69 million page views

On "naming the Enemy"

Reader comment on item: Republicans and Democrats Look at the Arab-Israeli Conflict

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".

Submitting....

Submit a comment on this item

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (56) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
1Divergence Started With Oslo Failures [223 words]DaveDec 28, 2016 13:31234944
US conservatives have changed; but not necessarily because of Israel [634 words]Michael SJan 14, 2017 10:49234944
Good Point Re Cold War [46 words]DaveJan 19, 2017 08:00234944
Maybe God wanted us all to have a turn being stupid. [290 words]Michael SJan 21, 2017 01:32234944
put a fork in it [12 words]cvtJul 13, 2015 15:37224178
2So why do American Jews support Democrats? [8 words]Fred McMurrayApr 20, 2015 10:17222968
bothersome pop-ups from danielpipes.org [269 words]Michael SMay 2, 2015 09:35222968
Ho hum -- another dynastic sham [84 words]Michael SApr 18, 2015 09:00222938
American Diplomacy on a Ride It will not be Able to Dismount [265 words]M. ToveyMay 4, 2015 16:03222938
Old water, old wineskins, old names [83 words]Michael SMay 8, 2015 10:10222938
Is Jewish support for PM Cameron and PM Harper a leading indicator of change? [79 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
PezDispenserApr 16, 2015 13:26222902
Jewish demographics and politics not easily generalized [372 words]Michael SMay 17, 2015 11:17222902
Trouble for America means trouble for the world [95 words]Michael SApr 16, 2015 04:20222890
Update time? [250 words]R. CraigenSep 8, 2012 02:18198453
Democrats and Israel [76 words]nadiaFeb 22, 2012 02:01193552
Perspective on Diversity [66 words]Straight_Talk_LuigiNov 1, 2010 23:19179832
4the current "peace talks" [219 words]Jules PostenOct 17, 2010 15:45179359
Fox news motives [177 words]AnonOct 16, 2010 18:40179317
Disrespectful and ill conceived comments [180 words]saraOct 16, 2010 19:14179317
It's not so simple [284 words]Peter HerzOct 16, 2010 19:23179317
Just speaking my mind [140 words]AnonOct 16, 2010 22:18179317
2Jews as a people or a religion [405 words]saraOct 17, 2010 19:54179317
1A Secular Israel Has No Future-Neither Republican or Democratic-Only a Biblical Future [1041 words]M. ToveyOct 18, 2010 18:05179317
please don't say that [75 words]mariahNov 14, 2010 03:17179317
fairy tale?? [129 words]y Brandstetter MDJun 23, 2011 11:30179317
the overriding factor [25 words]Jules PostenMar 30, 2010 13:13170775
1Three Overwhelming Facts/Arguments Being Ignored [373 words]Ron ThompsonMar 29, 2010 23:17170761
Kill the myth of "linkage" for America's sake [714 words]Randall P.Mar 29, 2010 14:46170755
A vote of no-confidence in Netanyahu [77 words]J SheffMar 29, 2010 13:55170754
do away with terms "pro-israel" or "pro-palestinian" [28 words]mayaMar 27, 2010 19:53170701
Questions and Hands [146 words]Jay1Mar 26, 2010 20:12170651
Each party and ideology should support the one country in the entie Middle East that is not planning to kill us. i.e. ISRAEL ! ..Mar 2010 [37 words]Phil GreendMar 26, 2010 15:05170642
longing for the armageddon? [88 words]G.VishvasJul 5, 2009 07:20158497
It won't be Armageddon [23 words]Tom DundeeMar 27, 2010 15:56158497
I think this is a combination of things [568 words]JayJun 21, 2009 15:15157731
help finding article [54 words]roger kleinJan 10, 2009 16:57147675
2The right to defend itself is the right of all countries including Israel [627 words]Tess McNamara (Australian and Pro Israel)Jan 2, 2009 23:29146704
1Names of Republican and Democrats. [8 words]SvetlanatchkaJan 2, 2009 17:38146675
14 favorable [10 words]YnnatchkahMar 7, 2008 14:09121997
14 in 100 people are favorable of the Palestinian Authority [69 words]KristaMar 8, 2008 17:51121997
Your point was better than mine. [10 words]YnnatchkahMar 8, 2008 21:20121997
Present Arab-Israeli conflict [82 words]John S. HancockJul 16, 2006 22:4349853
reply to John S. Hancock [125 words]mikeDec 15, 2006 14:0549853
1What Has Israel Done For the Palestinians? [60 words]Glenda LoughMar 27, 2010 16:0749853
1On "naming the Enemy" [779 words]Christina LuciaApr 21, 2006 18:4143765
Excellent [14 words]Glenda LoughMar 27, 2010 16:1343765
Build a consensus for Israel [49 words]Octavio JohansonApr 13, 2006 11:2443114
Whether liberal Democrats actually support Israel depends on the definiton of "support" [1496 words]Mark GoldApr 7, 2006 17:0442652
where are Democrats for Israel-east bay san francisco? [82 words]Shirl FinkApr 17, 2006 21:1542652
Reply to Mark Gold [382 words]Seamus MacNemiOct 18, 2007 15:3842652
I Am A Supporter [118 words]Tom DundeeMar 27, 2010 16:2542652
Lumping categories & support for Israel is bipartisan [121 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Emanuel GoldmanApr 4, 2006 18:2342366
Bipartisan support for Israel [14 words]Octavio JohansonApr 5, 2006 07:5442366
There is actuallly only one separation. [32 words]Tom DundeeMar 27, 2010 16:3442366
A note on one "irregularity" [30 words]pdbApr 4, 2006 11:3542306
Liberals merely in denial [47 words]Mark GarretsonApr 4, 2006 10:5942304

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to On "naming the Enemy" by Christina Lucia

Email me if someone replies to my comment

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".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

ADVERTISEMENTS

eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2019 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)