The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Islam, CAIR and Politically Correct Speech

There was an interesting storm-in-a-teacup brouhaha
last week that took place after the January 7th Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris,
between Rupert Murdoch and J.K. Rowling. Terrence McCoy, in his Washington Post
January 12th article, “Why
J.K. Rowling is so incensed about Rupert Murdoch’s tweet about ‘Moslems
’,”
wrote:
Aging conservative icon Rupert Murdoch
has never had a problem lacing his Twitter account with provocative opinion….
On Sunday, Murdoch struck again. “Maybe most
Moslems are peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing
jihadist cancer they must be held responsible,” Murdoch declared.
Then he dug his heels in. “Big jihadist danger looming everywhere from
Philippines to Africa to Europe to US. Political correctness makes for denial
and hypocrisy.”
Murdoch’s
tweet raised the hackles of numerous Muggles and mudbloods. Never mind that,
overall, he was correct in his perspective. Observable facts and incontestable
evidence must never get in the way of liberal/left and Muslim anger. Feelings,
don’t you know, determine reality, and manufacture facts.
Enter Harry
Potter to do battle with the evil media mogul.
One of people leading the outrage was author
J.K. Rowling, who immediately took issue with Murdoch’s proclamation and let
loose with a barrage of pugnacious tweets.
“I was born Christian,” she said. “If that makes Rupert Murdoch
my responsibility, I’ll auto-excommunicate. … The Spanish Inquisition was my
fault, as is all Christian fundamentalist violence. Oh, and Jim Bakker. … Eight
times more Muslims have been killed by so-called Islamic terrorists than
non-Muslims.”
Rather heated snoggery from someone whose political
opinions are best presented in a refereed debate between Harry Potter and Voldemort.
I’d like to ask Rowling what she defines as an “Islamic terrorist,” as opposed
to a “so-called” one. Are they the little green Martians from Mars Attacks!, or boleadora-armed Argentine gauchos who
lost their way on the pampas? Has Rowling a glimmering of the internecine conflict
between Sunnis and Shi’ites? Sure, the two sects slaughter each other by the
bushel-full, but I doubt her grasp of the butchery is anything more than
hearsay from the liberal/left press.
But that squabble lead to McCoy’s brief
disquisition on the differences in meaning of the terms Muslim and Moslem. One is
offensive to Muslims, and one is not.
 McCoy notes:
Those asides implied
Murdoch had said something culturally insensitive, if not bigoted, when
describing Muslims. But is the spelling “Moslem” bigoted, as commenters
indicated on Sunday? Has Standard English evolved beyond “Moslems,” which was
once as common as using “the Orient”? Or are “Muslim” and “Moslem”
interchangeable?
The answer to those
questions lay in the years following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,
when thoughts on “Moslem” changed rapidly, according
to the book “Discourse Analysis and
Media
Attitudes: The Representation of Islam in the British Press.”
Instead, the
British press employs the euphemism “Asian” to identify Moslems. Or Muslims.
What have you.  It was presumed that the
Chinese, Japanese, Indonesians, Malaysians, Tibetans, et al. would not feel
hurt or stereotyped.
But
then, after Sept. 11, that lackadaisical attitude changed. “Muslim is
preferred,” according
to the United Kingdom’s Society of Editors. “People refer to themselves as
Muslims. Many regard Moslem as a term of abuse, like people of African descent
like being called negroes. Also avoid Mohammedan and Musselman.”
I shall make it a point of composition to employ Mohammedan and Musselman, if I remember them. Also “raghead,” “urban turban,” “whirling
dervish,” and so on. I am not known for my delicacy of pen. I refuse to stand
at the bar of any country’s society of editors.
“They
specifically objected to the spelling Moslem, as they noted that it can be
pronounced as ‘mawzlem,’ which is the Arabic word for oppressor,
according to “Discourse Analysis.”
The
History News Network, hosted by George Mason University, agreed the roots of
the word betray its prejudice. “Muslim” means Muslim. But “Moslem” means
something entirely different. “Whereas for most English speakers, the two words
are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different,”
the article said. “A
‘Muslim’ in Arabic means ‘one who gives himself to God,’ and is by definition,
someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast a ‘Moslem’ in Arabic means ‘one who
is evil and unjust’ when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, ‘Mozlem’
with a z.”
I would adopt the term Moslem from here on in, except that, from a coolly rational
perspective based on causo-connections inherent in Islam, I see no difference
in ideational content between the terms Muslim
and Moslem and “Mawslem.” If a jihadist gives himself to God as he is slaying
infidels and being slain in turn, then he is necessarily evil, unjust, and an
oppressor. And good riddance.
Au contraire,
Mr.  McCoy and all those semantic
bean-counters out there: From an Islamic terrorism standpoint, the terms are
indeed synonymous and interchangeable.
This leads us to the demand of Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that Fox News
purge
its anchors and guests of “Islamophobes.”  Islam authority Robert Spencer at Jihad
Watch
reported on January 12th:
The
Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been
designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, today included in
its “American Muslim News Briefs” mailing an item entitled “CAIR Asks Fox News
to Drop Islamophobes.” Most of it was made up of the usual smears, lies and
distortions that Hamas-linked CAIR pumps out by the gallon. It also contained
this:
“Fox
News’ continued use of Islamophobes, such Steven Emerson and many others like
him, only serves to harm the network’s reputation and to promote hostility
toward Islam and ordinary American Muslims,” said CAIR Department to Monitor
and Combat Islamophobia Director Corey Saylor.
He
said Fox News continues to utilize the nation’s most notorious Islamophobes and
Islamophobia enablers — like Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Ayaan Hirsi Ali,
Brigitte Gabriel, and Zuhdi Jasser — as regular commentators on issues related
to Islam and Muslims.
Obviously, CAIR objects to what is said on Fox
about the connections between Islam and the current onslaught of Islamic
terrorism. It objects to anyone bad-mouthing Islam, especially when the “most
notorious Islamophobes” have a strong national audience.  It is not Argentine gauchos or crazed Amish
who are attacking newspapers and murdering Jews. Not even by Westboro Baptist
Church
primates. It’s Muslims. Devout Muslims. Obsessed Muslims. Muslims
wishing to be true to Mohammad and Allah and the Koran. Muslims who have pledged unswerving fealty to the
fundamental premises and tenets of Islam. Activist Muslims. Muslims who have
given their lives to Islam. Muslims who are walking vehicles of nihilism.
Muslims who hate life as much as their victims and prospective victims love
life. Muslims who
love death
– or non-existence – and who wish to ensure that no one exists
who loves living.
I have not wondered long about the symbiotic
relationship between secular politically correct speech and CAIR’s notion of
the correct way by which to perceive, judge, and discuss Islam.  CAIR wishes to impose its own style of
political correctness and politically correct speech on Fox News (and on most
of the rest of the news media, and has done so quite successfully). CAIR fears
the language of the truth. CAIR knows that Megyn Kelly, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and Brigitte Gabriel and
others are not going to change their language or their outlook and positions on
Islam and jihadists. So CAIR wants them off the air, so they can be neither
seen nor heard.
Doubtless CAIR is encouraged by the news that President
Barack Obama
has promised to lean on journalists to stop producing
anti-jihad (or anti-Islamic) news and opinion pieces that cast Islam (and
Hamas-Brotherhood-connected CAIR) in a bad light, ostensibly to prevent more
Charlie Hebdo type Islamic jihad.
CAIR wishes to convert Fox News into its own
exclusive platform from which to propagandize Islam, to use itt as its own
vehicle of dawa, with the cooperation
of a blinkered, compliant newscast and Islam-friendly guests who will explain
why Islam is a “religion of peace” and “Islamophobes” are the mortal, hateful
enemies of mankind. CAIR wishes to propagate its Big Lie about Islam unopposed.
See my two columns on politically correct speech
and how it cleanses the mind of objectivity and clarity, warps or corrupts the
evidence of one’s senses, subverts one’s intellectual honesty, and abets in the
advancement of politically preferred speech and thought, “The
Ghouls of Grammatical Egalitarianism

