Jihad Watch reader James sent me this yesterday, and I posted it here. Now a blogger named Ali Eteraz, about one of whose writings I wrote here, has posted at Dean Esmay's site saying that the story came from him and he should have been credited.
Actually, I think that's probably true. After all, James sent me this from Esmay's site, so it's possible he saw this there too.
So here's your link, Mr. Eteraz. There is no dark conspiracy going on here; I have no problem linking to your site, and in fact, before you wrote this post, I linked to your site in this post.
This coming from Esmay's site, however, all sorts of dark motives are imputed to me. Eteraz says, "The other reason I find it particularly troubling is that in my post about the letter I added a whole section about how the Iranian activist to whom the website belongs to, patently opposes groups that favor destabilizing the Iranian Government. I even cited to her article in another magazine. These caveats, however, are not present in the JihadWatch post, which is probably well for them, because we know what JihadWatch think of any Muslim government."
Why didn't I link to that or comment on it? Because I didn't see it until this morning. And what is it exactly that we all know about what JW thinks of any Muslim government? Do tell, Mr. Eteraz: what is it that JW thinks of both the Shah and Khomeini, and of Bourguiba and Ataturk as well as Ahmadinejad and the House of Saud? I can't wait to hear. And it would be good of you to back up your assertions with citations from my actual writings, if it isn't too much trouble.
Then Eteraz says:
But why would JihadWatch (or a reader of it) be interested in Muslim activism against Muslim oppression — that would destroy the entire (weak) thesis on which Jihad Watch rests, namely, that all or most Muslims are dangerous.
The slander just keeps coming from the Esmay crowd. Mr. Eteraz, please cite where I have ever said or written that "all or most Muslims are dangerous." Happy hunting. And Jihad Watch doesn't cover Muslim activism against Muslim oppression? Perhaps Mr. Eteraz would be so kind as to explain the presence of posts like this one, which is not newly-minted but dates from 2 months after I started this site, and which recounts the travails of a member of the Islamic Iran Participation Front, a group that opposes the mullahocracy. Hmmm. Could that be a Muslim group? Just do a search here and you'll find many more articles about the Iranian opposition -- Muslim activists against Muslim oppression. And recently, we have posted stories about Muslims opposing the Talibanization of Somalia.
Finally, it's interesting to note that while Ali Eteraz is all exercised about not getting a link here, he doesn't seem to have called "Matoko Kusanagi" or Dean Esmay aside and whispered to them that "perfect man" is indeed a perfectly good translation of al-insan al-kamil, or that Adam is not in fact called al-insan al-kamil in the Qur'an. Instead, he seems content to let them think they've caught me in a great error when they're patently wrong, and to fire away with more slanders at me instead.
But as I noted here, truth, accuracy and fairness just don't seem to be in the lexicon of the Esmay crowd, at least when it comes to me and Jihad Watch. I do not think it wise, however, to leave their slanders unanswered, lest people of good will be swayed by them, and that is the reason for this posting.
I've read your explanations, and I have infinite respect for you, but I just don't think you should link to them at all. They don't deserve any traffic. It represents an extreme version of feeding the trolls.
Having been online since the early days of the internet(unfortunately so as my original email address is so old that I get spam from even Greenland) I have dealt with all sorts of people, decent and otherwise.
Without wishing to sound sycophantic I can honestly say that as an average poster on JW/DW I have had nought but courtesy and fairness from Robert Spencer. This is to be expected as the same traits are projected in his books. There is no hint of arrogance and not the slightest taint of dishonesty, intellectual or otherwise. Also, as he well knows there is quite a lot of patience demonstrated in his interactions with us posters over various disputes and problems and I know for certain as I have tried him on many occasions.
So I would not worry about what some Onanic idiot says as we, the regular readers of the site have made up our own minds, and this is NOT based upon our common dislike of the islamic enemy but upon what we construe from the various postings by Robert Spence who unlike Esmay places his life on the line for his beliefs.
l have read JW over the years, and only started posting a year ago. Robert has been more than fair, and bent over backwards to accomodate all. Even when l have disagreed on some parts although very minor, Robert has been gracious and never condenscending, for which l am thankful. This webiste is not for the faint of heart if you are a seeker of truth. The truth, and knowing that what you thought was right and that this website challenges your intellect can be downright scary for some. But when you are ready to be challenged and find the answers this site is wonderful. l have learned so much, people send in links all the time, and knowledge just comes pouring in. People have to be ready to learn from this site. thankyou Robert and all your support team on JW.
