’Islamism’: A Concept invented by the infidel for the infidel!
The mantra, ‘Islamism’, is repeated time and time again, over and over, ad nauseum, ad infinitum, especially by those who are in denial: ‘Islamism’, they say, not Islam, is the source of our problems. It is what feeds the perpetrators of Islamic terror.
The liberal media, in particular, love this word, since it allows them to talk about the problems we face with Islam, without causing offence to Muslims throughout the world. It creates a distinction between good, practising Muslims and their extremist co-religionists. Alas, it is a false distinction!
Our politicians love the term, because it allows them to duck the obvious need to come to terms with the fact that a major world religion – Islam – is out to destroy our way of life, out to destroy our social structure, out to destroy our civilization! In short, ‘Islamism’ is a concept dreamt up by the infidel for the infidel. It lets him off the hook!
The fact of the matter, however, is that the use of the term ‘Islamism’ obfuscates the true problem we face, namely the growth of Islam in the West, and therefore the increasing Islamization of our societies and our civilization. It also obfuscates the causes of the jihad itself – the tool of the Muslim to bring Islam to the rest of the world, the tool to turn Dar ul Harb, the House of War, into Dar ul Islam, the House of Islam, the tool to Islamize the regions of the world which have yet to be Islamized, to Islamize the regions of the world still living, in their opinion, in a state of moral chaos, in a state of pre-Islamic disorder, otherwise known among Muslims as a state of Jahiliyyah.
Our real problem is Islam, the real thing. Muslims do not use the term ‘Islamism’. The concept is unknown to them, other than as a term used by the infidel to try and make sense of the aggressive nature of their faith.
Let us, for goodness' sake, think clearly, for without clear-thinking, we shall never overcome this grave threat to our civilization. To talk of 'Islamism', and make a false distinction between that and Islam, is like making a false distinction between Christianity and 'Christianism'! We don't do this with Christianity, so why should we do it with Islam?
The jihad is fed by nothing other than Islam itself! That means to say that it is fed by the Qur'an, the teachings and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (Ahadith), and the life of the Prophet (As Sirah). These are the sources of the problem - die Quelle des Übels, la source du mal! It is what so-called 'Islamism' is based on! ‘Islamism', if it is anything at all, is not a source, but the result of taking the religion of Islam literally; and that's what all true Muslims do anyway.
The Jihad is a duty resting on the shoulders of all Muslims. It is a must, or wajib. It is an integral part of the faith of Islam. One cannot be a true, practising Muslim and reject the call to Jihad, or holy war.
To accept this term ‘Islamism’ is tantamount to playing with the meaning of words; to use the term is tantamount to engaging in semantics! One is engaging in verbal acrobatics; one is contorting the brain!
Our problem is Islam. Islam, based as it is on al Qur’an, Ahadith, and as Sirah, is the source of the Jihad, and inspiration for it. Nothing else!
We must come to terms with this fact if we ever wish to get a handle on the problems facing us. To talk in riddles helps not a soul, and it certainly doesn’t help the war effort!
©Mark Alexander
12 comments:
Quite true! Islamism as well as all the modifiers of Islam (fundamentalist, militant, radical, extreme, etc.), are all Western creations for a distinction no Muslims would make (unless engaging in a little of taqiyya.) I once wrote a piece about the Islamic Revival. This is the way Muslims refer to the fact that many are taking their religion seriously again. In it I refer to an article published in the Middle East Quarterly where there is a discussion to decide how those in the West should refer to the Islamic Revival. Implicit in this quest is the desire to avoid the phrase Islamic Revival since that means Muslims are just practicing their religion in earnest.
It really riles people when I refer to the “Islamic threat.” Many go apoplectic when I say so-called moderate Muslims don’t practice another type of Islam, they’re just lax, lapsed, slackers, selective in their practice, or perfunctory in their practice. In other words, they may not even be Muslims if we mean that to imply that they take the religion seriously including their duty to wage jihad against the infidel. I keep asking: why are you so upset when I can clearly see two types: slackers and devout? Some aren’t fully practicing their faith and other are enthusiastic; they fully embodying the example set by Mohammed. The whole idea that Islam is at its core an imperialist warrior ideology that is intrinsically political in nature is just something that some can come to grips with.
I ask for proof that moderates practice another religion. After all, there are Catholics who don’t go to church on Sunday, do they practice another form of Catholicism or are they just slackers? How do you distinguish between new sects (or orders) and a slacker? It’s really not that hard. But they still go wild by my even suggesting that Islam is Islam, period. They can’t point to any proof of a second form of Islam.
