Conservative Book Club Editor Elizabeth Kantor interviews me about The Truth About Muhammad:
You're now the author of several books about Islam. Did your research for The Truth about Muhammad turn up anything new? If readers have already bought The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and tens of thousands of them have), why do should they read this book?This book differs markedly from The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and my other books in that, instead of focusing on aspects of Islamic history and theology and their use by contemporary mujahedin, it concentrates on the figure of Muhammad himself. In Islamic tradition Muhammad is al-insan al-kamil, the perfect man, and uswa hasana, an excellent model of conduct (Qur’an 33:21). Accordingly it is extraordinarily important for non-Muslims in this age of global jihad violence to understand who Muhammad was and what he taught. So in this new book I explore the earliest Islamic sources about Muhammad in order to illuminate what pious Muslims learn about him, and show how jihadists today invoke his words and deeds to justify their actions.
So what kind of a person was Muhammad?
Muhammad was by all accounts a strong and compelling personality, who inspired magnificent loyalty in those who were close to him. His personal kindness and even gentleness are remembered in glowing terms by some of his closest companions. At the same time, however, he was a warrior who assured his followers that the supreme god, Allah, would reward them if they fought for him. He didn’t just fight in self-defense, but he initiated conflicts, gave instructions for the division of the spoils of war, and fought in many of those battles himself. For Muhammad the political and religious were virtually synonymous: Allah would reward obedience to him in this world with military victory and political power, and he ruled according to laws that he represented as having been revealed by Allah.
How have Muhammad's character and the events of his life shaped Islam as we know it today?In innumerable ways. Most notoriously, of course, in violence. Muhammad commanded his followers to offer non-Muslims conversion to Islam, subjugation as inferiors within the Islamic social order, or war (cf. Sahih Muslim 4294). We have recently seen Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran extend the invitation to Islam; Gadahn to all Americans and Ahmadinejad to George W. Bush. We should understand that the follow-up to such invitations, in accord with the example of the perfect man, is violence. Moreover, jihad warriors around the world invoke his example. The late Zarqawi exhorted his followers several years ago in these terms: “Is it not time for you to take the path of jihad and carry the sword of the Prophet of prophets?...The Prophet, the most merciful, ordered [his army] to strike the necks of some prisoners in [the battle of] Badr and to kill them....And he set a good example for us.” This kind of statement is common.
Muhammad also has left his mark on Islamic culture in numerous ways: his notorious marriage to the nine-year-old Aisha led the Ayatollah Khomeini to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to nine, in imitation of Muhammad’s example. Khomeini himself married a ten-year-old when he was 28. Child marriage is common throughout the Islamic world: aid workers entering Afghan refugee camps in 2002 found that half the second-grade-age girls in those camps were already married.
Meanwhile, false accusations against Aisha brought about the Islamic legal requirement that four male Muslim witnesses must be produced in order to establish a crime of adultery or related indiscretions. In cases of sexual misbehavior, four male witnesses are required to establish the deed—in accord with a revelation that came to Muhammad to exonerate his youthful wife (Qur’an 24:13). And just as Aisha’s own word counted for nothing to establish the falsity of the accusations against her, so to this day Islamic law restricts the validity of a woman’s testimony – particular in cases involving sexual immorality. Says the Qur’an: “Call in two male witnesses from among you, but if two men cannot be found, then one man and two women whom you judge fit to act as witnesses; so that if either of them commit an error, the other will remember” (2:282).
Consequently, it is even today virtually impossible to prove rape in lands that follow the dictates of Islamic law. If a woman accuses a man of rape, she may end up incriminating herself: if the required male witnesses can’t be found, the victim’s charge of rape becomes an admission of adultery. That accounts for the grim fact that, according to the Islamic reformist group Sisters in Islam, as many as seventy-five percent of the women in prison in Pakistan are, in fact, behind bars for the crime of being a victim of rape. Several high-profile cases in Nigeria recently have also revolved around rape accusations being turned around by Islamic authorities into charges of fornication, resulting in death sentences that were only modified after international pressure.
Moreover, such abuses are extraordinarily resistant to criticism and reform—they are, after all, based on the example of the Prophet, the perfect model for human behavior.