Mr. Spencer, if your remarks are aimed at those who've been defaming and distorting you, they're guaranteed to be ineffective. If they're for us who already admire you and appreciate your contributions to this topic, they're unnecessary. Just keep speaking truth and shooting the arrow straight. If Jefferson was right that Truth is guaranteed to prevail, then all will be well.
Evening from Sydney.
Robert I clicked your link and was transported to Esmay's site. Then I got sucked into reading the drivel on it.
May I have my 5 minutes back please?
Kind regards
PA
The adherents of a religion are supposed to reflect its founder, seems as though Ali Eteraz is doing a fine job!
It's amazing that people like Esmay and Co. are concerned about Robert Spencer and JW or Robert's soon-to-be #1 bestselling book. They are like Adam-the-Nut in that regard. Perhaps they should focus their attention on the Jew-hater in Iran, and the various Islamofoolya Jihadists who don't understand that the Islamic belief-system is peaceful and that unbelievers don't have to worry about violence from believers in the Muslim belief-system in Darfur, Israel, etc. or Muslim intolerance (as in Saudi Arabia).
Robert has become the hook for a lot of the jealousy, insecurities and anger of people like Esmay and Adam-the-Nut types. There's a shadowy emotional edge with them in this matter that has nothing to do with Robert's scholarship. They are not hunting for truth, but looking for a Gotchya Robert. They search in vain. (However, some of these people are likely dangerous and similar to Adam-the-Nut in their lack of rationality and potential violence.)
"These trashy Trolls (yes, I will say that) are coming out of the woodwork because they don't want to see the truth about islam and its followers to come out".-AmericaninGermany.
Absolutely. They are really pissed at Robert and very jealous, too. His soon to be #1 bestseller is really going to rattle their cage when it becomes a blockbuster bestseller.
Mr. Spencer,
Thanks for the link and the post. Although like I said in my post, I really wasn't interested in that (plus I knew you had already linked to me in another discussion).
I do think that you are practicing a litle bit of guilt by association on me. Just because I am at Dean's World, or because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I do it on the same bases as the people there. I will be more than happy, in time, to tell you why I can't approve of your methods, or your methodologies, for that matter.
Nevertheless, you should be aware that even as I was once making fun of you readers, I had something positive to say about you:
http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/05/19/some-jihadwatch-hilarity/
"The following has nothing to do with Robert Spenser, the founder of Jihad Watch. While his commentator section is rife with reactionaries, he himself is not an essentialist: in other words, while I disagree with some of his views on Islam, you can have an intelligent conversation with him. He knows the Quran, the Sunnah and Fiqh. He has his opinions but we can concur on the supremacy of reason."
Good day.
'While his commentator section is rife with reactionaries,' ~eteraz
Yep, eteraz. We react badly to being murdered, enslaved, slandered, terrorized...
Well, I certainly have no trouble saying what I think about a Muslim government and justice system that would stone a poor woman for trying to feed her kids, and making her children watch her die.
Cruel, cowardly, bloodthirsty 7th century tyrants. **spit**
Sign me,
Reactionary and proud of it.
Mr Eteraz-
It might be good if you confront the Islamofoolya folks who are pretending that Islam is not a religion of peace. It's the Islamofoolyas that are the problem in Darfur and other places on the planet. Organize a Muslim belief-system protest against the genocide in Darfur. That's a good start in opposing the Islamafoolyas.
Islam has a Halloween problem that is being caused by violent Jihadists who keep pretending that the Islamic belief system is not peaceful. Tell them to stop pretending that Islam is not a peaceful belief-system.
I am glad to have the links so I can go to the source and decide for myself.
I am absolutely shocked to discover that somebody used a straw man againts Jihad Watch. Absolutely shocked.
Well, here's my two bits being a long time JW/DW reader, sometime commenter and hanging about Un-Willing Self Negation (Ali Eteraz' site) for about year, and 'talking' with gulf arabs nearly every day for about 5 years somewhere else.
Ali, is to gulf arabs I 'speak' with, an apostate. Period. Nothing can place him more accurately in the salafi-freak khomeinist-freak spectrum than this. He is totally on another wavelength. More such apostates is what we need.
I am not a quranic expert, but I do know and understand history very well.
Ali merely feels that Islam is not what these guys represent, and has defended this position. Rare, and I'm not satisfied he is right, but more of Ali and we might have the makings of violent reform (not his choice, but it can't end another way worldwide, IMHO). My judgement is that he realizes he does not have the microphone in Islam, nor do those who think as he does, but he goes on. My opinion is that there is no 'but' in his condemnations. However, there are not enough of him, and there won't be. So, IMHO, his Islam won't be Islam.
We don't agree politically or strategically, but my sense is, we wouldn't be trying to kill each other over the arithmetic quantity of prophets, nor does he feel compelled to fight the people until they believe in Allah and his messenger, and forbid themselves... yadda yadda.
I wouldn't personally characterize his exchanges at Gates of Vienna as a dust up.
Taqiyya? Maybe...but someone has to step in the middle. If not the most skeptical among us..who?
Mr. Spencer ..I've read the Myth, and your latest (simultaneous with Steyn), and they're great..carry on !
Frank
I agree with you that this is mostly about jealousy.
Mr Eteraz:
I'm so proud of being one of Robert's reactionary readers. I was fortunately born after Stalin's purges of the so-called "reactionaries" and saboteurs in the USSR.
What an irony--and an honor--to end up among a similar group here, in the U.S.
Eteraz:
The following has nothing to do with Robert Spenser [sic], the founder of Jihad Watch. While his commentator section is rife with reactionaries, he himself is not an essentialist: in other words, while I disagree with some of his views on Islam, you can have an intelligent conversation with him.
I would not be surprised if Eteraz rejects essentialism, instead subscribing to the irrational doctrine of nominalism. Since nominalism is after all the shaky ground upon which most, if not all, Islam apologism rests, Eteraz, being an Islam apologist, probably cannot do without it.
It would, however, be interesting to hear from Spencer himself whether there is any truth to Eteraz' claim that Spencer is not an essentialist.
Hi Robert,
I urge you to not get too worked up at people's misrepresentations of your work. I'm not defending those misrepresentations, but I think that most people who write for the internet (or for other media, come to think of it) do not take the time to deeply understand the subjects on which they write. You are unusually careful in this respect, and that is one of the reasons that your work has become influential. You have to answer them, but I don't think that it is worth getting upset about. The internet is a great leveller. Anyone can post his opinion, but most of the opinions are not worth attending to --- that's a given.
You will continue to attract unwelcome negative attention from people who don't agree and who are unwilling to make the effort to understand your position well enough to intelligently interact with it. I'm afraid that it's "part of the job description."
Thanks for the great work that you have done. I think that it is making a difference.
Sincerely yours,
SRC
Eteraz's comment is ridiculous.
It is both the behaviour of islamic governments (and, it would seem, individuals) toward their muslim and non-muslim subjects that so concerns us. If it appears that we lack sympathy towards muslims under islam, Eteraz, then tell us please: how are we to help those who do not wish to be helped, and who come to our countries with the object of making them 'just like home'? We, and I, have every sympathy towards those oppressed by islam, but it is difficult to treat oppressor as victim when he simultaneously refuses treatment.
But perhaps we should do so more. Perhaps we should consider that the patient - muslims - are not guilty of their own disease - islam. Yet, how is this implementable, when the patient is both the victim and the willing transmitter? Speaking as a communist myself, should we similarly sympathize with hardline communists in communist countries, despite that the practice of communism in such countries has the result of putting people in the likes of Siberia, or buries them in unquiet rice paddies?
And if so, why?
Geoff
"You have to answer them, but I don't think that it is worth getting upset about".-Dhimmisoftheworldunite
Deep down they know that this guy (Robert)is very scrupulous about facts and they know where to rattle him. They tend to put words in his mouth that he never said and I think it is done with a deliberate and malicious intention by Esmay and others. It's not a misunderstanding on their part. It's a pattern.
However, the slanders and threats are a kind of honor. It reminds me of a confrontation Abe Lincoln had with slavery supporters in some town in the southern part of Illinois. They threatened to "tar and feather" Lincoln as he was giving a speech that opposed slavery. The tar-and-feather crowd moved toward the dais from which he was speaking. Lincoln looked at them and said,"it is a great honor that you want to tar-and-feather me, but regretfully for you, I will decline the honor".
It's an honor coming from Esmay and his kind, but some are potentially dangerous.
Mr. Spencer, you are damn good. It seems to me as though Esmay crowd simply can't handle the truth. I
Esmay, Eteraz and company are time-wasting turkeys. Let them crank out whatever they feel they must. The rest of us will rightly ignore them and continue on with our lives.
Deliver us from Islam (and the morons who would deliver this horror to US).
"You think those women in the world whom you compare to the college aged American girls who strip to make extra cash are actually comparable to one another?"- Eteraz (from link posted)
This guy has some serious problems.
Muslim activism against Muslim oppression...
What a fantastic and ridciulous phrase. At the magazine feed end of the barrel, the word Islam means submit. On the business end of the same barrel, Islam means submission or oppression.
