What's wrong with this picture...? Part One.

 

"Texas: Women harassed for speaking out on Muslim preacher’s misconduct allegations" -- so a recent Jihad Watch report informs us.

Robert Spencer begins this posting with an apparently key quote from one of the female victims of this Muslim "preacher":

Said Laila Alawa, one of Khan’s accusers: “The reality is, speaking out as a woman can cost you your reputation, your job opportunities. It’s an insanely deep fear that we’ve taught our young women time and again with all the rhetoric around modesty and hijab. If you’re being told over and over that it’s the woman’s responsibility to be chaste, women are going to internalize it as their fault if they get harassed.”
[Note: "Said" is the Muslim woman's first name, not the English verb "Said"]

After this quote, Spencer inserts a pregnant pause in the form of a paragraph space, with the succinct impact of one word indicating his agreement & affirmation.

Yes.

After that, and a picture of the Muslim "preacher" (are there any Muslim "preachers" per se? Or are they not more accurately termed "clerics"?) sporting a ridiculously Amish or Abrahamic-Lincoln beard-with-no-moustache, Spencer launches immediately into reproducing the story as reported by a venue called "BuzzFeed" (which Wikipedia tells us is "an American internet media company based in New York City... a social news and entertainment company with a focus on digital media and feminism"):

“Women Are Being Harassed For Speaking Out About A Muslim Preacher’s Misconduct Allegations,” by Hannah Allam, BuzzFeed, September 29, 2017 

Once you get past the shirtless selfies and the “sugar daddy” boast, the scandal surrounding Muslim preacher Nouman Ali Khan is a rare window into how difficult it can be for Muslim communities to deal with claims of misconduct by leaders, especially when women are involved. 

Khan is a conservative, Texas-based teacher whose lively Qur’an lectures draw hundreds of thousands of fans to his stories blending modern-day scenarios with strict interpretations of scripture. He disapproves of men and women shaking hands, promotes marrying young, and chides Muslims who wear “skintight” clothes. Shocking claims that he abused his power to pursue relationships with women set off a nasty battle over how to handle allegations of religious leaders behaving badly. 

Last week, the accusations — along with screenshots of text messages and photos allegedly sent to women by Khan — portrayed him as an undercover ladies’ man who violated the rigid moral code he advocates.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

1. It's a story not about a Muslim victimizing non-Muslims (which is what the Counter-Jihad should be focused on), but rather a Muslim victimizing other Muslims (in this case, the female Muslims who attend his "sermons") -- and the story is clearly siding with the women and portraying them as sympathetic victims of this Muslim cleric's hypocritical violation of his own "conservative" values and "rigid moral code".  Such internecine Muslim-on-Muslim attacks, however, are only useful for us "in the Counter-Jihad" as specimens of the pathology of Muslim society which we can include in our arsenal of facts by which to wake up the majority of Westerners around us.

2.  Then we have the reporter's language throughout, here and there subtly massaging in the normalcy of the Muslim "community" in America.  This scandal, she says, is a rare window into how difficult it can be for Muslim communities to deal with claims of misconduct by leaders, especially when women are involved.  

3.  Not only is it implied that Muslims are a "community" woven into the fabric of American societies, but also that many (most? the vast majority?) Muslims are normal decent people who oppose this "conservative" extremism and the hypocrisy attendant upon it.

4.  Notwithstanding the implication in the article of a broad base of moral decency amongst Muslims, the reporter also implies, paradoxically, that it is extraordinarily difficult for all those decent Muslims to do the right thing -- though the reporter never explains how this intimidation by a tiny minority could exert so much successful influence on the vast majority.

5.  Let's back up here to note yet another thing wrong with this picture -- the name of the reporter: Hannah Allam.  Clearly it's an Arabic last name, juxtaposed to a Western-sounding name (although "Hannah" is a Hebrew name originally from the Old Testament, it has since become an unremarkably normative name for Western, mostly white, females).  Thus Robert Spencer, and by extension the Counter-Jihad, is relying upon a Muslim reporter for a spin which, as we see from the first four flaws listed above, subtly slips in between the lines the Good Cop/Bad Cop split -- thus reinforcing our already difficult-to-exorcize reflex to want to help the decent Muslims whom we assume exist in large numbers (many? most? the vast majority?).

This reflex, if it is not reversed, will be the primary reason for the doom of the West as we know it, and its reduction by the end of this 21st century into vast zones of killing fields, rampant violence, and a general breakdown in social order throughout the West -- all made possible by four factors:

1) The fanatical desire and blueprint in Islamic culture motivating the destruction of all societies that do not submit to Allah and His Prophet.

2) The ability of Muslims -- chiefly through having been allowed by us to infiltrate  & insinuate deep into the fabric of our society -- to implement a sufficient quantity & quality of violence in the West in order to finally bring us down, after about a century of planning.

3) The sufficient quantity & quality of this violence will be primarily through a concatenation of terror attacks of varying degrees of magnitude, ranging from small-scale "lone wolves" to small commando units roaming around, to medium-sized attacks, to spectacular attacks using chemical, biological, or suitcase nuke WMDs -- attacks as bad as or worse than 911.

And, last but not least:

4) Western Islamophobophobia.