone else who disagrees with them. Muslims don’t only offend they enslave, rape and murder those they disagree with. So screw them and these left academic idiots.