Thursday, April 21, 2011
Even a broken clock is right twice a day
I changed my previous title for this essay --
Finally, Robert Spencer gets it right about "Stealth Jihad"
-- because while responding to a commenter in my comments section, I recalled one other previous time when Spencer used an apt description/definition for the phenomenon of "Stealth Jihad".
That was three years ago.
As far as I know (and I have been a rather thorough reader of Jihad Watch for at least five or six years now), that instance three years ago, and the instance I write about here below, are the only two times Spencer the broken clock got it right -- though unlike a broken clock, it takes him not 24 hours, but apparently three years, to get back around, clockwise, to the same correct reading (and, moving counterclockwise, before that instance three years ago, he was using inept descriptions/definitions of the phenomenon of "Stealth Jihad" whenever he had the opportunity to mention it in his editorial remarks about various stories dealing with it, which I noted in various comments and probably also on my blog, Jihad Watch Watch). If any reader has more instances of Spencer educating his readers with the correct description/definition of the phenomenon of "Stealth Jihad", I will amend the metaphor. To see the details, simply scroll down to the comments section and see my comments to the commenter "awake" (caveat: I am severely arithmetically challenged, and in those comments I mention "some four years ago" when I should have said "three years ago", counting back from 2011 to the summer of 2008).
At any rate, here follows the original essay that had been formerly titled as noted above:
In a recent posting on Jihad Watch --
"Muslim prof in Kansas: Muslims should ask Congress to outlaw Qur'an-burning -- because it incites violence"
-- Spencer, as he is wont to do with the news stories he reports on his site, adds this trenchant editorial (and pedagogical for his readers) remark:
And so here we have a vivid example of how the stealth jihad and the violent jihad go hand-in-hand, support each other, and are two aspects of the same effort.
Had I not been unfairly banned back in September of last year from posting comments at Jihad Watch (the fourth time in several years, in fact), I would have complimented him for finally getting this important point about "Stealth Jihad" right. Indeed, it is acutely ironic that one of the two reasons cited by his right-hand woman, Marisol (in specific agreement with Spencer), who did the actual banning for him, was my habit of "sideline sniping" -- and one of the many issues I "sideline sniped" about over the past couple of years was precisely Spencer's habit of bungling this most elementary nexus between Stealth Jihad and Violent Jihad, through inept wording in his various editorial remarks whenever the subject came up that tended to obfuscate (if not eliminate), rather than elucidate, that most crucial nexus. (The other reason cited by Marisol for banning me I argued in the above link was spurious.)
In fact, I recall with fondly nostalgic amusement a most curiously intense, juvenile and largely incoherent barrage of emails Spencer and his rabidly devout attack-dog who goes by the names of "awake" (or "Mike Slumber") sent me many moons ago in the summer of '08, during which one of the issues I explained I had a problem with was Spencer's inadequate description of the nexus between Stealth Jihad and Violent Jihad. This sub-dispute (among a dozen other things) went on in back-and-forth emails for a while -- during which among other unimaginative things, Spencer complained that he couldn't say everything in his editorial remarks and that it would be too complicating and verbose to try to do so ("I am simply unable to use every occasion in which I touch on a subject as an opportunity to repeat in a comprehensive way all that needs to be said about that subject") -- until I managed to pierce Spencer's stubborn skull with a phrase that apparently turned on a light bulb therein. First I quoted one of his typical editorial remarks, concerning a story involving Stealth Jihad:
"All he [Dr. Fadl] is doing is advocating a change in strategy: less terrorism, more stealth jihad. This news shouldn’t make Americans go back to sleep; it should spur them to become aware of the ways in which the jihadist agenda of Islamic supremacism is advancing without guns and bombs."
Then I showed him (by inserting a simple short phrase in bracketed bold text) how easy and painless and succinct this could be tweaked in order to highlight the nexus of Stealth Jihad and Violent Jihad:
"All he [Dr. Fadl] is doing is advocating a change in strategy: less terrorism, more stealth jihad. This news shouldn’t make Americans go back to sleep; it should spur them to become aware of the ways in which the jihadist agenda of Islamic supremacism is [not only being pursued through violence, but also on a parallel track is] advancing without guns and bombs."
Amusingly, his next email to me was a brief compliment saying he liked the phrase "on a parallel track". I tell you, it was like pulling fucking teeth to get him to concede that.
But now, as we showed in our quote up top, Spencer was able to express in a mere 30 words, apparently without getting winded or breaking a sweat, the crucial point about the nexus between Stealth Jihad and Violent Jihad. Was it so hard?
And not only does Spencer present that most apposite nutshell about the nexus quoted above about the Kansan Muslim professor (why do we even have Muslim professors in Kansas, for Allah's sake?), he goes the extra mile by showing succinctly how it works in this case:
Muslims go crazy and kill innocent people over a burned Qur'an, and their useful idiots in the mainstream media blame the Qur'an-burner instead of the Muslims who behaved violently and irrationally. Then a smooth and rational voice -- a law professor -- says that because burning the Qur'an leads to violence, it must be outlawed.
Oh my God! An additional 55 words! Spencer must have had to have a stiff drink and take a nap after that monumental effort.
P.S.: Back in October of last year, fresh from being unfairly banned by Spencer, I commended him (with reservations) in another essay on his finally getting the racial issue that figures so prominently, if not centrally, in our Western Problem of Islam (i.e., the problem that the West sees no Problem of Islam).