The eminent CJM analyst Robert Spencer, in an otherwise fine analysis of an interesting op-ed by the online Leftist dish-rag Salon, at one juncture has to have an elbow spasm of asymptotic reflex:
"Obviously an uncomfortable number of Muslims do in fact have something to do with terrorism, and the fact that many do not..." [bold emphasis added]
Hang on a second, there. Not so fast.
First of all, it's not a "fact" that many Muslims do not have something to do with terrorism; it's an inferential supposition.
Unless by "fact" Spencer means an axiomatic conclusion not based on direct evidence...
Secondly, could Spencer be any vaguer than "something to do with terrorism"...? Given that all Muslims -- in one way or another through the various forms of jihad -- promote the ideological worldview (mainstream Islam) which is the inspiration, raison d'être and blueprint of terrorism, it becomes problematic, to say the least, to posit a demographic, however amorphous one wants to make it in order to squirm out of the obligation to provide evidence for it, that is supposed to "have nothing to do with terrorism". At best, such a demographic would have to comprise that elusive subcategory of Muslims-Who-Are-Not-Really-Muslims. (Which brings up the nagging little question, How would we know such a Non-Muslim Muslim when we see one? Perhaps when they are drinking beer? Oh -- woops...!)
֍ ֍ ֍ ֍ ֍
2 comments:
Hey look, here were some Muslims who weren't really Muslims, too!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
Here we go:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/248503/muslim-leaders-australia-say-banning-terrorism-daniel-greenfield
Post a Comment