Jason:
You and I are obviously singing from the same song sheet! It is very annoying to listen to people make these stupid, banal distinctions when, in fact, none exist.
It really riles people when I refer to the “Islamic threat.”
Let it rile them! Please know that you are not alone: I do the same thing! :-) You and I know the score. The ones that get riled are just the wishful thinkers! It helps no-one to live on cloud cuckoo land.
The whole idea that Islam is at its core an imperialist warrior ideology that is intrinsically political in nature is just something that some can come to grips with.
What you wrote is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I ask for proof that moderates practice another religion. After all, there are Catholics who don’t go to church on Sunday, do they practice another form of Catholicism or are they just slackers? How do you distinguish between new sects (or orders) and a slacker? It’s really not that hard. But they still go wild by my even suggesting that Islam is Islam, period. They can’t point to any proof of a second form of Islam.
They can't give you proof since no such proof exists! And nor will it ever.
As you so rightly say: A moderate Muslim can only be someone who doesn't fully practise his faith. He cherry-picks. But that isn't a proper Muslim in the eyes of his co-religionists.
One of the dangers of resting our hats and hopes on the existence of moderate Muslims is this: A so-called moderate Muslim can metamorphose into a real Muslim in a very short period of time. I have witnessed many such transformations. So pinning our hope on moderate Muslims is a dangerous hope, in my opinion. The worm can turn at any time!
By the way, thanks for that link. I am going to read and enjoy it right now.
Mark,
I agree with what you're saying here, but for the longest time I didn't want to come to the realization. Many respected experts on Islam still use the term "Islamist." Is it denial--or something else? Fear of the sheer numbers of Muslims, not only in their own countries but also inside Western nations? I also think that the West is consumed with the idea that all religions speak to the good side of humankind. Could that misconception also be playing in here?
Always:
I agree with what you're saying here, but for the longest time I didn't want to come to the realization.
So many people don't, and won't. They're in denial.
Many respected experts on Islam still use the term "Islamist." Is it denial--or something else? Fear of the sheer numbers of Muslims, not only in their own countries but also inside Western nations?
As I have already said: It's denial. They're in denial. But they also fear Islam. They don't know how to deal with this Goliath. The sheer numbers are overwhelming.
I also think that the West is consumed with the idea that all religions speak to the good side of humankind. Could that misconception also be playing in here?
Yes, Westerners, because of political correctness and multiculturalism, are inclined to to be consumed by the idea that all religions speak to the good side of humankind. It is a misconception, however. Though, as you rightly point out, this misconception could be playing here.
But we must ask ourselves this question: Do we really believe this, or are we pretending to believe it because it is convenient to do so. After all, if we admit to ourselves that this is not the case, then we shall be forced to do something about it. That will surely be uncomfortable for us all.
I’m glad you like the article by “Pim’s Ghost.” She did a fine job. It’s amazing that we are all coming to the same conclusion. Or, on second thought, perhaps it’s not. In any case, it’s assuring.
When I started, I fully check out the books of shameless apologists who try to whitewash Islam. It was obvious to me that some authors are full of it. I, like most others, came to the painful facts of the matter not because I wanted them to be that way but because they are—and reality has to be faced.
I can read about the ideology but when it comes to the sociology of today’s Muslims I have to rely on people with first hand experience like yourself, Patai, etc. I do have some first hand experience and it is consistent with what others find but I still don’t see myself as authoritative in that area. I’ve talked to many people, however, who’ve traveled and worked in Islamic countries. So I’m still expanding my knowledge in that area. But with regard to the ideology, I know more than enough to know what the ideas are and what it means to put them in practice.
I keep telling people that it is not that hard to learn about Islam. They think it is some secret sect. But the salient features are not obscure and never have been.
Jason:
Pim's Ghost did indeed do a fine job.
Yes, it is assuring that "we" are all coming to the same conclusion. What is troubling, though, is that there are so many out there still quite uninformed about the dangers inherent in that religion. I wish more people would wake up, and quickly!
When I started, I fully check out the books of shameless apologists who try to whitewash Islam. It was obvious to me that some authors are full of it. I, like most others, came to the painful facts of the matter not because I wanted them to be that way but because they are—and reality has to be faced.
There are all too many "shameless apologists" for Islam. The painful facts really do have to be faced up to. And that's not always so easy for kind-hearted Westerners to do.
