Tuesday, March 14, 2006

A reader's viewpoint

In response to my article, Islamism: A concept invented by the infidel for the infidel!, I received this wonderful email this morning. I would like to share it with you.

Hi Mark,

I was impressed by your blog, Islamism: A Concept invented by the infidel for the infidel!. Well done. Congratulations.

You have taken the discussion of the Muslim, Islamic, threat further from an incoherent expression of disgust at - or the simple acknowledgment of - their repeated atrocities. Of course, the mainstream media lacks even this simple, truthful acknowledgment. Your forward step is in your pointing out the irrefutable truth of euphemism on the subject of Islam. Many blogs also allude to it, but none, as far as I know, have dealt with it in the seriousness you have.

When the consequences of any logic is grave, civilised human beings are reluctant to agree with such logic unless it is unequivocally and conclusively established. The truth of the Islam ideology is certainly very grave. An acceptance of this truth of Islam is full of foreboding to all persons who do not share in this destructive ideology.

From the countries in the Far East to the Americas, from the Scandinavian countries to the tip of Africa, all the peoples are hesitant to contemplate this one fact. The consequences are far too dire by conceding it. In light of this truth also, another important step suggests itself.

The truth of Islam may be better admitted by all when all the peoples, of whom mainstream media commentators are but a part, will see that facing up to this malignant force is better than continuing our illusions.

In short, yes, of course, the atrocities committed by the followers of Islam has to be broadcast again and again - as the ReligionOfPeace.com does; of course, such atrocities must not be dismissed as aberrations but the general rule - as JihadWatch.org does; and, of course, the truth must be faced - just as you have done; but a voice must also go out that emphasises the much worse outcome of continued denial.

This is no Star Wars. Ours is not a drama with superhuman heroes. Yet there is a way to face up to and defeat the forces that threaten all civilized aims of life. This way lies in all the peoples of the world uniting their efforts against Islam and all that it stands for.

An argument has to be made that reveals this truth: that we will all fall singly or attain victory over Islam together. This unity of purpose is needed. Whilst there remain any significant and vocal apologists for Islam among the non-Muslims, this unity will to elude us. Whilst non-Muslims are content to delude themselves in transitory material distractions - from toys to cars, from Hollywood to Bollywood, from individual to corporate greed - this unity will elude us. Yet, it is in unity only that the Islam ideology will be challenged and defeated.

Media commentators, politicians and the general public have to wake up from the illusion of comfortable world. The values that we aspire for will have to be fought for. By our minds, words and deeds.

Sir, I commend your efforts.

Regards,

Hari

And here is the original article:

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

17 comments:

Always On Watch said...

Euphemism and illusions. Hari has homed in on the exact terms.

Mark said...

Always:

Hasn't he, though? He has written a wonderful email. So thoughtful, and so beautifully-written, too.

Anonymous said...

Mark,

Interesting article indeed. Why wasn't it posted on your site? Or did I miss it?

I find the "INFIDEL BABE OF THE WEEK" offensive so I don't read their blog. Why not make men into the same meat-market sex objects? I just don't understand the need for this---not in today's world.

You should realize that many of your readers are new to this and have trusted you to teach them about Islam. The tone of this post seemed arrogant and condescending to me--not at all like you.

Please be patient with those of us who don't have your background on Islam. We ARE learning.

Mark said...

Heather:

I am rather preplexed!

First of all, this article WAS posted on my website a short while ago. You must have missed it.

Regarding the "INFIDEL BABE OF THE WEEK": That has NOTHING to do with me. Not at all! I have NO control over it.

"Infidel Babe of the Week" is posted on IBLOGA, and I have been asked to contribute. However, I have no control over anything except what I post.

I am so sorry that it offends you. I am also glad that you have drawn this to my attention; though I am not sure what I can do about it except stop writing for them. As they have a great deal of traffic, it would not be advantageous for me to do so.

You should realize that many of your readers are new to this and have trusted you to teach them about Islam. The tone of this post seemed arrogant and condescending to me--not at all like you.

