Sunday, January 10, 2010


-Bosch Fawstin

Western intellectuals and commentators refer to the enemy's ideology as:

"Islamic Fundamentalism", "Islamic Extremism", "Totalitarian Islam", "Islamofascism", "Political Islam", "Militant Islam", "Bin Ladenism", "Islamonazism", "Radical Islam", "Islamism", etc....

The enemy calls it "Islam".

Imagine, if during past wars, we used terms such as "Radical Nazism", "Extremist Shinto" and "Militant Communism". Those who use terms other than "Islam" create the impression that it's some variant of Islam that's behind the enemy that we're facing. A term such as "Militant Islam" is redundant, but our politicians continue praising Islam as if it were their own religion. Bush told us, "Islam means peace" -- after 2,996 Americans were murdered in its name. He maintained that illusion throughout his two terms, and never allowed our soldiers to defeat the enemy. And now we have Obama, who tells us, from Egypt: “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." Washington's defense of Islam has trumped the defense of America and this dereliction of duty could well be called Islamgate.

Islam is a political religion; the idea of a separation of Mosque and state is unheard of in the Muslim world. Islam has a doctrine of warfare, Jihad, which is fought in order to establish Islamic ("Sharia") Law, which is, by nature, totalitarian. Sharia Law calls for, among other things: the dehumanization of women; the flogging/stoning/killing of adulterers; and the killing of homosexuals, apostates and critics of Islam. All of this is part of orthodox Islam, not some "extremist" form of it. If jihadists were actually "perverting a great religion", Muslims would have been able to discredit them on Islamic grounds and they would have done so by now. The reason they can't is because jihadists are acting according to the words of Allah, the Muslim God. From the Koran:

"Slay the idolators wherever you find them..." Chapter 9, verse 5

"When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads until you have made a great slaughter among them...." Ch. 47:4

Beyond the doctrine, there is the historical figure of Mohammad, who, more than anyone, defines Islam. How would you judge a man who lies, cheats, steals, rapes and murders as a way of life? This evil man is Islam's ideal man, Mohammad. Whatever he said and did is deemed moral by virtue of the fact that he said it and did it. It's no accident that the only morality that could sanction his behavior was his own. Nor is it an accident that Muslims who model themselves after him are the most violent. For the 13 years that Mohammad failed to spread Islam by non-violent means, he was not so much peaceful as he was powerless. It was only through criminal activity that he gained power and a large gang of followers. But he wanted his moral pretense, too, so he changed Islam to reflect the fact that the only way it could survive was through force. And so, acting on Allah's conveniently timed "revelation" that Islam can and should be spread by the sword, Mohammad led an army of Muslims across Arabia in the first jihad. From then on, violence became Islam's way in the world. And today, acting on Mohammad's words, "War is deceit", Muslims use earlier "peaceful" verses from the Koran as a weapon against the ignorance and good will of their victims. Those "peaceful" passages in the Koran were abrogated by later passages calling for eternal war against those who do not submit to Islam. How Mohammad spread Islam influenced the content of its doctrine and therefore tells us exactly what Islam means.

Note also that the only reason we're talking about Islam is because we've been forced to by its jihad. And where are Islam's "conscientious objectors"? Nowhere to be found, for even lax Muslims have been silent against jihad. But that doesn't stop desperate Westerners from pointing to them as representives of "Moderate Islam". Far from being a personal faith, Islam is a collectivist ideology that rejects a live-and-let-live attitude towards non-Muslims. And while the jihadists may not represent all Muslims, they do represent Islam. In the end, most Muslims have proven themselves to be mere sheep to their jihadist wolves, irrelevant as allies in this war. Recovering Muslims call the enemy's ideology "Islam", and they dismiss the idea of "Moderate Islam" as they would the idea of "Moderate Evil". When, based on his actions, Mohammad would be described today as a "Muslim Extremist", then non-violent Muslims should condemn their prophet and their religion, not those who point it out.

Islam is the enemy's ideology and evading that fact only helps its agents get away with more murder than they would otherwise. Western politicians have sold us out, so it's up to the rest of us to defend our way of life by understanding Islam and telling the truth about it in whatever way we can. If we can't even call Islam by its name, how the hell are we going to defend ourselves against its true believers? One could argue that we'd be better off if the West would just choose one of the many terms currently used for the enemy's ideology. For my part, I call the enemy what they are, "Jihadists", and our response, "The War on Jihad." But behind it all, it's Islam that makes the enemy tick.

Despite my frustrations with the refusal of many to call Islam "Islam", I know that those who speak out against Jihad put themselves in danger, and I respect their courage. But it's important that we acknowledge Islam's place in the threat we face and say so without equivocation. Not saying "Islam" helps Islam and hurts us. So let's begin calling the enemy's ideology by its name. Let's start calling Islam "Islam."


PatriotUSA said...

Really excellent post, Bosch.
The facts are simple, it is Islam
it is terrorists, Islamofascist
terrorism, Jihadists etc.. No
need for me to repeat to what
you have already out in your
post. That said I will repeat these words and names to any
and all who will or will not listen.

