Tuesday, January 30, 2018
Moving the goal posts -- or a paradigm shift?
Robert Spencer, the éminence grise of the Counter-Jihad, posted a report on his flagship site, Jihad Watch, of a recent Republican, Phillip Parrish, running for governor of Minnesota. What Spencer finds note- and newsworthy are two things: 1) what Parrish said, and 2) the reaction of a Muslim, Regina Mustafa, founder of some Taqiyya-Dawa organization, Community Interfaith Dialogue on Islam.
What did Parrish say?
Parrish said that “Islam, Sharia and the Quran are the antithesis of the U.S. Constitution.”
He said this in a communication to Regina Mustafa, after she emailed him and asked him to sit down with her to learn what true Islam is after she had learned that Parrish had sat down with an "outspoken critic of Islam", Usama Dakdok (more about him later). Parrish's response to Regina Mustafa also included his telling challenge to her to, according to the reporter for the PostBulletin, Heather J. Carlson, "publicly denounce Sharia law".
And what was the reaction of Regina Mustafa, the Islamopologist?
She said (apparently according to the reporter Heather J. Carlson) that
...Parrish's remarks demonstrate a lack of understanding about Islam. She said Muslims in America have demonstrated a respect for both the U.S. Constitution and their religion and his comments are unfair to the Muslim men and women who have served in the U.S. armed forces.
And what was Spencer's response?
Note the sleight of hand. Parrish said that “Islam, Sharia and the Quran are the antithesis of the U.S. Constitution.” In response, Mustafa “said Muslims in America have demonstrated a respect for both the U.S. Constitution and their religion and his comments are unfair to the Muslim men and women who have served in the U.S. armed forces.”
Parrish wasn’t talking about Muslims, he was talking about Islam. The two are conflated endlessly, but they are not the same, any more than Christians and Christianity are the same.
Was the Muslima's response merely "sleight of hand"? My essays on the need for a paradigm shift in the Counter-Jihad would beg to differ. It's not merely this one Muslima who is connecting a criticism of Islam with a criticism of Muslims. The entire Western mainstream does this, time and time again. And as sure as rain follows rain, Spencer complains about it, but doesn't engage the obvious logic that moves them to make this connection. If we in the Counter-Jihad are going to criticize -- or, more robustly, condemn -- Islam, how are we not also criticizing -- or condemning -- Muslims who affirm, defend, and enable Islam? The Leadership of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream has made a veritable industry out of avoiding this most central question, through an evasive tap-dance of sophistry, apparently motivated by an anxiety not to be branded as "racists" by the broader Western Mainstream. Or some of them actually believe the incoherent double-virtue-signalling they peddle.