Date: 06/12/2019
Name:
Email: Keep my email address private
Reply:
**Your comments must be approved before they appear on the site.
Authentication:  
4 + 5 = ?: (Required)
Enter the correct answer to the math question.

  
clear
You are posting a comment about...
Why Do Muslims Really Object To The Phrase

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Government officials should depict terrorists "as the dangerous cult leaders they are" and avoid words that aggrandize them, like "jihadists," "Islamic terrorists," "Islamists" and "holy warriors," the Department of Homeland Security says in a paper released Friday. 

"Words matter," the agency says in the paper, which also suggests avoiding the term "moderate Muslims," a characterization that annoys many Muslims because it implies that they are tepid in the practice of their faith.

"Mainstream," "ordinary" and "traditional" better reflect the broader Muslim American community, it says."

    --- from a paper released on May 30 by the Department of Homeland Security

 

No, that is not why Muslims are "annoyed." It is not the implication that they are "tepid in the practice of their faith." That is merely a plausible way of phrasing the objection in an acceptable way for Department of Homeland Security apparatchiks. Muslims are "annoyed" (if that is the word), rather, with any implication that there is something in Islam itself that menaces, something that therefore can only be accepted in less-than-full or “moderate” amounts,  for the very construct  "moderate" Muslim implies that we, the Infidels, recognize-- among ourselves at least --that only in that taken-in-moderation form as  “moderate” Muslims do, can Islam conceivably not have results dangerous for Infidels. The phrase, then, is understood by Muslims (and, by the way, rightly), as expressing the thought that Islam is dangerous if  taken straight up, and can only be tolerated by Infidels when it is, in every sense, on the rocks.