Okay, so Muhammad lived in a really primitive culture, an awfully long time ago; and maybe he had some pretty serious character flaws. But an unsympathetic student of Christianity or Judaism could argue the same about the Old Testament patriarchs. Look at Abraham: He engaged in some pretty dubious behavior when the pharoah of Egypt took an interest in his wife, he fathered a son on a slave woman and then drove both mother and child out into the desert, and he came this close to human sacrifice. Don't all religions have this stuff in their traditions? What makes Islam any different?
Even if material from the Old Testament or New Testament were equivalent to the material in the Qur’an and Islamic tradition that I have briefly sketched above, Islam is still completely different -- because Muhammad’s exalted status as the Perfect Man flattens historical distinctions and ignores historical development, elevating this seventh-century leader to a role as model for twenty-first century people. No Jews or Christians look to Abraham or any of the other patriarchs in a comparable way.
Even if Muhammad's example is particularly dangerous, isn't indicting his character the exactly wrong tactic to take? Why shouldn't we Americans, Westerners, and Christians downplay the negative features of Islam, and emphasize what Muslims have in common with us? Isn't it smart (even if it may be something of a stretch) for President Bush to keep insisting that Islam is a religion of peace? Surely we can't afford a war with the whole Muslim world?
This is, of course, a widespread view, but I couldn’t disagree with it more strongly. In the first place, our ignoring or downplaying the elements of Muhammad’s character that inspire violence and fanaticism won’t do a thing to prevent Islamic jihadists from invoking those very same elements of his character in order to justify their actions among their fellow Muslims, and even to gain recruits. The general ignorance of Americans about the teachings of Islam and the life of Muhammad may mislead some analysts into believing that the unsavory facts about Muhammad’s words and deeds are a closely guarded secret, when in fact the material in my book is all common knowledge in the Islamic world. The only difference between my book and a book written by a pious Muslim about Muhammad is not the events we discuss, but the fact that I subject Muhammad to a moral standard that is different from the one he delineated for himself. As I show in the book, mujahedin refer to these words and deeds more or less on a routine basis.
Thus the only fruit of our declining to discuss these issues will not be a strengthening of Islamic moderates, but just the opposite. In this book I have set forth elements of Muhammad’s example that need reevaluation by those who think of him as the Perfect Man. Muslim reformers can have no success unless they dare to discuss forthrightly the elements of Islam that need reform. Pretending that there are no such elements only cuts the ground out from under these reformers.
Finally, those who think that speaking forthrightly about the elements of Islam that encourage violence will lead to war with the entire Islamic world have never explained why this must be so. Are we then to believe that President Bush’s claim that Islam is a religion of peace is what is keeping the peace between the U.S. and most of the Islamic countries in the world? It is much more likely that that peace, such as it is, is being preserved by complexes of prudence and self-interest. Will all that be overthrown if the President said forthrightly that we are fighting a defensive action against an Islamic jihad, and that any state that supports that jihad will receive no more American aid? Is it certain that in that case every one of our putative Muslim allies would choose the jihad over the aid, even in the short term?
If Muhammad is, as you suggest, a person very unlike Jesus, or even the Buddha, why is he so admired? Isn't Islam the fast-growing world religion? Why does it appeal to so many people?In a certain sense he is admired because Muslims are taught that he is admirable. Once it is taught that he is the Perfect Man whose example must be followed, it follows that everything he did must have been right. The elements of his life and career that scandalize non-Muslims do not, therefore, have a similar effect on Muslims. After all, it is he who is the standard; there is no standard above him.
Islam is growing quickly, but this is largely due to demographics. Polygamous societies tend to have high rates of population growth. However, there is no doubt that Islam has definite appeal to Westerners who, sick of relativism and materialism and often unable to find a respite from it in Western religious traditions as they currently present themselves in America and Europe, turn to Islam admiring its absolutism and unwillingness to compromise. There are also concerted efforts to spread Islam in America’s prison, where jihadist recruiters can capitalize upon the alienation from Western society that the prisoners may already feel, and channel it into the jihad against the West.
And why are Muslims willing to go to such lengths--killing themselves, murdering other people, living in sleeper cells for years so they can pull off acts of terrorism--for Islam?
