In the comments thread of a recent Jihad Watch report about a 20-something Italian female who converted to Islam then decided to join the Jihad in Syria and martyr herself in order to kill Unbelievers, a commenter, one "John A. Marre" (not part of the Rabbit Pack, those staunch counter-jihadists) very sensibly called for the deportation of anyone who converts to Islam; and he based this (implicitly) on the argument that such a conversion should be recognized by the West as an abdication of their citizenship, rendering them deportable.
(Of course, this would apply to any and all Muslims, not just Western converts to Islam; though this point was about Muslims who happen to be born in the West.)
Leave it to the Energizer Bunny of the Rabbit Pack, one "Angemon", to zoom in to pester the commenter with one of the standard, silly questions that inevitably bubble up to the surface as an expression of the gas in the brains of those in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream who seem to have difficulty connecting the dots they've been learning all these years from Jihad Watch.
Anyone who converts to that gutter religion has willingly given up
his or her citizenship, and has lost the right to live in the country
of their birth, and must be deported.
I've been through this point with Angemon many a time before, back when I was commenting on Jihad Watch myself. First off, his rhetorical question implies the preposterous notion that the Muslim who happens to be born in, say, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA, cannot physically be deported to any Muslim land outside of the West (there are no Muslim lands inside the West -- yet). More specifically, Angemon's rhetorical question implies that there exists no physical place in the world to physically deport said Muslim.
This is obviously, patently incorrect. There are, in fact, millions of square miles of real estate comprised by what is known as "the Muslim world", from Indonesia near the Pacific all the way to Morocco on the Atlantic. So why did Angemon put his question this way? He seems to be trying to conflate a physical impossibility (both of transporting the Muslim, and of relocating him to his new destination of deportation), with some kind of technical legal point. While doing so, he is through his rhetoric hiding the latter point in the clothing of the former point.
Once we disrobe that latter, technical-legal point and examine it, we find that it comes into dissonance with a competing point of Islamic jihad. To analyze this, however, seems to take more intelligence than Angemon is capable of. Indeed, Robert Spencer -- in the introduction to a recent report on Jihad Watch concerning how some Tunisians don't want Tunisian terrorists to return to Tunisia -- put the point rather well:
First, Spencer quotes the President of Tunisia who said:
“Many of them want to return, and we can’t prevent a Tunisian from returning to his country.”
Then Spencer made his point:
European authorities say the same thing about people whose roots in the country to which they wish to return are far less deep. The objection to this line of reasoning is that in joining the Islamic State... these Tunisians and Europeans have explicitly or implicitly declared their allegiance to the caliphate, a government that denies that Muslims owe loyalty to any other government, and considers itself to be at war with those other governments. They are, in effect, combatants of an enemy state, and should be treated accordingly.
(Naturally, Angemon posted a comment on that thread, blithely ignoring and avoiding Spencer's point -- the central point, in fact, of the whole report.)
The only problem I see with Spencer's comment is that Spencer does not go far enough to make explicit what remains implicit in his remark. Undoubtedly, Spencer would not make the logical extrapolation from his own logic and come to the logical conclusion: Namely, that all Muslims are deportable, not just "Islamists" or "jihadists". This is so, we must reasonably assume, because all Muslims, by virtue of being Muslims, have explicitly or implicitly declared their allegiance to Islam (joined at the hip to the Caliphate, which was dismantled by the West in 1923 against the will of Muslims worldwide and for which we must reasonably assume they all yearn to be restored) -- Islam, a trans-national ideological entity that denies that Muslims owe loyalty to any other government, and considers itself to be at war with those other governments. They are, in effect, combatants of an enemy state, and should be treated accordingly.
And we should add that their jihad against the rest of the world comprises many different styles & modes of warfare, the most common, perhaps, being that of stealth. And the jihad subset of stealth also involves many styles & modes; the most prevalent being what I have called the "Jihad of Just Being Here":
...merely settling in, setting down roots, getting jobs, raising families, having sandwiches, walking around in the streets, shopping, going to school, attending college, joining gyms, etc., all non-verbally telegraphing two amorphously pervasive messages:
1) "We're here, we are insinuating our threads into your cultural fabric, get used to it."
2) "See? We're not all 'extremists' -- in fact most of us are just moms and pops like you all. So please don't be a paranoid Islamophobe; rise above that to be a tolerant, unbigoted Westerner who can see past the intolerant rhetoric and can welcome Muslims into your society, the vast majority of whom mean you no harm."
And, of course, the ethical narcissism of the vast majority of Westerners, anxious to avoid being "bigoted" and "racist", dovetails perfectly with this implicit message.
