Expanding on a recent headline from the news in Australia --
"Australia: Islamic State jihadi Khaled Sharrouf first to lose citizenship under anti-terrorism laws"
-- Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch wrote:
There. Was that so hard? The idea that these enemy combatants should be welcomed back after they have joined up with an entity that has repeatedly declared that it is at war with the West is beyond absurd, but it is the prevailing view in Europe and North America.
What Spencer doesn't note is that it's also the prevailing view in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream.
Members of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream -- whether leadership or civilians -- only manage to proudly distinguish themselves from the broader Mainstream West by patting themselves on the back for being oh so robust in their condemnations of Islam. But when it comes to recognizing that it is Muslims who put Islam into action, that this "action" involves not only front-line terrorism but also the diverse & amorphous stealth jihad, that this stealth jihad in turn involves diverse tactics of taqiyya, and that adherence to Islam constitutes perpetual sedition and warfare against the rest of the world (lasting 1,400 years and now undergoing global revival after a short period of weakness) -- members of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream fail to develop the logical conclusion of their growing knowledge of Islam.
That logical conclusion is that any and all Muslims, by virtue of the nature of their Islam, cannot be citizens of any polity that does not reflect total submission to Allah and His Prophet. Therefore, all the Muslims upon whom the West has, in its ignorance of Islam, disastrously conferred citizenship, never really had that citizenship in the first place.
I.e., there is no citizenship there to "strip". The only thing that needs to be stripped is the West's PC MC framework, by which a Muslim can preposterously become a citizen of a non-Islamic polity.
Note that Robert Spencer can be so bold because of the way he frames the issue: this was a 'jihadi' from whom Australia stripped citizenship; not just a garden-variety Muslim who just wants to have a sandwich. About that latter problem, Spencer, and the rest of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream have, apparently, nothing to say, so intent are they on skirting this very substantial point.
And as long as they do so, they will be talking past the broader Mainstream of fellow Westerners -- whom we need to persuade if our civilization is to last beyond this century.
Further Reading:
Relevant previous essays.
1 comment:
It's not just the loyalty to Islam uber alles: the very presence of Muslims in Infidel societies tends to give them a statistical voice that then gets taken up by the likes of Islamic supremacist groups that claim to represent them, w/o rebuttal.
As Hugh once put it, the presence of Muslims in the lands of the Infidels has, without question, already led to a state of affairs for the indigenous Infidels, and for non-indigenous non-Muslims (Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Sikhs, Taoists, Confucians et al) to lead lives that are often far more unpleasant, unsettled, expensive, and dangerous, than they would be without the presence of Muslims -- "moderate" or "immoderate" in their beliefs, with the former always in danger, after some personal setback, of transforming into the latter, with all that that implies.
Post a Comment