A characteristically insightful article by Mr. Cella.

One detail I would commend him for is his use of the word “Mohammedan” in para 2 as opposed to “Islamic.”

If anyone wonders why I favor the former term, it is largely for the same reason we discussed earlier about using the term “homosexual” rather than “gay.”

The term “Islam” from what I have read is a hybrid term meaning ‘peace’ and ‘submission.’ But this religion is not about peace — and certainly does not hesitate to use violence to effect that submission. The term “Muslim” is said to mean ‘one who submits’ with the implication that such an one is submitting to God. I declare that such is not the case; it is a submission to a heresy that has enslaved and brought misery to much of the world.

I will not judge others for the terminology they choose to employ. But when I was growing up the school textbooks I used still employed the term “Mohammedan” and it works just fine today. There was a change made for PC reasons along the way. Many of us have accepted it. But do keep one thing in mind: Such demands are never satisfied. I have seen criticisms made for using the term “Moslem” instead of “Muslim,” and for the spelling of “Koran” as opposed to “Qu’ran.”

If we allow the multiculturalist orthodoxy to dictate the terms we use to describe such or such, then we are a step closer to being told what we may or may not say about it.

It’s been explained to me that the practitioners of Islam object to the term “Mohammedanism” and “Mohammedan” because they don’t worship Mohammed, as those terms imply. This objection is, of course, arrant nonsense. I don’t believe anyone is confused into thinking that Lutherans worship Martin Luther, Straussians worship Leo Strauss, or Randians worship Ayn Rand (though I’m sure they’d prefer to be called Objectivists). As far as I can see, the demand that English speakers eschew “Mohammedanism” and “Mohammedan” for “Muslilm” and “Islam” is the same kind of PC bullying that insists we call the capital of China “Beijing” (and may soon have to call the country itself Zhongguo—after all, we’ve been bullied into changing the name of Ceylon to Sri Lanka and the Ivory Coast to Cote d’Ivoire—though I think we’ve managed to reverse the insistence on Myanmar for Burma and Kampuchea for Cambodia). We should politely tell the Mohammedans that when we are speaking Arabic, we’ll happily listen to their guidance, but that we don’t need any help in speaking English.

I thank Mr. LeFavre for his compliments, although I must admit that the inclusion of “Mohammedan” was not my own “voice,” so to speak, but rather an attempt to reflect the attitudes and perspectives of the Crusaders. The whole idea behind my essay was an attempt to induce readers to think more historically, and recognize the importance of a nation and an individual’s attachment to a historic civilization.

Interestingly, a commenter on my own blog has taken me to task for using the very term that Mr. LeFevre commends to me.

When Allenby took the Holy City from the Turks, he was moved by the sight of the first *Christian* Army entering Jerusalem in 700 years. Not Judeo-Christian, not Western, not Liberal-Democratic-Capitalist, or for that matter, not English, British, or Allied.

Mr. Young writes:

“When Allenby took the Holy City from the Turks, he was moved by the sight of the first *Christian* Army entering Jerusalem in 700 years. Not Judeo-Christian, not Western, not Liberal-Democratic-Capitalist, or for that matter, not English, British, or Allied.”

We can’t fight our enemy successfully unless we name him. And we can’t name him correctly unless we name ourselves. This is not a battle between “freedom” and “terror” but between Christendom and Mohammedanism. Now of course it will be said that Christendom doesn’t exist any more, that it’s been largely replaced by secular pluralist liberalism. But that is precisely the problem, isn’t it? Having lost our true selves, we’re helpless to defend ourselves effectively. The enemy, by contrast, knows who he is and who we are. He knows this is a battle between two substances. We imagine it’s a battle between two procedures. Unless we rediscover and restore our own substance, we will not be able to prevail against him.

“The enemy, by contrast, knows who he is and who we are. He knows this is a battle between two substances. We imagine it’s a battle between two procedures. Unless we rediscover and restore our own substance, we will not be able to prevail against him.”

What a remarkable descriptive insight by Mr. Auster!