Andrew Bostom, editor of the essential Legacy of Jihad collection, reviews my new book The Truth About Muhammad in the Washington Times:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch Parliamentarian and secular Muslim reformer, has courageously identified the taboo discussion which must take place to understand, and defuse, the scourge of modern jihad terrorism:"In their thinking about radical Muslim terrorism most politicians, journalists, intellectuals, and other commentators have avoided the core issue of the debate, which is Muhammad's example."
This taboo is all the more puzzling, and dangerously delusional, given the public pronouncements of Muslim Brotherhood "spiritual" leader, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the most influential contemporary Muslim thinkers.
The immensely popular Qaradawi reaches an audience of tens of millions of Muslim sympathizers across the globe with his regular appearances on Al-Jazeera television. During a June 19, 2001 broadcast, Qaradawi delivered a sermon entitled, "The Prophet Muhammad as a Jihad Model," proclaiming: " . . . Allah has . . . made the prophet Muhammad into an epitome for religious warriors [Mujahideen] since he ordered Muhammed to fight for religion . . . "
Consistent with the hadith (words and deeds of Muhammad recorded by pious followers), and earliest Muslim biographies of Muhammad, Qaradawi further acknowledged that Muhammad launched aggressive jihad campaigns, and also maintained that there is in fact a "jihad which you seek," i.e., invading other countries in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove, by force of arms, "obstacles" standing in the way of this coercive Islamization.
More ominously, Qaradawi has made specific unabashed appeals for Muslims to wage a "jihad re-conquest" of Europe, recalling the millennial legacy of jihad wars waged by Arab, Berber and Ottoman Muslim conquerors and colonizers.
Disregarding murderous threats, and the prospect of social ostracism, the intrepid author Robert Spencer -- a serious independent scholar of Islam for the past two decades -- has taken up Hirsi Ali's challenge in his compelling new book, "The Truth About Muhammad."
Mr. Spencer's stated purpose in writing the book was to elucidate, in particular, those aspects of Muhammad's life used by Muslims today to rationalize violence, or other behaviors incompatible with Western constructs of human rights and dignity. And Mr. Spencer, whom I have come to know through my own independent research on Islamic doctrine and history, fulfills admirably his pledge not to "deride," "lampoon" or "mock" Muhammad, but instead compose "a scrupulously accurate account of what he [Muhammad] said and did" regarding these critical matters.
A salient feature of "The Truth About Muhammad" is its exclusive reliance on pious Muslim sources: the earliest (and most respected) Muslim biographers of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq (died 773), Ibn Sa'd (845), and the great historian al-Tabari (923); the "gold-standard" canonical hadith collections of Bukhari (870), and Muslim (875); and the Koran itself.As Mr. Spencer notes, these are the same sources contemporary Muslim biographers have relied upon, both respected scholars (such as the late Martin Lings, aka Abu Bakr Siray Ad-Din), and popularizers (Javeed Akhter, Yahiya Emerick).
Despite his caveat that the book is "not a comprehensive biography" of the Muslim prophet, Mr. Spencer's concise, pellucid narrative (which includes both a succinct chronology and a glossary of key Arabic names and places) has remarkable breadth, chronicling Muhammad's evolution from a proselytizer, to a prototype jihad conqueror and ruler.
The final chapter is a brilliant analysis of Muhammad's disturbing modern legacy. Mr. Spencer provides understated, scrupulous documentation of the consequences of Muhammad's status as "an excellent example of conduct" (Koran 33:21), invoked by contemporary Muslim clerics, governments, journalists and jihadists alike: exploited child brides and general misogyny, sanctioned by law; Draconian, mutilating punishments such as stoning for adultery and amputation for theft; jihad violence against non-Muslims and Shari'a (Islamic Law)-sanctioned oppression of non-Muslims under Muslim rule.
He concludes with a series of logical, unflinching recommendations for non-Muslim governments, all of which hinge, ultimately, upon an honest recognition of Muhammad's bellicose example: Stop insisting that Islam is a religion of peace; initiate a full-scale Manhattan Project to find new energy sources; make Western aid contingent upon renunciation of the jihad ideology; call upon American Muslim advocacy groups to work against the jihad ideology; revise immigration policies with the jihad ideology in view.
Nearly 25 years ago, the late Richard Grenier wrote "The Marrakesh One-Two," a trenchant fictional account of a doomed effort to film the life of Muhammad. Grenier characterized the filmmaker's basic predicament with biting wit.
Even after reading a series of modern Muslim hagiographies, Muhammad left the impression of being " . . . a gamey figure for a religious leader . . . sort of a blend of Saint Teresa of Avila, Jane Addams of Hull House, William the Conqueror, and Casanova . . . Allah is merciful, but not necessarily Muhammad, I guess."
Of course such an impious, if accurate presentation, was impossible. Following a conference with the clerics of Al Azhar (the leading Sunni Islamic institution of religious education) in Cairo, Grenier's fictional filmmaker laments:
"The only thing they would give me was I could have P.V. Muhammad. That is I could script shots from Muhammad's Point of View, subjective camera. I could have faces reacting and people talking to Mohammed. But Muhammad couldn't answer them because his voice would be too holy."
Today, "P.V. Muhammad" putatively "non-fiction" accounts prevail, while the authoritative biographies of Muhammad written in the mid 19th through early 20th centuries -- by scholars such as William Muir, David S. Margoliouth and Leone Caetani -- are now almost unknown to the public and chattering classes. These elegant analyses -- like Mr. Spencer's -- also relied exclusively upon the earliest Islamic sources, such as Muhammad's first pious Muslim biographer Ibn Ishaq.
Margoliouth's biography recognized Muhammad as " . . . a great man, who solved a political problem of appalling difficulty -- the construction of a state and empire out of the Arab tribes." Margoliouth recounted this accomplishment without "apology" or "indictment," summarizing faithfully the picture of Muhammad that emerges in Ibn Ishaq's biography:
"In order to gain his ends he recoils from no expedient, and he approves of similar unscrupulousness on the part of his adherents, when exercised in his interest. He profits to the utmost from the chivalry of the Meccans, but rarely requites it with the like. He organizes assassinations and wholesale massacres.
"His career as tyrant of Medina is that of a robber chief, whose political economy consists in securing and dividing plunder . . . He is himself an unbridled libertine and encourages the same passion in his followers. For whatever he does he is prepared to plead the express authorization of the deity. It is, however, impossible to find any doctrine which he is not prepared to abandon in order to secure a political end . . .This is a disagreeable picture for the founder of a religion, and it cannot be pleaded that it is a picture drawn by an enemy . . ."
"The Truth About Muhammad" eschews contemporary "P.V. Muhammad" hagiography, reviving the highly informative, unapologetic genre of biographical narratives of Muhammad epitomized by the works of Muir, Margoliouth and Caetani.
Transcending even these seminal biographers, Robert Spencer's perspicacious modern analysis makes clear how Muhammad's sacralized behaviors continue to motivate and direct the contemporary global resurgence of jihad, in all its cultural as well as military manifestations. Policymaking elites must heed Mr. Spencer's urgent concluding admonitions:
"It is difficult if not impossible to maintain that Islam is a religion of peace when warfare and booty were among the chief preoccupations of the prophet of Islam. Sincere Islamic reformers should confront these facts, instead of ignoring or glossing over them, and work to devise ways in which Muslims can retreat from the proposition that Muhammad's example is in all ways normative. If they do not do so, one outcome is certain: bloodshed perpetrated in the name of Islam and in imitation of its prophet will continue . . .
"If no Western politicians can be found who are courageous enough to grasp this nettle, Western countries will eventually pay a stiff price, when the jihadists they have admitted carry out successful jihad attacks, or inspire native-born Muslims to do so -- or when they advance Shari'a [Islamic Law] provisions by peaceful means, as in the campaigns in the United Nations and several European countries for the adoption of Islamic blasphemy laws in the wake of the Muhammad cartoon riots."
Mr. Spencer:
I have all your books and believe you have very well documented information about Muhammad, Isalm, ahadith, and the Koran.
Your explanatory insights are also revealing and a cause for grave concern for anyone who is a non-muslim.
What I do not understand, is why the American government for example – seems to be in denial of the facts that you have articulate so well and documented.
Have you attempted to get any of your information into the hands of say, George Bush?
If not, why not?
If so, how was it received, and why are we not seeing a manifest change in tune in his understanding and policy as a result?
"Draconian, mutilating punishments such as stoning for adultery and amputation for theft; jihad violence against non-Muslims and Shari'a (Islamic Law)-sanctioned oppression of non-Muslims under Muslim rule."
No doubt the ignorant know-it-alls, the Professor Irwin Corey types (Esmay, e.g.), will point to Old Testament passages (Joshua, etc.)and say in Irwin Cory style, "See-they are the same as the Koran! And in so far that that is so, there is a penumbra of equal insanity that makes the belief-systems one..."
However, the Old Testament was written by allegedly "inspired" but fallible humans and there is a well established tradition of interpretation of scriptures in the Jewish and Christian belief-systems. (Probably this also true of the Hindu belief-system.)Violent passages in the Old Testament are ignored by the vast majority of Jewish and Christian believers and are considered reflective of a more primitive time. However, the Koran is dictation (exact words) from God and the orders to subdue, kill and establish Sharia law are not easily subjected to interpretation. They are direct orders from God (via Gabriel) to Mohammad. Bin Laden and others may easily point to passages in the Koran and say: what don't you understand about a direct order from God to kill the unbeliever? to establish Sharia law? What don't you understand about true Islam?
___
"It is difficult if not impossible to maintain that Islam is a religion of peace when warfare and booty were among the chief preoccupations of the prophet of Islam."
The Islamic belief-system appears to have been constructed to make self-serving appear (to the believer) to be disinterested principal. Selfishness becomes service to God. It enables the believer to feel superior to unbelievers as it permits killing, theft, deception, and exploitation of unbelievers with a clear conscience. The Believers in the Islamic belief-system are only following orders.
http://www.irwincorey.org/agam.html
http://www.irwincorey.org/
Have you attempted to get any of your information into the hands of say, George Bush?
If not, why not?
That`s easy to explain as most politicians and religious leaders are shackled by political
correctness and are inherent liars.
Therefor when Tony Blair states that Islam is a
peaceful religion you know it is just another lie
and you will have to find out the truth for yourself.
The truth is all over your television screens,
books and the internet.....
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/483/521.html
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
To answer Witness's point about getting this book into the hands of President Bush: May I recommend a 2004 article in Salon, not one of my favorite magazines. The reference is: http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2004/03/15/unger_3/index.html, a fascinating report on Bush's relationships with Islamists. Salon's leftism makes the article all the more valuable. I'm quite sure that Grover Norquist, Bush's chief adviser on Muslim issues, will never allow him to read Mr. Spencer's book. Bush, like the good multiculturalist that he is, would never consider wishing Christians a Merry Christmas and wishing Jews a Happy Hanukkah without also wishing Muslims an Enjoyable Eid (or whatever it is one wishes them). Moreover, Bush seems to be incapable of allowing other people to change his mind once it's been made up.
Also the principle of abrogation in the Koran makes earlier peaceful passages (as in wine is OK, wine is not OK) outdated by up-dated orders. The order to kill the unbeliever and establish Sharia law is God's final order on the matter and true Islam.
"... Qaradawi further acknowledged that Muhammad launched aggressive jihad campaigns, and also maintained that there is in fact a 'jihad which you seek,' i.e., invading other countries in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove, by force of arms, 'obstacles' standing in the way of this coercive Islamization."
We are going to lose the West and everything it is. We are part of the "obstacles." We all owe Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Mellanie Philips, and others a debt of gratitude for trying to awaken the sleeping masses. But is it too late?
Too many people I know are satisfied with this being a "European problem" or "Israeli problem." They are wrong.
One would think Robert would be sought out by the MSM for his expertise on this increasingly dangerous issue. Instead, they give us George Soros to allay our fears and calm our prejudices. You see, the "obstacles" to the religion of peace must be removed so that harmony among all people may flourish. If the sword be used to carry that out -- so be it. Of course, they would prefer a more peaceful way: infiltration of Western lands, governments, laws, and media. In the end, the result will be the same. Sharia.
Had dificulties signing in to Typekey.
Just testing
In a word, oil. Our economy is balanced on a knife edge and no sooner does the conflict errupt with Iran the prices will soar sending us into a depression best avoided at any cost. In other words, we are ripe for the picking...
Mother Ecclesiastica, Frank, Frieda, aladdinsane57:
All of your points are noteworthy, and I concede that your points may be correct.
Spencer addresses the unflattering comparison of the Old Testament violence with that of the Koran by pointing out that the violence in the OT was limited to very specific groups for a decidedly limited and specific timeframe.
Violence in the Koran is more generally aimed at all non-muslims than say a specific group like the “Chads”; and unlimited in scope as it commands violence that extends over vast time spans as a condition of good standing within Islam through the act of jihad.
Spencer also articulates the subject of abrogation and the idea that the latter suras of Medina supercede the suras of Mecca in the Koran; and in particular the ninth and final sura – the so-called Verse of the Sword – abrogates all that precedes it, including any ten year treaties made between muslim and infidel.
Yet, I wonder if Spencer really has approached George Bush, or Tony Blair for that matter.
If not, I would like to know his reasons for not trying at least; and if he has, it would be instructive to learn from him of the reception and the ensuing result of his attempted elucidation.
It's always nice to have God on your side. Thats provided it's not a demon in disguise. I think Mohammad had a variety of mental problems, he seems to have been an epileptic and may have had migrain headaches or something similar. All this and demon possessed as well. Well, like the song line 'the lunatic is in your head' fits Mohammads demons perfectly. Allah and Gabriel were entirely in Mohammads head. They were symptoms of his psychosis. As was his night journey on a flying horse. All he did was bring them to life, by convincing others that his visons/hallucinations were true. 'You see things I do not' Aiesha...
For those he could convinve/con he gave Qurans...for those reluctant to believe him, he gave them the sword...or slavery. Islam was founded on Mohammads hallucinations. It's amazing how many psychotic people have gained power and threaten others...North Koreas three foot tall leader, amd Irans beasty boy prez come to mind, but there are many more. Reality is that crazy people are not competant to make important decisions and should be in charge of nothing.
Mohammad was one crazy guy and should have been caged from the start.
"If not, I would like to know his reasons for not trying at least; and if he has, it would be instructive to learn from him of the reception and the ensuing result of his attempted elucidation."
My reading of Spencer, particularly in interviews I've seen, indicate he's a Joe Friday type ("Just the facts, ma'am", sir") but I also detect a very strong ego in this man. He is not going to go hat-in-hand to anyone. They will have to come to him. Eventually, they will. Like the character Detective Joe Friday, he's a gentleman, but a very tenacious guy who nails liars and half-truth tellers at last. He'll prevail. Bet on it.
Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitz
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0007Z9RB6.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
I note that Bostom refers to Robert as an "independent" scholar. It seems that independence from the academic hierarchy is the only way that scholarship is possible any more, so thoroughly corrupted and politicized is that institution.
Robert strives pedagogically in a way that I, being pretty clueless before 9/11, used to assume was the common mode of scholarship across our colleges and universities. For me, it is hugely unsettling--even terrifying--to realize that Robert's integrity, scrupulous analytical logic, and careful historical perspective are so very rare qualities in academia. Today's academics are failing our society, failing our system of governance, and failing our elected leader, the President, who necessarily must rely on their scholarship to help defend our civilization.
When the U.S. President speaks about absolutely anything, even in an offhand or informal or unofficial situation, the whole world is listening. So when President Bush speaks about Islam, I believe he is trying to describe how he wants (or, as a leader, expects) Muslims to behave, not how they actually behave.
In many ways that is what he, as a responsible leader, is supposed to do. If he were to suddenly start matter-of-factly speaking the unvarnished truth about Islam during one of his speeches--that Mohammed was a murderous plundering warlord and that the Koran is a manual for political conquest through unremitting total warfare--thousands of western soldiers, diplomats, priests, tourists, and other assorted innocents abroad would be slaughtered overnight by the Religion of Peace. So as a practical matter, he cannot ever do this, no matter what he knows or what he really thinks. All he can do when he speaks out is try to influence the Muslim world in a positive direction. It is obvious that, however poorly, he does this with sincerity and Christian good will.
The real villains in this story are the academics. When the President issues a blatantly false statement--like "Islam is a relgion of peace"--a firestorm of criticism should erupt amongst the faculties at college campuses across the nation. That would give the President the ammunition he needs to take effective action against the Islamic assault on civilization. Instead, such academic firestorms erupt against him only when he contravenes far leftist political dogma--specifically, that the west in general, and the United States in particular, is the root cause of all the problems in the world since the dinosaurs died out (and maybe that catastrophe, too), and that all other societies, Muslims included, are its innocent and exploited victims. Undiluted self-loathing crapola--the western liberal university today. Traitors to the society that nurtures them.
Mr. Spencer's books are always well documented and use the source texts to prove his points. Although there are posters that come to this site to use it as a cheap marketing opportunity for Christianity, I see none of it in Robert's writings. And as far as comparisons between role models, as far as I remember Jesus did not even own a horse, let alone lead armies to rape, pillage and murder. I think the overall messages of each role model, even if you are not a zealot reading through the filter of literalism, is striking between the two.
It is also refreshing to have another voice to counter the dim wit chorus of liberalism that still contributes to obscuring the real threat.
Bad Dogma translates into bad behavior!
http://www.realclearreligion.com/bad_dogma_good_dogma.html
If you wanted to really hurt America or the West what would be the best way to do it? “By polluting the minds of our Youth” these so-called academics become modern day versions of Baldur von Schirach. The lowest most despicable life forms on the planet. The America/Western haters are crawling all over our kids at School on TV and just about anywhere they can. This is the #1 danger we face, the enemy among us. It is time to unite and drive them out, we cannot survive a cancerous tumor like this infecting our Children, it must be removed. Where are Mr. Spencer’s allies in Academia? Why are they silent, is it paralyzing fear or incalculable ignorance?
"So as a practical matter, he cannot ever do this, no matter what he knows or what he really thinks. All he can do when he speaks out is try to influence the Muslim world in a positive direction. It is obvious that, however poorly, he does this with sincerity and Christian good will."-Stendec
You are a smart fellow. You nailed it re academia, too. Hitler said that university professors would prove to be cowards in opposing his regime. He proved to be right.
BTW, Fred Smith, the founder of FedEx got a a C- in his business course at Harvard when he proposed the idea of FedEx. The professor said it was imaginative, but it would never work. Fred Smith paid no attention to his so-so grades or his professors and the rest is history.
http://www.fedex.com/us/about/today/bios.html?link=4
Mother Ecclesiastica,
I won't trade insults with you but I get the distinct impression you've never lived anywhere near the West Bank or Belgium.
Depressed....? Yes, I am that.
He concludes with a series of logical, unflinching recommendations for non-Muslim governments, all of which hinge, ultimately, upon an honest recognition of Muhammad's bellicose example: Stop insisting that Islam is a religion of peace; initiate a full-scale Manhattan Project to find new energy sources; make Western aid contingent upon renunciation of the jihad ideology; call upon American Muslim advocacy groups to work against the jihad ideology; revise immigration policies with the jihad ideology in view.
I agree totally with this conclusion. However, for this to happen we will need a cultural counterrevolution to reverse the disasterous results of the unspoken Western Cultural Revolution from the 1960's. PC, diversity training, multiculturism, anti-Western university professors and the decline of
patriotism are among the evils wrought from that decade and set the stage for Islamania to gain a foothold in the West. Reversing all of this insanity will take time but it's essential if the West is to win the war against these maniacs.
Although I'm not Catholic, thanks for that link genevieve! I think Oriana Fallaci was "depressed" too:
http://www.realclearreligion.com/europe_abandons_christian_h.html
Posted by: Frank at October 15, 2006 11:28 AM
Just the Facts man just the facts!!
I wouldn,t be so sure they don,t know how many are ready to walk??
Damn if iI learn this new machine I well I can,t say!!!!
Seams that the Italians are learnin the hard way seams they had a guy who is a islamic terrorist but cnn(commie news network) says is a kidnapped victim but the Italians calling him a sh=t (in Italin)?? Yes another photagraftica who is a islamic terrorist who was arrested IN Afghanistan but the MSM gets it wrong how can that be??
Think the MSM could have it wrong about all the leaders too??
Are you with solar power yet??
Well for me anothe couple of weeks to get my sea leggs but SHORT SKIRTS STILL WORTH FIGHTING FOR!!
OFF to have some more wine BECAUSE I CAN!!
NO BURKAS HERE YET
BUT REMEMBER THERE AINT NO WHERE TO RUN TO HAVE TO STAND AND FIGHT!!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN
Poor witness,
Rest assured that Mr George Bush owns a copy of each of Mr Spencer's books. And a whole lot more besides...
How is that you know this? Bush, himself, admitted, in one of this joking moments, that he reads very little.
George Bush knows nothing of islam, except what his aids tell him. And we know who his aides are.
Islam is a lie, Muhammad was a madman and we are seeing the "fruits" of this diabolic union every single day.
I'm glad that authors exist that want to challenge these hard topics as eruditely as possible, but the simple truth is still this:
Islam is the Enemy.
august22
I wouldn,t be so sure about that remember ciar was bashing him because he said islamic fashism??
OH HOW SOON WE FORGET
What real Americans are made of is anyone in the world worth one of their lifes including you??
Think about that..
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220757,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220977,00.html
Earthquake no news yet??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AN ALL WHO HIDE AND SUPPORT THEM AMEN
It seems clear that Muhammed had far more in common with conquering figures such as Attilla the Hun and Ghengis Khan than with religious leaders such as Jesus or the Buddha.
