It's easy for most of us in the Counter-Jihad (unlike the clowns to the left of us and jokers to our right all around us in the Mainstream) to mercilessly mock and cogently cudgel the prevailing and strangely stubborn dogma that "ISIS has nothing to do with Islam".
When our minds are prompted to pursue the logic, however, there develops an odd inhibition.
When, for example, some PC MC bozo dropped into a Jihad Watch comments field to protest that the prospect of revoking citizenship from those Muslims who have gone to join ISIS would make the poor souls "stateless", a veteran Jihad Watcher reared up and raised all her no-nonsense hackles to set him straight:
“But these creatures *are* stateless.
The only law that they recognise as legit is the sharia of Islam. The only political authority they recognise as having a right to rule is an Islamic authority.”
Well, that's all well and good; but as a member of the Choir who already knows this, I have to ask:
Just how are the ISIS jihadists any different from all other Muslims in this regard? The no-nonsense Counter-Jihadists are quick to ridicule the specious distinction between ISIS and Islam; but what about bringing the rubber to the road and dealing with the specious difference between the ISIS Jihadists and all other Muslims?
Of course, there exists a whole galaxy of superficial factors which the asymptotic Counter-Jihadist, anxious to maintain such a distinction lest he succumb to the dreaded A word, will be able to avail himself of in his anxious desire to spare so many Muslims from such a “broad brush” (and thus, more importantly, to spare his own ethical narcissism). But is he able to do so cogently and coherently? And more importantly, why would he even try?
No comments:
Post a Comment