US Military Report—“Freedom of Speech in Jihad Analysis: Debunking the Myth of Offensive Words”

 

Maybe there is a Sanity Clause?

Read the internal report, “Freedom of Speech in Jihad Analysis: Debunking the Myth of Offensive Words” here, the original link having been provided by the astute military correspondent for the Washington Times, Bill Gertz.

 

From the report:

 

The onus is on Muslims to disprove within their own communities that those who under take source-prescribed warfare (JIHAD), are patently incorrect in their actions in accordance with all norms of social behavior…

 

In the end beyond citing jihad as a uniquely Islamic theological prescription, there is little to suggest that a systematic, or otherwise demonization of Islam or all Muslims by the USG (US Government) will or has occurred.

 

From “The Legacy of Jihad

 

Jahada, the root of the word Jihad, appears 40 times in the Koran—under a variety of grammatical forms. With 4 exceptions, all the other 36 usages (in specific Koranic verses) are variations of the third form of the verb, i.e. Jahida. Jahida in the Koran and in subsequent Islamic understanding to both Muslim luminaries—from the greatest jurists and scholars of classical Islam (including Abu Yusuf, Averroes, Ibn Khaldun, and Al Ghazzali), to ordinary people—meant and means “he fought, warred or waged war against unbelievers and the like”, as described by the seminal Arabic lexicographer E.W Lane. Indeed, Lane’s, An Arabic English Lexicon (6 volumes, London, 1865) is still used to this day by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars for definitive Arabic to English translation. Thus Lane, who studied both the etymology and usage of the term jihad, observed, “Jihad came to be used by the Muslims to signify wag[ing] war, against unbelievers.”

Andrew G. Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad (Prometheus, 2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism ” (Prometheus, November, 2008)

You can contact Dr. Bostom at @andrewbostom.org

3 responses to “US Military Report—“Freedom of Speech in Jihad Analysis: Debunking the Myth of Offensive Words”

  1. yuval.hatikva@gmail.com' yuval Brandstetter MD

    The first step in recognizing disease is giving it a name, and mating it with the symptoms. Jihad is certainly an appropriate name, death and destruction the symptoms.

  2. I agree with the conclusions of this document, but there’s something about it that doesn’t seem right. Has anyone verified its origin? Who is this Red Team? What official response has there been, if any? I far prefer Andy’s well-documented and well-written analyses. It is hopeful to think someone “inside” the establishment might be speaking out but after the silencing of Coughlin I’m doubtful, and some of the surface features of this particular document leads me to think it’s not what it appears at first…

  3. The document is excellent and signifies a growing realisation in governmental circles that a stand has to be taken against the PC, apologist drivel. I don’t see what there is to distrust about the document – if you cannot see this as a welcome sign then we’re in trouble.