This asinine State Department video, part of its silly “Think Again Turn Away” program, tries to dissuade American Muslims who are considering joining the Islamic State by pointing out that the Islamic State destroys mosques and kills Muslims — in other words, this outfit is un-Islamic, doncha know, so don’t be fooled.
The obvious rejoinder, however, is that the mosques and Muslims in question were deemed apostate or miscreant in some other way, and hence to the thinking of anyone who might be considering joining the Islamic State, they got what they deserved. Obviously the Islamic State doesn’t blow up mosques it deems to be Islamically correct; nor does it kill Muslims whom it considers to be living a properly Muslim life. Consequently, this video is unlikely to dissuade even one Muslim from joining the Islamic State.
How many millions did the State Department waste on this idiocy?
Neil jennison says
Robert Spencer,
I have watched many of your debates on You Tube and have been thoroughly impressed by your knowledge of Islam and your reasoned and reasonable arguments. In short, you have convinced me ( a fellow Catholic ) of the evil of Islam, and the fact that mainstream Islam teaches evil subjugation of the Infidels and is thoroughly evil religion and ideology.
I am however, a bit confused by this post….surely the fact that ISIS attacks Muslims it doesn’t consider TRUE Muslims gives weight to the idea that many Muslims do not hold with this evil supremacist ideology? That ISIS are merely extremists and that mainstream Islam may not condone these evil acts?
Could you help on this point?
gerard says
Neil
I know your question was addressed to Robert, but if I may?..
In a nutshell: Robert always makes a distinction between Muslims and Islam. There are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam. Most of Robert Spencer’s work is on discussing the Islamic texts. Here is the problem: people differ in how much they adhere to their religious texts. Isis is modelling their behaviour on Mohammad. In this they are mainstream not fringe. They will kill those who claim to be Muslim but are not joining them in their Jihad. They consider non-Jihadi Muslims to be not-real Muslims.
Neil Jennison says
Yes, I appreciate that. I have met “Muslims” who are Muslims in name only. Nice people, (who cooked great curries i might add – fantastic Shami Kebabs!)
But Robert Spencer’s argument (which I accept) is that what Islam teaches is not in doubt, and that there are no great swathes of Muslim teaching that teach anything different.
Shane says
I agree that Muslims slaughtering other Muslims can be viewed as unIslamic, but the fact that they are killing anyone who does not believe as they do is the most important fact. These ISIS savages are killing in the name of Allah, just as Muhammad did 1,400 years ago.
voegelinian says
“I have met “Muslims” who are Muslims in name only. Nice people, (who cooked great curries i might add – fantastic Shami Kebabs!)”
Oh dear. Sigh…
gravenimage says
And I know some lovely Nazis who make the most wonderful Schnitzel with fantastic homemade Spätzle…
Angemon says
Neil jennison posted:
“I am however, a bit confused by this post….surely the fact that ISIS attacks Muslims it doesn’t consider TRUE Muslims gives weight to the idea that many Muslims do not hold with this evil supremacist ideology? That ISIS are merely extremists and that mainstream Islam may not condone these evil acts?”
How do you go from “mainstream Islam teaches evil subjugation of the Infidels and is thoroughly evil religion and ideology” to “mainstream Islam may not condone these evil acts“? Look, islam is not what muslims do but what its tenets say. ISIS has been justifying its actions with islamic orthodoxy so “mainstream” muslims in the West have a hard time making the opposite case, as can be seen on several JW articles pointing out that islamic organizations and muslims in the West who try to claim that ISIS is un-islamic do so without actually tackling ISIS’ justifications.
PS: I’m not Robert Spencer 😛
Neil Jennison says
I don’t get from the former to the latter.
I am making logical inferences from what Robert Spencer wrote about what ISIS is doing. (Above)
As I said, I am convinced by the facts and the many debates and lectures of Robert Spencer that I have watched.
I am just saying that this headline doesn’t actually support his arguments – it supports the idea that there ARE Muslim extremists who have different and more extreme opinions than your typical Muslim in the mosque.
Angemon says
Neil Jennison posted:
“I am just saying that this headline doesn’t actually support his arguments – it supports the idea that there ARE Muslim extremists who have different and more extreme opinions than your typical Muslim in the mosque.”
You need to define those terms: “muslim extremists” and “typical muslim”. It’s hard to call ISIS an extremist group if they act upon islamic orthodoxy, and I don’t see the typical muslim in, let’s, say Saudi Arabia, condemning ISIS as being un-islamic. Just because ISIS is killing other muslims it doesn’t mean that the muslims they’re killing have some sort of more favorable view of non-muslims than ISIS.
Neil Jennison says
Angenom,
Replying to myself as your post ( 8 38 pm) had no reply button.
The politically correct, Barack Obama, David Cameron narrative is that the vast majority of Muslims, certainly those living in the west, are “moderate”. These people (in this narrative) don’t believe in any of the nasty things – they are tolerant, they have no desire for Sharia Law for the rest of us and believe in peace for all.
Then there are “Islamists” like ISIS who believe …well, they believe what the Qu’aran says.
In Britain the media use the word “Muslim” to mean nice people, wouldn’t hurt a fly and “Islamist” to mean evil bastards.
But I take your point. I just don’t think that highlighting what RS has is helpful to the cause. It is honest I suppose.
Wellington says
Neil Jennison: So-called moderate Muslims are, as Robert Spencer has said, lazy Muslims. So-called extremist Muslims are devout Muslims. Or, as Ibn Warraq has noted, there are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam. The more devout the Muslim, the more likely such a person is ready to be violent in the name of their faith or at least condone violence committed by fellow Muslims while acting in the name of their faith.
One shouldn’t need most every follower of a heinous ideology (and Islam is most definitely a heinous ideology) to act heinously before concluding that such a heinous ideology is a menace to liberty and other good things. For instance, during the Cold War you could have come across many Communist Party members in Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Italy, France, the USSR, etc. who, in their daily life, were good to family and friends, and would even split their last bottle of vodka or wine with a guest, but who themselves weren’t ready or willing to go out and eradicate members of the upper or middle classes pursuant to pure Marxist theory, but this didn’t make Communism OK, now did it? Ditto for a lot of Nazi Party members back in the 1930s and 40s who, being the businessmen, shopkeepers, lawyers, teachers, etc., they were, went about their daily business and didn’t themselves put a Jew in a gas oven, but this didn’t make Nazism all right. Ditto for a lot of KKK members. And so on and so on.
What is important is the ideology and not many or most of its so-so adherents. Look to the theory first and foremost in any determinaton of what is good or evil. If one does this with Islam, and assuming the person is knowledgeable and informed about Islam and has retained their common sense, the only possible conclusion such a person could come to is that Islam, alone among the major faiths, is a menace to freedom of speech, freedom of religion and equality under the law, irrespective of how many so-called moderate Muslims exist, and respecting which group of people, btw, form just about the most clueless, gutless and unreliable people on the planet.
Neil Jennison says
Wellington,
I think the phrase “”there are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam”” suns it up.
I thank everyone who has answered my questions.
This whole issue is clearly an enormous threat to freedom and to western civilisation. It is a calamity that our leaders on both the left and (worse really) on the right seem oblivious to it.
Alice says
The ideas don’t need to be more extreme. They just need to be DIFFERENT. Different makes it unislamic to those who are doing the killing.
voegelinian says
“…this headline doesn’t actually support his arguments – it supports the idea that there ARE Muslim extremists who have different and more extreme opinions than your typical Muslim in the mosque.”
No, it does not support that; it possibly supports the inference you are making. A mountain of evidence further clarified by reasonable interpretation by intelligent analysts like Robert Spencer, Bill Warner, Frank Gaffney, Diana West, Andrew Bostom, Baron Bodissey, Clare Lopez, Daniel Greenfield (and many other whose names I don’t have at the tip of my keys right now) over the last 15 years indicates that this inference is grievously unwarranted.
Beagle says
I too am not RS, but the answer to your question is fairly simple.
The IS is a Sunni Salafi-Wahhabi outfit which views Shia as rafidah (rejectionists of true Islam). Every mosque blown up by IS, I believe, was Shia. Saudi Arabian and Pakistani Sunni Muslims, among others, have a long history of attacking Shia as part of their Islamic piety.
Neil Jennison says
That would explain a lot.
Can anyone confirm that?
Beagle says
Any simple search of IS mosque demolition. First entry:
http://m.timesofindia.com/world/middle-east/Iraq-jihadists-blow-up-historic-Shia-mosque-in-Mosul/articleshow/39056264.cms
Beagle says
Forgot to mention idolatry. Sunni Salafis are so against idolatry they systematically destroy Islamic history. The IS has issued statements they would blow up the Kaaba.
This type of demolition is common in Saudi Arabia, minus the Kaaba of course.
Shia venerate historical figures at shrines, infuriating the Salafist Sunnis.