Because Allah has promised them rewards in this life and the next if they do. I think it is sometimes difficult for Americans, even religious Americans, to understand the depth and power of a religious appeal. Allah promises Paradise to those who “kill and are killed” for him (Qur’an 9:111). A suicide bomber may thus reflect that, after all, he is going to die one day anyway, but if he dies in this way, Paradise is guaranteed to him. Secularists may sneer, but this is in fact an extraordinarily powerful appeal.
Do you have a theory about why the liberals in Europe and our own blue states seem completely blase about the increasing influence of a religion that's so hostile to their own interests and stated goals (especially on the status of women)? Why are we seeing lefty Canadians and Europeans making accommodations to sharia law?
The jihad aims to establish an earthly polity in which justice is established by force, with draconian punishments for those who do not fall into line. The resemblance to the earthly utopia of the Marxists is unmistakable, and I do not doubt that this is an important reason why -- but not the only reason why -- so many Leftists see kindred spirits in the mujahedin. Another reason arises from the Left’s now long-standing habit of standing on the other side of any cause in which the United States is fighting.
You've been writing about Islam since soon after 9/11, and your JihadWatch website follows Islamist violence around the world very closely. Are things getting any better, at all? Have moderate Muslim voices begun to emerge? Are we succeeding in containing the violence?
No to all three questions, although there are some quite courageous moderate Muslim individuals. Generally, I am seeing increasingly that the failure to come to grips with the realities of Islam and the example of Muhammad have led to numerous disastrous policy errors. If, for example, the U.S. called the governments of Egypt and Pakistan to account for the elements within those governments that are aiding the jihad against us, and made eradication of those elements and concrete steps against the jihad ideology a condition for further U.S. aid, we would either save some money or gain some more reliable allies.
After the Danish Cartoon riots and the Pope Rage incident, why on earth would you write a book that Muslims are sure to say insults their Prophet? Why keep sticking your neck out like this?
I am aware of the risks, and have received several new death threats just since this book came out. But I do not personally wish to be a person who gives in to violent intimidation, and I don’t want to live in a society that does so either. The issues I raise in this book ought to be part of the American public debate, for the sake of our future. If we decline to discuss them now, we are already submitting to one significant aspect of the Islamic norms for behavior that Osama bin Laden and his ilk so dearly want to impose upon us.
Great stuff Robert....eloquent and yet to the point.
A moderate muslim is one who will distort the meaning of jihad and deny the concept of riddah. They will be real helpful . Just look at GW BUSH.
It seems to me, the following script, or something like it, is the only practical path to reform for the Muslims. This narrative, centered on the nature of Mohammed, ties into both what the Muslims say in much of their dawa, plus what the President and others say in their often wishful pronouncements on the subject:
The Muslims claim that Moses and Jesus were Islamic prophets. Logically, that means that Islam and Christianity used to be literally the same thing. Thus, Mohammed started out in his career by trying to bring this message of love and peace to Arabia.
So for a while, in the time before Mohammed was driven out of Mecca, Islam was, indeed, a "religion of peace."
Mohammed, having been rejected in Mecca, and as a consequence becoming violent in his new Medina hideout, turned against the true Islamic (Christian)teachings and (as the President and others like to say) "hijacked" the religion of peace, transforming it into a warring ideology to serve Mohammed's personal and vengeful lust for power and sex.
It was Mohammed who fabricated the behavioral commandments of the Koran--his personal war manual--by corrupting the true Islamic teachings of the Torah and the Bible, adding violent jihadic rules. He conveniently and cleverly installed in this Koran a self-serving and blasphemous verse claiming that he was the "perfect man," superior to Moses and Jesus, to be followed without question or critique.
Thus, for 14 centuries the well-meaning and peaceful Muslims were all duped into serving Mohammedan warlords in building worldly and greedy empires through the murder and subjugation of countless innocent peoples. This brutal deception continues across the globe today, as imams and ayatollahs trick their followers into making endless jihadic war on humanity.
Muslims today, through the miracle of modern technology are only now becoming aware of this historic treachery and deceit. They must take off their blinders, reject "Mohammedanism," and return to their roots in "true Islam"--which is referred to as "Christianity" by their brothers in the west. Muslims must shake off their ideological bonds and return to the divine and peaceful Islamic example, Jesus, as the true exemplar of pious and righteous living.
Robert- You are not like Leni Riefenstahl, though many Muslims like that kind of approach to Muhammad. You would have wrote The Truth About Hitler in 1933.
http://www.riefenstahl.org/director/1935/
"The jihad aims to establish an earthly polity in which justice is established by force, with draconian punishments for those who do not fall into line. The resemblance to the earthly utopia of the Marxists is unmistakable, and I do not doubt that this is an important reason why -- but not the only reason why -- so many Leftists see kindred spirits in the mujahedin".
Posted by Robert
Well said. But I do not think Leftists should be allowed to get away with this facile comparison. It seems to me that beyond the most superficial patterns of social, political and economic organization, the stone aged morality and polity which Islamic extremism reduces human societies to, with their attendant repression of women, of homosexuals, of creativity, of all critical inquiry, and its imposition of a rigid, opaque and inscrutable revealed text has nothing in common with the the kind of society based on the supremacy of scientific and secular thought which Socialists and others on the Left claim to want.
It seems to me that this needs to be pointed out to Leftists quite aggressively so that they are held accountable for their errors and compelled to recant them rather than abandoned to this delusion. Many of us in this forum spend a lot of time complaining about the Left, but I suspect that most of us don't bother doing anything about it. I'd expect that most Leftists really have only a vague idea of what Islam is all about, and are completely unfamiliar with the Koran and other Islamic texts. They need to be educated. Are we doing that?
Owing to my own religious beliefs, I reject, as a matter of principle, much or most of what the leftist paradigm holds as true, but I would never deny that having been partially implemented, and to the extent that it is kept within reasonable limits (though it obviously hasn't always been), much of what the Left has contributed to political discourse and policy has helped bring about progress and betterment in a lot. Would we really want to see, for example, women excluded from most professions as they were a hundred years ago? Surely most of us would consider their emancipation and acquisition of the full range of the rights of citizenship a good and proper development in our democracies. And we do have the left to thank for that. If the Left can be awakened and finally won over to the cause, which in part will entail convincing it of how much of its own program will be lost if extremist Islam continues to gain ground, it could be an extremely powerful and important ally.
"... progress and betterment in a lot".
Oops! I meant to say "... in a lot of areas".
"I am aware of the risks, and have received several new death threats just since this book came out. But I do not personally wish to be a person who gives in to violent intimidation, and I don’t want to live in a society that does so either."
One final note. Since most leftists are materialists, whose reductive logic reflexively reduces all human motivation to responses to environmental factors and economic factors, most of them probably are unaware of how deeply human motivations can be influenced by things like religious texts. Again, this is an area where they need to be challenged. Many readers in this forum may be tempted to avoid leftists or write them off, but this may be a mistake and a missed opportunity.
Templar, there is a well-known tradition in sociology, including Max Weber, of explaining social phenomena via reference to religious motivation, so there is no excuse for not understanding how religion and society interact.
The Left as a whole has become intellectually lazy and is so out of touch that I personally think they've forfeited their place at the table in the debate about how to handle any and all policy issues going forward.
Those who have studied totalitarian ideologies -- particularly Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism -- will recognize in Islam many familiar elements.
The "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and "Class Struggle" precede and clear the stage for the ultimate "Classless Society" and "Withering Wway of the State," just as the obligation for violent Jihad and imposition of forced conversion or Dhimmi status on unbelievers preceeds the ultimate universal victory of the worldwide Ummah, where the Dar al-Islam supplants and destroys the Dar al-Harb.
In the service of both Marxism/Lenism/Stalinism and Islam, the end justifies any means, no matter how violent or abhorrent (you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs).
Marxism has the convoluted pseudo-logic of the Dialectic, with its "Law of the Identity of Contradictions" to reconcile logically irreconcilable elements of its ideology so as to confuse its opponents and obfuscate its true objectives and intentions. Islam has the doctines of Abrogation and Taqiyya to serve the same functions.
The "peaceful coexistence" put forth by Khrushchev in the 1950s finds its parallel in the Islamic temporary truce or Hudna.
The comparative analysis could go on and on. . . .
...why on earth would you write a book that Muslims are sure to say insults their Prophet? Why keep sticking your neck out like this?
"The free world should have stood resolutely with Denmark, ready to defend freedom of expression. But it did not. After the muder of van Gogh, the free world should have defended free speech. But it did not. Against Islamic intolerance and violence, the West should have promoted its own Judeo-Christian heritage, with its emphasis on the dignity of the human person, from which Western freedoms of speech and conscience flow. But it did not."