As one who is dealing with a
couple of Fatwa's against me,
(being investigated, cannot
say more) the danger is very
close to home. They will not
stop me or the other brave
people who speak out against
the evil of our time: ISLAM.

The mullah in the White House
may be an Islamosypathizing
coward but those of us who see
the multiple threat from this
perverted and violent ideology
must remain on watch, active,
vocal and do all we can to
educate an ignorant, brainwashed
American public. Time is
critical and we have no help
from D.C.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Thanks, & take care of yourself, from both the jihadists & those who are meant to protect us. Americans are getting it from all sides these days.

John said...

There is a difference between ordinary followers of Islam and extremists. See The roots of Islamic terrorism. If we tackle the source of the extremism we can beat it. The trouble is that our governments are avoiding the source.

Bosch Fawstin said...

John wrote: "There is a difference between ordinary followers of Islam and extremists."

To be more precise, "ordinary followers" of Islam are lax Muslims, with "extremists" being consistent practitioners of Islam.
Islam & Jihad began with Mohammad, not with "Wahhabism", which seems to exist for the sole purpose of giving non-Muslims a scapegoat for Islam.

Susan said...

I hate the term "radical Islam". I prefer the label "devout Muslim". The more devout, the worse for the rest of us.
Great article.

Bosch Fawstin said...

I agree, & thanks.

Ron James said...

Great post Bosch!

Anonymous said...

Yep, I agree--calling terrorists radical Islamists is ridiculous, an oxymoron. Islam IS radical and its doctrine is radical. The Koran is radical. And, the Muslims who don't follow true Islam are the "radicals!"

John said...

Well, we could sort the sheep from the goats by simply asking Moslems in the USA or UK to take the following Oath for Moslems in the West.

Marie said...

The practice of Taqqiyah would make me doubt ANY oath they may take. The only sincerity in Islam is that used to protect their own.

John said...

An oath would not stop fanatics but it might wake up the ordinary moslems, the decent people. Just to hear them say "No, I do not believe in beating, raping and killing women and I do not believe in discriminating against and killing unbelievers. Of course not. What do you mean the Koran says these things?" might lead to a widespread re-interpretation of the Koran. Remember, most ordinary people are decent whether they are Hindu, Moslem etc. Always remember that.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Sure, but so what? They've made themselves irrelevant during this war.

Torid Tess said...

Some will argue and say that there are some Muslims who are peaceful & maybe they would like to be a peaceful people, but, if they had to chose Peace over what their Holy Book commands, which is, Kill the Infidels where ever you find them or turning their backs on violence, what do you think they will do? They will be nice until it is time to not be nice anymore, and under those circumstances, those Peaceful Muslims will become as Militant as the rest of them! They are Savages by nature. Just because they come to our Country and live among us does not change who they really are. If they are Muslims, let them live in a Muslim Nation and get out of our!

laine said...

Add an expert Muslim's corroboration to your case, (Recep Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister intent on regressing Turkey back to sharia law from Ataturk's separation of mosque and state).
Speaking at Kanal D TV’s Arena program, PM Erdogan commented on the term “moderate Islam”, often used in the West to describe AKP (his political party) and said, ‘These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.'

Original Source: Milliyet, Turkey, August 21, 2007

Realist Theorist said...

You quote the Qur'an: "When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads until you have made a great slaughter among them...." Ch. 47:4

I assume there are some Muslims who take this as a general command to kill all non-muslims.

However, is that an objective way to interpret what was meant? after all, the complete paragraph commands the striking of heads, followed by the fastening of the bonds, followed by either letting them go or ransoming them for money (the alternatives of the time generally being to kill them too or to enslave them).

MrZ said...

Truly excellent post Bosch.

Thanks for standing up for what so many who should, don't, either out of fear, ignorance, complacence or complicity.

The more I read and understand, the more I realize how truly evil Islam is and how it needs to be attacked, like you do.

Keep it up.


Bosch Fawstin said...

Thank you very much, MrZ

denness said...

one should always remember the heirarchy. At the top its humanity, second is religion & last is region. I think u put region first & thinks west is different from rest of the world. No religion tells about killing people. Its only our interpretation which is wrong. If u r good human being & think logically u can never do wrong whether u r a muslim or a christian. Hatred in the name of religion can't be helpful. So try to correct those who carry out dirty things in the name of religion. U r a christian not because of ur choice but because u born in a christian family. But what u have ur own is ur mind & not religion.

Bosch Fawstin said...

denness, you write "No religion tells about killing people." All religions "tell" about killing people, and this particular religion exhorts its followers to.

Unknown said...

Try asking any "moderate" Muslim if Mohammed was wrong for raping a 9 year old girl, and if so what his punishment should have been. Tell me how that goes :P

Nordlys said...

I often call it 'mohammeddhism'
I have the impression that muslims workship mohammed as a god.