Myxlplik says
ISIS quizzes Muslims, to find hypocrites.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/06/isis-executioner-killed-three-men-for-failing-his-quran-quiz
Here is what Islamic sources have to say about hypocrisy, which is worse that disbelief.
http://islamqa.info/en/12387
“Hypocrisy is a serious sickness and a great crime. It means making an outward display of Islam whilst inwardly concealing kufr. Hypocrisy is more dangerous than kufr (disbelief) and the punishment for it is more severe, because it is kufr mixed with Islam and its harmful effects are greater. Hence Allaah will put the hypocrites in the lowest level of Hell, as He says (interpretation of the meaning): ”
If a Muslim conceals disbelief, it is essentially apostasy. Muslims of differing sects slaughter each other, with great joy, because this is Jihad, establishing Allah’s religion upon the earth, the greatest thing a Muslim can do… cleansing the faith of disbelief. It has an even greater priority over killing Kafirs.
Islam is at its core a death cult from beginning to end.
Beagle says
Oops, forgot the last bit.
Shia jihadis are just as dangerous and hateful to non-Muslims as their Sunni not-brothers. In no way are Shia jihadis moderate.
Iran is the leading Shia theocracy. Al Sadr, the demented and brutal cleric in Iraq, also a Shiite. Hizballah, same. Dearborn is the Shia ‘radical’ HQ in the US.
Usually the Shia, being a minority in Islam, avoid trouble with the Sunnis who make up about 80% of Islam. Recently in Iraq, and during the sectarian violence circa 2006, Shia militias have attacked Sunnis with VBIEDs and in other ways. But being so outnumbered they focus more on having many children to attempt to right the imbalance.
Gloria says
Yes, that is true. But shia muslims are not angels either Iran is shia and look how fanatical they are and how they treat women.
voegelinian says
“Salafi” and “Wahhabi” are rather circular terms; they are also unhelpful if they imply that any Muslims who are supposedly not “Salafi” and “Wahhabi” are thereby ipso facto unproblematic or harmless.
voegelinian says
Exactly Figh-al-Matter. Indeed, Abdul Wahhab was the Reformer all the PC MCs and Softies claim Islam needs — if by “Reformer” we mean reviving Islam’s mainstream traditional virulence in the face of the Western “Christians” who were through Colonialism “insulting” Muslims by coming in and telling them to revise their fanatical primitivism (that’s what “Reform” means in the Islamic model: the Islamic software is fundamentally flawed and cannot accommodate the kind of human creative progress Christendom was capable of.
gravenimage says
Neil Jennison wrote:
I am however, a bit confused by this post….surely the fact that ISIS attacks Muslims it doesn’t consider TRUE Muslims gives weight to the idea that many Muslims do not hold with this evil supremacist ideology? That ISIS are merely extremists and that mainstream Islam may not condone these evil acts?
…………………………….
Not really, Neil.
The concept is the same: pious Muslims attack anything that is not Islamic enough: Infidels (of course), but also “other sect” Muslims (that is, “heretics”, and for Sunnis that includes Shi’ites, Ahmadis, Alawites, Bahi’a, etc) and the “insufficiently Islamic” (that is, “apostates”).
Every devout Muslim agrees with this basic principle—it is, indeed, a central tenet of Islam.
The *only* disagreement is specifically where these lines should be drawn—for example, Shia obviously consider themselves orthodox Muslims, even if Sunni do not; and there is a sliding scale of what constitutes “Islamic enough”. In some places like Somalia and Afghanistan, you actually have Jihad terrorists attacking each other for being “insufficiently Islamic”.
But every pious Muslim agrees with this basic concept—and any few who do not are regarded as outright apostates.
And *this* is why so many Muslims from all over the world are flocking to support and even join the Islamic State.
There are even Shi’ites who—while directly threatened by these pious Sunnis—have still been sneering at Infidels over ISIS, because it represents such a triumph of Islam.
Shi’ite Muslim troll Rezali Mehil is one such. (actually, she see-saws back and forth between gloating over ISIS’s threat to Infidels, and demanding that we save the Shia from their genocidal coreligionists—very schizophrenic, but quite common).
Champ says
Brava, Graven! …you answered his question beautifully! Spot on, as always 🙂
gravenimage says
Thanks, Champ.
voegelinian says
“and for Sunnis that includes Shi’ites, Ahmadis, Alawites, Bahi’a, etc”
Yes; but Shi’ites also persecute Ahmadis and Baha’is, ironically for the same reason (ultimately) Sunnis do.
gravenimage says
Voeg, I was in no way implying that Shi’ites are any better. Muslims being victims of other Muslims in no way makes them less of a danger, nor does it in any moderate their *own* views.
Champ says
Neil,
I’ve been reading JW for several years now, and muslims have been killing muslims for as *long* as I can remember …islam is a bloody death cult, so it seems that anyone seen as a non-believer by a muslim (yes, even another muslims) is fair game for murder in their twisted view.
nacazo says
Maybe this will help. Islamic ideology considers non-muslims vermin. Some muslims pay no attention to the ideology. Some believe non-muslims are vermin but are willing to live the good life in the west getting welfare and so forth. Some muslims want distroy “the miserable house of the vermin from within” (cair). IS is so impatient to suppress the vermin, that they declare other muslims which are not as impatient as themselves as vermin too and so they also kill them. bottom line the ideology consider non-muslims as vermin but the IS are particularly fervent in attacking the vermin. I am non- muslim, just in case and don’t believe any of that.
voegelinian says
“Some muslims pay no attention to the ideology.”
That’s a rather boldly apodictic statement. I’d massage it:
“Some muslims seem to pay no attention to the ideology; and some muslims pretend to pay no attention to the ideology; while some muslims may well be paying no attention to the ideology — but unfortunately, we have no way adequately to pinpoint which Muslims among these three types are which with any certitude (certainly not with the certitude we need to protect our societies).”
Suzanne Todres says
IS is a Sunni Jihadist group, they are killing Shiite Muslims who they consider apostate because of a split in Islam around 600-700 years ago as to who was the rightful successor to Mohammed, Sunnis wanted one person Shiites another. They have hated and fought each other since then and both consider the other apostate. Robert Spencer is absolutely correct, the State Department is completely out of their depth when it comes to Islam. I am sure the Videos they produce are shown every evening with a bowl of popcorn as a little comic relief after a hard day massacring.
Shane says
The West should be encouraging Muslim youths to go to fight jihad with ISIS so that we can slaughter all of them in one place. Let’s kill these traitors, or at least take away their passports and citizenship. They should never be allowed back to their countries after fighting for ISIS.
D.C. Watson says
Absolute clowns who all report to an absolute clown, whose boss is the perfect example of an absolute clown.
gerard says
It still amazes me how obtuse BHO and friends are. You would think by now one would be used to it but every time these devils open their mouths the stink of sulphur comes out. They seem to have a determination not to see the truth, which determination reminds me of “Non serviam!” “I will not serve”! They are committed to not seeing, to not understanding, to not changing. Their words and actions give me some insight into how a soul can be damned. I used to think: Surely God will have mercy on everyone? Yes He will and does. But how can you help those who refuse your help, those who consistently turn their backs and will not see?
This administration will not change.
Shane says
I don’t think that they are being stupid, it is a political strategy that the left uses to get the votes of Muslims and it does work. The left is allied with Islamic supremacists as they have the same enemy – Western Civilization. Obama and the left are traitors to their countries by not identifying the enemy as Islamic jihadists and stating that ISIS and other Muslim terrorists have nothing to do with Islam. Everything Obama does has a political motivation.
Champ says
“…in other words, this outfit is un-Islamic, doncha know, so don’t be fooled.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exactly. This goes along with the obama narrative claiming that IS has no connection to islam. Poppycock–islam and IS are One in the same.
Champ says
grrrrr!! …obama is such a L.I.A.R.
Myxlplik says
I suppose our government is under the impression that mentioning decapitating little Christian girls and selling Yazidi’s into sex slavery wouldn’t be something which would dissuade Muslims from pursuing Jihad for the new Caliphate.
Just don’t hurt other Muslims. I guess our government does understand Islam.
Champ says
Just don’t hurt other Muslims. I guess our government does understand Islam.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Great observation, Myxlplik! …more evil and cunning from the obama administration. Sooo sick.
Lloyd Miller says
Yikes! What an insight!
The Establishment is NOT CONFUSED about Islam. First, they are in league with Muslim money bags via oil and petro-dollar re-cycling. 2nd, they NOW see Islam as a more realistic route to WORLD GOVERNMENT than Western Ideologies. In the 60 some years since WWII, the Rockefeller Establishment has struggled for One World Government with scarce results. That’s why Western Ideology must be jettisoned in favor of Islamic Tyranny! Watch and WEEP!
duh_swami says
Well, it convinced me…I’m giving up my plans to join ISIS…
John C. Barile says
ISIS is too moderate for your tastes, anyway. You might try joining up with an even more puritanical band of depraved sadists somewhere else–how about Boko Haram?
gerard says
“I’m giving up my plans to join ISIS…”
Very wise. I’ve heard the hotels out there aren’t too good just now. The room service is particularly bad. Especially when the rooms don’t have a roof. And the swimming pools? Forget it! They’re all full of bodies. And bacon’s off the menu. And Tequila. But who needs bacon when you can eat dog and cat? And Tequila? Once you’ve tasted camel urine there’s no going back! But on the plus side, you won’t have to shave or even trim your beard. In fact the more unkempt you are the more you’ll fit in! No more constraining commandments: “Thou shalt not kill! Though shalt not commit adultery! Thou shalt not steal!” Here you can really let rip! Kill and rape to your heart’s content!