"Undefended, we will lose our rights to free speech and thought. That is why I determined, after a great deal of hesitation and uncertainty, that I must write this book. I am fully aware of the risks involved."
"But the question of Muhammad -- of who he was, what he did, and what he believed -- is the key to understanding today's global conflict with the jihadists, and what we must do about it."
"The subhect matter is provocative -- possibly lethally so."
"But, I will report on what Muslim sources -- sources regarded as reliable by most Muslims -- say about Muhammad. And I will discuss some of the implications."
"It is not necessary -- and it is not my intention -- to insult Muhammad, to deride him, to lampoon or mock him, or to write anything except a scrupulously accurate account of what he said and did about some key issues."
(The Truth about Muhammad Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion, Robert Spencer, pp 15-16,Regnery Publishing Inc. 2006)
Pardon me Mr. Spencer, but you answered the question so well in your book, I hope you don't mind repeating it here for all your readers.
Mo makes a great model for people to emulate all right, if you want to create Charlie Manson types and even worse psychos. Never in history has one wretched, debased piece of garbage like Mo been held in such high esteem for such a long period-even Mao's personality cult can't touch it. It is to the detriment of the world that this is the case. The veneration of such a monster like Mo will prevent any effort to moderate Islam and that's a tragedy for us all because more people will die to keep this dreadful mother of all personality cults alive and well fed with the blood of millions.
Is Islam really the fastest growing religion? I'd think in terms of numbers, it's Christianity, and as a percentage, it's Falun Gong.
Islam tops neither.
venividivici:
I was unaware of the info you posted about Weber et al, but I'll try to read up on this. Thanks for the tip.
I agree that the Left is intellectually lazy. I can't think of anything worthwhile and new that they've said in generations. Most of what I hear from them these days is patently ridiculous, but their support for Islam is bizarre even for them.
Unfortunately, they seem to have a lot of influence - far more than they deserve. I just think that since they have it, its too bad that its not on our side. Otherwise I would not mention them at all.
Templar, Weber's "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism", although dated, is still an excellent model of how to trace the influence of metaphysical ideas on real world action. If only someone would write "The Islamic Ethic and the Spirit of Jihad"! I think this site, in many ways, represents that type of analysis.
Even one of the patron saints of the current Left, Michel Foucault, turned away from non-Western models at the end of his career. The book, "The Final Foucault" documents his interest in Greco-Roman models of the self and he repudiated his earlier support of the Iranian Revolution during his final years. The obvious contradictions of post-Revolutionary Iran and liberal ideals forced Foucault to reevaluate, to his credit.
As someone said above, the information is out there for all Westerners, whether on the Left or the Right, to make an informed decision about the value of Islam.
One last book reference, if I may, is to read the chapter, "The Revolutionary Simpleton" in the book "Time and Western Man". The author shows how idiotic the Western 'revolutionary' had become in his willingness to gullibly follow anyone hoisting the banner of anti-Western ideology, whether they actually represented progress or not. Unfortunately, as you say, this gullible group is endowed with much more power than warranted.
Is Islam really the fastest growing religion? I'd think in terms of numbers, it's Christianity, and as a percentage, it's Falun Gong.
Islam tops neither.
Posted by: Infidel Pride
It is a case of, "If you repeat it often enough, then the useful idiots will continue to believe and spread the lie."
There are more adherents in Christianity. They are not leaving in droves. If Muslims were allowed to leave Islam without fear then the number of Muslims in the world would fall dramatically. The live in fear of the sword and that fear is based in the Koran.
Great interview. But, uh, Canadian concessions to sharia law? What are those, exactly? We haven't granted sharia a toehold here. We almost did a couple of years ago, thanks to Marion Boyd's insane endorsement of allowing sharia-based family law, but the Ontario government shot it down and got rid of all religious-based family law. Which was a great decision. Probably the only great decision that the awful Liberal government in Toronto has made, in fact.
The flirtation with sharia here, though, just perfectly underlines how crazy the lefties are in regard to Islam. Sharia was actually most promoted by people like Boyd, members of the NDP, a socialist-leftist party of clowns who are all about feminism, gay rights, and whatever other causes you can think of. No problems with sharia, though, the most restrictive, draconian, anti-woman code of laws still currently being used anywhere on the planet.
