Zippy has made several references to the Orthosphere and so I decided to check it. Flipping through the most recent post, the only one that caught my interest by the title was the “Mohammedan, not “Muslim”” post.
The point that caught my interest is as follows:
If you accede to calling this man a Moslem (i.e. Truly Religious), I believe that you implicitly concede that this proposition is true [i.e. that Islam is the true religion]. If you accede to calling his religion Islam (i.e. True Religion), I believe you implicitly concede that this proposition is true. To draw this to its sharpest possible point, a Christian who accedes to using the words Moslem or Islam is at least flirting with apostasy.**
The claim that one is implicitly conceding the truth of Islam by using the words Muslim or Islam proceeds from a linguistic error. Meaning does not follow etymology. That is a word’s meaning cannot be derived exclusively (and in some instances at all) from its etymology. The fact that the term “Islam” derives from an Arabic word that can be interpreted as the author claims as “True Religion” does not mean that the word used in English according to customary usage means “True Religion.”
A commenter points this out and the author fails to address that point. I would agree with the author about understanding the second greatest existential threat to civilization, but the claim of implicit apostasy is at least scandalous.
To expand upon the commenter’s point about calling Catholics “Catholic,” we may also need to refer to the Orthodox as the Schismatic Heterodox Eastern Christians or perhaps more respectfully Quartarchial Eastern Christians. The “Taoist” probably should be referred to Non-Confucian Chinese Pagan or more respectfully Laozist, since “Tao” means “Right Way” which could be interpreted as “True Religion.”
I haven’t checked but I wonder if Benedict XVI or JPII used the apostosizing terms and how much more explicit is their apostasy given their learning.