Book your Isis holiday now! Just contact John Kerry, care of the White House and I’m sure he’ll fix it up for you.
Me? I’m off to Mecca!
Mirren10 says
Kudos to duh-swami, and Gerard ! Hilarious ! 🙂
gravenimage says
Hilarious, Swami.
Don McKellar says
“How many millions did the State Department waste on this idiocy?”
Indeed. When the tally is drawn up of the idiotic missteps of the Obama administration, this may represent the nadir of it all. Although right now, there are so many stupid, misdirected, ill-considered and foolish politically correct fiascos that is hard to put it in perspective.
No, I think the scrubbing of government agencies’ ability to call Islam Islam is the top the charts and is responsible for the most deaths (or will be).
Jay Boo says
How many millions has the State Department wasted apologizing for anything that may have ever caused offence to Muslims and lying about Benghazi.
Don McKellar says
There must be a way to draw up on accounting of how much money has been thrown down the hole defending and “smoothing over” and protecting Islam the Obama regime. These figures must be public and should be tallied up for all to see in a national campaign. And compared to how much is has spent on other religions or the atheist alternative to religion. In both the latter cases: ZERO – as it should be.
Can somebody draw up some figures or point the way on how to do so? Your tax money spent to promote and defend Islam. It such an obscene concept that it needs to see the light of day in a public campaign.
R Cole says
I’m convinced – I’m definitely not going ~ now!!
Funny they used – throwing people off cliffs. In Iran -there has been a couple of people sentenced to death by throwing them off a cliff. [I can remember telling people and them not believing me].
:: ::
In a way this video is good – it says what you can do ~ we can do better – in terms of sending a message.
But I think it is likely that Muslims know more than they are letting on about Islamic jihad.
So while Muslims have heard these battles [of old] glorified – this offers insight into the sickening reality – of the formation of the Islam nation – that they call the Conquered Land – or Dar al Islam.
Not everyone can do that stuff. It doesn’t take that many – to spread fear and terror and get people to acquiesce. And these radicals know that.
It might dry up some interest – but at the same time encourage others – who, for example, would see a Shia mosque being blown up.
:: ::
Whatever they are creating over there – we’re not living in it – so in that respect – we have already won.
Champ says
When I read IS, I see …
IS = ISLAM SUCKS * ISLAM SUCKS * ISLAM SUCKS
…help me obama my eyes keep playing tricks on me.
Mirren10 says
🙂 Nice one, Champ !
jakob says
It is, however, very revealing that the State Department does not even attempt to say that they Islamic State is not really Islamic because it kills Christians and Yazidis or blows up churches.
Jay Boo says
Through creative fiction of Hans Christian Andersen and the magic of Walt Disney studios comes the story of the Ugly Duckling who grows up to be a swan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMLNTIZR620
But creative fiction, makeup and State Department cinematography wont turn this Ugly Duckling of Islam into a graceful swan.
Jay Boo says
Islam is ISIS
ISIS is Islam
‘Moderate’ Islam will not grow up to be a swan.
Myxlplik says
The funny thing about this video, is that to a pious Sunni Muslim, it’s just another Islamic snuff film depicting heroic Sunni Jihadists cleansing the faith of Shia hypocrites. Their target audience is left feeling inspired, not deterred, because the US government is now in the game of producing Sunni Jihadi snuff porn.
Jay Boo says
good point
The (heroic myth) meme propaganda sometimes hides behind the defending Muslims (Sunni or Shia) against humiliation meme while claiming infidels or each other to be the aggressor.
A film showing the obvious falsehood of Muhammad being a prophet and of pious Muslims buying children for sex brides would be better.
Myxlplik says
It’s exactly the kind of video one would produce if:
A: Any and all mention of Islam, and Jihad were purposly scrubbed from the analytical lexicon for non-Muslims working at the State Department.
B: The Muslim Brotherhood was creating a recruitment video under the noses of a now clueless and completely feckless government.
CAIR et al are proud of their efforts I’m sure.
gravenimage says
True, Myxlplik. The “post-modern” idea that we can use irony to dissuade pious Muslims from running off to wage violent Jihad is just grimly laughable.
Jack Holan says
The problem with State is that they were great bookworms and may even had a monitor guide to “guide”them in the country the resided in the ME for 6 months to a year. They come back to State and now they are experts. The Administration with Obama the Community Organizer working with low information groups and High Society Kerry who started out disgracing this country, his service and fellow sailors; believe just tell the potential jihadist whom they lost eons ago, “it isn’t the real Islam” we know. Yes that will stop them. If stopped one just one potential Jihadist I would faint.
cliffface says
Until Helen Reddy can be heard playing from every minaret across the globe I think mosques returning to dust can only be of benefit to all mankind.
I may not be a women but I do believe that the bringers of life hold a much higher position in reality than islam affords them.
Call me what you want but for females not to be treated at least as equals goes completely against what we see with all other species and appears a purely male concept.
Islam needs to be eradicated and all other religions need to speed up their evolution to ensure complete equality at least.
Every time a muslim rapes a mosque should die.
Myxlplik says
To the Federal Government
You have made quite a nice snuff film for Sunni Jihadists.
First of all, killing hypocrites (AKA Shia’s) is a Holy obligation for pious Sunnis, because they are considered as “hypocrites”, and best of all getting killed while killing them, it’s the “best” thing a Muslim can do, and ensures the best place in paradise garnished with a 72 virgin fuck fest. So, thanks for the Federally funded Jihad recruitment video.
Kilfincelt says
That was my opinion as well but I saw one person interviewed, who should have known better, think that this State Dept. video was a good idea. I sent an e-mail to the program director telling them that it was more a recruitment vehicle than a deterrent.
James Foard says
OBAMA AND KERRY’S MIDEAST POLICY
Obama: “What’s the guy’s name running ISIS?”
Kerry: “No, What is in charge of Iraq.”
Obama: “I’m not asking you who’s in charge of Iraq.”
Kerry: “Who’s running the Free Syrian Army.”
Obama: “I don’t know.”
Kerry: “He’s working for the Kurds, we’re not talking about him.”
Obama: “Now how did I get over into Kurdistan?”
Kerry: “Why you mentioned his name.”
Obama: “If I mentioned his name, who did I say is working for the Kurds?”
Kerry: “No, Who is running the Free Syrian Army.”
Obama: “What’s running the Free Syrian Army?”
Kerry: “What is in charge of Iraq.”
Obama: “I don’t know.”
Kerry: “He’s working for the Kurds.”
Obama: “There I go back into Kurdistan again!”
gravenimage says
State Dept vid tries to dissuade Muslims from joining Islamic State by arguing it’s un-Islamic
………………………………..
Ah, yes—because pious Muslims have always gone to the “filthy Kuffar” for advice on what is most Islamic. They are especially apt to listen to non-Muslims when they advise not harming the “filthy Infidel”…sarc/off
Really, what fools these dhimmis be!
pdxnag says
Deportation is cheaper, faster and more effective than deprogramming.
Rajivi says
yeah…that’s what Geert Wilders of Netherlands told his Parliament.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4674/geert-wilders-speech
DiMu says
What the video ought to say is that if you join jihad your passport is automatically rescinded and if you are found you will be killed as an enemy combatant whether you are on American soil or not.
But with our Muslim-loving President, we all know that’s not going to happen.
So many missed opportunities led to the triumph of Nazism and Communism. Here we go again.
The Obama Timeline author says
The left savagely ridiculed Nancy Reagen when she told young people “Just Say No!” to drugs, yet the left will now think this “Just Say No To Jihad!” video is brilliant. Yeah, I’m sure this video will really persuade Mohammed in Minneapolis and Muhammed in Dearborn to give up their scimitars…
Guy Macher says
Think Again, Turn Away– good advice for devout Democrats.
voegelinian says
From long experience on this long and winding road of Jihad Watch comments threads over the years, I have a hunch that “Neil Jennison” will not return. I recall as a young teenager being taken to the movies a lot by my older sister and her husband, and her husband was fond of looking at the credits at the beginning (or end) listing not only all the creative participants but also the various technical crew, and he’d point out certain names that to him just looked made-up and phony. He was only being half-facetious, but sometimes he seemed to have a point. Similarly, on Jihad Watch comments threads over the years, I keep noticing names that seem made-up and phony (like a “Neil Jennison”); and curiously enough those seem to be the ones pushing an asymptotic (if not frankly PC MC) line — and they seem to make a relatively brief appearance, then vanish into the mainstream night never to be seen from again…
Neil Jennison says
Honestly you have lost me completely. You are the ONLY person in history to call me PC. It is my abiding hatred – it has damaged Britain immeasurably. It has led to the rape of thousands of underage girls.
I can only presume you have misunderstood my question and the reasons for asking it.
I actually asked if pointing out that Muslims are quite happy to massacre other Muslims gave weight to the PC idea that violent Jihad is a minority Muslim view?
Not because that is what I believe, but because that is how it could be construed. I wanted to hear the arguments against this viewpoint.
I knew very little about Islam other than what we hear on the news and in the papers until a month or so ago when I started watching a lot of Robert Spencer’s videos on You Tube.
i assure you, (and if you read the other posts I have made on this website) you will see that I am fully on side with Robert Spencer and Jihad watch.
Islam is quite clearly a vicious religion of hatred and supremacy. No question.
voegelinian says
Neil Jennison wrote in response to me:
“You are the ONLY person in history to call me PC. It is my abiding hatred – it has damaged Britain immeasurably. It has led to the rape of thousands of underage girls.”
Well, I didn’t call you PC. I wrote that you seem to be among those I’ve seen in Jihad Watch comments threads who “seem to be the ones pushing an asymptotic (if not frankly PC MC) line…”
Even if the reader doesn’t know what I mean exactly by “asymptotic”, he should be able to tell merely semantically that it is distinguished from “PC MC” — evidently as being a distinctly milder form of (frankly) PC MC. More precisely, I use the term asymptotic to denote a curious phenomenon: the retention of certain degrees of PC MC in the counter-jihad individual who otherwise seems quite un-PC MC (and who usually takes pains to claim to be untainted by PC MC). The asymptotic problem manifests itself in a variety of ways, which I’ve gone into in great detail on my blog. In a nutshell, it reflects the anxious need to avoid condemning all Muslims and usually involves imputing to great swaths of Muslims, often a majority of the 1.3 billion of the world, exoneration and protection from the “bigotry” that ever lurks inside all Westerners unless they maintain a vigilant internal censor to proactively root out any thought crimes they fear might bubble up naturally (since Westerners, according to PC MC, naturally — and uniquely among all peoples of the world — incline to bigotry, you see).
Jennison went on to write:
“I actually asked if pointing out that Muslims are quite happy to massacre other Muslims gave weight to the PC idea that violent Jihad is a minority Muslim view?… Not because that is what I believe, but because that is how it could be construed. I wanted to hear the arguments against this viewpoint.”
Well, the first time Jennison posed his question, there was no hint that he was “playing devil’s advocate” in this way as he subsequently (parenthetically) wrote to someone else; and since I had no history of him to consider this possibility, I took his question at face value as expressing a glib axiom that is all too painfully common out in the mainstream. But it’s still not so clear that we have cleared this up:
“I knew very little about Islam other than what we hear on the news and in the papers until a month or so ago when I started watching a lot of Robert Spencer’s videos on You Tube.”
It seems odd and difficult to believe that someone who has only really begun learning about Islam one month ago would be able to jump as far as to the point Jennison claims to stand in order to be able to pose his question only in terms of “playing devil’s advocate”. I.e., it is far more likely that a mere one-month dip in the shallow end of the swimming pool would result in exactly the kind of asymptotic point of view which I and so many other Jihad Watch commenters logically assumed Jennison was coming from. It usually takes much longer than one month to graduate even to later stages of asymptotic molting on the way to freeing the mind from the culturally and psychologically powerful dogmas of PC MC (and many in the Counter-Jihad — even after years of acquainting themselves with this growing mountain of alarming data about Islam — in one way or another show that they have never really freed themselves from those dogmas, as I have pointed out many times here at Jihad Watch and on my blog).
“Islam is quite clearly a vicious religion of hatred and supremacy. No question.”
That’s fine: that’s the first step of freeing oneself from PC MC; the second step is to stop glibly assuming sweeping claims implying that millions of Muslims are peachy keen (and further implying that to suspect them would be a bigotry that must be eschewed).
*********************
Furthermore, Jennison, in responses to others here who for some strange reason experienced a disconnect similar to mine about his pov, wrote:
“surely the fact that ISIS attacks Muslims it doesn’t consider TRUE Muslims gives weight to the idea that many Muslims do not hold with this evil supremacist ideology?
“To some extent I am playing devil’s advocate here, but it is an important question.”
One wonders exactly what “extent” Jennison then is not playing devil’s advocate. One wouldn’t be going out on a limb to conclude that he still feels the tug of the idea that innumerable millions of Muslims are such decent human beings, they can’t possibly be actually believing (let alone following) their own Islam.
Jennison went on to write:
“The way I see it is that Islam, that is mainstream Islam, teaches Jihad against unbelievers. That unbelievers must convert to Islam, or be humiliated and live under Islamic rule as second class citizens paying an extortion tax, the Jizyah, or if they refuse be killed.”
So far so good — the first half of freeing oneself from the mainstream PC MC paradigm. Then he writes:
“Obviously not all Muslims (or those that claim they are Muslims) believe this…”
Not “obviously”, but ostensibly, would be the more accurate term (unless one is in the habit of assuming one has to impulsively affirm what one sees on the surface; and in this context, such a habit most likely stems from residues of PC MC in one’s heart & mind).
Jennison wrote:
“Some more moderate Muslims are prepared to wait until Muslims are the majority -playing the long game if you like – but they all share the same goal.”
This seems incoherent and undercuts the notion of the existence of moderate Muslims altogether — it certainly undercuts their usefulness to our primary concern — protecting our societies from Muslims following their Islam, if those “more Moderate Muslims” are just “playing the long game” and “all share the same goal”.
“But the very idea that the ISIS militants are prepared to kill their co-believers surely gives weight to the idea, that the typical western politically correct politicians propagate, that most Muslim schools of thought do not believe in these things… What IS IT about the beliefs of these Muslims ISIS are killing that makes them apostate in the eyes of ISIS?”
Several Jihad Watch commenters above have adequately answered that little head-scratcher.
Jennison wrote:
“I have met “Muslims” who are Muslims in name only. Nice people, (who cooked great curries i might add – fantastic Shami Kebabs!)”
This also was a remark Jennison made that gave me pause, for it’s a common ejaculation one hears from PC MCs (and not a few asymptotics as well) — as though their personal anecdotal evidence has any shred of relevance to a macro problem of geopolitical proportions. Rephrasing it helps to bring out its essentially preposterous logic:
“I know a few Muslims who smile at me and seem friendly and wear blue jeans, therefore we don’t need to be alarmed at the mountain of evidence (including taqiyya) indicating that a general suspicion of Muslims is rationally warranted if we want to protect our societies from terrorism and other dangers radiating out from Islam.”
Jennison wrote:
“I am just saying that this headline doesn’t actually support his arguments – it supports the idea that there ARE Muslim extremists who have different and more extreme opinions than your typical Muslim in the mosque.”
Well, it might support that “idea”, but that doesn’t adequately speak to whether that idea isn’t a puffball of nonsense disconnected from the mountain of evidence and intelligently informed interpretation (including from many illustrious ex-Muslims) that is available out there about Islam.
Jennison wrote:
“I just don’t think that highlighting what RS has is helpful to the cause. It is honest I suppose.”
If Jennison means the Muslim-on-Muslim violence aspect, that’s already been answered, and it’s only a matter of the continuing appalling ignorance of Islam that is maintained by mainstream PC MC that this might not be helpful to the cause. I.e., we need to educate the mainstream, not withhold from them important evidence about a metastasizing threat to our societies (even if their retardation makes this an insanely slow and frustrating process).
Jennison wrote:
“I think the phrase “”there are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam”” su[m]s it up.”
If that sums it up, we’re in trouble; because it’s a woefully incomplete summation, given the vertiginously metastasizing dangers spiraling out of control in this new century. There may exist “moderate Muslims” out there, but do they exist in sufficient numbers to make a difference? And how do we tell the difference between the authentic “moderate Muslim” and the deceitful Muslim pretending to be one? (And many more important questions.)
Then, when Beagle pointed out that ISIS represents Sunnis attacking Shia (as Sunnis have been doing throughout the Muslim world and throughout the entire history of Islam to the present day), Jennison wrote:
“That would explain a lot.
Can anyone confirm that?”
This shows again (rather vividly) my first point way above, namely how freshly scrubbed and green around the ears Jennison is in terms of his autodidactic responsibility to learn about Islam (and what’s up with only taking the trouble to learn about this most exigent problem in late summer of 2014…?) — and yet he knew enough to assume a critical distance about this issue to play devil’s advocate. All this could add up, but somehow it seems somewhat unlikely.
Then Fiqh Al-Matter pointed out another crucial piece of the puzzle that would dispel Jennison’s bafflement:
“Beagle, it’s not just a Sunni vs. Shiite thing. In a nutshell, the Islamic texts encourage Muslims to kill not just non-Muslims, but any fellow Muslims who they don’t think are Muslim enough, or who they think are not being accurately Islamic. So, for example, you’ve got Takfir doctrine (declaring a fellow Muslim an apostate), as well as the Koran’s railings against the ‘hypocrites’ (Muslims suspected of lying about being Muslims)…”
Neil Jennison says
Where do I start? I seem to have touched a nerve for some reason, which wasn’t my intent.
My intent is not to avoid condemning Muslims per se. What I don’t want to do is fall into the trap of condemning people rather than ideology. People are people the world over, they have the same intrinsic traits of good and bad within them. Yes, culture plays a part in how that manifests itself. Certainly adherence to manifestly evil ideologies like Islam play a huge part too. BUT it is wrong to say that all people who identify themselves as Muslims are bad people.
So, where you say “”it reflects the anxious need to avoid condemning all Muslims”” then yes, I do not wish to condemn all those who identify themselves as Muslims.
However, you go on “”and usually involves imputing to great swaths of Muslims, often a majority of the 1.3 billion of the world, exoneration and protection from the “bigotry” that ever lurks inside all Westerners unless they maintain a vigilant internal censor to proactively root out any thought crimes they fear might bubble up naturally (since Westerners, according to PC MC, naturally — and uniquely among all peoples of the world — incline to bigotry, you see).””
Here I agree with you entirely. I do not see the two statements as mutually exclusive. I detest the leftist view of the west as being inclined to bigotry.
I am a fair minded person. If there is just ONE person who identifies themselves as Muslim who is a decent person then that is enough for me to not condemn all Muslims. This does not mean that I think the general thrust of what you say is wrong, or that I think Muslim immigration to the west has not a been a huge, unmitigated disaster that should never have happened.
Your assumptions about me are wrong again….I think you make too many. I do not need freeing from PC – I never believed in it and have fought it all my life.
But yes, to some extent I was playing Devil’s Advocate. I wanted to hear convincing arguments and I have to say that I was given many compelling arguments.
“”There may exist “moderate Muslims” out there, but do they exist in sufficient numbers to make a difference? And how do we tell the difference between the authentic “moderate Muslim” and the deceitful Muslim pretending to be one? (And many more important questions.)””
Absolutely, I agree 100 %. Especially given the Qur’an actually insists Muslims lie in order to further their cause. My comments were not in any way meant to say that there are a majority of cuddly, friendly Muslims out there who hate the Jihadis. Merely that we must allow the possibility that there are some.
In short you seem to be very sure of your assumption about why I asked the questions and what I believe…..as you seemed fairly convinced even my name was made up.
Well actually it isn’t- that really is my name. Sorry if it sounds fabricated but appearances can clearly be deceptive.
Neil Jennison says
Oh, and I forgot to say, as I am a mathematician, I do understand reasonably well the term asymptotic. I would add that I do not approach “PC” at all from any direction. I am well away from it.
voegelinian says
Continuing with Neil Jennison, in his latest replies to my last post above:
“BUT it is wrong to say that all people who identify themselves as Muslims are bad people.”
This is an odd red herring and straw man. I certainly didn’t advance such an idea, and other than a handful of anonymous yahoos on discussion forums or chat rooms here and there, nobody else is saying such a thing either (indeed, I’ve found that the overwhelming tendency is to positively avoid such an idea — sometimes with irrationally excessive caution that, so to speak, results in rotating the steering wheel too far to the other (left) side of the road when trying to avoid running off the road on the right). One wonders why Jennison seems to have this anxious need to remind us of what we are already doing and for which there is no evidence there is any danger of such a propensity. One thing that would explain this anxious need is the retention of vestiges of PC MC in his heart & mind (i.e., of an asymptotic tendency).
“So, where you say “”it reflects the anxious need to avoid condemning all Muslims”” then yes, I do not wish to condemn all those who identify themselves as Muslims.”
Here, it depends on what “condemn” means before we impetuously resolve to foreswear it. Would we not condemn anyone and everyone who identifies themselves in solidarity with the KKK? Is Islam not far more pernicious and certainly a million times more dangerous than the KKK? The only way here to avoid doing the math (or to monkey with the equation so we can do the math and still have our cake too (to mix a metaphor with a cliché)) would be to say that innumerable Muslims are unthinkingly enabling Islam and therefore cannot be held responsible for the support they otherwise give to Islam by remaining Muslims. This may well be, but unfortunately, we have no adequate way to tell which Muslims really are this way, as distinct from those who are deceitfully pretending they are (and this wouldn’t be much of a problem if there weren’t taqiyya, and if the dangers from the deceitful ones weren’t so great). If we can’t pinpoint such hapless Muslims who are in the curious position of not knowing their own Islam which they otherwise enable by continuing to identify themselves as Muslim, of what use will they be to our primary concern, the safety of our societies from Muslims trying to destroy us? The only logical use such a hypothetical demographic has is the PC MC use: as a constant reminder to rein in our natural propensity for “bigotry” and “backlash” against Muslims.
Beyond that, “condemn” doesn’t necessarily entail “hate” or “lynch” or “abuse” or a whole host of related activities and thought crimes which semi-consciously haunt the asymptotic. It can primarily and most cogently mean that we expect and demand that any given Muslim take responsibility for the hideously pernicious and deadly Islam they are continuing to enable. To shrink back from such an expectation on our part and soften our treatment of Muslims is to coddle them paternalistically, treating them with kid gloves like children (a curious PC MC and Leftist tendency that ironically simulates and recapitulates the Western Colonialist treatment of indigenous natives), rather than treating them with respect by expecting them to take responsibility for their allegiance.
“Here I agree with you entirely. I do not see the two statements as mutually exclusive. I detest the leftist view of the west as being inclined to bigotry.” (And also: “Your assumptions about me are wrong again….I think you make too many. I do not need freeing from PC – I never believed in it and have fought it all my life.”)
The point and usefulness of the asymptotic term is that it identifies the person who thinks they are free of PC MC, but who nevertheless still retains residues of it in certain habits of thought. I’ve seen it too many times over the years in too many individuals to think it’s an unimportantly marginal phenomenon.
“I am a fair minded person. If there is just ONE person who identifies themselves as Muslim who is a decent person then that is enough for me to not condemn all Muslims.”
Thus Jennison clearly implies that he thinks “condemn” entails the negative things I listed above, rather than, primarily, the reasonable expectation for Muslims to own their Islam (which would result in only two consequences — either being honest about it, (and/)or apostasizing). In addition, however, condemnation entails a general suspicion of Muslims for the purposes of our own safety. Another asymptotic residue from PC MC would anxiously worry that such a suspicion might result in mistreatment of innocent Muslims, and this anxious worry usually involves a whole mélange of incoherently sentimental and irrationally paranoid assumptions all mushed together, necessitating tedious unraveling just to clarify and expose (and then deposit the bulk of it in the yard waste bin); including what I’ve been discussing above, in which a phobia about our bigoted “backlash” plays a consistent, albeit amorphous, part.
Quoting me — “”There may exist “moderate Muslims” out there, but do they exist in sufficient numbers to make a difference? And how do we tell the difference between the authentic “moderate Muslim” and the deceitful Muslim pretending to be one? (And many more important questions.)”” — Jennison then writes:
“Absolutely, I agree 100 %. Especially given the Qur’an actually insists Muslims lie in order to further their cause. My comments were not in any way meant to say that there are a majority of cuddly, friendly Muslims out there who hate the Jihadis. Merely that we must allow the possibility that there are some.”
These two avowals Jennison makes don’t add up: something’s gotta give. If he agrees that all Muslims are suspect, of what use would it be to know, hypothetically (buttressed psychologically — but not logically — by personal anecdotal evidence of friendly Muslims) that “there are some” Muslims who “hate the Jihadis”? The only conceivable use would be, as I said above:
The only logical use such a hypothetical demographic has is the PC MC use: as a constant reminder to rein in our natural propensity for “bigotry” and “backlash” against Muslims.
voegelinian says
Re: my metaphor:
…the overwhelming tendency is to positively avoid such an idea — sometimes with irrationally excessive caution that, so to speak, results in rotating the steering wheel too far to the other (left) side of the road when trying to avoid running off the road on the right).
To complete the sense of my metaphor, one has to include the fact that the “running off the road on the right” — i.e., the danger of “backlash” — is purely in the anxiously fevered imagination of the PC MC/asymptotic, and is not actually happening and shows no signs of erupting (and actually betrays, in the one anxiously fretting over it, a curious detachment or alienation from his own civilization).
Neil Jennison says
“”This is an odd red herring and straw man. I certainly didn’t advance such an idea, and other than a handful of anonymous yahoos on discussion forums or chat rooms here and there, nobody else is saying such a thing either (indeed, I’ve found that the overwhelming tendency is to positively avoid such an idea “”
Then we agree. Although your sarcastic comments about my comments about “Paul” the Muslim who ran the curry house on Spittal Hill in Sheffield suggest otherwise.
“” One wonders why Jennison seems to have this anxious need to remind us of what we are already doing and for which there is no evidence there is any danger of such a propensity. One thing that would explain this anxious need is the retention of vestiges of PC MC in his heart & mind (i.e., of an asymptotic tendency).””
Not really sure what you are babbling on about here. What have I an anxious need to remind you of? Followed by another assumption (which is wrong) and the repeat of this phrase “asymptotic tendency” which must mean something to you, but is impenetrable to me. I have a tendency to asymptotes do I? Or a particular asymptote? Whichever.
“”Thus Jennison clearly implies that he thinks “condemn” entails the negative things I listed above, rather than, primarily, the reasonable expectation for Muslims to own their Islam (which would result in only two consequences — either being honest about it, (and/)or apostasizing). In addition, however, condemnation entails a general suspicion of Muslims for the purposes of our own safety. Another asymptotic residue from PC MC would anxiously worry that such a suspicion might result in mistreatment of innocent Muslims, and this anxious worry usually involves a whole mélange of incoherently sentimental and irrationally paranoid assumptions all mushed together, necessitating tedious unraveling just to clarify and expose (and then deposit the bulk of it in the yard waste bin); including what I’ve been discussing above, in which a phobia about our bigoted “backlash” plays a consistent, albeit amorphous, part.””
What? Did I imply all that? I am clearly more eloquent than I give myself credit for.
What negative things you listed above? I might, or I might not. I cannot say as I have no idea what negative things you listed. What’s this about Muslims “owning their own Islam”? What does that mean? Can you own an Islam – or Islam (collective noun)?
Trying to wade through the next bit about condemnation entailing a general suspicion of Muslims.. Well yes, I suppose it does. Is that bad? Or is that good in your view…I couldn’t tell. Or was something to do with me tending to a number again?
Are you suggesting that as Catholic who is mandated by my religion to love everyone (Muslims included) that I should not give a shit if decent people are mistreated? It seems you are, although what you write is so oblique as to be almost impenetrable. Anyway that is nothing to do with PC, PC MC, or asymptotes. It is my beliefs.
It seems to me, though I could well be wrong, that you seem incapable or understanding that people could hold those views without being at least tainted by political correctness. You are wrong.
“”this anxious worry usually involves a whole mélange of incoherently sentimental and irrationally paranoid assumptions all mushed together, “”
Here we go with you assumptions again…you have the grace to say “usually” but then go on as if it was certain in my case. You are wrong again.
“”a phobia about our bigoted “backlash””” No, wrong again. I have no phobia or argument with it. I am convinced Islam is the biggest threat facing western civilisation. I am totally opposed to Islamic immigration. I am convinced that all Islam teaches all the violent evils that have been discussed. I am convinced Muslims lie about it to us. I am convinced that most Muslims in the west are at the very least sympathetic to violent Jihad and certainly will not condemn it (unless they are lying as per the Quo’ran).
All I said, not for any reasons of PC or tending to infinity as x tends to 0, but for simple reasons of fairness, is that not all people who identify themselves as Muslims (whether they are actually apostate is not for me to judge) wish harm to infidels.
“”These two avowals Jennison makes don’t add up: something’s gotta give. If he agrees that all Muslims are suspect, of what use would it be to know, hypothetically (buttressed psychologically — but not logically — by personal anecdotal evidence of friendly Muslims) that “there are some” Muslims who “hate the Jihadis”? The only conceivable use would be, as I said above:””
Yes they do add up. I cannot be certain that the anecdotal Muslims were not serious Jihadi sympathisers. How can I know? That isn’t the point. To some extent you can say how do I know you are not a Muslim Jihadi making mischief on this site? I cannot know for sure.
It appears to me you have for some reason, (dare I make assumptions like you do without really knowing what beliefs you have?) that you probably misunderstood the thrust of posts initially, that you hadn’t read the other posts I had made on this site, and that you are simply committed now to showing that I am not “one of us”, someone who is not really committed to exposing Islam for the evil it undoubtedly is.
I think you write in impenetrable language which is unclear because you believe it makes you seem more intelligent and educated whereas it just actually obscures your points.
I have no idea why you continue with the argument. I cannot see what you think you are gaining. Do you want me to say, “actually you are right, I think you are terribly dangerous bigot who doesn’t understand the marvellous benefits of multiculturalism and the fact that Muslim immigration has been a great benefit to the west. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance and only few Muslims have misunderstood this”?
Would that make you feel vindicated? Job well done? Move onto the next person that dares to say something that isn’t in your creed?
Well, I haven’t gone anywhere so you were wrong about that too, and my name is still Neil jennison, really. Not made up.
voegelinian says
Jennison wrote:
“What negative things you listed above? I might, or I might not. I cannot say as I have no idea what negative things you listed.”
And:
“What’s this about Muslims “owning their own Islam”? What does that mean? Can you own an Islam – or Islam (collective noun)?”
His questions are easily answered in the text of my comment to which he was responding:
Beyond that, “condemn” doesn’t necessarily entail “hate” or “lynch” or “abuse” or a whole host of related activities and thought crimes which semi-consciously haunt the asymptotic.
As for my statement that Muslims need to “own” their Islam, perhaps Jennison is unfamiliar with the quite common phrase of a person “owning” something other than literally conceived property:
2. To admit as being in accordance with fact, truth, or a claim; acknowledge. (– American Heritage Dictionary)
And I then went on to elaborate:
It can primarily and most cogently mean that we expect and demand that any given Muslim take responsibility for the hideously pernicious and deadly Islam they are continuing to enable… treating them with respect by expecting them to take responsibility for their allegiance.
At this point, I see the conversation with Jennison is degenerating into his inability (or unwillingness) to read my responses carefully, and thus generating the need for me to take the time and trouble to do his work for him and repeat myself. (I may nevertheless see fit to pick out certain statements from his latest response as specimens of the asymptotic tendency useful for study.)
Neil jennison says
Very little is easy to ascertain from a lot of what you write. The list escaped me.
“”As for my statement that Muslims need to “own” their Islam, perhaps Jennison is unfamiliar with the quite common phrase of a person “owning” something other than literally conceived property:””
No, I am not unfamiliar with it, I have just never really understood what is meant. It is a woolly phrase that can mean all things to all men. Do I own my Catholicism? I don’t know. I don’t think so, but maybe you would say I do?
But, what I would really like to do is actually discover what you mean by this asymptotic tendency. Because I had thought I had got a handle on – I had thought you were saying that though I may not think I am being politically correct myself, that I am nonetheless subconsciously, or maybe even subliminally conditioned into thinking at least partly that way.
In which case you are utterly wrong – which is why I replied in the first place.
“”It can primarily and most cogently mean that we expect and demand that any given Muslim take responsibility for the hideously pernicious and deadly Islam they are continuing to enable… treating them with respect by expecting them to take responsibility for their allegiance.””
I didn’t disagree with that.
“”At this point, I see the conversation with Jennison is degenerating into his inability (or unwillingness) to read my responses carefully, and thus generating the need for me to take the time and trouble to do his work for him and repeat myself. (I may nevertheless see fit to pick out certain statements from his latest response as specimens of the asymptotic tendency useful for study.)””
I don’t have a clue what you are saying sometimes. Your sentence construction is (as I said before, I believe deliberately) obtuse.
Neil jennison says
And finally…..
“”The only logical use such a hypothetical demographic has is the PC MC use: as a constant reminder to rein in our natural propensity for “bigotry” and “backlash” against Muslims.””
No it is not. It could be (as it is in fact) a simple wish to fair to every human being. Not a PC, PC MC or whatever, desire to identify anyone as group, or victim group as PC would mandate, but as desire to be fair to human beings.
Something I would extend to all people. Once again, your “logic” works only if I am treating Muslims as special because of the fact they belong to a group called “Muslims”. It fails when you consider I apply it to everyone. Protestants, atheists, Hindus, socialists, communists, Morris dancers, homosexuals, even hippies…..all people.
That is the one reason I will not say “all people who identify themselves as Muslims are bad” any more than I would say all communists are evil.
Neil Jennison says
I am also intrigued as to why you are so hostile to a person who ultimately seems to share your views on Islam.
It seems to me, (though unlike you I admit the possibility that I may be wrong) that you are far more interested in the fact of your own posts rather than the topic.
You haven’t answered why you started these rants. You haven’t actually said why you think I am an asymptote or why you disbelieve me. You seem very obsessed that my deep mistrust of Islam and therefore adherents to Islam is in some way “not pure enough”.
The art of a good communicator or apologist is that they write or speak with clarity. I have never considered myself the worlds greatest in that field but you are pretty poor too.
But then I think that is what you want.
voegelinian says
“I had thought you were saying that though I may not think I am being politically correct myself, that I am nonetheless subconsciously, or maybe even subliminally conditioned into thinking at least partly that way.
In which case you are utterly wrong – which is why I replied in the first place.”
Well, the problem is that the asymptotic may protest, but still be unaware that he is exhibiting what he thinks he has foresworn (and that’s hardly a flaw merely of the asymptotic, but a general human potential). To merely continue to protest is to claim to be above the problem of this potential. I have already palpated many areas where I detect the asymptotic tendency. To refute those, one would have to address what I detect and how I analyze that, rather than just reassert one’s bonafides.
Jennison quoted me:
“”It can primarily and most cogently mean that we expect and demand that any given Muslim take responsibility for the hideously pernicious and deadly Islam they are continuing to enable… treating them with respect by expecting them to take responsibility for their allegiance.””
Jennison then replied:
I didn’t disagree with that.
Jennison did, however, write a snarky remark that implied you didn’t comprehend what I meant by “own” — necessitating me taking the trouble to explain; which he now implies was unnecessary.
Jennison quoted me:
“”At this point, I see the conversation with Jennison is degenerating into his inability (or unwillingness) to read my responses carefully, and thus generating the need for me to take the time and trouble to do his work for him and repeat myself. (I may nevertheless see fit to pick out certain statements from his latest response as specimens of the asymptotic tendency useful for study.)””
Jennison then replied:
I don’t have a clue what you are saying sometimes. Your sentence construction is (as I said before, I believe deliberately) obtuse.
There’s nothing obtuse about the paragraph Jennison claims is obtuse. Let’s take it apart, piece by piece:
“At this point, I see the conversation with Jennison is degenerating into his inability (or unwillingness) to read my responses carefully…”
Is Jennison unable to understand “At this point,…” ?
Let’s see what else I wrote that so baffled Jennison: “I see the conversation with Jennison is degenerating into his inability (or unwillingness) to read my responses carefully…”
What about that is obtuse or unclear? We’ll never know, I suspect. Jennison is content with just labeling it as “obtuse” without actually explaining how it is so.
Quoting me —
“”The only logical use such a hypothetical demographic has is the PC MC use: as a constant reminder to rein in our natural propensity for “bigotry” and “backlash” against Muslims.””
Jennison then replied:
No it is not. It could be (as it is in fact) a simple wish to fair to every human being.
This response is unresponsive to what I already argued above through my rhetorical questions: How is this “simple” fairness to be translated into our policy? What’s the pragmatic point of it in terms of the dangers we face from Muslims? If Jennison were to answer this honestly, one suspects he would admit my characterization of the “only logical use” of this “fairness” is in fact correct.
“I am also intrigued as to why you are so hostile to a person who ultimately seems to share your views on Islam.”
I don’t consider what I’m doing “hostile”; I just have grown weary with the retention of PC MC within the Counter-Jihad.
“You haven’t actually said why you think I am an asymptote or why you disbelieve me. You seem very obsessed that my deep mistrust of Islam and therefore adherents to Islam is in some way “not pure enough”.
I wouldn’t say I’m obsessed; I just don’t like to see asymptotic tendencies within the Counter-Jihad, because they are asinine, and outrageously reckless, considering the dangers we face from Muslims in the coming century.
Neil Jennison says
Here we go again!
“”Well, the problem is that the asymptotic may protest, but still be unaware that he is exhibiting what he thinks he has foresworn (and that’s hardly a flaw merely of the asymptotic, but a general human potential). To merely continue to protest is to claim to be above the problem of this potential. I have already palpated many areas where I detect the asymptotic tendency. To refute those, one would have to address what I detect and how I analyze that, rather than just reassert one’s bonafides.”
So I don’t know my own mind but you do? Even were the first sentence correct there is no reason to suggest that your interpretation is correct instead.
So, logically, to allow me to refute this in a manner you would accept you need to tell me how you analyse what I said. Of course all this is assuming your great insight into the matter is correct. Maybe the archangel Gabriel dictated it to you?
“”It can primarily and most cogently mean that we expect and demand that any given Muslim take responsibility for the hideously pernicious and deadly Islam they are continuing to enable… treating them with respect by expecting them to take responsibility for their allegiance.””
Jennison then replied:
I didn’t disagree with that.
Jennison did, however, write a snarky remark that implied you didn’t comprehend what I meant by “own” — necessitating me taking the trouble to explain; which he now implies was unnecessary.””
No one is forcing you to “take the trouble” to re-write the impenetrable things you write. Perhaps if you wrote them so as to aid understanding rather than to boost your own ego it wouldn’t be necessary.
“”Let’s see what else I wrote that so baffled Jennison: “I see the conversation with Jennison is degenerating into his inability (or unwillingness) to read my responses carefully…””
As you are surely aware, that wasn’t the paragraph that was impenetrable.
“”This response is unresponsive to what I already argued above through my rhetorical questions: How is this “simple” fairness to be translated into our policy? What’s the pragmatic point of it in terms of the dangers we face from Muslims? If Jennison were to answer this honestly, one suspects he would admit my characterization of the “only logical use” of this “fairness” is in fact correct.””
Let’s go through this shall we. My response was to what you quoted “”The only logical use such a hypothetical demographic has is the PC MC use: as a constant reminder to rein in our natural propensity for “bigotry” and “backlash” against Muslims.”” So, it wasn’t intended as an argument to everything you have said so far.
The questions you ask are fair ones. Whether I agree with you would depend on your answers. Once again the assumptions come out as if they were something other than opinion. No, I wouldn’t accept ( in my case) the parts about bigotry and backlash towards Muslims. My reasons are entirely about fairness to all humans, divorced from any group (or victim group) that PC imposes. I am sure there are people that fit the profile you ascribe to me.
“”I don’t consider what I’m doing “hostile”; I just have grown weary with the retention of PC MC within the Counter-Jihad.””
The very fact you call me “Jennison” rather than “Neil”, that you doubted that is my name, the rather unpleasant way you argue implies that is not so.
Does it really matter if there are ranges of opinion within Counter-Jihad? Surely, (even if you were correct about me) then someone who speaks out to people and exposes the lies of the Muslim leaders and their apologists is better than someone who takes the PC view. Or is it more important to you that only what you consider purists take up the Counter -Jihad mantle?
“”I wouldn’t say I’m obsessed; I just don’t like to see asymptotic tendencies within the Counter-Jihad, because they are asinine, and outrageously reckless, considering the dangers we face from Muslims in the coming century.””
You appear obsessed to me about an attribute that you have (wrongly) ascribed to me. People are complex, you do not know enough about my background or beliefs to make the “certain” accusations that you do. If you knew more about me you would hopefully realise that.
voegelinian says
Jennison wrote:
No, I wouldn’t accept ( in my case) the parts about bigotry and backlash towards Muslims. My reasons are entirely about fairness to all humans, divorced from any group (or victim group) that PC imposes.
Jennison still hasn’t answered my questions —
“How is this “simple” fairness to be translated into our policy? What’s the pragmatic point of it in terms of the dangers we face from Muslims? ”
— and instead tried to shift the burden onto me:
The questions you ask are fair ones. Whether I agree with you would depend on your answers.
These questions I have asked in different ways, and Jennison has failed to answer any of them (though he has generated quite a lot of commentary all around actually answering them). For example, I wrote:
” If he [Jennison] agrees that all Muslims are suspect, of what use would it be to know, hypothetically (buttressed psychologically — but not logically — by personal anecdotal evidence of friendly Muslims) that “there are some” Muslims who “hate the Jihadis”? ”
Instead of answering this, Jennison latched onto my subsequent sentence I wrote immediately after that —
” The only conceivable use would be, as I said above:
The only logical use such a hypothetical demographic has is the PC MC use: as a constant reminder to rein in our natural propensity for “bigotry” and “backlash” against Muslims.”
These kinds of statements Jennison has made, along with —
“BUT it is wrong to say that all people who identify themselves as Muslims are bad people.”
— which I already commented on in detail (details Jennison failed to respond to, while talking about all manner of peripheral points), have led me to suspect he has asymptotic tendencies. An ejaculation like the one I just quoted above (let me quote it again for Jennison, who seems apparently unable to scan too many lines above his immediate line of vision) —
“BUT it is wrong to say that all people who identify themselves as Muslims are bad people.”
— are puzzling if they are not explained as the reflex of the asymptotic tendency. Of what point is even mentioned that “it is wrong” if nobody in the West of any significance is even saying that? I guess we’ll never know, because Jennison seems unable or unwilling to be responsive to my central points.
Neil Jennison says
Mr Voegelinian, I could also point out that there are many of my questions you have ignored, but I will do my best anyway.
“How is this “simple” fairness to be translated into our policy? What’s the pragmatic point of it in terms of the dangers we face from Muslims? ”
That is a huge and far ranging question. What policies should we in the West pursue given the dangers of Islamic Jihad? I guess if I had all the answers I should be a politician. I would say politicians have to accept that mainstream Islam promotes violent Jihad as a method of achieving Sharia Law. They should be unafraid to admit this. I would argue that immigration from Islamic countries should be immediately stopped as incompatible with western freedom and democracy. What we can do about the problems Islamic immigration has already created I am less sure.
I think the law should be applied fairly to all which it clearly is not being at the moment in the UK and I suspect from what I read, not in the USA either. The law itself should not favour Islamic practice. The west is supposed to a free society. In the USA freedom of speech is guaranteed constitutionally, here in the UK it has been attacked constantly by “incitement to hatred” laws which are misused. They have to go. I am sure I could go if I were to think about this for a while longer, but life must go on.
“” If he [Jennison] agrees that all Muslims are suspect, of what use would it be to know, hypothetically (buttressed psychologically — but not logically — by personal anecdotal evidence of friendly Muslims) that “there are some” Muslims who “hate the Jihadis”? ””
I think you pay too much attention to my anecdote. It seems to have upset you more than anything. Should I have never eaten in his curry house? Never spoken amicably to him? Should I have treated him as a second class citizen as many Muslims think about us infidels? Should I have eaten his curry, all the while thinking “this man is evil”? If I recall correctly, I also pointed out I could not know for certain whether the chap in question was sympathetic to Jihad or not. But to turn it around, what makes you think ALL Muslims are supporters of Jihad?
