Like I said recently, I haven't really been reading Jihad Watch lately; pretty much stopped since March because the coronamania began to be more (cough, cough) interesting.
Took a look at Jihad Watch today and couldn't help bump my shin against a familiar piece of furniture. We have Robert Spencer's headline:
ISIS jihadi returned to Austria several times for medical treatment, then went back to jihad, retains citizenship
It was Spencer's brief editorial remarks where we glimpse the problem (of the problem of the problem):
Why was this jihad terrorist allowed to come and go for medical treatment? Why was he collecting aid? He retained his Austrian citizenship because he doesn’t have any other, but in going to fight for the Islamic State, he committed himself to citizenship in the ISIS caliphate, an entity that was and is at war with Austria.
The problem is not overtly evident from the quote; one has to be able to tease it out from between the lines, by rephrasing the crucial core of Spencer's words in a way which he and most of the Counter-Jihad are too cowardly or politically correct to do:
In being a Muslim (defined as supporting rather than opposing mainstream Islam -- defined as no better, though certainly stealthier and more ostensibly "diverse", than ISIS) -- any given Muslim commits himself or herself to "citizenship" in the trans-national Umma of mainstream Islam, a trans-national entity that has always been and continues to be at war with the entire non-Muslim world.
No comments:
Post a Comment