"Not all Muslims are jihadists..."

 

"Not all Muslims are jihadists..."

That must have been a quote from the MSM, right?

Wrong. It was written by one of the owners of one of the major Counter-Jihad blogs on the Internet -- Gates of Vienna.  The writer is Dymphna who, along with her husband Baron Bodissey, runs a site that often is quite useful and informative, particularly of the European scene with regard to the problem of Islam.  Not only did Dymphna write that strange sentence, in the comments field of an article posted by her husband ("Syllogislam" -- more about that in a subsequent post), she wrote it as an anxious corrective to a reader who dared to say that:

In my mind, and I believe in reality, there are no non-muzlim jihadists, so the the set of all jihadists is identical with a subset of all muzlims. 

And in her immediately preceding response to another commenter, she adds this relic of fossilized data from an (what should be) outmoded paradigm:

The 2011 study done by the Middle East Forum did find that 20% of American mosques do not preach jihad. And current day jihad is largely driven by Wahhabist doctrine.

Apparently, Dymphna has a narrow definition of jihadists as "practitioners of violent jihad".  It's also apparent that she thinks non-violent (and non-"Wahhabist") jihad is benign.  Or does she even believe non-violent jihad exists at all -- such as Jihad of the Pen and of the Tongue: taqiyya propaganda & sophistry deployed to wage Stealth Jihad, the seditious infiltration that is preparatory to a (scale of) violent jihad which Muslims may at the time think unpropitious? Does she even know about the Stealth Jihad at all?  Or maybe she thinks the only Stealth Jihad afoot is "Wahhabist" (and a "twisting" or "hijacking" or normative mainstream Islam)?  To all of these deadly nuances Dymphna seems oblivious.

The finding she adduces from the Middle East Forum -- that 20% of American mosques do not preach jihad -- should be preposterous to anyone who has been studying the problem of Islam for the past 15 years (as I reasonably assume Dymphna and her husband have been doing). Teaching/preaching Islam without Jihad would be like teaching orthodox Christianity without the Incarnation or without Salvation.  Again, Dymphna's conception of what jihad means must be so constricted, she assumes, apparently, that it's not there when the Muslims in question are not vociferating the takbir and lighting a bomb-fuse.

Some correctives to this benighted view (all too common in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, I'm afraid) could do worse than consult some of my previous essays in this regard:

Which Muslims are not Islamic?

What's the difference between a "Muslim" and a "Jihadist"?

Are all Muslims jihadists?

Coherence and Counter-Jihad

The problem is not Muslims, but only "jihadis"...?