Today, in a report titled London mayor Sadiq Khan: We must affirm that Muslims can hold Western values, or they'll join jihad groups published at that bastion of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, arguably one of the luminary heads of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, picks at the new Muslim Mayor of London, who repeats a by now tired cliché to counter the Counter-Jihad:
“We play straight into the hands of those who seek to divide us, of extremists and terrorists around the world, when we imply that it is not possible to hold Western values and to be a Muslim.”
Right out of the starting gate, Spencer begins by defensively defending Muslims. Of the Muslim Mayor's claim, Spencer asks the rhetorical question:
Has anyone actually done that?
I.e., Spencer is asking: Has anyone actually implied that it is not possible to hold Western values and to be a Muslim? As though it would be a bad thing to do so.
Spencer's question implies he is out of touch with some of his own supporters, who in various ways over the years robustly imply that very notion.
No wonder that Spencer employs a regular writer and editor for Jihad Watch, Christine Williams, who on 911 Eve no less, had the temerity to publish this:
Until Western ostriches wake up and recognize that to oppose Islamic supremacism, the worst enemy of human rights and democracy, is not remotely anti-Muslim...
Will Spencer ever be held to account for his position, or will his Sycophants Society forever let him off the hook? Someone in the Counter-JIhad (preferably not an Unwashed Civilian whom Spencer will just insult and ignore, but someone he can't ignore, someone higher up the Counter-Jihad food chain) needs to ask him a line of tough questions under a spotlight out of which he can't squirm.
The first question would be:
What does it mean to "be a Muslim"?
Follow-up questions would include:
Can an individual "be a Muslim" and not follow and support Islam? Walk us through what precisely that means, and how concretely that would play out. Oh, and Robert, while you're doing that, factor in Taqiyya, the False Moderate, and the Stealth Jihad -- and then tell us how your answer is relevant for the safety of our societies.
And a final question, Mr. Spencer:
What exactly is wrong with averring that "to be a Muslim" is tantamount to being unable to hold (let alone uphold) Western values?
P.S.:
On second thought, another question occurs:
Hey, you Counter-Jihad Civilians, what do you think of Robert Spencer defending Muslims like this?
4 comments:
Anonymous is mistaken. I never said Egghead is "welcome". What I have said is that I regard my comments sections as a sacrosanct area of free speech. The apparent fact that Egghead comments more than others is not relevant to that -- it could well be an artifact of other considerations: such as "nobody else is reading my blog" or "others in addition to Egghead read my blog, but apparently don't feel the need comment (although many people have commented on my blog)." I have already registered my disagreements with Egghead; but unlike fascists who censor people on their forums & blogs, I let people have their say -- no matter how often they do it, and no matter how much I disagree with it.
'They' proves conspiracy and intent, but 'we' all knew that already, didn't we?
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/09/19/discovery-2014-reddit-archive-platte-river-networks-paul-combetta-oh-shit-guy-requesting-tech-help-to-strip-vips-emails/#more-121868
Paraphrase of old drug commercial: 'This is your brain (normal egg). This is your brain on dope (cracked egg).'
Gotta love those 'normal' eggheads....
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/09/18/presidential-candidate-gary-johnson-just-grateful-that-nobody-got-hurt-in-new-york-and-minnesota-attacks/
Anonymous quotes me:
" I have already registered my disagreements with Egghead; but unlike fascists who censor people on their forums & blogs, I let people have their say -- no matter how often they do it, and no matter how much I disagree with it."
Then writes:
"Oh - ok. Got it. By that logic, you would have stopped years ago, from continuing to comment on JWatch, and on this shitty blog, about people who oppose your views, right? RIGHT?"
He doesn't see the difference between a person who has the power to censor, censoring people from speaking (or a person who wants those who have power to censor, to censor people) -- and a person who disagrees with people and voices his disagreement.
That's essentially an Islamic frame of mind, there.
In a free society, everyone has the freedom to speak their mind -- and that includes the freedom of some to disagree with or even denounce the views of others (and then those others can join in the fun and disagree and denounce right back at them, or just happily ignore them). That's not fascism.
Post a Comment