Monday, December 10, 2018

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DK5dx3xUIAAYW3k.jpg

Nigel Farage quits UKIP because its leader “seems obsessed with Islam, not just Islamic extremism, but Islam” 

So ran a recent Jihad Watch headline, followed by brief editorial remarks written by Robert Spencer.

Nigel Farage, it should be reminded, is a “conservative” politician of the UK and one who inspired great hope among anti-liberals for his Brexit stance -- only underscoring (yet again) how the problem of the problem is not merely a “Leftist” phenomenon (as Spencer incessantly implies).

What I found ironic was Spencer's sternly firm stance here, built upon an apparent case of temporary amnesia of his own deftly waffling non-position on this very same issue. Here's what Spencer wrote:

...how does Farage propose to separate “Islamic extremism” from “Islam”? ... It’s astonishing that Farage could be so short-sighted.

Let's refresh Spencer's memory here. He has, for example, used the term political Islam (as has his colleague, Christine Douglass-Williams, featured frequently on Jihad Watch) as though that means anything pertinent in this regard and is not rather performing the same function as other similar locutions -- like the “Islamic extremism” of Farage he is poking fun at.

Oops!

Sunday, December 9, 2018

You call this a cup of coffee we're supposed to wake up and smell...?

Image result for bastard coffee

A recent Jihad Watch headline telegraphs Robert Spencer taking issue with someone publishing at his friend & colleague David Horowitz's flagship site, Frontpage.com:

Brian Kilmeade: Barbary pirates who fought US in Jefferson era had “bastardized the Qur’an” 

Brian's essay is a rather sophomoric rant with little grounding. Aside from the howler of a Counter-Jihad solecism pointed out by Robert, when Brian gets to the money quote -- what the Muslim ambassador told Thomas Jefferson in answer to Jefferson asking him why Muslims were attacking Western ships, stealing their cargo and killing and/or enslaving their crews -- Brian reproduces a quote wildly divergent from even the inaccurate versions I found when, back in the Spring of Ought Nine, I took the time and trouble (unremunerated, naturally) to track down the actual quote in a credible source. (And of course, nary a peep from Robert about this; and I'd even bet money his new vaunted best-seller on the history of Islam still gets the quote wrong, as have all other popularizers out there, it seems.)

See my results:

I Struck Gold! Second Addendum to Primary Sources 101

Even more details, in another essay written at about the same time:

Primary Sources 101 and the Blogospheric anti-Islam Movement

Saturday, December 8, 2018

Sweet sugar or sweet coffee?

Related image

In the vaguely disorganized Counter-Jihad Movement, we see civilians among the Readership occasionally standing up to asseverate that the (unfortunately) common locution "radical Islam" is wildly unhelpful if not actually counter-productive, since it strongly implies that ordinary non-"radical" Islam is hunky dory (if not also peachy keen).

Being a student of the English language, I know that sometimes an adjective distinguishes a noun, and sometimes it just highlights its already essential nature. I don't know the technical grammatical term for these two types of adjectives, but we can illustrate it with the following:

When we say "sweet sugar" we are not distinguishing a sweet sugar from a non-sweet sugar, since we know that all sugar is sweet. We are just embellishing, sort of poetically -- adding a bit of frosting (pun intended) -- when we put it that way.

When, however, we say "sweet coffee" we are indeed distinguishing a particular cup (or pot) of coffee from other coffees that are not sweet(ened).

So "radical Islam" is a redundancy, like saying "sweet sugar". Of course most who employ this term (in both Mainstreams) don't mean it as a redundancy at all, but as a qualifier, distinguishing it from a broader Islam that (it is obviously understood) is not "radical".

Perhaps the more apposite analogy of a redundancy for Islam would be "poisonous arsenic".

Capisce?

Monday, December 3, 2018

Mirror-image Mainstreams

Image result for escher coffee

The two Mainstreams I have in mind are the broader Western Mainstream, dedicated to defending Islam and the vast majority of Muslims (other than a Tiny Minority of Extremists who are trying to "hijack" Islam); and the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, still behind the curve on the Problem (of Islam) and the Problem of the Problem -- namely, the secondary problem of the aforementioned Western Mainstream in denial about the main problem (of Islam).

I couldn't have found a more exquisite representation of the interlocking, mobius-strip resemblance between these two Mainstreams -- not even had Maurits Cornelis Escher (1898-1972) himself (or his pen-&-ink-wielding Cousin Itt Doppelganger) penned it -- than the one I hit upon in Jihad Watch, penned (naturally) by the Dean & Don of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, Robert Spencer.

