Again, you don’t seem to get it. The Jihadists wants you to believe that Jihad is untouchable as a notion. They have created an ideology with the same name: Jihadism. Today’s Wahabi lobbies in the US wants the US Government to drop the use of Jihadi and use meaningless words such as Hiraba (which means doing war at the wrong time). So when is the right time for Jihad? Also this lobby wants us to use the term Mufsidoon, which means spoilers. Meaning those who spoiled the great plan of Jihad. So, we’re (the West) are going to tell them Jihad is good and only al Qaeda are bad?
So that other Jihadists rise again after al Qaeda? No wonder why the Saudi embassy, CAIR and the entire Islamist elite is excited about Washington falling to this stupid joke.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I am glad to see this issue getting more discussion. I think I brought it up here last summer but it now finally seems to be getting more traction. There was another discussion recently of this topic on another blog too:

http://www.rideitin.com/archives/51

The point is, every time we use the term “jihadi” in describing them, we are playing directly into Osama’s game plan. It is exactly what he wanted us to do. He wants to incite hatred toward Muslims in order to more easily facilitate the rallying of those Muslims to extremism. It is easier for them to hate us if we already appear to hate them and using the term “jihadi” sends a message to them that says “we understand you are fighting for good and we are against you and that makes us evil”. By calling them “jihadi” we are by default calling ourselves the great satan and assisting in rallying people to al Qaida’s cause.

Excellent post. Thanks. More people need to understand this important difference.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

the COIN should have been in place years ago but now, perhaps because enough time has gone by to convince Iraqis that al-Qaeda is far worse than any preconceived image of Americans, and “winning hearts and minds” is not a cute phrase but a strategic tactic.

I also totally agree with your assessment of many Conservatives being anti-Islam. It will have a backlash and we’re seen as ignorant and hateful to Muslims, the good ones. The fact is that al-Qaeda is not Islamic. They are apostates of the Muslim faith. Moderates, as Rep. Ellison reported, are concerned about the reputation of their religion by heretics like al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

And absolutely right… radicals need to be marginalized and we’re slowly seeing that happen. Iraqis, whether Imams, sheiks or Muslims at the lay level, are beginning to turn against those who use Islam for ideological purposes, as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called it, “those hiding beneath a cloak of Islam”.

I saw a ridiculous show called “Muslims Against Jihad” on Fox not long ago. The show itself was good, and they even talked about Hirabah, the true term for what we think of as “jihadists” but are actually apostates of the faith. But no true Muslim can be against jihad. That’s an oxymoron and it was a foolish title.

Even Pres. Bush has dropped his “islamofascist” talk. There’s a movement at the top, from White House and State Dept. on down, to understand Islam and it’s heretics so we can divide the two and win with the help of real Muslims.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Hiraba is a fallacy invented by the Wahabis to save Jihadism as an ideology. It was never used in Arab Islamic history. So the West must not fall into this trap of thinking that by callign the Jihadists “Hirabists” they will lose any credibility. Because Hirabists doesn’t exist in Arabic. It was invented by some lobbyists in Washington. It has no base in Arabic language..read the following and then the article by Walid Phares, you wil understand:

“But in Arab Muslim history, a Hiraba (unauthorized warring) was when a group of warriors launched itself against the enemy without orders from the real commander. Obviously, this implies that a “genuine” war against a real enemy does exist and that these hotheaded soldiers have simply acted without orders. Hence this cunning explanation puts “spin” on jihad but leaves the core idea of jihadism completely intact. The “spoilers” depart from the plan, attack prematurely, and cause damage to the caliphate’s long-terms plans. These Mufsidoon “fail” their commanders by unleashing a war of their own, instead of waiting for orders.

This scenario fits the relations of the global jihadists, who are the regimes and international groups slowly planning to gain power against the infidels and the “hotheaded” Osama bin Laden. Thus the promoters of this theory of Hiraba and Mufsidoon are representing the views of classical Wahabis and the Muslim Brotherhood in their criticism of the “great leap forward” made by bin Laden. But by convincing Westerners that al Qaeda and its allies are not the real jihadists but some renegades, the advocates of this school would be causing the vision of Western defense to become blurred again so that more time could be gained by a larger, more powerful wave of Jihadism that is biding its time to strike when it chooses, under a coherent international leadership.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/preventing_the_west_from_under.html

Sami Abdallah

Like or Dislike: 0  0