If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.
Great insisight and excellent analysis from Daniel Greenberg, (also known as Sultan Knish) who is right on the money, as usual:Â this is about words and phrases that have clear definitions as commonly understood by all literate people. Those same words and phrases, however, mean something entirely different to Muslims. The Gates of Vienna has more>>
Words are tricky things. Virtually every tyrant, no matter how bloody, has talked about his plans for conquest in terms of “peace”. For example in 1939, Nazi Germany and the USSR signed a declaration in which they described their conquest of Poland as creating “a sure foundation for a lasting peace in Eastern Europe”. The same year that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he delivered a speech at the Amman Summit in which he insisted that; “the Arabs seek peace and justice throughout the world”. And how can one argue with peace?
The Romans had the Pax Romana, which meant peace under Roman dominion. The “peace” that Hitler, Stalin and Saddam have in mind, was of that same nature. Dictators and tyrannies, national or ideological, frame the world as chaotic and requiring order. Only under their leadership and only their way will the world finally experience peace.
When Lenin stated that; “without overthrowing capital it is impossible to end the war by a truly democratic peace“, he was laying out the same basic thesis of every tyrant, and of Islam as well. That there can be no “true peace”, without the creation of a society that follows his ideology. For Lenin, everyone had to submit to Communism. For Hitler, to Nazism. For Mohammed, to Islam. Each spoke about peace, but they defined peace only in terms of their own ideology and rule.
When apologists insist that Islam is a religion of peace, they are correct. Insofar as it believes in peace through conquest, and its intended state of peace is to reduce non-Muslims to second class status. But since Islam is global and it recognizes no limit to its borders– its form of “peace” is to engage in constant wars to conquer the territory of non-Muslims and Muslims whose legitimacy they do not recognize in order to achieve “peace”.