Editorializing on a story about Muslim jihadists killing what appears to be other Muslims in Mozambique, Robert says:

The fact that Islamic jihadists kill Muslims has led many Western analysts to conclude that the jihadists are not actually Muslim, since the Qur’an forbids Muslims to kill other Muslims (4:92). But heresy, apostasy, and blasphemy carry death sentences in Islamic law, and so Muslims of differing sects have frequently killed each other... [bold emphasis mine]

Robert is correct -- this is what the broader Western Mainstream does. What he and his followers seem oblivious to, however, is their own mirror image of this specious reasoning:

The fact that Islamic jihadists kill Muslims has led many in the Counter-Jihad to conclude that the Muslim victims of the jihadists are not jihadists also.

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Another asymptotic twitch...?

Image result for asymptote cafe

Hugh Fitzgerald, a veteran Counter-Jihadist who used to be “Vice-President” of Jihad Watch and contributed many prolix perorations there in the old days, then mysteriously disappeared -- then has returned and remains there -- is the reason (if memory serves me) I developed the term “asymptotic” in the first place. 

One can consult the links contained within the link above for more detailed descriptions of what I mean by this, but in a nutshell it means “getting closer and closer to a thoroughly anti-Islam position but never quite arriving there”.  The asymptotic analyst, then, is better than the run-of-the-mill analyst still laboring under the broader Mainstream framework of a Tiny Minority of Extremists Who Are Hijacking Islam, and is better even than many others in the Counter-Jihad; yet for some reason can't quite translate the logic of the dot-connection into the holistic position I have succinctly defined as “the problem is Islam and all Muslims enable Islam”.

Anywho, in a recent multi-part series about Gerard Batten of the UKIP, Hugh points out more than once that Batten has been criticized by Nigel Farage for being too preoccupied with the problem of Islam -- clearly implying that, on this point, Farage is in the wrong and Batten in the right.

Then Hugh has to manifest this asymptotic twitch:

...his interviewer, one Gillian Joseph, expressed her distaste and disbelief. She first described his appearance at what she called an “anti-Islam rally.”

Batten promptly corrects her: “It was not an anti-Islam rally, but a rally for justice for women and girls.”

 Clearly, Hugh approves of Batten “promptly correcting” her impression that this rally was anti-Islam -- for, Heaven forbid it should be anti-Islam!

We're nearing the end of 2018, and a leading member of the Leadership of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, plus a leading politician with one foot proudly in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, both still recoil like shrinking violets from affirming clearly and boldly their opposition to Islam. No wonder I've grown pessimistic over the last couple of years.



Monday, November 26, 2018

The Brown leading the Brown

Related image

A recent headline on Jihad Watch:

UK: Meghan Markle supported community kitchen in mosque linked to 19 jihadis 

Megan Markle being the Duchess of Sussex, recent wife of Prince Harry, one of the sons of the Queen of England.

Markle made a splash partly because she's the first Brown Person (though with decidedly white, coffee-with-cream appeal) to marry into the Royal Family.  Her virtue-signalling here -- using a mosque as a soup kitchen to help feed the poor -- indicates that she's not the one doing the leading, but that Muslims (the #1 Brown People of the world) are leading her by the nose (emblematic of how they are leading the entire West by the nose).

Further Reading:

The Muslim: The New Black and the New Jew 

The Race Factor: Reality, and political reality

Color Blindness

Saturday, November 24, 2018

Another "Better Cop" -- or a new "Best Cop"...?

Image result for good cup/bad cup of coffee

There can't, of course, be more than one "Best Cop" Muslim, since "best" as a superlative denotes a unique Muslim -- by definition, only one -- putatively the best of all the Taqiyya Artists.  I've bumped into a couple of such Muslims over the years, and at least once I analyzed the issue; but I still can't decide yet which one of them would take the crown.

At any rate, here's the latest candidate in the running:  Imam Sheikh Mohammad Tawhidi -- who, as Philip Haney (publishing a piece on Jihad Watch) informs us, is “an Iranian-born Shia scholar who openly campaigns against Islamic extremism" and is known in Australia as the ‘Imam of Peace’.”

What Haney should have said is, “pretends to openly campaign against Islamic extremism” in order to fool stupid Westerners into thinking he is actually a “moderate” or “reformist” Muslim.

