I presume that these officials are well-versed in the Koran, the Hadith, the life of Mohammed and the history of Islam. If--as I suspect--they know little about Islam other than their own politically correct platitudes, they have no right to make such comments. In fact, they're wildly irresponsible. Because in doing so, they mislead non-Muslims about the true nature and origins of the jihadist threat. From The Daily Mail:
Ministers have adopted a new language for declarations on Islamic terrorism.
In future, fanatics will be referred to as pursuing "anti-Islamic activity".
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said that extremists were behaving contrary to their faith, rather than acting in the name of Islam.
Security officials believe that directly linking terrorism to Islam is inflammatory, and risks alienating mainstream Muslim opinion.
In her first major speech on radicalisation, Miss Smith repeatedly used the phrase "anti-Islamic".
In one passage she said: "As so many Muslims in the UK and across the world have pointed out, there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorise, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief.
"Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic'
How would she know? The ironic thing here is that by acting like some authority on Muslims' thoughts and feelings--Smith, a non-Muslim woman and, therefore, among the worst kind of infidel--likely offends and enrages devout Muslims even more. Think of President Bush's constant lectures that Islam is a "religion of peace.' Have these naive verbal bouqets gained him or the U.S. any points in the Muslim world?