Some GOVer (part of the commenting community at the counter-jihad community at Gates of Vienna) approvingly quotes in full an article by oily reformist Muslim Amir Taheri published at the New York Post, about the Paris attacks and what they "mean":
The jihadis’ master plan to break us
By Amir Taheri November 15, 2015 | 5:40am PARIS — Still under shock from Friday night’s terror attacks... blah blah blah...
[For the full camelshit, see this]
In that steaming pile of feeling our pain, Amir coins (or retails) such silly phrases as "neo-jihadi".
In subsequent comments, Gates of Vienna co-owner Dymphna comments on this, as does another GOVer, RonaldB, at some length (I recall him as a dubious Softy from Jihad Watch comments), both seemingly impressed by Amir's Islamopologese -- or at the very least indicating not a shred of sense of seeing the Good Cop ploy being spun by Taheri. Thus RonaldB wrote, sounding all no-nonsense and expert in a State-Dept. sort of way: “The big difference between neo-Jihad and jihad, as you pointed out, is that jihad, as expounded by theorists such as Sayub Qutb and S.J. Malik, is that jihad envisions a movement towards traditional war, while neo-jihad describes an eternity of pinpricks, until the infidel submits through pure exhaustion. ”
Meanwhile, Dymphna seemed impressed by Amir Taheri's coinage (or usage) of the silly term “neo-jihadi” (or if she didn't, she showed no sign of a reasonable cynicism).
My response:
The “neo-jihadi” is doing this only because Muslims currently can’t mount a conventional military invasion—not because they don’t want to or wouldn’t in a Constantinople Minute if they could. This terminology of “neo-jihad” and “Islamo-apocalyptic jihad” by the Good Cop “Reformist” Muslim pundit Amir Taheri smacks of distancing these attacks -- and “modern” Mohammedan terrorism in general -- from garden-variety ordinary mainstream Islam.
Better to dust off Ecclesiastes along with Sun Tzu’s The Art of War and remind ourselves that, especially with Muslims, “there’s nothing neo- under the sun”.
And secondly, don't take advice from any Muslim -- reformist or otherwise -- unless you remember at all times while you are using him that you are, indeed, his enemy and thus he is your enemy: no less than, and for the same reasons as, the “extremist Salafists” and “radicalized Islamists” and “neo-jihadis” he pretends to condemn.
By the way, if there were any doubt about Amir Taheri's dubious counter-jihad cred, a few essays at Jihad Watch by Spencer & Fitzgerald should suffice to disabuse -- prompting the question, don't the counter-jihadists at Gates of Vienna read the counter-jihadists at Jihad Watch...???
Conclusion:
Whether a given Muslim "reformer" or "moderate" qualifies as a Good Cop or a Better Cop depends on what audience he is fooling. If he is only fooling the PC MC mainstream but not the Counter-Jihad, then he's only a Good Cop. If, however, his presentation is sufficiently slick and oily with soothing emollients and he's so good at whispering sweet taqiyya in our ears and reaching into our pants to fondle our genitals that he begins to fool many in the Counter-Jihad (e.g., Maajid Nawaz with his new partner Sam Harris), then he rises above the standard-issue garden-variety Good Cop to become a Better Cop. Apparently, Amir Taheri has fooled at least part of the Counter-Jihad, Gates of Vienna, as I have seen no evidence of any criticism whatsoever of him there as a taqiyyist, but quite a few references to him as a source of useful information (see this Google search). That would indicate that his career as a Better Cop looks hopeful.
Postscript:
On Jihad Watch today, Spencer relays a report of a Muslim scholar from the UK who has condemned the Paris attacks, and subsequently has received many death threats from fellow Muslims. The report from the UK news outlet MailOnline describes him as a "father of two from Belfast, who is a devout Muslim". In Spencer's brief introductory remarks to the piece, he implies that he believes this Muslim scholar is a sincere reformer:
Here is yet another episode in our never-ending series, Why We Don’t See More Sincere Muslim Reformers.
Spencer's sentence there doesn't imply the kind of zero tolerance the counter-jihad should be cultivating, but rather leaves a door open for considering the idea, and useful existence, of the "sincere Muslim reformer".
All a reasonably intelligent and informed person has to do to blow that out of the water is to consider the fact that this Muslim is a) a Muslim, b) a Muslim scholar, and c) a devout Muslim. Those three facts are devastating to any shred of a hope that he could ever in a zillion years be a sincere reformer. This Muslim scholar would either have to be strangely brain-damaged and profoundly compromised psychologically (in which case, what kind of an ally would he be) in order to perform the feat of continuing to revere Muhammad and the Koran -- both of which massively promote the very same violence the world saw Muslims perpetrate in Paris which this Muslim scholar is condemning -- or he would be lying to us.
There is no third alternative. It seems far more likely that Door #2 is the most screamingly reasonable choice. We in the Counter-Jihad should be jumping up and down to choose it without a second thought in a New York Millisecond after we have "come on down" to be near Bob Barker (PBUH) and his long-stemmed microphone.
(And I don't even want to dip into the Jihad Watch comments to that article, knowing I'm going to find the majority, when they are not just beating their chests in anti-Islam braggadocio that avoids a zero tolerance for all Muslims, expressing admiration for this Muslim scholar's "courage" and wishing there were more good Muslims like him. My special plastic-lined barf bag hasn't been shipped to me yet by Fed-Ex...)
Further Reading:
Better Cops