I do indeed realize that many of my readers are new to this. And believe me, I do have patience. Plenty of it, too. However, I really do not understand why you say that what I wrote seemed arrogant and condescending. In which article? And what exactly seemeed arrogant and condescending to you? Please give me some examples. I am in the dark about what you are referring to. I simply DO NOT understand.

Anonymous said...

Hi Mark,

This is what I love, & have come to appreciate about you--you are always willing to listen to the most illogical replies to your blog.

Thanks so much for that! What I was referring to is this:

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.

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?

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!

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!

Today, in a post to you, I inadvertently used the term Islamist. I didn't realize that it was a sign of ignorance, or worse still, leftist leanings--which, I assure you, I do not have. Maybe in my idealistic college days, before the left was hijacked by the socialists and those who hate this country. Never now. And I'm usually much too tired/busy to try to contort my brain in such a fashion as mentioned in your post.

Hope this helps--maybe it's time for me to take a break from the blog world for awhile.

Always On Watch said...

Heather,

I find the "INFIDEL BABE OF THE WEEK" offensive...

I, too, was not comfortable with the concept. But in Pastorius's words, here's what the concept began as follow, which I copied from one of Pastorius's comments:

we need to create a Dadaist war with the Islamofascists, where we would do something incredibly stupid which would inflame the Muslims to get very angry and act like idiots

And I suppose there is also the underlying message that these "babes" would not exist under Islam. What's ironic here--at least to me--is that the very Leftists who promote the perceived freedom expressed by these scantily clad women (and outright porn) also use the euphemism "Islamism." In other words, the promoters of the sexual revolution are now promoting an ideology which has no part in the sexual revolution. The logic is convoluted, IMO.

Like Mark, I occasionally post at IBA, but have no control over any other aspect of that blog. I also don't agree with all opinions there, but IBA is another forum. I guess that I overlook certain things in the interest of getting the word out.

Mark said...

Heather:

Please, please, Heather, this is not about you. Your presence on the blog is extremely valuable; so you must stay with us. I don't know why you feel as you do; but please help me understand.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Mark said...

Always:

So well said! Bravo!

Anonymous said...

AOW,
Thank you so much for taking the time to leave an explanation.

However, why don't they choose pictures of (lip-locked) gay men instead of scantily clothed women?

Wouldn't this be much more offensive to the followers of Islam--(if that is the pc term to use), rather than the same old exploitation of women?

Contributors of such a high caliber as you and Mark may be able to show them the error of their ways.

Mark said...

Heather:

After this, believe me, I shall try. But I'm not promising anything, because I do not have ultimate control.

I wish you would focus on the positive, instead of focussing on that 'infidel babe of the week'. I have barely looked at her. I really mean that!

I hope you realize that I have control only over MY wblog. And for certain, you don't see any such 'infidel babe of the week' on that!

Please judge me on what I do,rather than on what other people do.

Anonymous said...

Mark,

Let's put the issue to rest. It was a side issue to be sure. I responded to your original question about your post--I'm not sure how the infidel babes became the focus.

All I said was that I don't read that blog, but you are certainly free to post wherever you want to. I hope I didn't imply otherwise. I don't think I did.

Always On Watch said...

Heather,
The "babe" issue is tangential, to be sure.

Also, I want to let you know how much I appreciate the links you leave. Such interaction is how we learn!

Off to work now.

Mark said...

Heather:

Let's put the issue to rest.

Yes, of course. I didn't think we'd do anything else. :-)

But I was a little shocked by your reaction, since I couldn't understand what I had written that could have caused that. And you are normally so gentle with me.

Anyway, let's forget it. There are no hard feelings on my part. And I presume not on yours, either.

It's clear that 'the infidel babe of the week' became your focus, not my writing. Before we put this to rest, I would like to clear up one thing: That's not my style, either. I have no problem with it, but I wouldn't have her on my website. That's for sure.

