This morning's Hate Mail Bag entry asks a pointed question:
hey im a jew. tell me why do you like to demonize the muslim people wat hav ethey ever done to you
A "jew," eh? Do you know the secret handshake?
Anyway, what have "the muslim people" ever done to me? Why, nothing. It's what the jihadists among "the muslim people" are doing to others that I am concerned about. And as for demonizing anyone, the jihadists are doing a very fine job of that all by themselves.
Actually, forget the secret handshake. Let's start with correct spelling and punctuation. I've never seen an actual "jew" spell that badly.
Yes, the spelling and the punctuation is s dead giveaway. Also "the muslim people" is a tacit and telling reference to the Ummah. Interesting, isn't it, that the foot soldiers of Allah usually are unable to conceal their identity? Even the more slick snake oil salesmen of CAIR etc. are unable to rise above their mental baggage, and fall into stereotypical victim role playing.
You can tell by his accent that he is a jew, or possibly jewish. Somewhat semitiotic, anyways.
Normal is, that muslims pretend they are jews, when they write their PR(opaganda) on FaceBook and those kind of pages. Then they get the oportunity to tell, that they do not hate any other religion - they looooves both jews and christians!
The real problems when they run out of lies is that they do not know how to deal with an agnostic or an atheist. Somehow muslims have got the idea that it is ok to mock or even kill atheists - and that both jews and christians accept this!
"what have "the muslim people" ever done to me? Why, nothing. It's what the jihadists among "the muslim people" are doing to others that I am concerned about." -- Robert Spencer
Muslim people are covering for, and enabling, the jihadists. And that doesn't concern you?
"Jihadist"
A word that should always be silently defined as "a Muslim who participates, directly or indirectly, in the "Jihad" or struggle to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam."
Why does this matter?
It matters because many will take the word "jihadist" to mean "violent" participants in, or promoters of, Jihad. And that means that they will help to reinforce the notion that "terrorism" and "terrorists" -- or, more accurately, Islamic terrorism and Muslim terrorists -- are the problem, and the only problem. But those who are actively engaged in terrorism are supported in a hundred ways by others -- those who give financial support (from the rich in the Gulf sheiklets and, especially, from Saudi Arabia, or from the government of Iran) or who give diplomatic support, or who give moral support -- and every opinion poll shows remarkable support by Muslims even for the much-demonized Osama bin Laden, and those living in Western Europe, too, support to a large degree the use of terrorism against those who stand in the way even in Western Europe.
The American government's concentration on "terrorism" has allowed such follies as the use of vast military efforts, costing trillions, to "find Bin Laden" or "crush Al Qaeda" in order to make sure -- a tall, impossible order -- that the "terrorism threat" is ended, has unfortunately caused it to overlook, to not concentrate on, the many-pronged and relentless effort, all over the world, to frighten or subdue or in some cases drive out non-Muslims from Muslim-ruled lands,and to establish Muslims solidly in the lands of Dar al-Harb, especially Western Europe, by using every trick in the book, fromm threats and aggressive demands for changes to the social arrangements and legal and political institutions, to demonstrations in the street to overawe or frighten the authorities, to the buying up of academic centers and seats (just as the Al-Thani who now rules in Qatar bought and paid for an Oxford professorship for Tariq Ramadan), to the influencing, through a small army of Western hirelings and through Muslims themselves, of public opinion so that it remains thoroughly confused, and still greatly ignorant, of Islam.
"Jihadist" is a word that, inadvertently, can reinforce the inaccurate understanding of Jihad as terrorism or violence. And that understanding, if reinforced, can help make non-Muslims concentrate on "terrorists" and lose sight of all those conducing Jihad through other, for the moment non-violent, means, as part of a widespread effort, on every front, simultaneously, undertaken not because, necessarily, of some membership in a secret group, but merely because, as a Believer in Islam, one would naturally wish to engage in the effort to promote and defend Islam (and that defense certainly includes hiding, or explaining away, what the texts -- Qur'an, Hadith, Sira -- contain, and what the tenets derived from those texts, and the attitudes derived from those texts and tenets, cause Muslims who take their Islam seriously to think, and to do).
I don't have a substitute for the word "jihadist." And the best I can suggest is that whenever using the word in debate, be careful, once or twice, to define the word, and to say that it does not apply only, as you may think, to those who participate directly in violence. It applies, rather, to all those who, by their attitudes, and behavior, and even mere presence in some situations (when they swell the ranks, and thus the perceived power, of Muslims), objectively further "the Jihad or struggle to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam."
If that definition is used, and gains common currency, it will be easier to make things clear, and harder for the plausible smiling Muslim defenders of the faith, who wish to encourage Americans not to look too closely at what is happening, for example, in Western Europe.
"...lose sight of all those conducing Jihad through other, for the moment non-violent, means,..."
...for the moment....indeed...
history has shown that from the moment the Muslims feel strong enough...that non violent mode morphs into an active violent mode on an ever increasing tempo...Jihad transends from non violent to violent quite easily and quite quickly...the Muslims prepare for it...
What about the secret decoder ring? Does this guy have one?
It [the word "Jihadist"] applies, rather, to all those who, by their attitudes, and behavior, and even mere presence in some situations (when they swell the ranks, and thus the perceived power, of Muslims), objectively further "the Jihad or struggle to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam."
All Muslims who are not actively opposing the supremacist expansionism of Islam (= "the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam") would fit Hugh's definition. And how many Muslims does that leave -- who are actively opposing the supremacist expansionism of Islam? I'd say zero, as far as we can tell for the pragmatic purposes of our #1 priority: our safety. For this reason, as well as for the other reason to which Hugh alludes -- viz., the vulnerability of the term Jihadist to be exploited by those who seek to marginalize the problem of Islam in order to exempt Islam from scrutiny let alone the condemnation it deserves, a vulnerability Hugh glosses over rather too hastily -- the term Muslim (or perhaps better yet, Mohammedan) is to be preferred to Jihadist.
It's great that Robert posts daily "hate mail" messages now. It'd be cool if he made a section of the site dedicated to the hate mail bag.