[After all Christianity teaches unambiguously that anyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery in the same clear manner that Islam teaches violent Jihad……but there are plenty of divorced and remarried Christians who reject that bit of their Faith because they don’t like it.]
Presumably you don’t. So there is actually no difference there. What good does it do? Well it means that we recognise we cannot just identify the problem by simply the label “Muslim”. If we do that, then we are not being fair. Fairness is central to what I believe .
Then we come back to your central point. The fact that you have almost ex – cathedra, decided that I am PC MC ( Still not sure what the MC part stands for……..maybe I missed that early on?)
“”“BUT it is wrong to say that all people who identify themselves as Muslims are bad people.”
— are puzzling if they are not explained as the reflex of the asymptotic tendency. Of what point is even mentioned that “it is wrong” if nobody in the West of any significance is even saying that? I guess we’ll never know, because Jennison seems unable or unwilling to be responsive to my central points.””
But many people ARE saying it. Just read some of the posts on this site.
You appear to have constructed a view that just doesn’t hold in reality. The reason for making the point is fairly clear. Read some of the posts people have written on these pages. Phrases like “The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim”.
As to the idea that I am only able to scan a few lines at a time……well since you appear to have a problem with multiple scotomata too, a would suggest that is the pot calling the kettle black.
But let’s try calling a spade a spade? Instead of all the waffle (“ejaculation” FFS – I didn’t ejaculate it, I wrote it – my mouth never even opened).
You think I am too willing, too anxious to point out that I am not a racist and that I don’t hate Muslims in general and that makes me politically correct even if I don’t realise it? You think I shouldn’t consider these points at all because pointing out the real dangers of Islam and having an increasingly large Muslim population is the west is not racist?
I still maintain that firstly this is wrong. My views are simply due to fairness and my Catholic beliefs and pre-date the rise of PC.
Secondly, that you have gone to an awful lot of trouble and time to try to prove you are right for absolutely no gain whatsoever.
Suppose you are right……suppose you know my mind better than I do …… What is the point? Neil Jennison gets discounted in the anti-Jihad movement as what? A traitor? Unsound? Worse, sympathetic to Jihadis? So what? Or is it just that Mr. Voegelinian isn’t so bothered by Jihadis as by ego?
[Aside:- This asymptotic thing. Given I clearly reject PC, am I approaching your purist viewpoint asymptotically ? Or are you saying I approach PC asymptotically? You never made that, or indeed much else, clear.]
voegelinian says
Jennison wrote:
“”“BUT it is wrong to say that all people who identify themselves as Muslims are bad people.”
But many people ARE saying it. Just read some of the posts on this site.
Provide proof of your claim.
.Neil Jennison says
As I am sure you are aware, a vector is an entity that has direction and magnitude. I saw the list and the phrase “the lower vector”. I saw no vectors at all. Which direction is the lower vector? Up or down? Ditto the upper one?
As I implied earlier, I think you would be better off seeking assistance for your complex rather than arguing about irrelevances of your pet theory.
I hope it isn’t your life’s work.
voegelinian says
And for those who might be playing along on the home game, and who wants to understand in more detail where I’m coming from on these issues, particularly on my concept of “asymptotic”, they could read the following essay from my blog:
The Asymptotic Psychology
Neil jennison says
My Voegelinian, why the hell didn’t you put this link up earlier in out conversations elsewhere?
It might at least have provided a common frame of reference.
Neil Jennison says
Mr Voegey, how about the post that said “The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim”?
I read your website, and frankly I was a tad unimpressed.
I don’t mean by that there is nothing in what you are trying to say, there may be something there, but the way you use oblique language (as you do here) to make it confusing in the pretence you are using jargon. Field specific jargon exists precisely to make things clear not to obfuscate.
Your use of the word “vector” meant absolutely nothing as you didn’t specify the direction…”the lower vector” ? What does that mean?
In fact the whole thing was extremely unclear though I did manage to glean some of the gist.
Honestly I cannot see the point of your differentiation and I cannot see why you persist in being supercilious rather just engaging with people who might want to hear your viewpoint. As I have said, I can only think it is connected with wanting to feel superior. Unlike you, I accept that I may be wrong in that. I don’t know enough about you to be sure. And frankly, I don’t care either.
I don’t have an inferiority complex that makes me want to prove superiority. I am what I am.
Whether you approve or not I will still speak out against Islam for the evil that it is because I am scared about our civilisation. But I will do it in a way that I see as fair, taking each individual as they are.
voegelinian says
“Your use of the word “vector” meant absolutely nothing as you didn’t specify the direction…”the lower vector” ? What does that mean?”
If I spell everything out for people who don’t try to see elementary context, I’d have to increase the size of my essays by 3-fold. The word “vector” was clearly adverting to the immediately following vertical list that, ipso facto, has “upper” and “lower” terms.
voegelinian says
Jennison claimed:
“many people ARE saying it. Just read some of the posts on this site.”
I wrote:
“Provide proof of your claim.”
Jennison responded:
“Mr Voegey, how about the post that said “The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim”? ”
This fails to be adequate proof for Jennison’s claim, which I invite the reader to re-read by performing the minimal operation of scrolling up a few inches.
Neil Jennison says
If you say so Vogey, if you say so. I cannot be arsed.
I suspect there are no longer any readers of this tedious drivel, but if there are I suspect they haven’t much of clue what you are on about either.
As to your rather odd use of the word “vector”, of course it has something to do with the list. But as I say, a vector needs direction. Lower, and upper are not directions.
But it hardly matters. Why don’t you invent another pet theory that clearly is the infallible word of Vogey and write another essay on it?
voegelinian says
P.S.: It is worth adding at this juncture that when I asked Jennison for proof of his claim, the context was my previous response to this asymptotic spasm of his:
“… it is wrong to say that all people who identify themselves as Muslims are bad people.”
At the time, my response was that such an ejaculation as this is “puzzling if [it is] not explained as the reflex of the asymptotic tendency.” I went on to elaborate by asking the rhetorical question:
“Of what point is [it] even mentioned that “it is wrong [viz., to say that all people who identify themselves as Muslims are bad people] if nobody in the West of any significance is even saying that?”
Thus, Jennison’s response to my request for proof fails doubly, for not only does he only cite one example (with no evidence, by the way), he fails to show that even that one example represents a person in the West of any significance, rather than an insignificant (and tiny) minority that don’t even reflect the civilians of the Counter-Jihad (much less any of the influential and brave activists out in the “real world” doing important work for the movement (e.g., Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Frank Gaffney,Clare Lopez, Diana West, Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, Andrew Bostom, Bill Warner, Paul Weston, Geert Wilders, Magdi Allam, Alexandre Del Valle, Sam Harris; and on and on and on and on…) As I put it at another juncture in my overall conversation with Jennison in specific response to the same asymptotic spasm (viz., “it is wrong to say that all people who identify themselves as Muslims are bad people”):
This is an odd red herring and straw man. I certainly didn’t advance such an idea, and other than a handful of anonymous yahoos on discussion forums or chat rooms here and there, nobody else is saying such a thing either (indeed, I’ve found that the overwhelming tendency is to positively avoid such an idea — sometimes with irrationally excessive caution that, so to speak, results in rotating the steering wheel too far to the other (left) side of the road when trying to avoid running off the road on the right). (And subsequently I added that this asymptotic tendency to yank the steering wheel way over to the left in anxious alarm at the vehicle careening too far to the right is imaginary and an irrationally excessive reaction to a vehicle not in fact lurching too far to the right — as evidenced precisely by Neil Jennison’s anxiety about “many” who are saying that “all people who identify themselves as Muslims are bad people” when he can’t provide proof of many saying this, and the one example he cites is not proven to be a person of any significance, rather than the kind of yahoo riff-raff all movements and all societies throughout all time have on the edges.
voegelinian says
As I said somewhere above, Jennison provides us a specimen of the asymptotic tendency. One feature may seem remarkable — namely, his repeated assurances of his conviction that he is not asymptotic at all (i.e., has not traces of PC MC influencing his heart and/or mind). At first glance, this may seem to be a remarkable and additional feature; but on second thought, it is perfectly logical and essential part of the definition. The frankly PC MC individual is honest about (and often self-righteously proud of) his PC MC; the asymptotic, however, is in denial about the retention of a degree of PC MC in his heart and/or mind — that, indeed, is the whole point of the asymptotic tendency: the denial of PC MC motivating and informing (to some degree) his expressions and activism. And as I have pointed out in more than one essay on my blog about this, this denial seems to have the psychological effect of causing the asymptotic individual to redouble his efforts at demonstrating his Counter-Jihad bonafides.
Neil Jennison says
Yes, really interesting and thought provoking that Vogey.
What makes a Vogey bang on ad nauseam about his pet theory? Apart from his intellectual insecurity?
Don’t answer that, life’s too short.
voegelinian says
I’d prefer a person with intellectual insecurity if he were warning me that my house is burning down, to a person snidely assuring me it’s not when it is.
Neil jennison says
Very true Vogey. But of course, both of us are shouting “fire”.