We've experimented with all sorts of names: Islamic Terrorism, Islamism, Islamofascism, Muslim Extremism, Filthy Rag-Head Fuckdom...but they all proved unsatisfactory.
Now Taranto's coined the term Islamic Supremacy*. He points out that it describes very clearly the ideology of the adherents—not just the tactics—it does not insult all Muslims, because the majority of Muslims don't believe in their own supremacy, and are not interested in advancing any such thing.
Taranto uses the model "White Supremacy", which clearly does not offend, because it does not include, most Whites. It has a very narrow, specific, and clearly understood meaning.
I think it's perfect. It is, in fact, exactly what the Islamofascists believe, and what they are murdering for: total domination, by their supreme selves, of everyone else
Islamic Supremacy. Much more precise. And precision is good.
I'm going to use it from now on.
Taranto says:
So, how does one describe these movements? "Terrorist," as we have noted, is too imprecise, a reference to tactics, not ideology. What we need is a term that acknowledges that they are Islamic movements without implying anything invidious about Muslims who do not belong to such movements.
The answer: Islamic supremacy. The analogous term, white supremacy, is in no way offensive to whites, Indeed, condemnations of white supremacy generally succeed at shaming whites into shunning groups like the Ku Klux Klan, just as the West hopes to shame Muslims into shunning Islamic supremacist groups.
We would define Islamic supremacy as follows: a doctrine that seeks to subjugate or exterminate non-Muslims, or convert them to Islam by force. This is slightly different from white supremacy, in that there is no such thing as a racial conversion--but we think the analogy is close enough to be useful.
* "Muslim Supremacy" works for me too. But let's not quibble.
The Gunslinger
No comments:
Post a Comment