Friday, August 19, 2016

A Counter-Jihad Paradigm Shift

"Those Muslim countries that don’t do these things [amputations, stoning, etc.] don’t have a “more moderate interpretation” of Sharia. They just don’t fully implement its provisions."

This was Christine Williams, a new writer who has joined the Jihad Watch team as a frequent reporter and essayist.  She wrote this in response to a critical response to Trump's call in a recent speech in Youngstown, Ohio, to vet and screen out immigrants "who have hostile attitudes toward our country or its principles or who believe Sharia should supplant American law."

Part of that critical, PC MC complaint about Trump's call involved an argument that separates Muslims from Islam, through the claim that Islam's Sharia is diverse:

"Terror groups such as ISIS are trying to implement a brutal version of Sharia law, but millions of Muslims are guided by a much more moderate interpretation."

Again, here was the response from CJMer Christine Williams:

"Those Muslim countries that don’t do these things [amputations, stoning, etc.] don’t have a “more moderate interpretation” of Sharia. They just don’t fully implement its provisions."

Notice that she has transposed the PC MC claim about "millions of Muslims" into a point about "Muslim countries".  I've seen this many times: the concern of the Western Mainstream is really about Muslims, and how a putative mass of nice, harmless and innocent Muslims among them would be harmed if the West became too critical of Islam.  The response to this concern from the Counter-Jihad Mainstream tends to be to avoid or deflect this concern about Muslims and refocus back onto how bad Islam is.

The two Mainstreams thus are talking across each other, not really connecting.  The Counter-Jihad Mainstream has to decide which side it's on:  Does it agree with the Western Mainstream that "most Muslims just wanna have a sandwich"?  Or does it avow, based upon a mountain of evidence that is available out there, that we can't adequately discriminate among Muslims for the purposes of our society's safety and that thus we must consider them all to be suspect?  Instead, the Counter-Jihad Mainstream continues to try to straddle a middle position and hope, apparently, that its incoherent concern for Islam and not Muslims will somehow over time help to protect our societies from... Muslims.

Why does the CJM do this?  For one of two, or both, reasons:

1) They are anxiously afraid that the Western Mainstream might punish them (as if the Western Mainstream doesn't already demonize them and treat them as Neanderthal bigots anyway).

2) They themselves have latent PC MC instincts and reflexes, and themselves are anxiously concerned not to be bigoted and not to "tar all Muslims with a broad brush" -- and would thus rather put that overweening concern not to be bigoted above our society's safety.

Further Reading:

My essays on the paradigm shift needed for the Anti-Islam Movement.


Egghead said...

I imagine that 62 year old white American supermodel and positive 'thinker' Christie Brinkley (worth $80 million in 2008) is an example of an ostensibly 'good-hearted' and/or 'well-intentioned' Westerner regarding Muslims residing in the West.

Brinkley posts fairly standard condolences on every major Muslim current events' atrocity, so we know that Brinkley follows the international and national news.

We also understand that Brinkley is very well-traveled and has recently visited one or more African countries.

From her Instagram account, we see that one of Brinkley's artistic hobbies is to draw cute pictures in the foam of her morning latte. Recently, Brinkley drew a detailed picture of a frowning Muslima in a headscarf with the following caption:

'She knows what your (sic) thinking, so she returns the stare with sadness in her eyes. She loves America and the melting pot populace ..if only they understood she wears her hijab as a sign of modesty, privacy and morality...not malice.'

Brinkley's comment shows the depth of the psychological and spiritual problems with ostensibly 'good-hearted' and/or 'well-intentioned' Westerners who arrogantly 1) mind read both alien Muslims and fellow Westerners, 2) attribute the best motivations to alien Muslims - and THEMSELVES - and attribute the worst motivations to fellow Westerners (rather than only counterjihadists), and 3) seek to promote and protect the interests of alien Muslims at the direct financial, cultural, and physical safety expense of fellow Westerners - including themselves!

Egghead said...