It's just nuts. You've got the party of left-wing hippy lesbians in favor of bringing in the law of the boys who'd love nothing better but to drop a wall on them in a public stadium, or hang them from a crane.
So for a while, in the time before Mohammed was driven out of Mecca, Islam was, indeed, a "religion of peace."
For a very short while. When the homoerotic pedophilic epileptic came back down from his Satanic Verses daze, he set to castigating his Koreishi brethern with threats of doom, caravan robbery, and murder.
As the violent sermons escalated, so did resistance to his threats. The Moslems, in conference with a group of newly converted Yathribian pagans, took the first Pledge of Aqaba in 620. The pledge was at once both a proclamation of solidarity and peace.
Inexorably, the fun started when in 621 Abu Jahl became leader of a mounting Meccan pagan opposition to Moslems organized a boycott of merchants in Mohammad's clan, the Hashim.
Then, in 622, the Second Pledge of Aqaba was taken by a larger number of Yathribian pagan-turned-Moslems while on a visit to Mecca. This time the pledge spoke only of solidarity and not peace.
Later in 622, the Meccan Moslems migrated to the predominately Jewish oasis village of Yathrib in 622, and soon thereafter Islam consumated its violent nature with the caravan robbery-murder-kidnapping whereupon Moslems began accreting wealth by murder or threat of same.
Of course, this process entailed banishment of entire Jewish tribes and the theft of their land and wealth, leading up to the mass murder of the Banu Qurayza tribe, and Islam's entry into the sex-slavery industry.
Miraculously, every time a moral quandary arose --- which was frequently until the last moral fibers were wrung from the souls of the Companions --- Mohammad would emerge from his moque and proclaim newly obtained commandments from God just that day related to him by the Archangel Gabriel.
It became ok to steal, to attack, to take slaves, to take sex slaves, to rape, to threaten, to terrorize, to lie, to cheat, to break contracts, to extort, to murder...
Hell, you know the list. Just look at the Moslems around us.
The excuses made by some people for Muhammads
paedophilia are not valid .
You cannot excuse it by stating it was common
practice at that time because like it or not
it is common now and when paedophiles are caught
they are punished for it.
There are thousands of them in jail and thousands
who access child porn on the internet.
Now as in Muhammads time because it is common
does NOT make it right.
It is wrong now , then and if it took place in
neanderthal times wrong again.
My apologies to the neanderthals , they probably
had higher moral standards.
When is the world going to realise that so-called 'moderate Islam' is a damn sight more radical than anything we are aware of. When the word moderate is spoken, surely we must pose the question.... moderate by whose standards?
Kudos, Mr. Spencer. Here's another book that I will ask my interlibrary loan service to find for me.
Great interview, Robert. Your answers were clear nd concise, and explained everything perfectly.
I liked your comment about the Left's knee jerk opposition to the the US. The Leftist-Islamist axis is united on 3 basic issues:
They hate capitalism
They hate the United States
They hate Israel
Birds of a feather...
There are Leftists like me who are aware of and want to get rid of the dangers of Islam. We recognize the threat that Islam poses to our liberal, Western values. The issue isn't one of Left vs Right; it is one of Anti-Jihadists like us, vs Jihadists, their apologists, and those who pretend they aren't a threat. And our numbers are far too few, and must grow to counter the threat.
Right now I am looking at a League of Women Voters Guide for the upcoming elections, and not ONE candidate, whether Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Conservative, Independent, Right to Life, etc. mentions a word about Islam or Jihad. Who the h*** am I going to vote for? If just one of these canditates presented the truth about the Islamic threat, I wouldn't care where they stood on abortion, gay rights, universal health care coverage, taxes or prayer in schools; I would vote for them without hesitation!
Templar;
Progress in the west is a product of the Judeo-Christion ethic combined with what Marx called Capitalism, which is a by-product of free trade mercantilism going back at least 600 years.
The left comes along after the opportunity arises, whines for faster progress, and then takes credit for it.
Women's enfranchisement, the end of slavery.... you name it. The left claims credit when in realtity their ideas have led to nothing but slavery and repression when allowed to control a society.
Richard