Give Malkin a break

J. writes:

Michelle Malkin’s latest article is quite good (and the editor’s listing of the names of the authors of the “broad strata, no common denominator” article is valuable) but she still seems to be pulling her punches by saying “jihadi” and “Islamic” terrorists instead of plain old Muslims or Islam. Why won’t she come out and say, as you have, that Islam per se is the problem? Is it a dependence on Republican Party good favor? I don’t get it.

LA replies:

She abjured the use of “Islamism” and said she would speak instead of “jihadism.” “Jihadism” is fine. It is not a deceptive and false euphemism. It means what it says: people who believe in jihad (which in fact means all believing Muslims). It is not postulating some fictitious radical Islam as distinct from some fictitious moderate Islam.

So now she’s using better language, saying “Islamic” and “jihadist,” and you’re still finding fault with her? Come on.

Of course, I agree with you that she’s not going all the way and saying that Islam as such is the problem. But I don’t insist that people agree with me. I do insist that they don’t say patently false and misleading things.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 07, 2006 12:08 PM | Send