The notion of Moslems activating against Moslem oppression is, therefore, preposterous.
But, then again, all of Islam has been preposterous since 610 AD. The whole danged thing is a sick joke, but a sick joke that can impoverish you, enslave you, or even kill you.
Ha ha, hee hee.
anonymous
I don't want to speak for Robert, but I think the essentialism/realism vs. nominalism quarrel is neither here nor there with Robert's approach. It's a specious dichotomy meant only to show Mr E. is well-read in (postmodern)"cultural studies."
Robert's unambiguous thesis is that,
(1) There is a text, material, easily accessible to anybody, with a definite and immutable, because dictated by God, message/truth, the Qu'ran, and a series of other texts, the Hadith, backing up and reinforcing the Qu'ran, all of them dating back to Mohammed's age and after, all of them setting the doctrines and the guidelines of a Muslim's life and the life of the entire Muslim community, the ummah;
(2) Contemporary Jihadists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, revive and follow the commandments for pious, strict Muslims found in the Qu'ran and the Traditions. Every single act of theirs is based in and legitimized thru the sacred texts.
Whether that interpretation is right or wrong, depending on, for example, a literal vs. allegoric interpretation of the Qu'ran, is beside the point, and not Robert's concern.
What matters is that Jihadists act on what they think is the word and the commandment of Allah thru his prophet.
It's not Robert's goal (and certainly not his obligation) to discern how best to interpret the Quran. He considers the evidence/text he knows very well and what's being made of it by Islamist mujahedeen, here and now.
His conclusion is that Islamic violence is rooted in its holy books. Osama and his friends, Al Zawahiri,Al-Quaradawi and that source of absolute evil, Khomeini, are all in accord that Muhammad demanded conquest by the sword of the Infidel world, advocated shedding of blood for Allah.
"But why would JihadWatch (or a reader of it) be interested in Muslim activism against Muslim oppression — that would destroy the entire (weak) thesis on which Jihad Watch rests, namely, that all or most Muslims are dangerous."
A reader here ( at least me) is interested in hearing about any attempt of true reform, or "moderation" from the followers of islam. I would like a better definination of "oppression", it is a broad brush to guess at what the writer intends by the word.
Also, muslims are not the trouble, islam is. To fight against HIV, you do not kill the hoast, you must dig deeper to expose the virus, only then can one start to make the illness harmless.
Islam is the virus, the enemy. The muslim is just a carrier. If islam infects for too long, the hoast becomes mad, and is lost.
Greetings from South Africa
I too looked at Mr. Esmay's site. They are trying to create a lot of smoke to obscure the fire, and doing a bad job of it. Anyone wanting the real deal would certainly not be wasting time there.
I appreciate the manner in which JW/DW is addressing this enormous problem facing humanity, by sticking to the truth and nothing but the truth.
I have ordered "The Truth about Muhammad", and expectantly await it's arrival. It has to be imported but should be here in about 3 weeks.
Two weeks ago I chanced upon this site, and since then I have been visiting daily to gain more insight into the global jihad. I must say that my eyes have been opened wide and I have been shocked by the extent of Muslim global infiltration.
Anyone who, after visiting this site, and reading in between the lines in the media, cannot see the enormity of this problem, is walking around with his/her head in the clouds.
Thanks and good luck.
Why do you waste your time with dimwits?
"Eteraz says:
But why would JihadWatch (or a reader of it) be interested in Muslim activism against Muslim oppression"
JW/DW gives a lot of attention Tashbih Sayyed, publisher of "Muslim World Today" because this is where I learned of that site. I suspect that Sayyed along with Salim Mansur and Salman Rushdie also fall into the category of Muslim activists against Muslim oppression.
Esmay, Eteraz et. al. come on now in your hearts of hearts you know that Islam is not a religion of peace and people like Robert Spencer and others are bravely telling the truth and risking their lives to do it. Mr Spencer is right on when he says:
"The slander just keeps coming from the Esmay crowd. Mr. Eteraz, please cite where I have ever said or written that "all or most Muslims are dangerous." Happy hunting. "
We all here know that all or most MUSLIMS are not the problem but Islam is. The thing is if you can seperate the muslim from islam (or the spots from a cheetah) I say go ahead. Most muslims wouldnt think of doing evil but its there in their book. So when one of their progeny picks it up: a child or a great great grandchild living in the West, reads it, and starts to take it seriously (as muslims are commanded to do by Muhammed anyway) what will be the outcome?
