The talk I gave in mid-November at the Heritage Foundation here in Washington will be broadcast on C-Span's Book TV today at 3:30PM EST. I discuss issues covered in my book The Truth About Muhammad.
And take a look at what follows immediately after my talk, at 4:30PM EST: Karen Armstrong, talking about her new and hagiographical biography of Muhammad. Watch the fun as Armstrong, using the same sources I did, paints a picture as different from mine as night is from day. Of course, I'd be happy to debate her anytime, but I am not holding my breath.
Who pays Karen Armstrong for turning a blind eye to the truth? Her half-truth tells a whole lie. We don't need lies, we need to face reality and see the whole truth.
And just before Robert Spencer's speech at the Heritage Foundation comes one of our favorite Dhimmi's, former President Jimmy Carter. Who has apparently written a book about the Palestinian, Israeli conflict that is so chalk full of misinformation that some critcs are warn out trying to cover all its wrongfull conclusions of the conflict that he has written about.
Wouldn't you know, C-SPAN puts Robert on during the one o'cklock game.
Someone please record/post this to You Tube if you can, or email me the video capture and I'll post it (foehammer@[nospam]foehammer.net) (I really do need to get a multimedia computer in 2007...)
Ack! Palestinian journalist Mohammed Omer is on C-Span right now, trying to show how those mean Israelites are killing everyone... And, look, he brought us video of "innocent" children protesting and getting shot...
Gee, Robert, It looks like they have the deck stacked against you today...
Yup, nothing like fair and balanced reporting. *grin*
Cheers,
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
Foehammer,
Here's a link to Robert Heritage Foundation presentation:
http://a1716.v8468b.c8468.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1716/8468/v0001/multimedia.heritage.org/windowsmedia/Allison-111406.wmv
I don't have one for Armstrong (assuming that it, too, is a re-broadcast).
unfortunately we dont get c-span on our soviet style crtc, only get what they allow on our Cdn dish or cable.
Jimmy peanut Carter will go down as the worst president, from srewing up Iran, to the passing grade of the elections from Venezula pro chavez, and now this crap about poor pali people. he like the media so one sided, l guess for jimmy Carter its okay for hammas to spill blood of Jewish people.
l hope to see it on youtube.
What was that singing at the end of our presentation? I heard the word "Nazi" in that "hymn." Am I right?
Wow, Robert, great lecture! This is the first I've actually heard you speak at length rather than the short soundbites provided on some of those news discussion shows. Speaking in front of an audience is so much more difficult and unnerving than writting an essay (for me at least), but you seemed rehearsed yet spontaneous. Too bad C-Span made you into a dhimmi sandwich betwixt Dhimmi Carter and Karen Armstrong!
unicorns
The song was a scornful attack on Robert by followers of Democrat renegate Lyndon LaRouche. You can see more about that incident here.
Robert
The speech, as well as the Q&A session was good. Unlike the critics of Islamo-Fascism, you took on political Islam, which is good. I however wonder whether political Islam can be separated from religious Islam in the way political Shintoism was separated from religious Shintoism. The only thing that was ended in Shintoism was Emperor worship, and there, Emperor Hirohito was there to tell his people that he was not a God. Let's say a war were to take place that left Islamic forces totally defanged, and countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt totally defanged, you don't have the possibility of resurrecting Mohammed to come back and forcing him at gunpoint to tell Muslims that Infidels are equally human, that plans to subjugate/kill them are now out of bounds, Muslims themselves have a right to apostatize, et al. As a result, I don't see how one could surgically eradicate political Islam without dealing a death blow to religious Islam.
Ultimately, whether we like it or not, we will have to take on the religion, not just its political component.
Did I hear Armstrong correctly? Islam won it's empire by being in the right place at the right time when two warring factions wore each other out and just collapsed,while Mohammed was standing nearby. "He found himself with an empire."
And all those verses against unbelievers were meant only for a handful of his contemporaries?
