On "naming the Enemy"

Submitted by Christina Lucia (United States), Apr 21, 2006 at 18:41

On "naming the Enemy"

As to Islam, the supreme weapon of Islam is patience. For more than a thousand years, Muslims have been biding their time. The first Jihad against Europe – which failed - was in 668 A.D. The next to the last – which also failed - was in 1683. Today, the latest Jihad – which is so far succeeding – uses Islam's second greatest weapon: Islamo-speak. Islamo-speak is an advanced form of Orwellian double-speak whereby Muslims "communicate" with the infidel by using words which have a pleasant or positive meaning in the language of the infidel, but mean quite the opposite in Islam.

Muslim intellectuals work at becoming super-Westerners; just as actors polish their lines but never stop being who and what they really are: Muslims. More precisely, they should be seen as super-Muslims who excel at applying the Islamic doctrines of taquiyya (lying) and kitman (witholding the truth) when they present themselves as reasonable men in Western societies.

Islam is and always has been a religion of war. Yet, Muslims always declare that Islam is a "religion of peace". They do not say that what they mean by "peace" comes from absolute submission - at the point of the sword - to Islamic rule or the "peace" of the grave where ill-fated infidels are buried.

Muslims usually avoid being explicit about expressing their desire to replace our Constitution with Islamic rule. They discreetly inform us that they love democracy, not in itself but only in so far as it serves their purpose. Since democracy is based on the rule of the majority and Muslims have a very high birthrate, they reason, correctly, that it is only a matter of time before they will constitute the majority at the ballot box and thus have the power to "select the correct beliefs" and impose Sharia across our land.

A brazen example of Islamo-speak is in the petitions of Muslims to establish exclusively Islamic enclaves in the United States. The Muslim petitioners use hallowed terms of Western Civilization: "human" and "excellence" . They claim that the Islamic communities they wish to establish are dedicated to "Human Excellence." They use this idealistic Western phrase even though Islam rejects the Western concepts it encompasses such as Freedom, Reason, Human Rights, Conscience, and Free Will.

In fact, Islam suppresses and rejects the "rights" of the individual, especially women. Islam specifically sanctions physical violence toward women, including honor killings. Islam is dedicated to all that is the direct and absolute opposite of what the West considers "human" or "excellence". Under the term of "human excellence," Muslims promote all that the West traditionally considers repugnant, uncivilized, savage, and inhuman.

A most blood-curdling example of Islamo-speak is a phrase, two words, of Tariq Ramadan, perhaps the most elegantly Westernized super-Muslim, who has persuaded the unsuspecting English infidels to give him a professorial seat at Oxford University. In an interview with the Italian magazine Panorama (9/23/04), he was asked whether it is right to kill Israeli civilians, including children. All his Oxonian authority and cold-blooded Islamic guile resonate in Ramadan's circumlocution that such killings are "contextually explicable."

Little wonder that in the opinion of Bernard Kouchner, the founder of Doctors Without Borders, Ramadan is a "most dangerous man." He brings to mind the cannibal affection expressed by the Cyclops for Odysseus: "I like you best of all. I like you so much I will eat you last."

As the Islamic presence grows in the West, we need to compile A Dictionary of Islamo-Speak. Just as in George Orwell's 1984, we must become familiar with what and how such speech seems to express one meaning to our understanding but actually expresses a very different, contrary meaning to Muslims.

We need to learn to cut through the fog of Islamic taqiyya and kitman - the deceit and half-truths which Muslims are taught to use in dealing with infidels. If we do not know what a Muslim really means when he addresses us with familiar words and phrases, and benevolent denotations and connotations in our language, we are doomed to lose every battle of wits with Islam.

Our first task is to identify and understand the Muslim aggressor, as he is in his innermost Islamic self. If the first rule of life is "Know thyself", then the first rule of war is "Know thy enemy." We must not allow ourselves to be deceived by Islamo-speak whereby the Muslim euphemistically and benevolently describes himself as he wishes to be seen. We must comprehend and judge and perceive reality – as Plato teaches: who our Muslim interlocutor actually is, not who he seems to be or wants us to believe he is.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".