from  
from October 2013, and “Speechless
Speech
” from November 2010.
As Western-conceived, secular politically correct
speech is honed to protect the feelings and sensitivities of others – and the
list of groups, ideas, expressions, and behaviors to be protected or scoured of
“bias” is long – Islamic correct speech is calculated to protect the feelings
and sensitivities of Muslims and to insulate Islam from gross criticism (à la Charlie Hebdo) and cogent.
And there the twain between East and West meets in
pernicious symbiosis.
Western politically correct speech;, a product of
the West’s abandonment of reason, reality, and the ideas of the Enlightenment,
empowers the CAIR-approved Islamic kind. Without that desertion, CAIR and its
sister organizations such as the ICNA, ISNA, MSA, and a score of affiliated
Islamic entities would never be able to 
make inroads in America.
You say Muslim. I say Moslem. But jihadists are not
going to call the whole thing off.

Previous

Force, Blasphemy, and Freedom of Speech

Next

A Miscellany of Observations

4 Comments

  1. revereridesagain

    Rowling contradicts herself in her objection to Murdoch's point about the responsibility of Muslims who reject the initiation of violence in the name of their religion to speak out against it. (That more Muslims than "infidels" may have fallen victim to Islam-motivated terrorism is irrelevant.) Rowling proceeds to criticize "Christian fundamentalist violence" immediately after declaring that she has no obligation to do so, no more so than are Muslims obligated to criticize jihad. May we therefore conclude that if Presbyterians (reportedly her denomination) start holding public beheadings of Episcopalians, she can be counted on to march in protest toting a "Calvinism Means Peace" sign? Or will she refrain from comment on the grounds that to do so would encourage Prebyteriophobia?

    Maybe she'd better go ask Dumbledore for a clarification.

  2. blnelson2

    Maybe we should coin the terms "Americaphobe" and "Americaphobia," and apply them to all these various and sundry multiculturists.

  3. madmax

    Rowlings is a Leftist. No fan of her books am I (unlike so many other nitwit Objectivists who idolize them), but from seeing the movies I see that in the end Harry Potter was an anti-fascist themed story. What else would a Leftist give you? A story against Marxism? Of course not. So she sees evil white Christians everywhere. And of course she serves as an apologist for Islam, the worlds most violent religion.

    But here is a deeper question I put to you Ed. Maybe you can write on it. The Left has 3 major client groups: 1) gays 2) Blacks 3) women. It can be very well argued that Islam represents not just a light threat to all three but a grave threat to all three. In fact, there is no ideology in human history, including Christianity, that has such a poor record to all three of those groups, especially today.

    So, why does the Left so desperately defend Islam? Think about it. Think about Rotherham. Muslims raped 1400 young girls!!! And yet the Left doesn't even want that story reported or sensationalized. Compare that to the Leftist outrage over the fabricated "frat house gang rape" at the University of Virginia; entirely made up by a lying woman. Why is the Left so hell bent on attacking white Western males and so intent on ignoring brown Muslim savagery?

    IMO, the answer to that question lays bare why the Left is the greatest evil on earth. Orders of magnitude more evil than Islam. Also, I can't help but add that I guarantee that no mainstream Objectivist would know the answer.

  4. Edward Cline

    Barbara: Good idea, but "Amerphobia" and "Amerphobe" would more easily roll off the tongue.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén