From The Liberal Institute:
ROBERT SPENCER is the Director of Jihad Watch, and the author of seven books, mostly on Islam and jihad. Two recent works were New York Times best-sellers: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) in 2005, and The Truth About Mohammed in 2006. His current book was published several weeks ago and is called Religion of Peace? Why Islam Isn't and Christianity Is. Mr. Spencer granted this exclusive interview to The Liberal Institute in early September of 2007.Liberal Institute: What aspects of Islam do you find most problematic?
Robert Spencer: The institutionalized discrimination against women and religious minorities, the denial of the freedom of conscience, the deeply rooted approval of slavery -– these are several of the most problematic aspects of traditional Islam.
LI: Muslims say Islam means "peace" and jihad means "self-improvement." Is this true?
Spencer: In Arabic Islam means “submission” and jihad means “struggle.” While that struggle can take the form of self-improvement, the primary meaning of jihad in the Qur’an and Sunnah is warfare against unbelievers in order to subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law.
LI: Is the enemy of the West radical and extremist Islam -- as George Bush and almost all pundits say -- or is it moderate and mainstream Islam?
Spencer: The key problem here is that few analysts take the trouble to investigate the meaning of these terms, or Islam itself. If Islam at its core is peaceful and no more political than Judaism or Christianity, then certainly moderate and mainstream Islam pose no threat to the institutions and societies of the West. But if Islamic doctrine is inherently political and supremacist, then one cannot reasonably assume that no Muslims in the West will be pursuing this political and supremacist agenda, and not only by means of terrorism, but by many other methods as well.
LI: Norman Podhoretz says the world is currently engaged in World War IV: [WW III being the Cold War] the West vs. Islam. To what extent and in what sense is this true?
Spencer: This is true in the sense that the conflict is much larger than Iraq and Afghanistan, larger than Israel -– indeed, it encompasses the whole world, as violent jihad movements can be found from Nigeria to Indonesia and in the West as well. But this term also risks giving the impression that the conflict is entirely military, when in fact the Islamic supremacist agenda is advancing today through numerous non-military means.
LI: Samuel Huntington calls the current conflict a "clash of civilizations." Is this a good description?
Spencer: Yes, although only one civilization -– the Islamic one -– thus far generally recognizes it as such.
LI: You defend Western Civilization vigorously and heroically -- but you call it "Judeo-Christian." Isn't it more accurate to call our Western World "Greco-Roman" or "Enlightenment liberal?"Spencer: I don’t see this as an Either/Or proposition, but as Both/And one. I focused on the Judeo-Christian aspect because that is both the element of Western civilization most frequently attacked by the jihadists (cf. Adam Gadahn of Al-Qaeda in his extended critique of Christian doctrine last year), as well as by atheists in the U.S. (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens) who see Christianity and Christians as part of the problem along with the Islamic jihadists, not as part of our civilization that is worth defending.
But I myself have no problem working with atheists and with anyone who is interested in defending the West from the jihad.
LI: Most people say the essence of Islam is "the five pillars:" pray, repeat the motto, give alms, fast for a month, visit Mecca. But isn't it more truthful and useful to say the essence of Islam is "the two pillars:" jihad (war) and sharia (slavery)? Don't almost all Muslims want to conquer the world in the name of their God, and then rule it according to divine law?
Spencer: The five pillars do indeed encompass the ordinary practice of Islam for most Muslims. However, it is undeniable that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that it is part of the responsibility of the Islamic community to struggle (wage jihad) against unbelievers in order to extend the supremacy of Islamic law (Sharia). Sharia doesn’t equal slavery, but it does mandate a second-class status of inequality for non-Muslims. Do “almost all Muslims” want to make this supremacist agenda a reality? Perhaps in theory, but the number of those who are actively working, whether by peaceful or violent means, to bring this about does not remotely constitute “almost all” Muslims. In Islam, as in all religious traditions, there is a spectrum of belief, knowledge, and fervor. To say that all the schools of Islam teach something is not to say that all Muslims hold to it.
LI: Is it fair to say that most Muslims, even in the West, essentially believe in three things for the "infidels:" Convert or Conquer or Kill?
Spencer: This is based on Qur’an 9:29 and Muhammad’s instructions in Sahih Muslim 4294 to invite the non-Muslims to accept Islam, and if they refuse that to invite them to enter the Islamic social order by paying the jizya, the non-Muslim poll tax, and accepting subservient status, and if they refuse both, to go to war with them. Since this triple choice of conversion, subjugation, or war is founded on Muhammad’s words, it is hard for serious and knowledgeable Muslims to reject it explicitly.
