As we in the Counter-Jihad know, there are many ways that the Mainstream tries to qualify Islam by carefully distinguishing it from some putatively separate, bad Islam (that, needless to say, is supposed to have "nothing to do with Islam"), through the use of many dysphemisms -- "radical Islam", "extremism", "Islamism", "fundamentalist Islamism", "militant Islamism", and so forth. The Islam that is supposed to be left after these various ongoing qualifiers is, of course, the mainstream Islam that the "vast majority of Muslims" adhere to, which of course must be "peaceful"—rendering our problem of Islam a relatively negligible truncation of a difficulty.
On the other side of this coin, we may say that in the battle space of the War of Ideas (currently the most important theater of this world war Muslims are waging upon us), it is pedagogically important to qualify Islam -- not in order to inoculate it from our criticism & condemnation; but rather to highlight the reasons why we find it to be a deadly problem.
Thus, many moons ago, the impressively erudite (but often arrogant) Hugh Fitzgerald in a comments thread of Jihad Watch wrinkled his nose fastidiously when I dared to paraphrase one of his previous remarks:
I quote Khadduri and Tibi as authorities on the doctrine of Jihad in Islam, not as “modern Muslims who advocate violent supremacist Jihad.”
To which I responded:
It may be redundant to you, but pedagogically a little redundancy never hurts—particularly in a sociopolitical climate illterate about jihad.
And then I moved on to quote another objection Hugh had:
And I would never use the phrase “violent supremacist Jihad”—the piling on of adjectives, including the unnecessary “supremacist,” is not something I would ever do.
To which I responded:
Actually, I would pile on another adjective: expansionist.
And from there, I expatiated thusly, for today's post:
Each of the three adjectives performs a distinct function:
violent refers to the necessary element of violence in the doctrine of jihad, symbiotically and inextricably linked with the other ostensibly non-violent ways in which Muslims pursue it, and making those other non-violent ways a problem where no problem would exist were the violence forever non-existent (or negligible).
supremacist refers to the premise that guides Muslims to their conclusion: The premise being that they are the best of all peoples in contrast to all non-Muslims deemed as spiritually and physically "filthy" and the "worst of all beasts", whose filthiness must be subjugated when not eradicated, because the true God has made the Muslims custodians of the absolute truth and of the way to avoid eternal damnation and win eternal paradise.
expansionist, consequently, refers to the conclusion after factoring in the two aforementioned principles: that Muslims must make Islam dominant throughout the world.
Any one of these without the other two would not pose a great problem for the world:
For example, a group that was violent, but not supremacist or expansionist, would pose only criminal problems, not a problem of warfare.
A group that is supremacist, but not violent or expansionist, may express pernicious ideas, but if they never harm anyone in the furtherance of their ideas, and if the surrounding society is relatively healthy, they will be largely ignored when not roundly refuted and will certainly not persuade anyone but a tiny minority of unhealthy souls.
Finally, a group that is expansionist, but not violent or supremacist, may or may not be bad for society. If, for example, the 4-H Club were expansionist, there would be little to object about. Or if an expansionist group did propose pernicious ideas, they would be impotent to persuade the body politic in any healthy society—unless they used violence.
Which brings me to another important adjective to pile on to jihad: anti-liberal—or, for those who recoil at the L word: unjust—or, for those who require more beef in their diet: sociopathic.
"Or if an expansionist group did propose pernicious ideas, they would be impotent to persuade the body politic in any healthy society—unless they used violence."
ReplyDeleteThere is more than one way to be expansionist - and more than one way to be violent.
Throughout history, minority rulers have frequently ruled larger groups of people with different philosophical and/or religious beliefs. The rule can be expansionist - without the religion being expansionist.
Violence can be imposed to gain ruling power in more or less sophisticated ways. Is imploding the economy of a nation, region, continent, or time period any less violent than 'physical' violence? Economic disruptions often lead to violently bloody revolutions played for economic benefit of a designated group that lit the fuse of the bomb.
From Karl Denninger:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229655
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229655
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229657
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229660
Islam is Islam, so-called violent Islam is just traditional Islam practiced the way it's supposed to be. Even Al Azar implies that.
ReplyDeleteThe anti-jihad movement is shooting itself in the foot by excusing violence against non-believers by peddling this line of c**p. They are trying so hard to be liked by the MSM that they are almost as bad the MSM in covering the heinous acts of Muslims.
And then when some new poster says expel'em all or something like that, the old timer posters get all puffy and castigate the guy who then writes off the anti-jihad movement as a bunch of suicidal PC wimps - which most of them are.
cronk.
"And then when some new poster says expel'em all or something like that, the old timer posters get all puffy and castigate the guy who then writes off the anti-jihad movement as a bunch of suicidal PC wimps - which most of them are."
ReplyDeleteYes indeed, anonymous. And the Jihad Watch Comments regulars who call themselves "Phillip Jihadski" and "Angemon" are among the worst, in that they have expended over 100 comments combined over several months (if not a year or two) attacking me for my assertive advocacy & articulation of the deportation recommendation.
It's not about me: I'm not bothered because they attack me personally -- but I am angry (and my sense of civic duty is deeply offended) that their war-of-idea efforts are tending to push & promote the Soft approach to this metastasizing problem. I wouldn't bat an eyelash at a Soft approach out in the mainstream; but in the context of a discussion space within the Counter-Jihad, it is particularly aggravating & aggrieving.