(Imagine my relief)
Well, any Muslim who takes her seriously would be a peaceful one - she's whitewashed Mo so sweetly.
Uh huh,
The old 5:32 snippet.
Unfortunately, I was working when this was on, and it doesn't look like there's going to be a replay of it today, or any time, except a few weeks from now on BookTV's website, and even then, I don't know.
Does anyone know where I might be able to see his interview?
Jonas Salk,
Look above.
That's the first time I've ever seen Karen Armstrong speak. I forgot she was an ex-nun until she brought it up. It's not hard to see where she's coming from. She brings up eastern religious thought enough to appreciate the wisdom she's gained from that quarter (no doubt accounting for her ecumenical approach) and she clearly appears to have good intentions at heart (she slipped in that thing about "never again", indicating again that she apparently thinks of Muslims as the "new Jews") but there were a couple of jaw dropping moments when her denial that there just might be something about Islam which is actually different from other religions was utterly apparent. (don't have a tape recorder so am relying loosely on my memory here). The first example was at what I recall being the first question at the Q&A when someone asked precisely what it is about the extremists that they are distorting about Islam. She never really answered that question. Instead she just went off on some lengthy reverie about how all religions teach the same thing and at one point (which is where my ears perked up) used the "I" word - along the lines of "I" don't believe that any religion would actually teach violence. At that moment I realized that Karen Armstrong has invented what Hugh so frequently refers to as "my own private Islam". Because Karen Armstrong doesn't think that any true religion would preach violence and because Islam is presumably a true religion, ergo Islam cannot preach violence. Apparently the corollary possibility never occurred to her: Any true religion cannot preach violence. Islam preaches violence. Ergo, Islam is not a true religion.
The second jaw dropping moment for me was when she actually stated that Muhammad wanted peace and abhored violence (again paraphrasing) and quoted him right before quoting Jesus's admonition to turn the other cheek.
The third moment was when she referred disparagingly to "pre-emptive" war as if that would be completely antithetical to Muhammad's sensibilities!
I can see the woman means well, but I can also see the possibilility of being an "ambassador for peace" going to her head and creating an expansive ego along the lines of Jimmy Carter. (For some reason, Oprah Winfrey gives me the same sort of feeling as well).
As to Mr Spencer's speech, it was terrific except for one moment and that was when he was asked a pointed question about what we should do about Muslim immigration to the west. The response about the entry questionnaire was rather confusing. Are we to monitor folks around the clock to be sure that they haven't lied on their entry applications? And what about their children who didn't fill out the application (and as we've learned from Europe's example this second generation is precisley the one we need to worry about) - if they suddenly "get Islam" what we would do with them? Deport them on the basis that their father made some statements on his entry application to the US? How could that possibly be justified? Prior to 1965 the US didn't have open immigration quotas for everyone in the world. The US took in only people whom it deemed compatible. The issue of Muslim immigration to the US is one of the most central policy issues we are going to have to come to terms with which is why I guess I was rather disappointed with that answer. (Maybe you don't want to be seen as an extremist at this point, which I can certainly understand. C-Span might not cover your talks anymore and that would be even worse.) But perhaps there's a non-extremist way to suggest that one of the things we're gong to have to do is seriously reconsider our immigration policies from Muslim countries and also to explain why there's nothing morally wrong with doing that.
PRCS, I don't see anything? I see a link to the Heritage Foundation presentation, but that link doesn't work, and I've already seen his presentation from there. What am I missing?
Ahh, PCRS, Foehammer and I are looking for the Book TV interview from today, not the Heritage Foundation presentation from November 14th. Thanks anyway.
I just watched both presentations.
Robert, you put out a lot of the usual good stuff, but it is obvious that you were rushed--and because of that somewhat "fidgety"-- and that demeanor detracted from the effectiveness of your talk. Also, C-Span made sure to include the little Nazi song at the end (which had nothing to do with the content, but was purely ad hominem). So "Nazi" was basically the final word on your presentation.
Karen Armstrong, given lots more time, was able speak in a more relaxed mode, with pauses and asides for effect. C-Span made sure to include a slam against Fox News and Glenn Beck (the slam was made by the moderator) at the end, as implied purveyors of disinformation and Islamophobia.
The overall effect of that last little bit by the moderator was that you were retroactively tarred with that same "phobic non-scholar" brush.
The general message (aside from Mohammed's being noble. peaceful, and wonderful), I got out of the Armstrong pitch was that Islam is not really a problem (it is peaceful through and through!), that all the friction between Islam and the West is either the fault of the Western Crusaders or, more recently, an understandable reaction to the modernity forced by the colonial West onto such innocent foreign cultures, we should be ashamed of our history in that regard, and that we in the West need to stop "acting superior" and change our ways and attitudes so as to make the Muslims feel more welcome in our lands. Fundamentalism, like all bad things in history, had its origins in the West, and is based on a group's irrational fear of annihilation. OBL is a fundamentalist, as are all the other terrorist leaders, as was Hitler, as is President Bush (implied) now and other Western leaders lately. We of all religious persuasions should sit down together and listen to each other and learn about our common values. Cumbaya.
I watched Karen Armstrong's presentation, sponsored by the Mosaic Foundation (founded by the wives of Arab Ambassadors to the U.S.), right after Robert's Heritage Foundation speech rebroadcast on C-SPAN.
I have not read any of Ms. Armstrong's books; indeed, this is the first time I have heard her speak.
Unfortunately, I was completely underwhelmed. Her rambling, blabbermouth presentation seemed to me the very opposite of a scholarly talk, that is, arguments supported by demonstrable facts.
Instead, she gave her Weltanschauung of claims, along with isolated Qur'anic quotes (something she inveighed against when done by others), in what amounted to a syncretistic view of world religions, which according to her, are really all the same if one could take away the fanatacism, which she tried mightily to equate with "fundamentalism."
In this attempt, Christian and Jewish "fundamentalists" were of the same stripe as Islamic fundamentalists.
She prated on endlessly, trying to make what I would call the "Rodney King Theory of Religion:" if you could get rid of all the fundamentalists in religion, then "Why can't we all get along?"
She views Muhammad as having been basically a good guy, and that Qur'an passages deaing with jihad have been misunderstood or misused (by the fundamentalists) -- the old "Islam is a religion of peace" gambit.
The fact that she doesn't address the issue of whether there's any truth to Islam, and whether anyone should take Muhammed seriously when he claimed supernatural revelations from God, she strikes me as a person who has essentially lost her own faith (she used to be a nun), and has found calmer waters in the academic pursuit of the history of religion.
I would say that she has crossed over to becoming a secularist who, when faced with the Chinese menu of different beliefs and traditions, picks and chooses what she likes. And she thinks if everyone did this, and left out the bad stuff (fundamentalism), then we would all be happy.
Hardly a transcendent view of religion, and she basically claimed that God himself is "unknowable." I think even Muhammad would quarrel with this.
*Slaps himself* I'm an idiot. I didn't read properly that the Heritage Foundation presentation WAS the video broadcast on C-Span. I apologize for my stupidity.
prman: "I would say that she has crossed over to becoming a secularist"
Actually, she referred somewhat longingly to western European secularism as something like a dying breed or maybe the term she used was "old-fashioned", which might seem to suggest that she does indeed believe in secularism and modernity. But then she proceeded to lump together American Evangelicals and Muslim extremists as if Muslims themselves historically had some genuine tradition of secularism or separation of church and state like western liberal democracies have had, so as to portray Muslim extremists as somehow as bizarre an occurrence as Christian fundamentalists are, and basically on par with one another (both just equally fighting the threat of "modernity"). By creating this parallel in her argument, she seemed to imply that Muslim societies have historically been as secular as western liberal democracies, and thus Muslims extremists are just a fundamentalist departure on par with the Christian evangelicals in America, who represent a fundamentalist departure from secularism in the west. Which makes me wonder, What planet is this woman living on?
You say anything unfavorable about Moslems and Islam, no matter how factual, and you are branded a hatemonger, racists, bigot, brutish, unintelligent, fueled by hate and fear.
Caroline,
I forgot to get the the Mosaic moderator's name.
Did you get it?
That guy was on a mission. At one point he asked Armstrong if she'd seen Obsession (I believe). She said no and he said something to the effect "Thank God for that".
He also reitereated the 'few extremists who've misinterpreted the Qur'an' theme.
PRCS:
Thanks very much for that link. I'll post that link and/or the video in my media section this week.
PRCS - I didn't get the Mosaic moderator's name but prman above is correct in noting that the talk was sponsored by "Mosaic Foundation (founded by the wives of Arab Ambassadors to the U.S.)"
"At one point he asked Armstrong if she'd seen Obsession (I believe). She said no and he said something to the effect "Thank God for that"."
No - he asked her if she had seen Glenn Beck's program (and she said no). Glenn Beck has a program on CNN and basically doesn't mince words about the goals of islam to institute Sharia law. But if that's hate speech, then why don't Muslims go after their compatriots who state they have those very goals (which Glenn Beck is merely reporting on) and accuse them of hate speech? (Which is obviously the point that RS is constantly trying to make). Apparently the Muslim world can film some god awful hate speech coming from a Muslim mosque which is picked up on MEMRI and then when the video comes here to us and we air it, we're accused of "hate speech" for airing it. Ridiculuous. Maybe this sort of pathetic attempt at psychological manipulation works on non-educated folks (and most of the history of Muslims conquests took place on largely non-educated folks) but it's simply not going to work on educated people in the 21st century.
Caroline,
Thanks. I'll see if I can look it up.
BTW, Glenn Beck still thinks that Islam has been hijacked (from what I've seen of his show).
But, at least he's got an audience.
PRCS: "BTW, Glenn Beck still thinks that Islam has been hijacked"
I didn't know that! (And you've destroyed a hypothesis I was loosely entertaining that foehammer might actually be Glenn Beck in disguise, after he claimed somewhere here that he was one of the loudest anti-Islamists out there, or something to that effect).
Caroline,
Sorry. I hope you were sitting down.
Actually, Beck is may be one of the loudest anti-Islamists.
When he finally figures out that Grandma Fatima's Qur'an reads the same as UBL's copy...
More critiques on the new Dhimmy Carter Book-- (Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1747039/posts
Also read the critique by Professor Alan Dershowitz who was a supporter of Jimmy Carter ,but makes it clear that he is very disappointed in his new
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/the-world-according-to-ji_b_34702.html
I was away from home during the C-Span2 broadcasts but managed to catch them on videotape. After sitting through the whole 2 and 1/2 hours, I am relieved to say that my concerns, that having Karen Armstrong follow Robert Spencer would give her a debating advantage, were unfounded.
Compared to Robert's professional, crisp and well documented presentation, Karen Armstrong came off as a condescending, scrambled and disoriented dilettante. She appeared and sounded like a cruel caricature of Julia Child who had wandered into the wrong auditorium, but without Julia's graciousness and sense of humor. Karen's assertions about Islam indicate either that she has never actually studied the Koran, Ahadith and other canonical Islamic documents, or she has and is willfully misrepresenting them.
I would love to see a face to face debate in a truly unbiased arena.
Jihadwatch Commenters:
Let me strongly recommend this recorded speech made by Caroline Glick on November 29th. The program is 1 hour and 59 minutes but it is well worth your time. You may have to turn up your speakers up a bit. It starts off a little slow but when Caroline gets going her comments are absolutely worth staying glued to.
Carolines writings have been used by Robert Spencer several times and he thinks very highly of her and has used her articles on many occassions.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;s=islam
urban,
As you have video, what is the Mosaic moderator's name, please.
Also, he referenced 'other experts' at the end of the segment. What were they?
Thanks.
Mackie,
Thanks for the link.
FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT MAY LIKE TO HEAR CAROLINE GLICKS TERRIFIC SPEECH WHO HAS NOTABLES LIKE STEPHEN KATZ,DR.ANDREW BOSTOM, AND JEFF JACOBY IN THE AUDIENCE-- THIS IS A MORE DIRECT CONNECT.
http://www.aviewnew.net/solomonia/images/december06/Caroline_Glick_29_Nov_2006.mp3
PRCS posted:
urban,
As you have video, what is the Mosaic moderator's name, please.
Also, he referenced 'other experts' at the end of the segment. What were they?
Thanks.
The Mosaic moderator was Khalil Jahnshan, International Studies & Languages Professor, Pepperdine University.
The "other experts" mentioned were not identified by name, but were described by Prof. Jahnshan as "appearing on Fox News and Glenn Beck's program, who were considered experts because they know how to pronounce Madrassa but confuse Sunna and Shia." (Not an exact quote but a reasonably close paraphrase -- sorry, my shorthand is a bit rusty!)
Hope this helps.
PRCS:
OOPS - That should be Professor Khalil JAHSHAN -- there is only one "N" in the last name.
Sorry about that. . . .
urban,
Yes. Thanks.
And you're right; any debating advantage given through appearing after Robert was cancelled by her performance.
Robert,
I had a chance to watch your lecture and the Q&A that followed on C-Span. I enjoyed the lecture and thought it was interesting and informative. I especially liked your answer on the question of Muslim immigration.Your mentioning of a survey of prospective immigrants is similar to what is being done in (Denmark ?) Where that government is making Muslims watch films of gays, topless women ect.With the idea that we want people living in the West who share are values incuding freedom of speech and freedom of or from religion.Bottom line if you do not share our values we don't want you here.I've no doubt that many Muslims will lie to get into the country but lying to become a citizen is cause for removal of citizenship and deportation.Citizenship is a priviledge not a right.
Mackie,
Just finished hearing the terrific talk by Caroline Glick. Thanks so much for providing the link to this.
http://www.foehammer.net/2006/12/robert-spencers-c-span-book-tv-talk.html
As promised.
I am also working on condensing Robert's C-Span appearance into an audio-only mp3 version, but right now it is still rather large (20 mb) and I need to shrink it further before I post it for download from my site.
MP3 conversion completed, in 3 downloadable parts.
http://www.foehammer.net/2006/05/multimedia-archives.html
Enjoy.
Good talk, Robert..my only question is why would you say we would not be the victors in a clash of civilizations?
more carter stuff from Front Page..
..from article
"Former New York mayor Ed Koch, in his 1984 bestseller Mayor, recounted a conversation he had shortly before the 1980 election with Cyrus Vance, who’d recently resigned as Carter’s secretary of state. Koch told Vance that many Jews would not be voting for Carter because they feared “that if he is reelected he will sell them out.”
“Vance,” recalled Koch, “nodded and said, ‘He will.’ ”
In Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship, Andrew and Leslie Cockburn revealed that during a March 1980 meeting with his senior political advisers, Carter, discussing his fading reelection prospects and his sinking approval rating in the Jewish community, snapped, “If I get back in, I’m going to [expletive] the Jews.”
Carter – such was the country’s good fortune – did not get back in. But as evidenced by his years of pro-Palestinian advocacy, reams of anti-Israel op-ed articles, and the release last week of his latest book/screed, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, he’s been trying to [expletive] the Jews ever since."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25746
Robert's presentation was excellent as expected! I sent a reminder to several people to watch on C-span.
Ms. Armstrong's talk to the Mosaic Foundation on the other hand was tedious and predictable. I am afraid I was unable to force myself to watch it in its entirety. She lost my interest early on when she warmed the audience by joking that the pope and bishops of Muhammad's time were envious because Muhammad had several wives whereas they were stuck in celebacy...it rubbed me the wrong way to hear a MUSLIM audience laugh at this... and it went downhill from there for me....... she was boring in my view.
Carter gets an earful..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBaDfue_Rys