LI: Muslims claim they aren't genocidal. But isn't it a fact that the three most beloved Muslims of the past century are jihadi fundamentalists Osama bin Laudin, Ayatollah Khomeini, and Sayid Qutb?
Spencer: There is no doubt that these three men are very popular. But although Osama has targeted Western civilians, none of these three have advocated genocide. Rather, they wanted to subjugate the non-Muslim world under the rule of Islamic law.
LI: What do atheists fail to understand in the current battle royal for the soul of the planet?
Spencer: They fail to understand that not all religions pose an equivalent threat to generally accepted notions of human rights, and that therefore to lump them all together is to alienate potential allies against the genuine threat of jihadism.
LI: If someone wanted to clear his mind quickly of ignorance and propaganda about Islam, what three or four books should he read?
Spencer: Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Islam and Dhimmitude by Bat Ye’or; Muhammad by Maxime Rodinson.
LI: You refer to the West today as "self-hating" and "suicidal." But why are we this way? What should we do about it?
Spencer: We have been taught for decades now that the West is responsible for all the evil in the world. I suspect that this is a guilty reaction to the West’s success and prosperity. I believe in the face of it that we need to recover a sense of the value of our own civilization, no matter where we may stand in reference to its founding impetuses. Many elements of Western civilization -- the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of women and men, and more -- are threatened by the jihad imperative. That gives us an opportunity to throw off multiculturalist relativism and state firmly that we stand for certain values that are superior to those offered by the jihadists, and are ready to defend them.
LI: What are the main points -- six years after 9/11 -- Westerners still fail to understand about Islam in general and the global jihad in particular?
Spencer: Islam is not a religion of peace. It has an inherently political character that is being brought to the West by immigrants, and will cause more trouble in the future. The jihadists have not hijacked it. Peaceful Muslims should be encouraged but do not have a sufficiently influential voice in the Islamic world to allow them to be counted on. The jihadists will not be bought off by negotiations or concessions. This is the revival of a 1,400-year-old war, and we need to be prepared for the fact that it will not end anytime soon -- and prepared to defend ourselves militarily and ideologically.
LI: The American government speaks of today's worldwide struggle as "the long war." What do we need to do to quickly win it?
Spencer: It cannot be won. It can be managed, and not lost. Initiate a Manhattan Project to find alternative energy sources, and free us from foreign policy dependence on Saudi Arabia. Realign our alliances with Egypt, Pakistan, etc., so as to make foreign aid contingent on their actively working to restrict the preaching of Islamic supremacism in their mosques. End Muslim immigration to the U.S., since there is no reliable way to distinguish jihadists and potential jihadists from peaceful Muslims. Reclassify American Muslim groups as political groups, subject to all the scrutiny and accountability of political groups, unless they renounce political Islam and Sharia definitively and clearly, and back up their words with actions.
All that is just for starters.
This is really good.
Very good. But a little critique is okay?
Islam a 'civilization?' I beg to differ.
LI: Muslims claim they aren't genocidal. But isn't it a fact that the three most beloved Muslims of the past century are jihadi fundamentalists Osama bin Laudin, Ayatollah Khomeini, and Sayid Qutb?
Spencer: There is no doubt that these three men are very popular. But although Osama has targeted Western civilians, none of these three have advocated genocide. Rather, they wanted to subjugate the non-Muslim world under the rule of Islamic law.
Sheik Yermami sez: None of these three 'great muslims' have advocated genocide, but the annihilation of unbelievers comes with the territory. The Muhammedan scriptures are unmistakably clear on that and 1400 years of Islamic warfare against the kuffar are sufficient evidence.
Koran 8:7 “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last.’”
Excellent interview. With the Liberal Institute. Huh. Maybe this is a conflict between Muslim and infidel, and not a conflict between Democrats and Republicans. Weird.
Well done. Thanks, Robert.
Robert and/or JW readers
I have read/heard this stated by Robert several times:
"Reclassify American Muslim groups as political groups, subject to all the scrutiny and accountability of political groups, unless they renounce political Islam and Sharia definitively and clearly, and back up their words with actions."
but I am not aware of all of the exact benefits that result from such a change in status. What types of accountability would Islam be subject as a political group that are different? The only benefit of such a change in status that comes to mind is the tax exempt status religious organizations receive. That is certainly a big difference but I wonder if there are any other implications of treating Islam more as a political group rather than a mere religious group. If the answer is posted elsewhere online perhaps a link can be provided, or perhaps you have more detail in one of your books?
