The insidious nature of Islamism

January 17, 2008 at 12:30 am (Islamism, World War III)

Sorry I had hoped I lined up enough posts to go through the middle of the week. My bad.

Today’s post is on the insidious nature of Islamist propaganda and lobbying. Whereas the usual modi operandi of the East (namely, using theology, appearance of orthodoxy and orthopraxy, guns, bombs, and other forms of force, violence, and intimidation) cannot work in the West, Islamists and their sympathizers (neither of whom necessary have to be Muslims) use the more sophistocated and effective means available here, namly lobbying and propaganda.

I think the case of Mark Deli Siljander, former representative of Michigan’s 4th district in the US House of Representatives, which case Ace blogged about in “BREAKING: Former *Congressman* & Delegate To The UN Indicted For Terrorist Fundraising”, demonstrates this quite clearly.

It is also ironic (if that’s the right word) that these Islamists and their sympathizers use money quite extensively to win over minds and hearts (that is, loyalty) of various organizations and officials. Indeed, money is also used to coax support and to intimidate. “Support us and you get all this money; oppose us and we’ll use our money to destroy you.” What makes this ironic is that Islamists accuse their perceived opponents (Christians and Jews, mainly, who’re supposedly behind all the nefarious conspiracies, neo-cons and Freemasons included) of these very same tactics. While some do use such tactics, many others do not, opting for more subtle approaches such as appealing to public relations.

(This is not only an issue of Islamism: when Saudi Arabia, in a highly publicized case in the foreign media, sentenced a woman to 200 lashes, some Muslims (and non-Muslim commentators on Islam) asked why the “moderate” Muslims were not speaking out. The reason is quite simple: no Muslim wanted to draw the ire of Saudi authorities and those loyal to them, and no organization wanted to draw the wrath of the Wahhabi machine, which not only is the financial lifeline of many Muslim/Islamic programs and organizations throughout the world but also financially well-equipped to take on any challengers to its authority and system. Plus, there is the issue of defaming Islam or soiling its image: too much outcry from Muslims would draw untoward attention by infidels, who would then focus on what Muslims believe to be entirely an internal matter, and by misunderstanding the role and place of this issue would go out of their way to defame Islam and look down on it, which Muslims must avoid facilitating at all costs.)

That Siljander would be used is not so much of a surprise. He was noted for being an ueber-Evangelical anti-Islam politican, which would make any statement of his in favor of an Islamic entity bear considerable weight. And so he was bought out, and his rhetoric took a strange U-turn: he emphasized the commonalities between Christianity and Islam and supported Islamist entities. He was an indirect accessory for US-originating support of terrorism, terrorism which targets The United States and their interets within and without their borders. (For having so blatantly betrayed his people, his country, and for facilitating terrorism, he should be executed.) What also makes Siljander a logical choice has to do with the growth and presence of Islamism and its sympathizers (including terrorists and their sympathizers) in Michigan, to the point that Michigan has become a byword for terrorism and terrorists in America. It has not been easy to stamp out this mushrooming of terrorism, terrorists, and terrorism-sympathizers, and indeed Islamists have a firm hold over Michigan and, more ominously, over the Muslim community in Michigan. (It is also one of the Arabs’ most concentrated presence in America: a coincidence? I think not.)

The case of Siljander should make us become aware of how insidious these groups and efforts are. We must screen politicans and their connections with organizations of doubtful loyalty to The United States, and we must not allow such organizations to have a dominant say in issues related to Islam and Islamism, to say nothing about having a hold on our politicians. In one way, allowing such organizations to represent Muslims and their interests facilitates these organizations’ oppression and tyranny over the many Muslim communities who would disagree with their message and beliefs and practices. We must break the hold of these organizations in the media, in government, and even in the Muslim community/communities.

Be aware, my friends and fellow Americans. Be very aware.



  1. News On The GWOT Front « Nice Deb said,

    […] Muslihoon: […]

  2. Lady Vorzheva said,

    Magnificent post, as ever. I’m linking it in my blog.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: