Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Spencer's Paradox: Another instance of thousands that can be plucked out of a hat
Spencer is an excellent reporter, but an incoherent analyst, of the Problem of Islam.
Today on Jihad Watch, Spencer the Excellent Reporter reports about an outbreak of Muslim rioting in Nigeria:
Hundreds of Muslims took to the streets of this northern Nigerian city on Sunday (April 20), attacking Christians and their shops and setting vehicles on fire on claims that a Christian had blasphemed Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. Thousands of Christians were trapped in churches until police dispersed rioters. Fearing that Muslims may attack again, many Christians have relocated to army and police barracks in the city.
As I discussed in part 2 of my 4-part analysis Robert Spencer: Soft on Islam?, Spencer the Incoherent Analyst is on record affirming that:
There are millions upon millions of people who are culturally Muslim but are not interested in advancing the jihad agenda or even necessarily aware of it.
Granted that this is very likely to be true. The problem is, we cannot sufficiently tell the difference between Muslims who are apparently harmless, and the ones who are now either deceitfully masking their dangerousness, or who may be relatively harmless now but who will at some indeterminable point in the future become dangerous, or who may just be taking a superficial break from the darkness of Islam and thereby merely seem to be okay from our limited perspective.
This problem is furthermore complicated by the singularly effective sociopolitico-cultural phenomenon in Islamic culture whereby Muslims in a variety of ways can enable the dangerousness and closely related supremacism inherent to Islam through various degrees of passivity and therefore various degrees of apparent harmlessness.
Now, our question of the day is: before these hundreds of Muslim Nigerians rioted in Nigeria and started attacking the lives and properties of Christian Nigerians, how many of them could easily have been counted as among Spencer’s “millions upon millions of people who are culturally Muslim but are not interested in advancing the jihad agenda or even necessarily aware of it. . .”? This rhetorical question highlights the fact that Spencer, in truth, has no way of knowing, and that furthermore, it is extremely likely that among those hundreds of rioters, many of them would have appeared to Spencer’s eyes to be among those “millions and millions” he refuses to condemn and whom moreover he insists on exonerating (if only, that is, he could actually pinpoint who they are).
That is the problem. The only way to meaningfully and concretely get around that problem is to face the grim fact that, because we cannot sufficiently tell the difference between Muslims who are apparently harmless and those who are potentially or covertly dangerous, we must rationally assume all Muslims are dangerous, and act accordingly.
With a nebulous diaspora all over the globe of innumerable, indeterminable Muslims fanatically bent on mass-murdering as many of us as possible and of wreaking untold damage to our infrastructure in the pursuit of their deranged eschatology, and with untold numbers of further Muslims either passively enabling those fanatics, or more or less actively supporting them, the risks are simply too high to do otherwise.
So, on which side will Spencer resolve his paradox? Will he join his hero Oriana Fallaci in saying in no uncertain terms that “Islam is indeed a problem”? It seems not. It seems that Spencer the Incoherent Analyst will continue to try to evade the stark decision that his paradox, mounting more and more under the pressure of the mountain of horrific data which Spencer the Excellent Reporter presents daily and incessantly, demands—just as he danced nimbly around the aforementioned question thusly through his typical weaselly sophistry by answering:
“Elements of Islam are the problem. Muslims who reject them sincerely and work against those elements are not the problem.”