"I'll have a cup of non-anti-caffeine decaf, please..."

In a Jihad Watch posting today, we got a glimpse of Robert Spencer's inner incoherence (which he keeps disguised from his followers -- though with a few wardrobe malfunctions they are too obtuse, or too slavish, to detect -- nowadays, at least, unlike several years ago when he actually engaged his civilian readership).  In a notice about a Muslim activist, San Diego State University professor Khaleel Mohammed, Spencer editorialized:

Professor Khaleel Mohammed of San Diego State University appeared in the film “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War With the West,” but then had the realization that he was aiding “Islamophobia” and repented publicly of his participation. Whether his coreligionists threatened him or he decided on his own to join the jihad, I do not know. 

It's difficult to bold only for emphasis, so numerous and clustered are the counter-jihad solecisms in that brief passage.

The first problem here that glares at us (at least those of us who are actually anti-Islam (which, when “actually,” means also anti-Muslim -- neither of which, by his own admission, Spencer is) is where he imputes a “realization” on the part of Prof. Khaleel Mohammed.  It is not reasonable -- nor judicious in light of the Counter-Jihad's main task to wake up the West to the danger of the global revival of Islam -- to indulge in speculation about any “realizations” a Muslim may or may not have; and most certainly not in the crucial context in which Spencer is indulging here: giving this particular Muslim the benefit of the doubt as to whether (“I do not know”) he might have, in the past, been working with us against “the jihad,” but “then” at some point in time changed his mind to “join the jihad.”

Spencer is also, of course, clearly implying here that not all Muslims have “joined the jihad” -- indeed, that many, if not most, have not.  How else are we to parse his recent statement that: “not all Muslims, or even a majority, are terrorists”...?  Would Spencer, if he were confronted with a question on this (and why hasn't anyone confronted him with questions like this? or why hasn't he volunteered to clarify himself?), try to say that “well, certainly many Muslims who are not engaged in terrorism are engaged in various forms of jihad”...?  But the screaming question then is, how many? and then, how do we tell the difference between the ones who are and the one's who don't seem to be because they're pretending not to, through taqiyya -- hence the “stealth jihad” he used to talk about a lot (but interestingly, doesn't anymore).?  Questions like this pretty much ruin any attempt to erect some useful category of Harmless Muslims We Can Trust.  Then Spencer might say (again, it would be nice if he would clarify this for the rest of us) that we can discern the difference through vetting.  But how reliable is vetting? And are we prepared to play Muslim Roulette with our children's lives on whether crafty Muslims can pass our vetting examinations? Etc.

P.S.: Indeed, Spencer's curious statement about Khaleel Mohammed which we quoted up top indicates that, before this particular Muslim insulted Spencer recently, he was apparently willing to take him at face value as an ally, because he participated in the famous Counter-Jihad documentary, Obsession: Radical Islam's War With the West -- and that, thus, this is another in a long line of Better Cops who fool the Counter-Jihad Mainstream.