Powerful stuff. Thank you.
"Reclassify American Muslim groups as political groups, subject to all the scrutiny and accountability of political groups, unless they renounce political Islam and Sharia definitively and clearly, and back up their words with actions."
Not only would they loose their charitable tax-free status, they would also loose out on any Federal or State funding as faith-based orgs. They would also have to register as a PAC, and report all contributions received, and from whom.
This would be a good thing.
There are reasonable atheists out there who think CNNs Gods warriors thing is garbage. They understand there is a difference between a fundamentalist baptist who gives you a religious pamplet on the street and a muslim who WILL CUT YOUR HEAD OFF if you dont convert and who organizes THOUSANDS of jihadists all over the world.
"End Muslim immigration to the U.S., since there is no reliable way to distinguish jihadists and potential jihadists from peaceful Muslims. Reclassify American Muslim groups as political groups, subject to all the scrutiny and accountability of political groups, unless they renounce political Islam and Sharia definitively and clearly, and back up their words with actions.
All that is just for starters."
___________________
Perfect. A letter should be sent to every member of Congress with that exact statement. Spencer is a man of great courage and intellect, who clearly loves his country and cherishes the best in human civilization.
I really think it gives Islam too much credit to describe the current or past conflicts as clashes of Civilizations. Civilization is the art of building and living in cities creating and nurturing permanent institutions there. Islam can thrive just fine with camels & tents in deserts with no more than oppressive sharia while its zombies make jihad on neighbors. At times and places it has had some trappings of Civilization as in Spain with gardens and clever wall designs but it was never a Civilization with its sharia tyranny and its mind paralyzing Koran. In fact, Islam has made most of the mid-East today little more than tribes with flags (albeit sometimes with a lot of oil & money).
Rather, it is better described by Wafa Sultan as a clash of Civilization and barbarity. The world is just unfortunately stuck for some time with this barbarity.
LI: Muslims claim they aren't genocidal.
How many times, from how many Muslims, have we heard that they will not rest until every Jew has been slain?
Surely the three mentioned would not be pleased to see Israeli's subjected to merely paying the jizya?
FM:
Exactly correct. Civilization vs. barbarism.
If you were to set forth a population comprising all of mankind's basest compulsions, fears, ignorances, and weaknesses, let it stew upon itself for 14 centuries, and let it watch as the Civilization around them was unlocking the keys to the universe through Divine reason and prospering--then what you would have would be exactly this Islam. It is a cult of death.
THE ALLIES SHALL WIN
Sort of off topic, but I have encountered several people, whom I have debated in the past that point to the moral realativism of the Amanpour special you mentioned and wave it around like some sort of victory. I point to the special that was aired during a break, which described Muslim demographics in the west. They purposly left out huge chunks of data in thier analysis. I point these errors out and ask them to think of why one would make such a simple errors in reporting? I followed up the retort by saying that it was all too obvious that CNN is corrupt and shouldn't be watched by thinking people anymore, other than to see what enemies of our society are thinking.
GREAT INTERVIEW!!!!!!!
AMERIKI
Yes I agree.
There is a story of a famous poet and scholar from Europe visiting here who was offered to be interviewed by CNN and maybe even appear on Larry King. His answer: "I don't grant interviews to fringe media. Sorry." This man was a social liberal and in no way a political conservative but he understood what CNN was all about. To him CNN had the intellectual weight of the National Enquirer.
CNN is defintely the 'fringe media' Its not mainstream. When it dawned on me (thanks to searching out facts and reading many local and international papers online) I was angered and saddened as well. CNN is fighting an uphill battle of subterfuge and sly cover up but its all for naught. regular people from America and the rest of the West know in their gut when they are being sold a bill of goods. CNN's ratings like the New York Times sales figures have been going down. Also I know of many people who watch CNN the way you watch oldtv shows for their kitsche or camp value. And these friends aren't even conservatives. Its the internet thats ruined it for CNN.
My turning point wasn't related to islam reporting --it was the fact they didnt cover the rape and mutilation of a white couple in the south recently by black gangsters for fear of portraying themselves as racists while giving full coverage to a black prostitute who accused those sports players of raping her (and later she was found to be lying). Black white what does it matter? Its the news BOTH should have been reported beyond the local papers (and CNN knows it).
After that the reporting on Islam and how they carefully avoided telling the truth about it yet not holding back on silly 'cnn specials' against christianity at times like Easter and Christmas.
CNN does have an agenda.
