Our Children Are The Guarantors

Defending Zionism from its detractors. Anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism. Let the other side apologize for a change.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

A Clarification on Term Usage

In my previous post I used the term, “extremist Muslims” in opposition to “moderate Muslim”. For those who have read other posts of mine and seen my admonishment of those who use modifiers with the words, “Islam” or “Muslim”, a clarification is in order as to why I did that myself on that post.

My complaint about those modifiers isn’t necessarily that they’re inaccurate. Some of them are accurate, but their problem is they give a false impression. This is not so much the fault of those modifiers as it is the fault of our PC-polluted environment, but if we’re to wake up people, we have to take such ingrained impressions into account. The term, “extremist Muslims”, for example, is accurate, but gives a false impression because, as I said on that post, people in our day are fixated on thinking extremists to be a minority, always and everywhere. On the other hand, the term, “extreme Islam” is inaccurate, because a moderate Islam, as opposed to moderate Muslims, has not yet come into existence.

Here follow a few terms and their problems:

Radical Islam
Half-truth. In as much as Muslims in previous times may have abstained from some Islamic laws, the return to observance of those laws in our age can be considered “radical”. However, this does not mean the Muslims of previous times practiced a different, more tolerant Islam. Analogy: Jewish women wearing pants instead of dresses doesn’t mean those who wear dresses are practicing “radical Judaism”—it means those who wear pants are ignoring Jewish law on that particular.
Militant Islam
Diversion. Though terrorism is high-profile, lending itself easily to coverage on the news networks, violence is only one way of conducting the jihad against the non-Muslim world. The demographic jihad is another way, and it can be just as effective, if not more so, in furthering the goal of turning a non-Muslim state into a shariah-ruled one. The multicultural jihad is yet another, harnessing the West’s enlightened precepts in the service of neutralizing its resistance to the other forms of jihad. The focus on “militant Islam”, like the focus on specific groups such as Al-Qaeda, blinds the non-Muslims to the big picture.
Political Islam
Inaccurate. There is no apolitical Islam. There may be Muslims who separate their religion from their politics, but they cannot preach that separation, for they would then be branded as apostates.
Islamism
Redundant and misleading. The suffix “-ism” is affixed to a noun to signify an ideology or philosophy based on it, for example, “Taoism” = “Ideology of following the Tao”. “Islam” is already an ideology, so the effect is the same as if someone said, “Taoismism”. The purpose of the term is to distinguish between a tolerant, peaceful Islam and the “hijacked” ideology of the radicals; the problem is the former doesn’t yet exist while the radicals have no difficulty proving that their form is the original, unchanged Islam of Mohammed.
Wahhabist ideology
Diversion. Many sources of current Islamic radicalism (return to strict observance—see “Radical Islam” above) can be pointed out, but this doesn’t mean that if all such sources were to disappear today all of a sudden, there would be no Islamic radicalism. A moderate Islam, as opposed to moderate Muslims, cannot arise unless moderate Muslims manage to challenge their extremist brethren on religious, scriptural, canonical grounds.
Islamic reformist
Incomplete information. “Reform” may be to any direction, not just to that of moderation. Even the Protestant Reformation in Christianity, celebrated as being the harbinger of the Enlightenment, was not intended as such, and brought to it only as an eventual after-effect. Reformism in Islam in the past two centuries was what spawned the radicalism of today—a change for the worse, from the non-Muslim point of view.

These are the main faulty terms and modifiers I’ve encountered on Old (also called, “Mainstream”) Media, but often even on New Media (the blogosphere) too. Since the ideological front is the very first step toward victory in this war, my addressing of the problems of terminology isn’t just hair-splitting, it’s an effort to get people out of the PC frame of mind.

Labels:

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very Good!

My view of the topic as well, but you say it much better!

BTW, "Yes To USA-Israel Alliance"

http://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/2006/11/yes-to-usa-israel-alliance.html

Keep up the good work!

Cheers, Ronbo

November 24, 2006 6:41 PM  
Blogger ZionistYoungster said...

Ronbo,

I was divided on the question of moderate Muslims, that is, whether they exist at all--one comment of mine on IBA shows as much. I have met quite a few Muslims who really qualify. But, there were some who changed over the years at some catalyst, such as the Second Intifada or the latest Lebanon War, and became extremists, showing that using the moderates to counter the extremists is not the way to go. Also, I knew some of them who ate during the fasting hours of Ramadan--within the locked doors of their house, for fear of reprisals should they be seen by the public. That's another case in my points: they're the minority and they live in constant fear. We can't use them to fight the extremists; quite the contrary, they need us to remove the climate of fear that the extremists create.

I've read Kramer's article before. It's great. A case for Israel can be made from many points of view: Bible-believing, secular, idealistic, pragmatic, and so on. For the lefties, the case is that the Jewish people don't have theocratic designs on the whole world, while the Muslims do, and would put them into practice on them (the lefties) after they have served their purpose as their useful idiots. Naturally, the lefties trot out the canard that "theocratic designs on the whole world are restricted to a tiny minority of extremists in Islam". And that's where this post and the preceding one come. Building the case for Israel, for the West, for non-Muslim resistance against Islamic rules, requires of me a constant monitoring of arguments against it and subsequent refutation of them.

Thanks.
ZY

November 26, 2006 1:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or, another possibility is to grab semantics by the horns and say "This term/expression means what I say it means".

Thinking that extremists are most often a minority makes sense, if one considers a Gauss distribution. But it's also easy to forget where the actual center of the distribution is. And for Islam, it is in a much more radical and literal region than for Christinaity or Judaism.

Anyway, I find you blog interesting; I linked to your previous post too.

November 27, 2006 11:51 PM  
Blogger ZionistYoungster said...

Fabio,

It may be even more complicated than this: in real life I've encountered a lot of Muslims who have no sympathy toward the extremist way and the cult of the suicide-martyr, but I'm certain that they would never dream of voicing that same opinion in a newspaper column like Jamal Miftah did. I'm also not at all sure that the words they say openly to Jewish colleagues are the same words they say among themselves (the dissimulation problem again). What I'm saying is we can't even know the percentages of moderates vs. extremists. Though we can know for sure that the group "moderates who have the courage to stand up to their extremist brethren" is a very, very tiny minority. And not that I blame them, when even non-Muslims aren't safe from reprisals when they criticize Islam and its founder.

Thanks for the link, yours is interesting too, except for the Italian (because I don't understand Italian...).

November 28, 2006 9:49 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home