And the dumbest of the dumb keep on blithering otherwise…….
“…Islam is a delivery system that fires multiple warheads. And it is happening before our very eyes and with the willing complicity of our preceptorial betters, aka the political class, the intellectual clerisy, the corrupt academy and the media camarilla. It should be recognized, too, that these constituencies are given free rein by the widespread ignorance, complacency or timorousness of those they purport to serve.”
Islamism: An Invented Concept
[…]
Indeed, the culture that has sustained us for centuries is being breached, infested, eroded and is ultimately on the verge of being brought down by a primitive horde of invaders who represent its antithesis. They still have a long way to go to approximate the performance of the 18th century Emperor of Morocco Moulay Ismail who, as Lyall Watson recounts in Dark Nature, killed an estimated 30,000 people with his own hands and enjoyed the services of 500 wives. Such exploits may be normally unattainable, fodder for the Guinness Book of Records, but that is no source of consolation.
Regarding the effort by most liberals and some conservatives to lay the blame for Muslim violence on something called “Islamism” rather than Islam, it just won’t wash. The aforementioned Facebooker recently published an op-ed in the National Post in which, pro forma, he flogged the usual stable of spavined horses: distinguishing “Islamism” from Islam; slamming the former Conservative government for the eminently sane proposal to screen the tsunami of Muslims entering Canada; and dating the eruption of “Islamist” violence and Jew-hatred to the 20th century, thus revealing an ignorance of canonical Islam and Islamic history as vast as the desert from which it emerged.
Not content with resting on his juniper bush, he proceeds to argue on behalf of “the world’s democratic, liberal, reformist and otherwise moderate Muslim majority”—which from what I have seen over the last decade must live on some other planet in the distant reaches of the galaxy, perhaps the same planet the author lives on. But the real kicker is his assertion that the “Islamist” vanguard “sets its mission as doing what Muhammad did,” following the words and example of the universally revered founder of the religion. Perhaps this is just another of his characteristic misformulations, but it destroys his thesis rather dramatically. The conclusion to be drawn here is that pro-Muslim advocacy in whatever form is inherently fatuous and incoherent.
“Islamism” is an invented concept, like “Islamophobia” (a synonym for a fictitious “hate crime”). It is meant to make Islam palatable, in the same way “Islamophobia” is meant to marginalize and discredit those who know it is not. The term “Islamism” resembles in an obverse way the sort of homiletic pieties one notes on “brainy quote” plaques affixed above urinals in public rest stops, something meant to make us feel good about something else. We may be relieving ourselves, with or without difficulty, but we learn that nature is beautiful and friendship is a blessing.
“Islamism” is merely a word minted to obscure the truth of Islam as a theo-political ideology camouflaging its claim to world domination under the cloak of religious observances and domestic cultural practices, that is, the jihad of the spirit as cover for the jihad of eternal warfare. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali states—and she should know—“Islam is not a religion of peace. It’s a political theory of conquest that seeks domination by any means it can.” Public affairs consultant J. Robert Smith concurs: “The religion of bloody conquest will keep doing what it was built to do by Mohammed centuries before.” Muslim scholars like the respected Tawfik Hamid, who in his recent Inside Jihad labors to rescue Islam from the jihadist “distortion of the Quran,” are beating a dead camel. Hamid’s core assumption in his effort to “refute the violent edicts of Sharia” is conceptually illegitimate, for it rests on the intrinsic salience or presumed sufficiency of mere interpretation, as if the edicts in question were not what they plainly are but are in need of interpretation, or re-interpretation, as if Kill the Infidel consistently repeated in one form or another were not the explicit, non-interpretable command that it is.