In the early years, I learned so, so much from books written by Muslims to explain Islam to infidels, to try and entice them into the faith. Books and booklets going into detail about many aspects of their faith. Gosh! The more I read them, the more I realized how totally incompatible our system and theirs are. The books were quite enlightening, actually. Ultimately, though not without some belly-aching first, they had the totally opposite effect on me: Instead of selling Islam to me, they totally turned me off it! So much for their 'propagation' techniques!
If ever you can get your hands on some of them, they really are worth a read. They open one's eyes no end! The Islamic Book Publishers of Kuwait have many on their list. And the Islamic Propagation Centre International, and the International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, Kuwait.
I mentioned some of them in the Bibiography of my book, though not all of them, since many I couldn't even remember the titles of - I had read them so many years before I wrote the book.
By the way, have you ever read my book? If you have, or if you ever do, I would be so pleased to receive a review from you.
Something else: When I started taking a serious interest in Islam, and its threat to the West, I came across a wonderful book, entitled Die Islamische Herausforderung, (The Islamic Challenge). Unfortunately, to my knowledge, it has never appeared in English, and I don't know whether you read German. But I can tell you this: That book really opened my eyes to the dangers we face with Islam way back in about 1987/8. The book, by the way, was written by Gerhard Konzelmann. It appeared on the shelves in 1987, and was published by Verlag Arthur Moewig. Konzelmann actually wrote a few others on Islam, too. All were good; but this particular one had a particularly BIG impact on me.
I can read about the ideology but when it comes to the sociology of today’s Muslims I have to rely on people with first hand experience like yourself, Patai, etc. I do have some first hand experience and it is consistent with what others find but I still don’t see myself as authoritative in that area. I’ve talked to many people, however, who’ve traveled and worked in Islamic countries. So I’m still expanding my knowledge in that area. But with regard to the ideology, I know more than enough to know what the ideas are and what it means to put them in practice.
You certainly write authoritatively on all aspects I have read on your website. By the way, I always like reading what you have to say. You have such a good, lively style of writing.
Inventions like Islamism make us more comfortable confronting a social movement based on a religion. In the West we openly debate politics, science, social policy and economics. We openly discriminate between people with differing views in our elections. But religion is (or at least is said to be)off limits.
But even if Islamism existed and only a small percentage of Muslims wanted conflict it would not matter. The Nazis came to power with 2.5% of the German population. With compulsory membership for government workers they only reached 11% of the German population. You don't need anything near a majority to hijack the machinery of state.
Everyone thinks there were more Nazis because all film propaganda from that error showed marching SA and SS. The moderates were being moderate, they acquiesced.
More examples and citations here:
Jester6: Millions of Moderate Muslims Exist - So What?
Bld:
Profound thanks for this glowing book review! I appreciate it GREATLY!
Would you mind if I placed this up on the front page?
Thank you, Bld. I shall post it later in the day.
I quit using Islamist a long time ago. It has always been a form of deception. Best to use the term ENEMY. loverly ring to it. But if you really want to rile the natives, use Marauding Mohammedan Hordes, Sons of Allah, the list goes on...Saracens. You get the picture.
a lot of the truths that so many people like yourself are recognizing only now were well known many years ago, even in the mid-19th century, even to none other than Karl Marx who who wrote about Islam and Jerusalem in the New York Daily Tribune, 15 IV 1854. Marx's source was French diplomat Cesar Famin who had the number on Islam back then.
See:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/muslim-oppression-of-non-muslims-in.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/jewish-majority-in-jerusalem-in-1853.html
In the 1930s, sociologist and economist Joseph Schumpeter described Islamic imperialism. So the question is how the knowledge about Arab and Islamic imperialism that informed people had 150 years ago [or 70 years ago in Schumpeter's case] somehow disappeared in the mid-20th century?
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/11/sociology-of-arab-imperialism.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/11/sociology-of-arab-imperialism_16.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/11/sociology-of-arab-imperialism-part.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/11/sociology-of-arab-imperialism_20.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/11/sociology-of-arab-imperialism_24.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/11/sociology-of-arab-imperialism_28.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/11/sociology-of-arab-imperial_113322064172217787.html
Eliyahu:
...a lot of the truths that so many people like yourself are recognizing only now were well known many years ago, even in the mid-19th century...
Correction! I have been saying the same things for more than twenty years. But I cannot claim that my knowledge goes back to the nineteenth century. :-)
Thanks for all those links, by the way. I shall look forward to checking them out when I return to my desktop. I'm away from home right now.
Post a Comment