Spinning Islam

In light of the dustup with James White, it's important not to lose sight of the big picture. What's the larger issue? Speaking for myself:

1. Islam produces dangerous, pathological cultures. When Muslims migrate to the West, we see a pattern that keeps repeating itself like a self-replicating disease. The Muslims bring their social mores with them. This isn't confined to terrorists masquerading as refugees. Rather, this includes honor-killings, a well-documented rape culture, &c. 

In addition to Muslim immigrants who are already terrorists, Muslims form ethnic enclaves that foment domestic terrorism. Their youth are taught to hate the host country. 

Moreover, you have collusion between Muslim communities and the authorities. Instead of protecting innocent men, women, and children from Muslim aggression, the authorities protect Muslim aggressors. Here's one example: 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/3085/german-mayor-victim-blames-elementary-school-girls-michael-qazvini

The authorities make it a hate crime to even criticize Muslims. It's not the Muslim thugs who get in trouble, but whistleblowers. 

2. This is an utterly predictable and preventable problem. We see the same pattern beginning to replicate itself in the US. This is avoidable. It doesn't have to happen. 

Immigration policy ought to be selective. We should not invite people-groups into the country who despise the host country. We should not allow people into the country who oppose freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. There's no legal or moral obligation to import subversives into your country. Indeed, there's a duty not to expose the innocent to gratuitous harm. Not to put the innocent at foreseeable, unnecessary risk. 

3. Are all Muslims terrorists? No. Are most Muslims terrorists? No. 

Keep in mind that this isn't just about terrorism. See point #1.

Let's take a comparison: the KKK used to be a major domestic terrorist organization. But I doubt all Klansmen participated in lynch mobs. I expect you had many businessmen and aspiring politicians who joined the KKK for social advancement. That was a way of networking. Expanding their customer base. Getting a foothold in elective office.

And yet it would be entirely appropriate for anyone who belonged to the KKK to share the stigma of what it represents. If you resent the odium that comes with membership in the KKK, don't join in the first place.

4. Consider another example. Christians who do prison ministry need to take precautions. For instance, they need to conceal their contact info so that inmates don't have access to their home address, Social Security numbers, &c. It's good to evangelize prisoners, and some become genuine converts. But you don't know which is which. 

5. With that context in mind, let's go back to White. Here's  how he's cast himself in this drama. His critics attack him because he tries to be accurate. He refuses to broadbrush Muslims. His critics attack him because he tries to be consistent. His critics attack him because he doesn't resort to double standards. His critics attack him because he has civil debates with Muslims. 

Of course, that's a ridiculous straw man. Are people like me saying: "You know what's wrong with White? He tries to be accurate! You know what's wrong with White? He tries to be consistent! You know what's wrong with White? He eschews double standards!"

White is doing a bait-n-switch. Instead of engaging actual criticisms, he caricatures what people like me are really saying, then defends himself against caricatures of his own devising. 

In fact, White is conspicuously inconsistent. Conspicuously inaccurate when dealing with critics. 

Let's take a few examples of his real modus operandi:

i) In the June 15 DL, he began by accusing people of jumping the gun on Omar Mateen's motives. Pushing their preconceived agenda. 

Yet on June 12, right after initial reports of the Orlando shooting, he went on Facebook to post an instant reaction piece, pushing his own agenda. 

ii) On the one hand, White tells us that if a Muslim says he repudiates jihad, we should take his word for it. We should credit the testimony of Muslims who say they deplore jihadist atrocities.

On the other hand, when it comes to Mateen's stated motives, White told viewers that we should discount Mateen's testimony. What if that was just a "cover" story?

Keep in mind that there's much more evidence than Mateen's 9/11 call. He has a history of sympathetic statements and associations with militant Islam.

The fact that White began to spin some very speculative conjectures about Mateen's real motives is an example of his Muslim partisanship. When your first impulse is to make excuses for a Muslim terrorist, that reflects a telltale bias. 

iii) White rationalized skepticism about Mateen's testimony because there's evidence that Mateen was homosexual. The implication, apparently, is that since homosexual activity is incompatible with Muslim ethics, Mateen wasn't a real Muslim, or his motive for shooting up the gay nightclub wasn't religious.

One problem with that explanation is that what seems inconsistent to outsiders doesn't seem inconsistent to insiders. For instance, Muslims constantly rail against the immodesty and licentiousness of Western culture. Yet various Muslim cultures have polygamy, concubinage, sex slaves, pederasty, gang rape, and adult men who marry adolescent or even prepubescent girls.

That's glaringly at odds with their sanctimonious attacks on Western sexual mores. But they don't see it that way. The fact that Muslim sexual mores are so blatantly hypocritical doesn't mean they aren't real Muslims. 

iv) White accuses his critics of "broadbrushing" Muslims or "lumping" all Muslims together as terrorists. Yet in saying that, White himself is guilty of broadbrushing his critics. He lumps all his critics together, as if every critic takes the position that all Muslims are terrorists.

v) Then there's the question of whether White has gone soft on Islam. I'm not a regular viewer of the DL, so I can't say if White's position has changed.

However, White did another bait-n-switch. The question isn't whether White is soft on Islam in the sense that White is a religious pluralist, or that White might convert to Islam. Critics like me aren't suggesting that he's soft on Islam in that sense.  

Rather, he's soft on Muslims from the public safety and security aspect.