In parts 1, 2, and 3, I focused on one longtime veteran commenter at Jihad Watch, one "PRCS", who epitomizes the Counter-Jihad Softy -- tough on the outside against Islam, nougaty soft on Muslims on the inside.
I promised in part 3 to examine the solitary Jihad Watcher (one "gravenimage") who deigned to try to take PRCS to task for his outrageous nougat. The verdict is, she did somewhat well, but missed key points and exposed herself as having some chewy nougat under her Counter-Jihad wrapper.
PRCS: Most American citizens don’t know that, but most Muslims (all Muslims, perhaps) do know what it actually means and what it entails.
Knowing that sunrise to sunset fasting—a tenet of Shariah—is mandatory for most Muslims during Ramadan, how many Muslims in America fast because they know they’re supposed to or because “barbaric sharia law” might—or even should—be imposed upon them for not doing so?
gravenimage: Who cares? No non-Catholic cares if Catholics are keeping Lent or not, and no non-Jew cares if Jewish people are fasting during Yom Kippur or not.
But it *is* an issue if lax Muslims are being threatened or punished by their more orthodox coreligionists–or if Infidels are also compelled to submit to Islamic diktats–this is, in fact, exactly what happens under Shari’ah law, where those flouting Ramadan fasting are often arrested or flogged.
Comment: While gravenimage is of course correct in her first paragraph, she slips up in her second paragraph when she mentions "lax Muslims" as a viable category; much less that (as she implies) it should be our problem if they happen to be "threatened" or "punished" by other Muslims for being "lax". First, we have no way of knowing which Muslims are truly "lax". Second, Muslims have been threatening and punishing (and killing) each other for centuries. Third, the Muslims being victimized by other Muslims are just as much our enemies as the ones victimizing them, since they all adhere to the ideology that sees us as the greater enemy to be subjugated.
PRCS: I don’t know if the poll’s failure to address that was done intentionally or was a mistake
But for the purpose of that poll, had Shariah been first defined as that “straight path”, rather than misrepresenting it as just a set of punishments, the respondents could then have been asked if “divine laws” which violate the U.S. Constitution and the laws which flow from it should be imposed—here—for straying from Islam’s straight path.
gravenimage: You may believe that Muslims replying to this poll were only referring to to the few unobjectionable aspects of Islam which are already legal under civilized law–but, with respect, I believe this is just wishful thinking.
Comment: Good reply from gravenimage.
PRCS: IMO, as the “perversion/hijacking of Islam” by a “tiny minority of extremists” nonsense has so misinformed the average Joe and Jane, so too did this poll.
gravenimage: Well, this seems contradictory. First you argue–rightly–that the “tiny minority of extremists” meme is nonsense, then imply that it is likely that only a minority of Muslims who say they want Shari’ah law actually want Shar’ah law.
Comment: Again, a good reply from gravenimage. But if she's savvy to this problem, her comment above about "lax Muslims" indicates she is finding an escape valve to let in the Moderate Muslim meme in through the back door, under another name with essentially the same function. And her failure to at least post one comment in my defense to "Angemon" who was, typically, pestering me for my robust complaints about the failure of the Jihad Watchers to take seriously the veritable para-miliatry invasion by Muslims of the West, indicates she's one of those Counter-Jihad Softies -- harder than most, perhaps, but still soft.
I will wind up my essay with a quote from my response to gravenimage on that thread, further fleshed out by another comment I wrote on that thread that sums the whole thing up. The reader should recall that at the time, my nickname was "voegelinian". (Incidentally, that summation I reiterated a thousand ways from Sunday for years in Jihad Watch comments, and yet still Angemon of the "Rabbit Pack" would pester me in hundreds of comments attacking me for my strong stance against Muslims, and the rest of his peers in that Rabbit Pack would ignore his attacks on me or even occasionally pitch in to throw tomatoes at me).
First, gravenimage quoted me:
The Counter-Jihad Softies (PRCS, Mirren, Angemon, gravenminage, Wellington, et al.) consistently and obtusely (not to mention outrageously given the mountains of data they are aware of reported here on Jihad Watch over the years) defend the latter [the "latter" here to which I referred are those who err on the side of generously assuming that not all Muslims should be equally suspect].
gravenimage then wrote:
Voegelinian, I have consistently urged that we rigorously enforce our *existing* laws in defense against Jihad–which we are *not* doing consistently now–before considering allowing Muslims to force us to change our laws, which would almost inevitably result in negative unforeseen consequences.
And I responded:
gravenimage must have missed the many times I have argued that the West does not need to change its laws. So on that we’re in agreement. What constitutes “enforcing existing laws” is where we disagree. And that understanding logically hinges on what one thinks we have to enforce existing laws against. Apparently, gravenimage doesn’t think the danger Muslims pose against us to be as grave as I do, else she wouldn’t be in disagreement with me. Same for the other Counter-Jihad Softies (though their degrees of nougaty softness varies — witness PRCS here, who is well nigh on a par with Daniel Pipes (recently raked over the coals by Pam Geller, the Logan’s Watch blog, and excellently by David Solway — http://pjmedia.com/blog/islam-versus-islamism-inside-the-mind-of-an-anti-anti-jihadist/).
Finally, here was my last word on the subject, at least on that day. After one of the Rabbit Pack, one "Wellington", summoned up one of the permutations of the Moderate Muslim in which the Counter-Jihad Mainstream tends to indulge (not the "lax Muslims" gravenimage adduced, but this time the "Muslims who don't know their own Islam"), I responded, after first quoting him:
If the West continues to think the numbers of Muslims who “don’t know their own faith” is a viable number of a high percentile (such as, for example, the giant chunks of either 49% or 40% indicated by this recent poll) which can be treated as though it were a known number affecting our continued tolerance of Muslims in our society in general, it would be to reinforce our collective suicide pact.
Speaking of those “who don’t know”: anyone thinking that our continued tolerance of Muslims in the West — any and all Muslims -- is not going to metastasize horribly in the coming decades, generating a hot world war within the West and millions of us mass-murdered by Muslims just doesn’t know the problem of Islam. At least those in the PC MC mainstream can plead Useful Idiocy; those in the Counter-Jihad who don’t know this -- and who don’t show they know this by putting two and two together -- have no excuse.
Postscript:
And notice how four of the Rabbit Pack members -- Angemon, Wellington, gravenimage, and Mirren -- react snidely and irritably when I point out that even though Wellington claims to be agreeing with me, his own words & argumentations for years prior to that showed to me (and I had repeatedly pointed that out over months at various Jihad Watch comments) that he didn't really grasp the full magnitude of the problem. Their reaction typifies the description I have given their Rabbit Pack: a "lynch-mob-cum-high-school-clique-of-hall-monitors".
“Wellington would be among those I mentioned who know the problem, but “don’t show they know this by putting two and two together””
Let me see if I get your “logic”: you claim that Wellington “knows” but he doesn’t “show” that he “knows” because he doesn’t do whatever it is you would have others do, but even though he doesn’t “show that he “knows” by doing whatever it is you would have others to do, you “know” he “knows”. Is that it?
Wait, or was it castigat ridendo mores? Meh, all the same, I guess.
Wellington said he was in essential agreement with you, voegelinian, but that just isn’t enough for you, is it ?