What is the psychological effect of the endless war with Mohammedanism? We are like whipped dogs or battered wives who will always attempt to placate our unreasonable and irrational master because he is unreasonable and irrational, and the more irrational his demands, such as the demand to build a Mosque on the corpses of those who died on 9-11, the more eager we are to accede.
I propose that the West is suffering from an irrational and neurotic fear of Mohammedanism, a fear I propose we should call by the term ‘Islamophobia.’
This neurosis has three roots, all various aspects of helplessness. We feel powerless to name the enemy, we are helpless from excluding or expelling him from our midst, and we dare not offend him. Let us examine each in turn.
First, any observer will notice a curious inability of any administration in the United States to name the enemy. Certain newspapers have specific policies forbidding that it be named. In Europe, laws against hate-speech prevent or discourage it being named.
Indeed, even the dictionary and spell-checking software are so deferential to Mohammedan sensibilities that they note that Mohammedans prefer not to be called by the name of their heresiarch. The objection of course is specious. The claim is that they worship God, not Mohammed, therefore should not be called by his name. It would be as if Lutherans or Calvinists insisted on being called Goddists on the grounds that they worship God, not Luther nor Calvin. Why we should follow the arbitrary and insincere protestations of annoyance of our avowed enemies is unclear. As if, during World War Two, someone had said the word Nazi was insufficiently dignified, so we should call our foes National Socialist Worker’s Party Members or some such nonsense.
Because the enemy is not a nation state with a king or president fielding a uniformed army under a recognized banner, we are helpless to name it.
All the wars we know are pitched battles between men in uniform with civilians allegedly safely off to one side. This war has no battles, no uniforms, no front, and the point is to inflict pain on the civilians, and chose targets for their sentimental or symbolic value rather than their military value. It is so alien to Western thinking, that it does not seem to be a war at all, merely a series of semi random crimes or sadistic political theater. How can there be an enemy when there is no war? And so we are reduced to referring to it by one of its tactics, namely, political terror.
This nonsense helps the enemy. Let us have no more of it. Let us name it for what it is.
The enemy is Mohammed and all who faithfully follow him, his example, and his laws. You might object that not all votaries of Islam, the religion of submission, are terrorist: this is true but trivial, akin to saying not all Germans were Nazis, not all Russians Communists. The example of Mohammed divides life into two phases: during the Mecca phase, when one is weak, one spreads Islam by peaceful means, begging the infidels for toleration and peace. During the Medina phase, when one has political power, that political power is turned into military power, and these protestations for toleration and peace are dropped, the weak and conquered, and any who do not convert to Islam are reduced either to Dhimmitude or slavery, or else killed. Any who attempt to depart the religion are killed. Any who seem insufficiently bent on Holy War against the infidel, Jihad, are killed. No means, howsoever uncivilized, of brutality or torture is off limits if it serves the Jihad, and no target is a noncombatant. For this is precisely the example of Mohammed.
The enemy is not a person. The enemy is an idea called Sharia Law and all who follow it. Sharia Law spreads by Holy War, called Jihad. The name of the enemy (for those too shy to include Mohammedans still living in a peaceful seeming Mecca phase) is Jihadist, and all who preach or practice it.
Sharia Law is a rigid and uncompromising system of laws and punishment designed to place an entire society on a military footing, to reward conquerors and those who perish in religious conquests, and to subjugate, enslave or convert all unbelievers.
In strategy, it is simplicity itself: the world is divided into Dar-el-Islam, the House of Submission, that is, those who accept Sharia Law, and Dar-el-Harb, the House of War, that is, those who, by not submitting to Sharia, must and will be conquered.
In tactics, it is flexible, patient, clever and utterly barbaric, since Sharia Law engineers every part and aspect of Sharia society toward the end of conquest, terror, and subjugation. Sharia Law makes it economically unfeasible to improve or sell land, or to invest or save: nearly the only way to make money in this legal system is by the slave trade, which is the traditional backbone of the Islamic economy since the days when Mohammed was raiding caravans, taking slaves, and torturing prisoners to discover hidden silver.
