Monday, January 25, 2016
The problem: Wahidism, not "Wahhabism"
Years ago, I coined a term, Wahidism, to denote the standard PC-MC-friendly, moderate Muslim Apologia that ever since 911, has become globally dominant (among Muslims and PC MC Westerners alike). It is named after the former President of Indonesia (died in 2009), Abdurrahman Wahid, who made a big deal about Islamic "reform". It is an Apologia that gives assurance to those anxiously suppressing their dread that Islam may be a horrifically broader and deeper problem than they wish it to be.
The other terms I came to use for those Muslims selling this bill of goods was the "Good Cop" -- and then, the "Better Cop" (the former calculated to fool the easily gullible Western Mainstream; the latter fine-tuned and recalibrated to fool the more difficult to deceive, because more alarmed & informed, Counter-Jihad).
Back in 2005, Abdurrahman Wahid penned a classic example of one or the other (depending on whom he fools), with one side of his mouth pretending to be serious about noticing problems among "Wahhabis" and other "extremists" in Islam; with the other, telegraphing the false hope that supposed moderate reformers like him exist in viable numbers to save the West from the former.
As I noted at the time, one proof (among 1,001 others one could cite) that PC MC has become dominant in the West is that the Wall Street Journal should give Wahid's apologia such a prominent venue (its Friday paper, the day it is most read for its news and commentary, the day of Friday sermons in the Stock Exchange). Another is exemplified by the Mu'tazilitism (to coin another word) of the ostensibly tough, no-nonsense analyst on the problem of Islam, the Catholic writer Robert Reilly who, as late as 2010, should think Wahid represents a hopeful type of Muslim -- and who, more importantly, the supposedly Counter-Jihad organization Frontpage should feature in a typically Glazovian softball interview.
Then we have Robert Spencer, luminary and éminence grise of the Counter-Jihad who, after he spent thousands of words in a Jihad Watch article ably diagnosing the holes in Wahid's sales pitch selling a Cadillac with no engine and four flat tires, takes our breath away by writing:
I am not saying that Wahid is trying to deceive us. But if he isn’t, he needs to address the obvious gaping holes in his analysis and recommendations.
Why isn't Spencer saying that Wahid is trying to deceive us? That is the eminently reasonable conclusion we all must come to, one that positively screams, with a desperately hoarse voice, to be declared.
Then old Wahid jihad-of-the-penned another article for another major Western media organ, The Washington Post. About this other specious tissue of sophistry, Spencer wrote the following, again after capably analyzing the seamy underside of Wahid's fancy moderation:
What peaceful Muslims like Wahid need to do is not spend their time writing articles in Western media outlets, but convincing the mujahedin. I am all for real moderate Muslims, but if I can see that a moderate’s account of Islamic teaching is inaccurate, a mujahid will certainly be able to also.
What Spencer says next (after assuming Wahid is a "peaceful Muslim") in the form of rhetorical questions, in their answers which he fails to proffer, holding his neutrality in abeyance (as he always seems to do) on this pivotal point, actually indicates his failure to exercise Zero Tolerance for All Muslims:
And if that moderate’s moderation won’t convince Muslims, what’s the point of it? To make non-Muslims feel better?
Yes, Robert, that's the point of the Good Cop's soothing bromides about an essentially benevolent Islam beneath its "extremist" mutations -- to assuage and fool the Westerner who is growing increasingly alarmed at Islam. Which, naturally, reveals that he is not, in fact, a "peaceful Muslim" and a "real moderate", as Spencer so recklessly and glibly assumes (just as he assumed more recently that Zuhdi Jasser's "heart is in the right place").
Spencer is good at dissecting the rhetoric of the Good Cops, but he's incompetent when it comes to the conclusion we must all come to, if the West is to survive. If even the Counter-Jihad cannot do this, this bodes mortally ill for the defense of the civilization it alone is (ineptly) spearheading.
In the comments section of the 2005 Jihad Watch article on Wahid, quite a few of the civilians weren't buying his fishy taqiyya. One of them posted a helpful list of uncomfortable facts about Wahid's long and illustrious political career in Malaysia.