However, I understand why she's there. She's probably there as an antidote to the narrow-mindedness of Muslims for whom everything is haram, or forbidden by Allah. IBLOGA is a joint affair. There are many contributors, and nobody knows the other. I was invited to join it. It's a very successful website; so I accepted. This site is MY website, however; and it takes precedence. I have total control over this website. Over the others I post on, I do not.

At present, you might find my work on FaithFreedom.org, Pedestrian Infidel, Infidel Bloggers' Alliance.

On top of that, Always On Watch sometimes posts my articles on her weblog, Always On Watch.

But I repeat: I have total control only over this weblog.

So now, let us move forward together with our united strength! (To use Churchill's famous words.) :-)

Anonymous said...

Hello Mark,

It's clear that 'the infidel babe of the week' became your focus, not my writing.

Excuse me? That is YOUR perception, not mine. If you would take the time to go back and read each blog in sequence--it was NOT a focus of mine.

What I had problems with was your article on the FaithFreedom web site, which I detailed in post #6. It seemed so uncharacteristic of you, and that is why I posted the following:

I will quote myself, if it's ok with you:
Today, in a post to you, I inadvertently used the term Islamist. I didn't realize that it was a sign of ignorance, or worse still, leftist leanings--which, I assure you, I do not have. Maybe in my idealistic college days, before the left was hijacked by the socialists and those who hate this country. Never now. And I'm usually much too tired/busy to try to contort my brain in such a fashion as mentioned in your post.

THAT was what I was trying to convey to you. This was in response to your article on the FaithFreedom site.

The other (IB) was only a side-issue, a comment in passing. When other bloggers commented on this, I answered their comments in return.

I do want to put this to rest--but not without clarifying what really happened.

:>

Anonymous said...

~~~that should read blog post, not blog.

Mark said...

Heather:

I leave the States for home in the morning. It is late now; so I cannot answer your post adequately. I just cannot do it justice.

I shall, however, address this issue as soon as I can, in any event early next week. Please check back then. At the moment, I am strapped for time. I haven't packed yet; so I am sure you will understand.

I am glad that you have returned, however.

This is a misunderstanding which I am sure we shall be able to sort out. I do so enjoy our interactions! :-)

All for now.

Best wishes,

Mark

Mark said...

Heather:

What I had problems with was your article on the FaithFreedom web site, which I detailed in post #6. It seemed so uncharacteristic of you, and that is why I posted the following:

I will quote myself, if it's ok with you:

Today, in a post to you, I inadvertently used the term Islamist. I didn't realize that it was a sign of ignorance, or worse still, leftist leanings--which, I assure you, I do not have. Maybe in my idealistic college days, before the left was hijacked by the socialists and those who hate this country. Never now. And I'm usually much too tired/busy to try to contort my brain in such a fashion as mentioned in your post.


First of all, I do not understand why you had problems with my article on FaithFreedom.org. I really do not. I see nothing arrogant or condescending about that article at all. Perhaps I am missing something, I don't know.

It seems you had a problem with this:

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.

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?

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!

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!


I have read this, and re-read it; but I still do not see what your problem is.

Today, in a post to you, I inadvertently used the term Islamist. I didn't realize that it was a sign of ignorance, or worse still, leftist leanings--which, I assure you, I do not have. Maybe in my idealistic college days, before the left was hijacked by the socialists and those who hate this country. Never now. And I'm usually much too tired/busy to try to contort my brain in such a fashion as mentioned in your post.

So what? Many people do use the term Islamist. That's no disgrace. Indeed, it seems to me that more people use this term than do not! I am not trying to suggest that you are ignorant or leftist. Aren't you being a little too sensitive here, perhaps?

I do not understand - as a Brit, anyway - that in "your idealistic college days" you were leftist, until it was highjacked by the socialists. I thought that leftist and socialist were always synonymous! They are for a Brit, anyway. Perhaps Americans have a different understanding; and perhaps that's where our misunderstanding comes from.

If I may say, you also seemed to dislike the term "contorting the brain". Again, I think you are being overly sensitive.