Sharia Law allows the faithful to enslave any they conquer, to take their maidens for wives or slaves, and any woman who is raped is punished for the crime of having tempted the faithful.
This barbaric punishment is meted out routinely. One case that made the newspapers was against a fourteen year old, who was sentenced to one hundred lashes for the crime of being raped by an older relative. She expired on the sixtieth stroke. Her name was Hena.
However, the point is not to be missed that the most vile and barbaric motives of greed, envy, sadism, brutality and rapine that exist in the hearts of the most violent of men is not checked nor suppressed by Sharia law, but encouraged and sanctified and directed against all apostates and infidels.
Since all slaves are manumitted the moment they embrace submission, all the sexual slaves in the harem are Christians or other non-Muslims. Since there is no consent in Mohammedan concubinage, all is rape. It is a religion that does not merely permit, but requires as a religious duty, the rape of the women of the infidel. Buggery of your own boys is merely a sideline.
More to the point, any man who dies in combat while conquering and killing infidels is transported instantly to paradise, rewarded with 72 virgins, and given the name of ‘martyr’ – a word that in the Muslim world means the exact opposite of the true meaning. A martyr is one who dies in innocence, loyal to the faith, rather than submit to violence; a Muslim ‘martyr’ is one who uses the faith as an excuse to die committing some enormity of violence against the innocent. A true martyr is a murder victim; a Mohammedan ‘martyr’ is one who murders victims.
The unleashing of the hidden rape urge and the self-destructive aspect of violent suicide is all part of the mechanism to reduce all society to an engine of war.
Second, any observer must notice, and be puzzled by, the curious deference shown to this enemy political system. Everyone seems to think it is a denomination rather than a political party, and treat it like a legitimate religion that can and should be legitimately practiced as a private devotional in the West.
The worship of Allah is a central part of Sharia Law, and other faiths can be tolerated only for a time, their followers allowed to live as second-class citizens or slaves lacking basic rights and paying a special tax. Christian and Jews had to wear special humiliating costumes, and were (and are) forbidden to carry swords or ride horses in many Sharia lands in many periods of history. For a time. When that time expires, these second-class citizens or slaves must convert or die. This expulsion is happening now in Middle Eastern lands, and Christian communities, like Bethlehem, are being subject to genocide and forced expulsion of all Christians.
(It should shock the conscience of any believing Christian that Bethlehem, of all places, is in the hands of those who are the deadliest enemies of Christ history has ever known, and clans and families who have been Christian for thousands of years, longer than your nation, or your language, has been open for business, are being harassed, assaulted, killed, exiled, or forced to convert, suffering solely because they call on the name of Christ. And your press does not report it, and your political leaders do nothing.)
What causes this strange desire to do nothing? I suppose if Hitler had only claimed the Aryan Race was a divinity, the president and the press would have called Nazism a religion of peace as well, and encouraged the building of Nazi Beer Halls and meeting halls throughout the United States during World War Two.
Because the worship of Allah is mandatory, the submission to Sharia Law is often called a religion, albeit actually it is a political-religious legal system tied to a specific strategy for conquest. It is a religion in precisely the same way the worship by the Japanese of the Japanese Emperor as a divine being during World War Two was a religion, which is to say, only as one aspect or department of a more all-embracing totalitarian legal system.
It is that Sharia Law abolishes freedom of religion and commands the worship of Allah in certain specific ways, and so the unwary treat it like a denomination, no different in legal theory than Seventh Day Adventists or Christian Scientists.
It is not, of course, a religion in the strict sense, but a heresy, that is, a parasite of Catholic ideas that rejects the central Catholic teaching that Christ is the Son of God. Mohammed was living in and near the Eastern sections of the Roman Empire when he wrote his book, after all. The sacraments are rejected, and there is no Church structure or formal hierarchy in Sharia Law. The drive for intellectual unity is kept, but the central teaching that conversation must be voluntary is rejected. Various doctrines, such as the unity of God and his omnipotence, is kept, but in a stripped-down, dumbed-down fashion. The theological rigor and nuances of Catholicism are rejected, the balanced judgment and humanity is rejected, and the mercy is rejected.
