Talking about “Islamists” all the time, one could like to discuss what an Islamist really is, and whence the idea, or det definition came from. It might sound preposterous, by I really believe I coined it. It was in the aftermath of the Mohammad Cartoon crisis, that i joined SIAD. Stop Islamization of Denmark. At the time it was basically an unknown smallish group in northern Jutland. So I did not know it, and basically nobody else knew it. But on it goes, I joined forces with Anders Gravers, and we envisioned a new strategy to stop the Islamization.

I did much of the strategic work, and Anders was the chairman; the head of the organization.

My idea was basically pretty simple. After reading most of what I could get my hands on of literature defining and discussion Islam (most of it critical). I realized, that Islam is a system very much like our own, just structured in a totally different way that ours. But the basic building blocks were the same; they had a rule of law, at state, and a religion connected to that. They call it sharia, Ummah, but it is the same, it is the nation and the rule of law.

Now, to make a critical stance towards Islam, I however needed to understand where the precise conflicts were, and where not. I realized, that there is no real conflict between our religion and the religious parts of Islam. Both Islam, Christianity and Judaism has, as a religious goal to support the nation.

So the conflict was in the political sphere. We are democrats, or rather, most of the West, and now also the East are believers in the Socratic ideals of free speech, humanism and the rule of the people. Add to this items as enlightenment and justice, and you had the Western/Eastern political project.

So in order to define ourselves in opposition to Islam, we are the democrats opposed to a religious state.

In Islam justice is found in the Koran and, ideally, as a divine definition, in our system it is done by the elected politicians, ideally as the will of the people.

Therefor, I proposed Anders, that we see ourselves as defenders of our democratic states in opposition to muslims who do not respect the democratically founded items of state. That is the rule of law and the rule of the people over the law.

We stressed, that we define the opposition of our project as politically driven muslims. We defined secular muslims, that is muslims who believe in democracy, as absolutely ok, and muslims who believe in sharia and the ummah as the antagonists of the Western Democracies.

This ideology spread through SIAD to numerous political parties, and through Danish Peoples party to the rest of the Danish society, and from there the rest of the world.

That is the story, and the power of philosophy.

Today this definition is the defining drive behind most of the Wests opposition to Islam, and also the Russian opposition of Islam. Basically it is like a word that creates a stream in society, or the other way around, the stream of society that drives philosophy and new definitions.

Anyway, to start a thing and let I loose on the world is always nice. You feel a little like a gardener. You plant a seed, well knowing, that the seed will grow and become a beautiful and strong tree one day. That is the way of the philosopher i regards to society, you plant seeds and watch them grow into something beautiful.

The reason why I planted this tree, was because the old democratic tree was weak. It had been worn down through many centuries of war and expansion, and it seemed it was not really capable of carrying its own children anymore.

The new tree is still quite young, and I believe that the synergy of the conflict we have with Islamists these days will have the intended effect; we will start growing strong again, believing again, have hope again. Because we realize that the new tree of democracy is something that will last our own lives, and will grow, and grow and grow.

Already it has grown to the Maghreb region, where it is in a difficult situation due to the onslaught of the local Islamists and Al-queda. We need to protect it somehow, and counter the attack of Al-queda on our little tree.

I read a lot of japanese philosophy these days, japanese philosophy is extremely interesting not only because of its evident quality, but also because japanese are experts in war.

They say in “The art of war” by Yagyu Munenori that G-d does not like weapons, because weapons are used to cut down life, and since life is G-d he obviously does not like it. But then again, there are instances where G-d appreciates weapons, and that is when something evil cuts in the live of a being. It can be one man that inflicts traumas and wounds on many men. In this instance G-d would like one to cut that evil out of the life, to save other parts of live.

It makes sense. The Islamists are in Northern Africa, not to make a better life for the inhabitants there, but to, through violence, to ruin the life of people there. They might actually believe in the ideas of sharia and ummah, but look at Iran and see for yourself, this is not life it is death.

Ethically it is therefore absolutely fine to take down and hunt down the Islamists, because they are there to hurt. It is a matter of protection.

G-d bless life and the gardener in the polis of Eden.