More "americans" who get "sudden jihad syndrome" like that grad student in North Carolina who got in his car to kill as many of the unbelievers as he could. The Qur'an is a "magic" book, unfortunately its dark magic all the way with the ability to draw in followers through promises (youll go to heaven for SURE if you die as a martyr in jihad my lad)...
link:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2006/03/010518print.html
Esmay, Eteraz and company here is something for you to read-QUIT WHINING!
If you guys want to be lapdogs for the Islamaniacs who would exterminate us all (including you guys) that's your business. We have our own little site here that feels differently. If we rant and rave over Islamania the reason is simple-every day brings fresh news (always bad) of insane speeches from lunatics, stories of kidnappings, bombings and murders as well as the extermination of the most basic of rights under sharia. If such things to do not bother you then more power to you. But these things bother us here a great deal, some of us more than others.
The reason Robert Spencer (praise be upon him!) provides this site for us to vent our spleens is because your side dominates virtually all the media. What are we supposed to do, act out our rage and disgust in the same manner as those you seem to favor? If you and your ilk choose to bury your heads in the sand about the menace that continually tries to enslave the world that's your affair. We choose to not do so. Robert Spencer (PBUH) has been highly fair to Islam-more so than a lot of us here, so accusing him of any impropriety is totally asinine since he himself probably doesn't agree with much that gets posted here.
Perhaps you guys should concentrate more on the real menace of our times rather than what one measly little website is up to and jumping to conclusions about possible "plots". We are happy to leave you in peace and we'd like the same consideration.
Esmay, Eteraz and company are time-wasting turkeys.
Posted by: pythagoras at October 21, 2006 01:07 PM
Why do you waste your time with dimwits?
Posted by: Benjamin at October 21, 2006 02:59 PM
While someone like Esmay is rather evidently a time-wasting turkey and dimwit, the problem is that the worldview which shapes Esmay's opinions on the Problem of Islam is a prevalent worldview in our era, and among those who subscribe to that worldview there are not only evidently dimwitted turkeys but also more surreptitiously and apparently intelligent sorts like eteraz, as well as types who inhabit many gradations on a spectrum in between. And it is this worldview -- which I think it best to give the pithy label "PC" -- which is the most serious obstacle now to the West's collective ability to analyze, diagnose, and take concrete actions against, the Problem of Islam.
So I think Spencer's formal rebuttals of the Esmayists is time well spent.
Robert,
It's always good to listen to what our opponents have to say. & I understand the need to respond to these people as other people are probably saying the same thing that do. It's just that when the details get tedious and no one really cares, you need to stop. My understanding of human psychology is that we tend to get lost in labyrinths of "he said that she said that he said." I tend to be a mathy sort of person, but even my eyes glaze over reading your "dialogue" with Esmay & friends. It's not your fault. It's the subject, as I enjoy your other writing.
Of course, when you are able to make humour out of your efforts, it's probably a good use of time.
To the critics:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
You can also find the hadith there.
We can read for ourselves. You can call us what ever you please, but the truth is there for all to find. Esmay is a revert apparently.
On the bright side, occasions like this do provide an opportunity to inform and possibly win over some readers whom we might only reach because Esmay and Eteraz have brought up Jihad Watch.
Answering their charges serves multiple purposes: publicly demonstrating, calmly and rationally, that this round of emotionally-charged criticisms doesn't hold water, restating key facts about RS and his work for those who might not have seen them earlier, and maybe, eventually, convincing Esmay and/or others like him of the rectitude of Jihad Watch's positions and purpose.
Hence, the old adage that all publicity is good publicity (or something to that effect) certainly applies here.
And it's fun to watch Robert shred baseless criticisms. He sure is good at it.
"...and maybe, eventually, convincing Esmay and/or others like him of the rectitude of Jihad Watch's positions and purpose."
That would be to sorely underestimate the depth of Esmay's shallowness and/or of others like him.
Remote -- I'm a firm believer in what patience, steadfastness, and unrelenting cool-headedness (all admirably displayed by Robert in this and other situations) can achieve.
You've indirectly reminded me of one of my favorite quotes:
Marisol, I agree that the persistance Spencer admirably practices will be productive -- but most likely not in terms of persuading the Esmayists; only in terms of persuading those who happen to have the misfortune of finding themselves in the orbit of various Esmayist arenas, but who are not themselves Esmayists. Doubtlessly there are many who fall somewhere between and may not be hopeless; but I'd bet my life savings that Esmay, eteraz and Matoko (and likely many others who hang on to their tails or would if they knew his opinions) are hopeless (certainly the recent "Update" by Spencer on the other thread below about Esmay shows that Esmay is about as corrigible as Stalin or Zarqawi would have been).