What reformist stunt did this Sheikh Tawhidi do to merit his candidacy for “Best Cop”?  He filmed himself (or obviously had someone film him) walking into the prayer room at the Melbourne airport (the second busiest airport in Australia, Haney also informs us) and pointing out that among the other harmless books there (e.g., a Bible), lay a most sinister volume titled “Fiqh Us-Sunnah” (“the Law and the Way”).  The seemingly dapper Sheikh then starts thumbing through the volume and pointing out sections in it to the camera:

“...page 19 -- Jihad; page 59 -- taking hostages at war; page 48 -- Jizya, making the Infidel pay money, Islamic taxes; 228 -- martyrdom...”

The Sheikh tells his audience that such books could “radicalize” Muslims, and he says he has done his part to alert us, now it's up to us to do something about this -- presumably to interdict the availability of such books to the public.

What Philip Haney meticulously demonstrates  in his article is that this book's extremist content -- which the Sheikh pretended to be alarmed at -- is perfectly normative in mainstream Islam.  So this Better Cop Muslim, Imam Sheikh Mohammad Tawhidi, performed the deft feat of a Two-Fer:

1) he massaged the meme of the specious distinction between Extremism vs.Mainstream Islam (his own Islam)

2) by doing so through this stunt (pretending to exercise his civic duty here), he massaged the impression that he's a Muslim with a conscience who is concerned about radical Wahhabist Salafist Islamist extremism.

#1 by itself would qualify him as a by-the-numbers garden-variety Good Cop Muslim (defined as such by being able to fool the Western Mainstream already predisposed to believe that most Muslims are relatively good people who just wanna have a sandwich).  #2 is good enough to earn him a Better Cop Muslim badge, to the extent that there are people in the Counter-Jihad stupid enough to believe that any Muslim who makes reformist claims is not double-talking taqiyya -- the stupidity here being their apparently inability to see that #2 is dependent upon #1 (which by itself would make anyone in the Counter-Jihad fall off their chairs laughing).

The measure of whether a Muslim propagandist is a Good Cop, a Better Cop, or the Best Cop depends on the audience he fools. If he only manages to fool the broader Western Mainstream, he's just a Good Cop.  If he manages to fool some in the Counter-Jihad, he begins to surpass the Good Cop and becomes a Better Cop. Another way to put this (the more cynical, but I think realistic way) is that a Muslim is only "Better" when a certain number of people in the Counter-Jihad are guillible enough to believe he's sincere. Sure, he has to have more talent than a Good Cop -- he has to be able to juggle more balls and pull rabbits out of his hat with more smoke & mirrors -- but ultimately his whole magic trick depends on pockets of weakness and gullibility in his target audience.  A "Best Cop" then would be a Muslim who has succeeded in fooling a remarkably high number of people in the Counter-Jihad -- he wouldn't necessarily have to fool all of us.  Time will have to tell to determine if this Sheikh Tawhidi qualifies, but from the comments attached to Philip Haney's article, I don't see anything remarkable per se, even if he does qualify certainly as a Better Cop.

While it was nice to see Philip Haney publish on Jihad Watch, as he is one of the rare Counter-Jihadists who seems to have hardly any “asymptotic” tendencies, as I have called them; and his piece was an excellent analysis of the central problem manifested by this Sheikh's stunt -- namely, that the "extremist literature" the Sheikh was doing his civic duty in flagging is actually literature that is part of the normative mainstream Islam the Sheikh himself supports -- Haney himself evinced an asymptotic twitch when he wrote:

“... Imam Tawhidi should certainly be commended for his refreshing courage and honesty (i.e., If You See Something, Say Something), but it also casts a spotlight on an ominous, unavoidable dilemma for [1] Muslim leaders like him, as well as for [2] the global Islamic community...”

And when a commenter (“thebigW”) called him on this --

He should even more certainly be commended for fooling Philip Haney. Is there a category in the Oscars for “Best Taqiyya”? Someone submit the Imam’s video to the Academy.

--  Haney responded to that commenter thusly:

It’s not that I’m fooled; just the opposite. That’s why I referred to See Something, Say Something (it’s an inside joke, which you’ll see better if you look up my book, See Something, Say Nothing. However, if Muslim leaders actually acknowledged that mainstream Islamic teaching is a threat to National Security, that would be an improvement, right? 

thebigW then responded:

Only a few of them might like this Imam Tawhidi, but most will continue to lie, and so our general confusion will continue while we slowly boil to death like the proverbial frog in the fairy tale (and the few of them who do will do it like Imam Tawhidi, in such a way as to continue the confusion, not clear it up).

That Haney says he's not fooled is a good sign; however, in terms of his rhetorical presentation, he is to some degree contributing to the “confusion” astutely alluded to by thebigW.

P.S.: This isn't the first time I've spotted asymptotic cracks in Philip Haney.