Strike one: Spencer swings, misses mark

Today, in a comment in the comments field of the Koran-shooting/Koran-kissing article on Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer not so indirectly characterized my objection(s) to his position thusly:

. . .they [i.e., cantor (moi) and Lawrence Auster] buttress their claim with falsehoods such as their claim that I want the West not to resist the jihadists. . .

This is patently false, as anyone who has read this blog will know.

What I do claim with reference to my objections to Spencer, as amply demonstrated in my essays here on this blog, is mainly:

1) Spencer in some ways (mainly as a Reporter) is doing an excellent job for our War of Ideas against Islam, but in other ways (when he dons his Analyst hat) he is for a variety of reasons being counter-productive;

2) Among which are that:

a) Spencer needs to widen his resistance from the unduly narrow and asymptotic “jihadists” to all of Islam, and to all Muslims who either actively support or to one degree or another passively enable Islam—which, because of the unique features of taqiyya and because of the exigencies of our self-defense, perforce embraces all Muslims;

b) Spencer needs to clarify his ostensible contradictions between kinda sorta condemning Islam and not condemning Islam, and between kinda sorta acknowledging the logical implications of taqiyya—that it makes all Muslims suspect—and asserting that there are “millions and millions” of peaceful Muslims as though that has any actual and pragmatic significance with regard to taqiyya and the exigencies of our self-defense.

3) Or, Spencer could hang up his Analyst hat and devote all his time to what he does best: Report on the mountain of horrible garbage emanating out of Islam both in the news in our time, as well as in Islamic politico-religious commentaries and writings today and throughout history.

This is my opinion. I could be wrong. But I don’t think I am, and I have a right to voice it.