In an online discussion of the threat from islam, someone I call friend wrote something we could all benefit from considering. Bosch Fawstin (author, artist, patriot; http://fawstin.blogspot.com) emphasizes the importance of using precise language:
“I never add anything to the enemy’s lexicon, unless it’s for mockery. There is no such thing as ‘Islamonazism,’ it’s a Western concocted term, made up by those who want to avoid saying Islam, for whatever reason, and thus avoiding the root cause of what we face. Most of those who call themselves Muslims would not be identified as such by Islam. They are Muslims in the way politicians are honest. They ignore Islam the way most other religionists ignore their own religion. In this war, we are facing Islam through its most devout followers, not its deviants. In objective reality, Osama bin Laden is an evil man, but according to Islam, he is a Muslim idealist, modeling himself after Mohammed and following Islam’s orders. He is a Muslim practicing Islam, not an ‘Islamist’ practicing ‘Islamism’, but Islam as such. No one who uses terms other than Islam has ever made a clear distinction between Islam and any other alleged deviant form of it because they cannot. Islam is radical, it is totalitarian, it is political, but adding the word ‘radical’, ‘totalitarian’ & ‘political’ before Islam, gives Islam as such a pass, and why the hell should it ever be given one, after all the horrors in its wake.
Can you imagine hearing someone say ‘Radical Communism’ or ‘Radical Nazism’? I can’t.
And what further grates me is when there are a few Westerners at a panel about the enemy’s ideology, and each has a different way of naming it, with the words, “Well, I call it ‘such and such.” Saying anything other than Islam when speaking of the enemy’s ideology gives Islam a legitimacy it has never deserved, and that to me is the danger in this Westernized terminology of all things Islam. Allah’s words in the Koran, “Kill the Infidels wherever you find them,” as well as “strike at their necks” represent normative Islam, not any deviant form of it. If non-terrorist Muslims don’t like being told or reminded about these brutal truths about their religion, too bad, just think of those non-Muslims who perished in Islam’s name, which should set your mind straight on who really should be getting the consideration here. Our protecting Islam from its true meaning, for ourselves and for Muslims, will only put off the inevitable ideological war against Islam that’s coming. Most human beings aren’t killers and can’t be made to become ones, no matter what, and this is the case with most Muslims. So since they haven’t said or done anything against the evil being done in their religion’s name, they are irrelevant. The Nazis called themselves Nazis and followed Nazism and we called them Nazis and defeated Nazism. Today’s enemy calls themselves Muslims and they follow Islam. It’s not our job to come to the semantic rescue of Islam because most ‘Muslims’ are not terrorists. We must stop making a distinction that the enemy does not make, all in the name of a fake respect for Islam. It’s not our job to defend Islam, it’s our job to identify it for what it actually is and act accordingly. Here’s a link to a piece I did on this name game we’re playing in, which is to our detriment, and to the enemies benefit:
They Say, We Say: http://fawstin.blogspot.com/2008/11/they-saywe-say.html
I add, using words other than Islam to describe Islam only helps Islam, and so hurts us.
[Re terms such as “Islamism,”] I’d simply refer to the same thing as Jihad, both hard and soft, as does the enemy. I’ve yet to hear the enemy use Western terms to describe themselves or their mission, outside of their hijacking the meaning of ‘peace’ as a means to further their war against us. Adding the term ‘Islamism’ subtracts from that historically consistent terminology.”
So, don’t be shy, use the language of islam. CD