The Biblical accounts of Genesis and the Gospels are kept, but the message is either parodied or reversed. For example, the Bible, the sin of Cain is met with mercy, for God does not kill Cain nor permit any others to do so; in the Koran the same story is told to emphasize the mercilessness of God, for murderers are punished not only for their own sins but the sins of their victims, and burn in the hellfire forever. Likewise, in both the Gospel and the Koran, Mary is the Virgin Mother of Jesus, but in the Koran Jesus escapes hanging on the cross, dies for no sins, and indeed is prophesied to return and slay those who believe the Christ was crucified, or that God could have a son. The Prince of Peace is a warlord to come, and there is no salvation.
But because this political totalitarian movement adopts the language of religion and had rules governing religion, the mild and enlightened West has no laws that would prevent its spread.
We are the Jews of Medina, welcoming Mohammed as a refugee out of the kindness of our hearts, even though we know that as soon as he has the strength to do so, he will turn on us and kill us.
The Western laws were meant to permit toleration of different denominations, all of which agreed to live under the reigning political powers that be: because such deference to secular authority or “the powers that be” is a Biblical doctrine all branches of Christianity share. The Emperor of Constantinople was never the Pope of Rome: the secular and spiritual authority in the West never occupied the same city, much less the same man.
For the Mohammedan, the doctrine of separate of secular from spiritual authority is not so much rejected as incomprehensible. The secular and spiritual authority has never been vested in two men: Sharia Law makes no distinction, and the law governs all aspects of life, secular and spiritual both. There is no such thing as private religion in the Dar-el-Islam because it is totalitarian.
Extending the protection of the First Amendment to partisan of Sharia Law is a logical contradiction, since Sharia Law and the First Amendment cannot coexist. One directly contradicts the other. But we in the West have no choice: if we weakened the First Amendment or any of its European counterparts by so much as a comma, the first religion to be abolished would be Christianity.
Third, any observer must be puzzled by the adoption, time after time, of the enemy’s language and frame of reference, and the refusal to admit that the enemy means us harm, and the pretense that, in any conflict, the Faithful Moslem are always unjustly victimized hence always right to use whatever means, however ruthless, to fight their foes.
This also has its roots in Medina and Mecca. The Moslem have been whining from the beginning. They are always the victim, always in a state of righteous outrage, always in a frenzy of hate, because hate is the emotion that feeds conquest.
Contrary to what you have heard, it is a religion of hate.
Top US officials who advise the military on how to fight the enemy are, almost without exception, members of the enemy camp. There was no such deference to the enemy during World War Two, and only among intellectuals during the Cold War. Now it is so widespread that even Republican Presidents and Catholic Pontiffs enter mosques after atrocities are committed and pay homage to the enemy.
We are trying to fight an enemy without naming him, without excluding him from public discourse, and also without offending him.
The idea is that there is some huge mass of moderate followers of Sharia Law who do not want to follow Sharia Law and who will take up arms against it if only we are sufficiently deferential and self-abasing to Sharia Law. This is so obviously false and so obviously stupid that it needs no contradiction. One might as well wait for the Moderate Nazis to rise up and cut back Hitler’s planned schedule of Jew-killing by half.
More to the point, it is like expecting moderate Catholics to rise up and force the Pope to admit priestesses to celebrate mass and perform abortions on the altar-stone. A man who rejects the central dogmas of the institution or the party of which he is a member is not a moderate; he is merely someone who does not understand what his membership means. There were Germans who opposed Hitler. They were weakened, not strengthened, by the appeasement of Chamberlain. Likewise, here.
Knowing the history of Mohammedanism clarifies what is otherwise an incomprehensible mystery of why our political and religious leaders do not and dare not oppose it, but welcome it at every opportunity.
In sum, there are three reasons: first, we are fighting a society and a culture, not a nation state, and their soldiers do not wear uniforms and do no engage in peace talks, so there is no room for negotiation, and no possibility of a limited war or a defined battlefield. The war will continue as long as one faithful Moslem breathes air.