Unfortunately for them they also need sponsers and money and slowly people are moving away from them and the sponsers are getting wind of it. To me CNN reminds me of the 'mainstream' university papers I would see on campus at U of T. They tried ever so hard to act as if they were perfectly mainstream and what most people wanted to read. The paper is called THE VARSITY (here at the University of Toronto). Its really funny how thousands of the stacks of these papers just stay in their newspaper boxes week after week. They print up a huge amount of them but very few are ever picked up by the students. The paper is FREE but each week almost ALL of them are taken back to be recylced, students aren't fooled. And no matter how much left wing staff like to think that the majority of university students are with them 'in spirit' the truth is most students just want to get their degree and smirk under their breath at the 'agenda' of the left off and on campus. The minority that agrees form all the clubs and write the papers and shout the most and have their "marches" while the real students do their homework!
While Aanapours special was a crock, CNN does some fine work. Lou Dobbs is one of the main forces behind stopping America from being over run by illegals. As far as I can see, hardly anyone, even Fox, wants to really give Islam the hiding it deserves. After all the crap in Iraq, the publics' belly for war has shrunk.
Mostly outstanding. I must disagree respectfully with only one assertion, the only point on which I disagree with JW/DWers from time to time. Mr. Spencer says the war "cannot be won" but only "not lost". There are an awful lot of well-informed people at this site, many of whom are intellectuals, authors and/or scholars, who have lost touch with, or blocked out, the gritty, raw quality that life has to the ordinary person on the American street or the Middle Eastern street. Usama bin Laden was correct to say that people will follow the strong horse. The ordinary person around the world will follow a leader, will follow a winner. As bad as the current situation is, it's nothing compared to the complete collapse in American security and credibility that would follow a surrender of Iraq to Iran and al-Qaeda. And I have no patience for the fantasy that if the Muslims fight a war among themselves, that they will sign a gentlemen's agreement not to wage jihad against anyone else. That particular "tarbaby", as some might say, does not agree with history.
President Bush, as virulently and vocally as I oppose many of his policies in the War Against Militant Islam, was right to remind us of the human and geopolitical disaster that followed our betrayal of Vietnam, not least of which was the Islamic Revolution in Iran, which in turn is directly connected to today's news. Even vets of Iraq and Afghanistan tell me directly that this war has to be won - and some are going back to fight again. Is it possible that they know something about what's at stake?
Surak,
"Even vets of Iraq and Afghanistan tell me directly that this war has to be won - and some are going back to fight again. Is it possible that they know something about what's at stake?"
What do you consider winning? What do the soldiers who go back consider winning? We can't stay in iraq or afghanistan forever to keep killing a never ending cycle of jihadist. We can't keep hoping that the sunnis, kurds, and shites will stop warring against each other in order to make iraq stable. I just don't know what you mean by winning. They already have sharia law in both those countries-no democracy.
I think containment is the closest thing we are going to get to winning. But, then again, the muslim world will always have the support from those countries that are against america and our allies (like russia, china, venesuala (sic), cuba, etc.)-which brings us back to square one.
I guess the most we can do is secure our boarders and stop muslim immigration. But then we have the demographics problem to think about...
We are not even fighting the enemy we are propping the enemy up with claim Islam has been hijacked and jizyah payments.
Until the west makes an unequivocal statement about the connection between Islam Islamic terrorism and jihad and our aim to eliminate at least 2 out of 3 we are funding and giving the enemy political cover. Our leaders do not realize that their current plan has been passed y the headlights of common knowledge .
Few people are buying the old story and are now with out faith in the government .
someone will comes along with a real "final solution "scheme and point to Islam and the people will jump at it because the current losers are to afraid to speak any truth about the problem.
That's how you get a fascist America and an invasion on our shores
Robert,
When you were asked to suggest some books to educate oneself quickly about Islam, why didn't you mention your own work, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades which is, hands down, the most efficient and relevant for quickly learning the basics of Islam ("for Dummies"). Truth About Muhammad comes in a close 2nd.
No need to be modest...your own stuff RULES.
”Excellent interview. With the Liberal Institute. Huh. Maybe this is a conflict between Muslim and infidel, and not a conflict between Democrats and Republicans. Weird.” - special_guest
Zantonavitch’s Liberal Institute is liberal in the sense of liberty. This usage of the term is common outside the USA and in America prior to the 20th century. He calls his organization a “classical liberal” think tank. Conservatism is a “fusion” of classical liberalism with cultural traditionalism.
He has collected interesting articles. Oh, look, there’s my expose of D’Souza long before his book revealed he’s an Islamic apologist. (I’m not as modest as Robert!)