Editorializing on a recent headline reported at Jihad Watch in the wake of the latest Mohammedan outrage on the West in Brussels on Tuesday, March 22 -- UK man arrested for asking Muslim woman to “explain Brussels” -- Robert Spencer unfolds the following elbow spasms:
Arguably, Matthew Doyle was rude to confront a stranger, or even, in his later version, to ask her politely to explain something with which she had no involvement. He was clumsily expressing the frustration that many non-Muslims feel over the general failure of Muslim communities in the West to do much of anything to stop the jihad violence they say they condemn. Where, as I have asked hundreds of times, are their programs to prevent young Muslims from adhering to the Islamic State’s understanding of Islam? If they really reject that understanding, these should be everywhere.
To the first sentence there of Spencer's, I already responded in Jihad Watch comments earlier today (under my new nickname, "Fessitude"):
Is a Muslim’s “involvement” in a terror attack the only reason why we should be concerned about their continued presence in our society such that we would have a good reason to ask them for an accounting? Or is there not another good reason, about which, ironically, Jihad Watch has been amassing a mountain of researched & reported data going back some 13 years; a reason tantamount to involvement on the part of any and all Muslims with any and all terror attacks (not to mention a whole host of other horrid atrocities (e.g., the rape sex-slave gangs of the UK, the anti-semitic hate crimes all over Europe, the female genital mutilation, etc.))?
For, for one thing, Spencer is with gingerly sophistry (or, worse, he's being sincere) adhering scrupulously to the strict meaning of "involvement" to mean actual, material collusion with the actual, concrete planning and execution of the actual, concrete bombing that actually, concretely massacred people. This would be, of course, to pander to the Tiny Minority of Extremists meme of yesteryear, a meme supported only by abject idiots in the Western Mainstream (who, alas, still abound all around us) and its satellites in the non-Western non-Muslim world -- as though, as my comment indicates, such strictly construed "involvement" is our only concern with Muslims and the terrorism their global revival of jihad is deploying around the world and increasingly in the West.
Such a strict construction of the concern leaves out vast swaths of Ordinary Muslims. Leaves them out of what? Apparently, from what Spencer is implying, out of our daily and exigent concern. Or, if Spencer would, with gingerly sophistry, hasten to clarify (with prickly defensiveness) that he doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about the larger problem, we should just at least not do it "rudely" by importuning un-"involved" Muslims On the Street with our interrogations of otherwise reasonable concern.
Speaking of reasonable questions, this prompts one that screams to be asked: Why does Spencer even feel the need to say all this? As one eminent leader of the Counter-Jihad (such as it is), he should be pushing the diametrically opposite meme: no, not blatantly recommending to his readers that they accost random Muslims and ask them about Brussels; but rather, conveying in no uncertain terms that this man in the UK, Matthew Doyle, had a perfectly understandable reason to do what he did, because, in fact, a mountain of evidence researched, amassed and reported for some 13 years on Jihad Watch (among many other places) indicates overwhelmingly that any and all Muslims have, through their mainstream Islam, a cultural and ideological relationship to terrorism -- tantamount to involvement.
Indeed, that's the whole point, or should be, of the Counter-Jihad were it updated to reflect an optimal digestion of all the data it has been collecting: namely, that the problem of jihad (of which terrorism is the terrifying edge) involves a deep, broad and diverse multitude of factors, styles and tactics deployed & enbodied by Muslims sufficiently innumerable -- given the limitations of our ability to distinguish harmless Muslims from dangerous Muslims -- such as to make them indistinguishable from their total demographic.
That would be the proper meme Spencer at this late date should be promoting, rather than its nudgingly subtle opposite. After Brussels, the Counter-Jihad (not to mention the West of which the Counter-Jihad is the beleaguered Canary in the Coalmine) deserves no less.
Continuing our analysis of Spencer's thought process about Matthew Doyle, the earnest Western (i.e., non-Muslim) citizen who confronted a Muslim on the street to ask her to explain Brussels:
He was clumsily expressing the frustration that many non-Muslims feel over the general failure of Muslim communities in the West to do much of anything to stop the jihad violence they say they condemn. Where, as I have asked hundreds of times, are their programs to prevent young Muslims from adhering to the Islamic State’s understanding of Islam? If they really reject that understanding, these should be everywhere.
Well, Mr. Spencer, obviously we must reasonably conclude -- especially we who have been reading the mountain of evidence you have been amassing for over 13 years (not to mention you who have been doing the bloody amassing for Christ's sake!) -- that Muslims don't really reject jihad against us pursued through a combination of stealth and violence. And we must further reasonably conclude that when Muslims affect and/or protest innocence of their involvement in this jihad, they are lying to us -- indeed, they are pursuing precisely the stealth part of this jihad. Why is Spencer cultivating this curiously retrograde retardation of what should be our honest, intelligently derived conclusion and reaction to this mountain of evidence he himself has been amassing?
I've been asking myself that question for over a decade, and can only conjecture (but can't say for sure) that he is what I call a Christian Wilsonian. And Wilsonianism of any stripe reflects an operating system so old, it predates the electric typewriter, never mind the clunky desktop computer of the 80s.
No comments:
Post a Comment