H/T Human Events.com
by Robert Spencer
Last week, a reporter of the Kuwait News Agency accused Sen. John McCain and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee of “linking Islam with terrorism as a tool to scare up support among US voters, an election style experts describe as ‘shameful.” But in her story, Heather Yamour invokes only one “expert” -- a Far-Left professor.
Shameful style? Yes, if measured by Islamic standards and not those of American politics and free speech. Last Monday it was reported that the British government has drawn up a new handbook for government officials that forbids them to use phrases like “Islamist extremism” or “jihadi-fundamentalist” -- instead, police and others must refer to “violent extremism” and “criminal murderers or thugs,” so as to avoid giving the impression that anything Islamic is involved in, er, Islamic terrorism.
But over on this side of the pond, some of the presidential candidates haven’t gotten the message. They somehow still think their First Amendment rights exist.
Mitt Romney has referred to “jihadism” and “violent, radical Islamic fundamentalism” as “this century’s nightmare,” and has warned that the jihadists want to “unite the world under a single Jihadist caliphate.” Yamour took exception to Mike Huckabee’s (“an ordained Baptist minister”!) statement that Islamo-fascism was “the greatest threat this country has ever faced.” She even bristled at John McCain’s declaration that “I’m not interested in trading with Al-Qaeda.” Apparently the PC police, eager as they are to accommodate easily wounded Muslim sensibilities, will soon have us referring to Osama bin Laden’s network as the “anti-Islamic group,” in the spirit of UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s recent designation of, uh, Islamic terrorism as “anti-Islamic.”
So why would Romney, Huckabee and McCain buck “expert” opinion on this? Are they that desperate for votes, that they would recklessly demonize an entire innocent population? Yamour thinks so: Republicans, she fulminates, are “fiercely attacking Islam as a religion interwoven with terrorism,” and are “targeting evangelical churches and conservative Americans seeking to preserve the strict Christian faith in the government and fear the possibility that the future president may open the door wider for Muslims to enter mainstream society.”
Horror of horrors! But it’s worth asking: where did the candidates get this idea in the first place? Where could these desperate, cynical men have gotten the idea that Islam had anything to do with terrorism? Let’s see. Could it have been from Osama bin Laden, who has praised Allah for the Qur’an’s “Verse of the Sword” (9:5), which instructs Muslims to “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”? Or maybe it was from Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, who once thundered: “Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you!...There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”
Maybe it was from the British Muslim Omar Brooks, who said in 2005 that it was imperative for Muslims to “instill terror into the hearts of the kuffar” and added: “I am a terrorist. As a Muslim of course I am a terrorist.” Or maybe it was from the Qur’an itself, which tells Muslims to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (8:60). Maybe it was from the perpetrators of the 10,000-plus terror attacks committed in the name of Islam since 9/11.