Second, our leaders regard Islam as a religion, not as a totalitarian political movement with a religious arm, and so they are paralyzed by modern laws tolerating all religions from interfering with what is basically a vast and decentralized military organization.
Third, the huge numbers of the society and culture creates the illusion that there is a large mass of moderates to whom we can appeal provided we do nothing offensive to the Jihadists. But the Jihadists are not fighting to get something from us, or to win land or treasure, but to kill us because we are infidels, and terrify the survivors into conversion to Islam.
So, our leaders are afraid of them and do not wish to provoke them; our leaders know it is a religious war, but they have no religion of their own to use to oppose it, and so there is no opposition; and our leaders, especially in Europe, hate our religion so much, that the Moslem system seems to them to be less of a threat.
But, like bringing a knife to a gunfight, bringing that watery and empty-headed vacuum of the head called secularism to a religious war is a certain formula for failure, and a fatal folly. The Jihad will not respect your safe spaces. Only Christ can conquer Mohammed.
We in the West no longer call on Christ for succor against the enemy, and no longer have the power to name or to face the enemy. This is because of the psychpathological fear I hear call Islamophobia among us, and because of an infidelity called damnation among our elites and leaders and opinion makers, who hate us, hate our culture, hate our history, and hate everything we love. Why we take them as our elites, leaders and opinion makers is a deep mystery.
Saint James Matamoros, pray for us.
Photo by omairhq / Getty Images
Read Wright’s previous article on Mohammedanism
John C. Wright is a retired attorney and newspaperman who was only once hunted by the police. He is a graduate of St. John College (home of Mortimer Adler’s “Great Books Program“). In 2004 he foreswore his lifelong atheism and joined the Roman Catholic Church. He has published over 10 SF novels, including one nominated for a Nebula award, and was described by Publisher’s Weekly as “this fledgling century’s most important new SF talent.” He currently lives in fairytale-like happiness with his wife, the authoress L. Jagi Lamplighter, and their four children.
Note: If you follow the retail links in this post and make purchases on the site(s), Defy Media may receive a share of the proceeds from your sale through the retailer’s affiliate program.
Keep up with the best of The Wright Perspective below. Click through the gallery to read more from John C. Wright.
Shockproofing SocietyDon't miss this two-part series from John C. Wright on the destruction of the West by the Left.
Photo by Getty Images
End of UnreasonLet's make 2016 the Year of Reason, when logic came back from its long exile in human affairs and was restored to its proper throne in the human soul.
Photo by Getty Images
MohammedanismRead John C. Wright's latest in his "Help for the History Impaired" series -- On Mohammedanism.
Photo by jackof / Getty Images
Natural Law and Unnatural ActsJohn C. Wright weighs in on Kim Davis, the SCOTUS and same-sex marriage.
Photo by Ty Wright/Getty Images
IlliteratureRead John C. Wright's piece on the truth about Leftism and literature.
Peace and NothingnessDespite that the mainstream doctrine of our postchristian and therefore postrational society is that thoughts have no meaning, unfortunately, thoughts do have meaning and ideas have consequences.
Equality and NothingnessOurs is the first civilization in the history of mankind ever to embrace Nihilism as the mainstream, if not the official, doctrine of our most foundational beliefs.
Help for the History ImpairedThis column is one in an ongoing series attempting to shed light into the wide vistas of history which modern education has left dark. Here, we discuss the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
The Nameless EvilThis odd reluctance to come to grips with their foe, or call things by their right names, is a quirk of Leftist psychology that crops up often enough to form a pattern.
Church and StateRead John C. Wright's column about the evisceration of church and state, as well as these other essays you shouldn't miss:
Faith and PoliticsJohn C. Wright voices his opinion on faith in several of his articles. Read some of our favorites:
Political CorrectnessJohn C. Wright propose that Political Correctness rots the brain, and that brainrot in turn will rot the heart, which in turn will rot the soul.
The Seven Right Ideas of ConservatismConservatism is summed up in seven ideas. Read the overview of The Seven Right Ideas of Conservatism, and an in-depth piece on each.
The Seven Bad Ideas of Leftism.