What real Americans are made of is anyone in the world worth one of their lifes including you??
Think about that..
Well, I would think about that, if I knew what the hell you just said.
As of this posting, The Truth about Muhammad has risen from #39 to #38 on the Amazon best seller list. It's a great book.
(In the reader reviews section of the Amazon webpage for The Truth about Muhammad, I'm "art lewis.")
First-hand accounts and comments copied from the Blog of Stephen Browne, an anthropologist that spent a bit of time in the Middle East. An eye-opener, at least for me. It -does- relate to the entry above; keep reading. Take a look at the guy's history / background on his blog; I'd say he's qualified to comment.
Link- http://rantsand.blogspot.com/2006/09/observations-on-arabs.html
Observations on Arabs
Journalist Jill Carroll is back home now, and detailing her experiences as a captive of the jihadists in Iraq in the Christian Science Monitor.
( http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0814/p01s01-woiq.html ) I'm sure the details will prove fascinating, but the upshot of what she has learned is that the Islamists are - gasp! - different from us! Furthermore, I believe that she's beginning to suspect that they are really not very nice people. Oh whatever will this poor old world be FORCED to endure next?
Since the beginning of the Iraq phase of this conflict of civilizations, I've experienced the teeth-grinding frustration of watching both pro- and anti- Iraq sides make the exact same mistake - that of supposing that these people are bascially Americans in funny costumes. In this respect, George Bush and Michael Moore are equally clueless, as was Jill Carroll apparently.
I went to live and work in Saudi Arabia in 1998, and I "made my year" as expats there put it. That phrase means that I actually stuck out the whole year, instead of "running" from my contract, an occurrence so common that you only have to say "he did a runner" to explain why someone isn't showing up for work anymore. And while my experience wasn't nearly as unpleasant as Jill Carroll's, I could have told her a thing or two before she went to Iraq armed with her overflowing good will.
In Eastern Europe and the South Balkans, whenever I have gone to live in a place which I had formed opinions about, the actual experience of living there has always radically changed those opinions, sometimes into a completely contradictory ones. Most often, my academic research led me to form a beautifully coherent model which experience turned into a semi-coherent collection of observations and tentative conclusions.
In the case of the Kingdom, I went there with a certain sympathy for Arab grievances, a belief that America had earned a lot of hostility from "blowback" from our ham-handed interventionist foreign policy and support for Israel etc.
I came back with the gloomy opinion that over the long run we are going to have to hammer these people hard to get them to quit messing with Western Civilization. And by the way, among "rational, fair-minded" non-interventionist libertarians, not a damn one of them has asked me, "What in your experience caused you to change your mind?" Instead what I get are gratuitous insults followed by insufferably condescending lectures about how wrong I am.
So, with the caveat that one of the first things I learned was that the term “Arab” covers a lot of territory, here are some observations and some tentative conclusions about Arabs, more specifically about Arabs from the oil states about why we have misunderstood each other to the point that we are fighting a war with some of them and are pissing off the rest of them. I suspect that many of these also apply to Iranian Islamists, but I have never been there and note that Iranians are not Arabs and have a different cultural history.
1) They don’t think the same way we do.
No, I mean THEY REALLY DON'T THINK THE SAME WAY WE DO. Yes, yes, I know we are all human and share the same human nature (perhaps the most disastrous mistake of Marxism was the denial of this elementary fact). But within the scope of that shared human nature, there are a lot of different ways to be human. We Americans have a basically open attitude to our fellow human beings and sometimes forget this. Combined with the fact that most Americans are linguistic idiots, we tend to assume that anyone who learns to speak English learns to think like us.
2) When you meet them in just the right circumstances, they are a very likable people.
Arabs are often easy to like, but difficult to respect - as opposed to Israelis, who are often difficult to like but impossible not to respect. From their nomadic heritage they have a tradition of generosity and hospitality to guests that warms the heart. Arab shopkeepers have a talent for making you feel guilty that you didn’t buy anything (once you get past a dislike of having them lay hands on you). Haggling is a social grace with them and when you ask the price, and agree to the first one quoted, they will often come down on the price just out of pity for your social ineptness. This does not in the least affect the fact that no friendship with you is ever going to remotely equal the obligations they have for their family, tribe or the community of the Believers.
3) Their values are fundamentally different from ours, their self-esteem is derived from a different source.
And you know what? Theirs is PHONY. Yes I know, I’m making a cultural value judgment, the cardinal sin when I was a grad student in Anthropology. With us, the most important sources of self-esteem are useful work and the love of a good woman. Being good at something that requires skill (even a hobby) and being of primary importance to somebody just because you are who you are. Work for them, is something to be avoided. The basic forms of work: making stuff, growing stuff and moving stuff around, is taken care of by a class of indentured servants, usually non-Arab Muslims from the Third World, and even today, by outright slaves. The Kingdom is a modern country, they abolished slavery in 1967, but old expats have reported seeing slave auctions as late as 1981.
On one occasion a student of mine asked me, “Teacher, what do you call a man who can be sold?” (Excellent use of the passive voice, I was proud of him.) I explained, “He is called a slave, the condition is called slavery, the verb is to enslave.” Later I had occasion to ask them about the headsman, the fellow who cuts heads and hands off in chop-chop square in front of the mosque on Fridays. The reason I asked was that from my studies I knew that in tribal societies converting from a tribal or feudal system into a system of common laws, a man condemned to death by a court of law must often be executed by a member of his own tribe, or a complete outsider so that the execution does not spark a blood feud. In the Kingdom the headsman is usually a Sudanese. My students explained, “Yes teacher, he’s a slave.” i.e. he’s a person of no importance and therefore outside the web of obligations of vengeance.
The point being, in a slave society, work is not honorable (as De Tocqueville pointed out) and cannot be a source of self-worth.
In Tunisia I saw a population doing their own work and I have worked with a fair number of Jordanians engaged in skilled labor and the professions. Note that neither is an oil state and I believe their contribution to the ranks of terrorists is far less than the oil-rich countries. It is difficult to argue that poverty is the driving cause of terrorism.
“Of conjugal love they know nothing.” (Thomas Jefferson on the French aristocracy.) In a land of arranged marriages, where the whole society is geared towards a strict segregation of the sexes and women are at least semi-chattels, romantic love is rare – and greatly desired. In the Kingdom I found a few students with a consuming interest in romantic poetry, whom I had to teach very discretely. Most of them were just obsessed with sex however. And interestingly, when visiting the West or the fleshpots of Bahrain, they are said to have a tendency to fall in love with the prostitutes they patronize.
Without honorable work, romantic love or any accomplishments not overshadowed by those the West, their sense of self-worth comes from being the possessors of the One True Religion. And Allah doesn’t seem to be delivering on his promises of being exalted above the unbelievers these days.
On the plus side, they are willing to spare you and absorb you into their community as a respected member if you convert to the One True Religion. The Brotherhood of Believers is a reality in the lands of Islam, and while it sometimes falls short of the ideal (as does our democratic ideal) it is a reality, and in its way admirable.
4) Not only can they not build the infrastructure of a modern society, they can’t maintain it either.
The very concept of "maintenance" is foreign to them. This is what drives the foreign instructors in the Gulf absolutely mad. The per capita richest countries in the world resemble Eastern Europe or Latin America in the tackiness and run-down appearance of the buildings and streets. An electronics technician new to the Kingdom once told me how his first job was to inspect a junction box in the desert. He had to pry it open with a crowbar as it had evidently not been opened since it had been installed several years earlier.
This is expressed in the inshallah philosophy, “If God wills it.” A Palestinian friend of mine explained to me that even the weather forecaster will qualify his prediction, “It will rain tomorrow. Inshallah.” Or, “I will meet you tomorrow, inshallah.” (But God understands that I am a very unreliable person.)
I remember giving a pep talk to my students before a crucial exam, “You are all going to pass the exam, right?” “Inshallah teacher.” “No, no!” I shouted, “No inshallah. Study!”
This was once also characteristic of the former communist countries. Work was indifferently performed and maintenance was a real problem. A factory owner in Poland told me that machines he bought from Sweden lasted only half as long in Poland as they did in Sweden because of poor maintenance. However as soon as people were assured that they could keep a reasonable amount of what they worked for, people reverted to their true cultural patterns, worked plenty hard and started to take care of their tools and the public spaces.
5) They do not think of obligations as running both ways.
With us, contractual and moral obligations tend to be equal and reciprocal. They don’t see it that way. The obligations of the superior to the inferior do not equal those of the inferior to the superior. Obligations within a family or clan outweigh all others. That is why we had to take care not to sit members of the same clan near each other during exams. If one asks another for help, he has to give it. In spite of promises to the school and even when the clansman is a total stranger. Obligations to other believers outweigh all obligations to unbelievers and especially when the believers are fellow-Arabs. And in contracts with unbelievers, the obligations of the Believer to the kaffir are not equal to the obligations of the kaffir to the Believer.
Consider that Muslims in England have quite un-selfconsciously demanded that a pub near a Mosque be shut down as offensive to their religion – in spite of the fact that the pub had precedence by six hundred years! Or that they demanded the right to broadcast the prayer call on loudspeakers in London while it is illegal to have a church at all in the Kingdom.
6) In warfare, we think they are sneaky cowards, they think we are hypocrites.
In our civilization, when two men get down, either seriously or just “woofing”, what do they say? Some variation of “I’m going to kick your ass.” Am I right? Here’s what I heard in the Kingdom, “Hey, don’t f**k with me, or someday you get a knife in the back.” I’m not saying that wouldn’t happen to you in the West, but most men would be ashamed to make a threat of that nature. We don’t understand that direct shock battle is not necessarily the law of nature. When overwhelming force is brought to bear on them, they become cringing and obsequious. To put it bluntly, they lie their heads off to get you to turn your back on them. Try to see it from their point of view – how else do you expect them to act when you have the overwhelming force? You expect them to meet you on equal terms when the situation is so unequal? What other tactics are available but prevarication and delay followed by a sneak attack?
Folks, what we call “terrorism” is quite close to the historically normal way of warfare among these people.
7) In rhetoric, they don’t mean to be taken seriously and they don’t understand when we do.
Thus an ultimatum is often not taken seriously and the reality comes as a surprise. Remember the “Mother of all Battles”? Like many other Mediterranean peoples, Arabs don’t seem to mind making a scene in public and have a high blown sense of drama. Paul Harvey once described how he had spent the Suez Crisis hiding under the bed in his hotel room because of the blood-curdling radio broadcasts, before he learned that Arabs talk like that when they’re arguing over a taxi. “This is my taxi and I will defend it to the death!” “You lie, it’s mine and rivers of blood will flow in the street before I give up my taxi!”
An Arab will scream at you, get into your personal space and sometimes kick dirt on your shoe – and they react with utter surprise when an American up and decks him. “What did I do?” To say the least, this makes negotiations difficult.
8) They don’t place the same value on an abstract conception of Truth as we do, they routinely believe things of breathtaking absurdity.
