Naturally, I've seen many comments and remarks over the years within the Counter-Jihad Mainstream indicating that they actually believe a Muslim can be a Muslim all his life, and hail from a thoroughly Muslim country teeming with Islamic extremism (i.e., teeming with normal, baseline, mainstream Islam), and yet somehow be a "moderate".
All a Muslim has to do, apparently, is say the right things -- whisper sweet taqiyya in our ears -- and we gush like a schoolgirl and accept them at their word. This process of deception -- and gullibility -- of course is far worse in the broader Western Mainstream, besotted as it is with PC MC; but my point is that it still occurs all too often, in various ways, even within the Counter-Jihad. Which is why I call it the "Counter-Jihad Mainstream".
So, along came Egyptian military man and politician, Al-Sisi, in the wake of the "Arab Spring" turmoil in Egypt, ousting and replacing the Bad Cop Egyptian Leader, Morsi; and because Al-Sisi knows how to up the game to fool the warier in the West who are beginning to weary of the standard-issue Good Cop routine so many Muslims still deploy, many in the Counter-Jihad swooned. I've seen disturbing signs that, for example, someone in the Counter-Jihad as bright even as Stephen Coughlin will turn around and talk as though he actually trusts Al-Sisi to be telling the truth, rather than taqiyya, when he affects moderation and feels our pain about "Islamist extremism". Meanwhile, Robert Spencer, as usual, dances his dance in between trusting Al-Sisi and being skeptical.
Thus we have a report on Jihad Watch on Al-Sisi vowing to fight the extremists in his country, Egypt, after the horrific terror attacks against two churches occurred this week. The reliably soft analyst on Spencer's team, Christine Williams, notes:
Sisi has mastered the gift of words, but apparently not action.
And she proceeds to detail evidence that violence and hatred by Muslims against Christians has continued in Egypt, even under Sisi's rule. But this should surprise no one, least of all in the Counter-Jihad. That is, if the rule of thumb in the Counter-Jihad were to "trust no Muslim no matter what", instead of wasting our time searching around for evidence to show that a given Muslim does not deserve our trust.
Virtually the only person in the Counter-Jihad not taken in by Al-Sisi, it seems, is Andrew Bostom. Four articles he wrote about Al-Sisi indicate that once again, a rational prejudice against Muslims qua Muslims is the way to go. Merely by linking those articles here and now, I cannot avoid getting sucked into the "logic of vetting" -- which assumes that there is some reliable way to determine whether a given Muslim is, or is not, trustworthy. My citation of Bostom here is not meant to try to prove Al-Sisi is a lying Muslim (i.e., an ordinary Muslim), since I don't believe one should have to even try to go through that exercise.
All I can hope for, as I continue re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic here, is that readers in the Counter-Jihad will wean themselves away from the baby steps of milk & sugar pablum (i.e., needing evidence to prove a given Muslim is not to be trusted), to a more radical framework: rational prejudice against all Muslims.
Andrew Bostom's four articles on Egyptian General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi:
Al-Sisi’s 2006 Mini-Thesis Obtained by a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act Request (Albeit Some Hours After It Mysteriously Appeared Online at Foreign Policy)
Why Egyptian Putschist General Al-Sisi’s Anti-Secular U.S. Army War College Thesis Matters
Sisi Is Just Another Caliphate-Idealizing Apologist For Islam Whose In-Actions Speak Louder Than His Hollow Words
Taqiyya Theater? General al-Sisi’s August 2013 Wash Post Interview vs. His 2006 US Army War College Thesis
The reliable analyst, Chris Logan over at Logan's Warning, has also seen through Al-Sisi. Funny how so many in the Counter-Jihad can't adjust their brains with the simple principle in mind, trust no Muslim, no matter what he says.
Over two years ago, Logan penned a useful essay on the matter. He begins with an incisive observation, articulating the relevant key to the whole matter:
All it takes is for a Muslim to say something non-Muslims want to hear, and many in the non-Muslim community come running in support. If one of them says Islam does not condone terrorism, or that Islam will reform they are mistakenly paraded around as the “savior” of the free world.
Logan goes on to note certain Muslims who fit this bill; though Logan doesn't seem to have refined the analysis into a taxonomy of types of deceitful Muslim, which I have analyzed at length in several essays revolving around the "Better Cop" phenomenon. Indeed, one Muslim noted by Logan in that essay is one of the classic Better Cop Muslims par excellence out there -- Zuhdi Jasser. And again, Logan is one of the precious few in the Counter-Jihad who is not fooled by Jasser.
Logan then turns to Al-Sisi, and notes dismayingly how even Pam Geller (a loyal partner of Robert Spencer's over the years, right up to the present) was suckered by his Better Taqiyya:
Today’s “moderate” Muslim rage is all about the President of Egypt Al Sisi, and I know she has done some excellent work with her transit ads, but of all people Pamela Geller should have known better.
Logan quotes some of her gushing statements about Al-Sisi:
Egypt’s President Sisi: A Titan For Freedom in the Islamic World Calls for Reformation of Islam
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi gave an extraordinary, groundbreaking speech on Islam on New Year’s day.
And so forth.
Sisi, ISIS; however you spell it, it's all the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment