Not the magnetic resonance imaging used in medical diagnoses; but rather, my half-tongue-in-cheek phrase, "Muslim Relocation Initiative".
Among the niggling questions that inevitably seem to pop up -- often from people located more or less "in the Counter-Jihad" -- include:
"Where are you going to deport them?"
"How will you know if they are Muslim unless they identify themselves as such?" (I kid you not, this is a question asked of me -- and not just once, but repeatedly, by "Angemon" the Energizer Bunny of Jihad Watch comments; for example see this posting from last September.)
"What about all the Muslims you won't be able to deport because you can't find them?" (this being a silly variant of the above silly question)
"What about Muslims who are born here (in the West)? Where are you going to deport them?"
Let's take these one by one. My following retorts aren't mean to be exhaustive in terms of refuting these stupid questions, but will just try to hit the main points:
"Where are you going to deport them?"
This question is not only stupid, it's odd. It implies that there is no physical location to deport them to. In fact, there are millions and millions of square miles of land comprised by the 56 majority Muslim nations that exist in the world. So if the questioner isn't implying that, what exactly is he asking? It seems that what they are really doing with their question is making a statement in the form of a rhetorical question -- and that statement is: You can't deport them, it's wrong. I.e., the "where" is not really their concern, because anywhere would be wrong.
"How will you know if they are Muslim unless they identify themselves as such?"
This question is so stupid, I don't even know how to begin. Let me have another sip of coffee (and Jack)... First of all, we know that Western individuals and organizations that establish demographic statistics actually, and regularly, produce statistical conclusions (of course, tentative) about the numbers of Muslims in various places -- in the West total; in each Western country; in each Muslim country; in the Muslim world total. So the first answer that comes to mind to wave away this annoying fly of a stupid question is: By the same method these mainstream demographic surveys use. DUH!
"What about all the Muslims you won't be able to deport because you can't find them?"
Of course, as I intimated above, the previous question probably really means what the questioner is getting it with this last question. And what they are really getting at (but are being cagey in not just spitting out) is the statement (put in the cagey form of a rhetorical question): You won't be able to deport all Muslims because some of them will slip out of your dragnet. To which my response is: Yeah, so what? A lot of big complex projects (perhaps all of them) suffer from imperfection and thus fail to deliver absolute perfection. Does that mean we should refrain from embarking upon these projects? If we refrained from doing things because we knew they wouldn't be perfect, we wouldn't get anything important done. To even have to spell this out is a painful exercise, since it's so elementary, it should already be assumed and conceded.
"What about Muslims who are born here (in the West)? Where are you going to deport them?"
Now this question, finally, actually poses a substantive difficulty. Taking the second part of the question, we can say that the questioner implies that where a person is born constitutes the "where" of his birthright; and this is an important, foundational concept in Western civilization, not to be lightly discarded. The response is based on an informed recognition of Islam, wherein the Muslim has a higher allegiance to the Umma, which in Islam is a trans-national entity -- not an actual physical entity we can point to, but a work-in-progress; or we should say a jihad-in progress. While we can't specifically point to a delimited entity on the map and say, "there's the Umma", we can say that the aforementioned 56 Muslim-majority nations on earth are approximately the historical and politico-diplomatic recognitions of that "jihad-in-progress" to date. And this "jihad-in-progress" has been (and remains), for Muslims following their Islam, a goal to conquer the earth and replace its godless polities with the only rightful polity, a Caliphate based in Sharia. In this context, the political allegiance of any given Muslim born anywhere in the West is reasonably supposed to be not only founded elsewhere than in the (Western) polity of his birth, but in the Umma -- but also inimical in terms of an ongoing, protracted subversion to undermine the West, materially connected to the jihad of which one tentacle is terrorism. This by itself may not be quite enough to warrant deportation; it is arguable that a further, deeper appreciation for the concrete extent of this jihad would inform such a warrant.
This is not unprecedented. Recently in Jihad Watch there was reported the story of a Muslim from Alabama who went off to join the jihad in ISIS. A key sentence in the report:
A federal judge ruled Thursday that an American-born woman who traveled to Syria to join the Islamic State (ISIS) group and now wants to return to her family in Alabama is not a U.S. citizen.
As our old friend "The Big W" put it with his characteristically blunt (and refreshing) succinctness:
Nov 15, 2019 at 11:08 pm
Yep. And I don’t see why any damn Muslim should be recognized a citizen of any Western nation, even if they’re born here like this Muslima. IF we don’t expand this judge’s decision to apply to ALL Muslims in the West, the West won’t last.
So I guess the West won’t last past another hundred years give or take a few beheadings.
I haven't yet checked to see what the response has been to Big W's comment; no doubt most of the surrounding Jihad Watch commenters will just ignore it, while a select few (such as the above-mentioned "Angemon") will attack it. Allah forbid that they should agree.
No comments:
Post a Comment