Andrew Bostom, about whom I've written on this little ol' donut shop of a blog, as well as more copiously on my erstwhile flagship, The Hesperado, is an excellent resource for the Anti-Islam Movement (once it coheres into an actual entity, that is, hopefully some time before Muslims destroy the West), and that makes his asymptotic tics all the more remarkable (and depressing).
It's an interesting parallel, between the asymptotic Counter-Jihadist and the "Better Cop" Muslims who seem to be moderate and reform-minded.
A recent posting by Andrew on his blog describes Asra Nomani -- one of the better Better Cop Muslims (insofar as she gets closer to affecting genuine sincerity in her seeming moderation and has none of the disingenuously oily mannerisms of a Maajid Nawaz) -- as a "secular Muslim". Andrew may as well have introduced her as a "square circle" or a "married bachelorette". The interesting parallel I alluded to may be expressed this way:
The asymptotic Counter-Jihadist manifests the following paradox: He appears to know enough about Islam to know about the stealth jihad -- which means he should be on guard and not be fooled by taqiyya (and, of course, he should know that the whole point of deceit is to try to be good at it, which would logically include any seeming displays of sincere moderation); and yet inevitably, every asymptotic Counter-Jihadist shows that they are, in fact, fooled by certain Muslims who are better than other Muslims at deceit (hence, "Better Cops").
The Better Cop, in turn, through her professed "secular" moderation, appears to be advocating a perspective and program that contradicts what we in the Counter-Jihad know about mainstream Islam. We know (or should know, by now) that all this nice-sounding moderation coming out of her mouth doesn't jibe with Islam, and in fact contradicts most of it in all the essential points. So why and how is she still self-identifying as a "Muslim"?
Indeed, my definition of a "Better Cop" Muslim is that they are identifiable as such not so much by what they say and do, than by the fact that they have fooled at least one important Counter-Jihadist. Thus we have Frank Gaffney treating Zuhdi Jasser with undeservedly profound respect; Sam Harris partnering up with Maajid Nawaz; Andrew Bostom considering Asra Nomani to be genuinely "secular"; and so forth.
The parallel may be more sharply (and briefly put): The more that a Counter-Jihadist knows about Islam, the less he should trust any Muslim -- indeed, logically he should graduate to the epiphany that, on the macro level, no Muslim is trustworthy. This would apply double (or trebly) to the Muslim who affects to be moderate or "secular", since there is no Islam that would not contradict such a moderate or secular stance. The more moderate or "secular" a Muslim is, the more he or she is embodying that contradiction with his or her own Islam. The problem is worse, not better, with the more palatable Muslims. Counter-Jihadists like Andrew Bostom (and Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald) should know better; so why do they keep blurting out faux pas like calling Asra Nomani a "secular" Muslim? What would be the reaction of Andrew Bostom, or Robert Spencer, or Sam Harris, or Hugh Fitzgerald, to an intelligent German Nazi who continues to self-identify as a Nazi, and who claims that they love Jews, claims that "true Nazism" loves Jews, and claims that Hitler was actually a Jew lover but has been "misunderstood" by "extremist Nazis"? We know what their reaction would be: This Nazi is either crazy or lying to us -- there is no 3rd explanation! So why don't they apply the same logic to the square circle of the "secular" Muslims...?
No comments:
Post a Comment