I cannot begin to tell you of some of the things I’ve heard from Gulf Arabs or read in the English language press in the Kingdom. “The Jews want Medina back.” (Medina was a Jewish city in the time of the Prophet.) The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has been turned into an immensely popular miniseries on Egyptian TV. The Blood Libel (the medieval myth that Jews need the blood of non-Jewish babies to celebrate Passover) is widely reported in the Arab press, and widely believed. Allah will replenish the oil beneath Arabia when it runs out.
I’ve been assured, by well-educated and otherwise sensible people that Winston Churchill was Jewish and that Anthony Quinn had been blacklisted and would never work again after making Lion of the Desert (just before he made that turkey with Kevin Costner).
9) They do not have the same notion of cause and effect as we do.
This involves some seriously weird stuff about other people being responsible for their misery because they ill-wished them. I’ve read in the English-language press of the Kingdom serious admonitions against using Black Magic to win an advantage in a dispute with a neighbor. The columnist did not deny the efficacy of Black Magic, he just said it’s forbidden to use it. On one occasion I was trying to explain the concept of "myth" to them and I used the example of the djinn. I wasn't getting through to them at all and was concerned that I had mangled the pronunciation of the word when it dawned on me that the reason they didn't understand what I was getting at, was that they had no doubt that the djinn were real.
10) We take for granted that we are a dominant civilization still on the way up. They are acutely aware that they are a civilization on the skids.
Anyone who looks at the surviving architecture of Moorish Spain can tell that Islamic civilization has seen better days. There was a time when cultural transmission between Islam and the West went overwhelmingly from them to us. (Note the recent discoveries of Sufi symbols engraved on the structural members of European cathedrals.) Now the situation is reversed, and it is humiliating for them.
11) We think that everybody has a right to their own point of view, they think that that idea is not only self-evidently absurd, but evil.
In the West, and America more than anyplace else, we have internalized the notion that everyone has a right to their own opinion, and that said opinion is perfectly valid for them. When we meet a people who think that that idea is insane and evil, we are sometimes left in the absurd position of defending their idea as “perfectly valid for them”. Doesn’t work that way for them, God’s Truth is laid out in some detail in the Koran, and not to believe it is a sin. I know I know, in America you can find lots of Christian Fundamentalists who believe that God will cast you into hell for holding the wrong opinions about Him, but even those who would make their religion into an established church seldom desire the level of enforcement in such detail as the Kingdom does or the Taliban did.
12) Our civilization is destroying theirs. We cannot share a world in peace. They understand this; we have yet to learn it.
Another culturally-imposed blindness we have is the notion that everybody can get along with enough good will. There is absolutely no evidence to support this and a great deal to oppose it. Can the subjugation of women coexist with Western Civilization with Western media ubiquitous throughout the world? Can a pluralistic and tolerant society be governed by Islamic law? Can a modern economy exist where interest is forbidden and many forms of business risk-taking are considered gambling, and thus forbidden? Can a society that educates its young men by a process of rote recitation produce critically thinking, technically educated men to build and operate a modern economy? Can you even teach elementary concepts of maintenance to a people who believe that anything that happens is inshalla (As God will it)? To compete, or even just survive in the world they must become more like us and less like themselves – and they know this.
Rob
I've had your website shortcutted for a long time now. My absolute favourite bit is the Afghan Hunting Trip. Makes me laugh no matter how many times I see it.
I'm just surprised I haven't had any death threats over my own site. Maybe I should REALLY start worrying ...
Maybe you should add this one to your place, because this one makes me laugh too, no matter how many times I see it. My best score to date is 79.
Perhaps I'm just simple-minded.
http://www.beadee.com/attacked/bend_over.htm
Great analysis, Chuck, and I agree with what you say. These are SOME of the faults of arabic culture, above and beyond the religous monstronsity of the Koran. Together, the religion, and the arabic culture that predates the religion, are fundamentally flawed. It really is a double whammy. But it is only to be expected, that such a backward culture would embrace an illiterate warlord and make him the founder of a new religion.
I truly believe that if this guy named Mohammad had not been born, another guy named Mohammad would have, and a virtually identical cult would have been created instead.
Cultures create their own societies. Westerners created the society of the modern world, the blacks created the society of black Africa, the orientals created the society of the orient, and the arabs created the society of muslim despotism. Why the differences? The differences in the societies are represented by the differences in the cultures.
Of course Bush doensn't know about Islam, because he just reads what his advisers write. But whould we as assume, those guys don't know? They threw billions of dollars after the mujahedeens in Afghanistan. They trained them.
My theory is, that the governement fully knows about Islam, but doesn't act because:
- They are dependant on the oil.
- This dependence must be uphold -> Bush has been paid and deliverd by the oil and military business.
- War is good for oil and military business. Let the state spend the money and the companies pocket it.
Islam was created by Muhammad to gain power, money and sex. The American neocon politics strives for - power, money (and sometimes sex too). Now wonder they are at loggerheads.
Poor witness,
Rest assured that Mr George Bush owns a copy of each of Mr Spencer's books. And a whole lot more besides...
Hello all of you
this is my first post so please be gentle with me!
I've been watching your comments here for a couple of years now and I suppose PC brainwashing has detered me from posting up untill now.
Anyway here goes. Here in the UK there was a story going around (I think I read it in one of the papers)that just before Gulf War II George W and his entourage took some Iraqi disidents/ dignitaries to a football game, and obviously the conversation centred around the impending invasion. Aparently a member of the group asked George W about the possible problems between the Sunnis and the Shia following the toppling of the Sadam regime. His reply was "I thought they were all Moslems in Iraq"
If this story is true then I'm afraid your President is not as informed as you would want him to be.
RasoolalShaytan,
Seems mild compared to what I thought you would receive. I think you are mistaken, it appears to be an Islamic fan letter, i.e.: if u wanna write to me feel free. You know, they don’t think like us and maybe that’s the way they carry on a conversation with an Infidel they admire.
stillFedup?
Don't you think it would have been better to have fully understood the enemy before committing young British/American men to die for the cause? Having dismantled the Baathist military infrastructure and not knowing/ignoring advice, that the nation would descend into fratricidal anarchcy/civil war is worrying. The point I was trying to make is our elected leaders do not fully understand Islam or the schisms within that religion, let alone the concept of Jihad/Arab supremacism.
"well, I cannot fault Bush for this one. It is not normal that branches of the same religion gets into feudal wars. Otherwise you'd see everywhere protestants against catholics against orthodox and so on."
Well this is just plain daft... Have you not heard of Northern Ireland or Yugoslavia?
Do you think that refering to people as backward animals helps the debate?
Please don't take offence it is not my intention to get into a slanging match... I just think that it is important to know ones enemy. Also as Hugh keeps pointing out, conflict between the different interpretations of Islam is good for the Infidel, I'm just concerned that the West is oblivious to this.
Are we now debating the Backward Animal label? I had already written that off as a given. Actually I thought the Backward Animal label was a little too nice for hand wiping head choppers who beat their Wives habitually. Does anyone wonder why the jihad is so misunderstood by Infidels? Do you think it might have something to do with “That’s their intention because that’s the way it works best for them”. War is Deceit. War is Deceit. Just keep repeating it.
tgusa
you are probably right.
I don't think it is appropriate to refer to backward animals as backward animals because it gives our detractors ammunition. i.e. jihadwatchers are "rascist, islamaphobic nazis etc etc etc" I know its good to call a spade a spade but remember your on air!
RasoolalShaytan...For some reason Shaista does not like you. Shaista is one of the funniest Islamic writers I have read. They must have contests to see who can be the most assinine and absurd.
Mohammad started these contests years ago and was the first assinine and absurd Prophet. All the rest of the Prophets were pretty swell, but all Mohammad did was get a swelled head. Shaista has forgotten that Mohammad cleaned his privates with stones, and declared that demons eat dung and the meat left on bones. Anyone who cleans his privates with stones and is concerned with demon diets, cant be all bad. Mohammad had his points, but unfortunatly they were growing out of his head...
hierophant,
Your old PC habits are showing. Racist, islamaphobic, Nazi’s. War is Deceit! Racist? How do we go from they are animal’s to we are racist. Serial killers are animals, they aren’t backwards but they are animals. Am I a racist for believing that? Phobia, an unreasonable fear, is there anything reasonable about the enemy? I do fear a world that they envision but not them. Nazi’s? Where do you think Hitler got all of his ideas? Do you really think it is coincidence? Think about the worst thing they could call you, now quadruple it and there you have it, their label for you no matter what you say or do. I’m sure you know that this is not a game where we all shake hands in the end.
How can anyone compare muslims to animals? I have animals in my house and they are the sweetest things. Clean, too. Friendly. Loving. Will never stab you in the back. Always there. Trusting. Peaceful. They seek no glory or power.
In essense, an animal is the diametric opposite of a muslim. Please, what did animals do to deserve to be compared to muslims? This is insane.
Duh_Swami
Neither epilepsy nor headaches are 'mental problems'. One is neurological, the other simply physical (or neurological). He does seem to have been, however, mad.
It's possible that seizures somehow encouraged him to believe himself a prophet, and this could have spurred on his madness.
Chuck - brilliant, insightful post. Robert, please make Chuck a regular 'columnist'!!
"Chuck" isn't the writer of his post: he is quoting a blogger named Stephen Browne.
The point I was trying to make is our elected leaders do not fully understand Islam or the schisms within that religion, let alone the concept of Jihad/Arab supremacism.
posted by Hierophant
Of course they should understand islam and the amorphous "enemy", yet five years after 9-11, five years in Afghanistan and over three in Iraq, our illustrious "leaders" are still regurgitating: "islam is a religion of peace" and "all people yearn for democracy." These canards not only insult our intelligence, they threaten our very survival.
It is impossible to determine just how much Bush and Blair know about islam but based on their public statements, they are both clueless. Why did Tony Blair permit every islamic terrorist organization in the world to operate with impunity in London? Why has he encouraged massive, unrestricted muslim immigration? Why does he encourage special concessions for muslims in the U.K.? How could he live amid millions of bellicose muslims in his own country, and closely monitor incessant muslim violence and warfare in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world, and publicly declare that islam is peaceful? How could any rational, sane Briton believe him?
George Bush considers anyone who believes in the Almighty to be a kindred soul and like millions of other Americans, is simply incapable of believing that a religion could be evil. All the tell-tale clues and evidence are there, but rather than confront reality head-on, Bush and Blair prefer to separate muslims into groups of "moderates" and "radicals." They refuse to accept that we are involved in a religious war and a clash of civilizations. How could they ever reconcile their irresponsible domestic and foreign blunders with the cold, harsh reality of islam and millions of muslim immigrants? That would be tantamount to admitting that they have placed their own nations and people in dire jeopardy with their cavalier, multicultural agendas.
Britain has a long history of dealing with muslims on their turf and it's not ancient history by any means. It appears that both Bush and Blair learned nothing from history, or perhaps they didn't even study it.