Bernard Chapin interviews me at FrontPage: "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?"
Robert Spencer is one of the nation’s foremost experts on Islamic affairs. He is the editor of the website, Jihad Watch, and the author of two recent books, The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). The former holds the particular distinction of being banned by the government of Pakistan. His latest effort, Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't, analyses and contrasts the world’s most popular belief systems. Mr. Spencer’s articles can be regularly read on frontpagemag.com.BC: Congratulations, Mr. Spencer, on your recently released, Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't. Tell us the main theme that you focused in on.
Spencer: Thank you. Religion of Peace? is a comparison and contrast of certain aspects of Islam and Christianity, an attempt to refute the common claim that each is equally likely to incite its adherents to violence, and a means to rally those who enjoy the fruits of Judeo-Christian civilization, whether or not they are Jews and Christians, to an awareness of how seriously that civilization is threatened by the global jihad and Islamic supremacism. I hope that awareness will lead to a stronger defense of that civilization.
BC: Over the course of the past two years you have also published The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). What are you saying in your new book that has not been said previously?
Spencer: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) is a general overview of the elements of Islam that jihadists are using to recruit and motivate terrorists today. The Truth of Muhammad is a biography of the founder of Islam. Religion of Peace? is neither of those things. It is an evaluation of the Christian theocracy scare (as enunciated by bestselling books such as American Fascists by Chris Hedges) and a comparison of various aspects of Christian and Islamic Scripture and history in order to demonstrate what the real threat is, and to resist the moral equivalence that blankets the popular culture today.
BC: How virulent has been the reaction to your work in Islamic quarters? Have you had a fatwa declared against you? Any good stories to share?
Spencer: Well, I always hope that there will be a reasoned response to the points I raise, and a genuine dialogue between people who disagree, but I’m still waiting. Invariably reactions from Muslims feature denial of the points I make about Islam, despite the fact that I work exclusively from Islamic sources and the words of Islamic spokesmen, plus personal abuse. I haven’t received a formal fatwa, but many death threats, including one from a man who was determined to kill me because Islam is a religion of peace. One of his messages read in part: “I will be violent against anyone who hurts muslim feelings about Prophet. It is a religion of peace for everyone until some duckhead sprews out his damn saliva on a senstive topic as this. Spencer will be delivered.”
BC: If you had to estimate, across the world, what percentage of the Muslim population is radicalized?
Spencer: In the sense of actively pursuing jihad violence, only a tiny minority. In the sense of supporting those who perpetrate violence, a considerably higher percentage. Note, for example, that on September 11, 2006, Al-Jazeera asked Muslims, “Do you support Osama bin Laden?” 49.9% of respondents said that yes, they did.
BC: Considering your area of concentration, what positive impact do you think that your scholarship, along with your website Jihadwatch.org, has had upon western readers? Have you had any effect on our policy makers?
Spencer: I would like to think that I have made some people more aware of the nature and magnitude of the global jihad threat than they were previously. I’ve had positive meetings with several congressmen on jihad-related issues.
BC: I saw clips of a debate between yourself and Dinesh D’Souza which was held at the Conservative Political Action Conference. What do you have to say to critics who imply that pointing out the deficiencies of Islam actually serves to harm relations between Muslims and westerners?
Spencer: D’Souza claims that criticism of Islam breeds jihadists. But if peaceful Muslims really abhor jihadism, they should have no reason to object to critical presentations of the elements of Islam that foster jihadism. In fact, they should welcome them. You can’t reform what you won’t admit needs reforming. If identifying the elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify their actions will be enough to drive peaceful Muslims into the arms of the jihadists, then how committed could they really have been to peace and moderation in the first place? Pretending that the jihadists aren’t using Islamic teachings in this way will do nothing to stop them from doing so.
BC: What of the allegation that you have ignored many of the positive passages in the Koran as a means to present a distorted picture of the Muslim world?
Spencer: This is wholly false, as anyone who read my books will know. In Religion of Peace? I discuss at length the passages of the Qur’an that enjoin tolerance of unbelievers, and explain how mainstream Muslim exegetes understand those passages in light of passages that enjoin violence. Also, I am now Blogging the Qur’an weekly at HotAir.com (archive here), going through the text cover to cover – no one can say I am ignoring any passage at all in this endeavor.
BC: What do you make of the idea that it is possible for conservatives and Muslims to find common political ground in America? Do you think that D’Souza had some valid points in The Enemy at Home?
Spencer: I’m sorry to say that The Enemy At Home is one of the most poorly reasoned books I have ever read. Nowhere in it does D’Souza identify even one of the Muslims with whom he recommends conservatives ally. When I pressed him on this point, he named Ali Gomaa, the Mufti of Egypt. Yet Ali Gomaa has been identified by the New York Times as a supporter of the terrorist group Hizballah, and has reaffirmed that those who leave Islam should be punished. He has also declared statues un-Islamic – a point that D’Souza scorns as insignificant. But what if supporters of this view came to power in Europe, which is not a remote possibility, and destroyed the artistic and cultural heritage of Judeo-Christian civilization? I am not convinced that that prospect is something about which we should be sanguine; nor am I convinced that supporters of a terror group will make reliable allies for conservatives. Until D’Souza can come up with any more compelling examples of those with whom he recommends we ally, I suggest we approach his recommendations with extreme reserve.
BC: I’ve heard different estimates, ranging from 30 to 60 percent, of how many European Muslims wish to live in a country ruled by Sharia law, but how popular do you think the idea of Sharia is with Muslims in our country?
Spencer: CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper has said that he would like to see the U.S. government become Islamic. Other Muslim leaders in the U.S. have expressed similar sentiments. Sharia law is integral to Islam. It would be extremely surprising to find a large population of Muslims that rejected and opposed it – although on the other hand, it was Muslim women who defeated the recent Sharia initiative in Canada.
BC: I suspect that I am not the only westerner completely dumbfounded by Sharia’s appeal within the Islamic community. What in this practice so appeals to them?
Spencer: It is regarded as the law of Allah, and encompasses every aspect of human behavior. Such a totalitarian comprehensiveness appeals to many, Muslim and non-Muslim.
Any person who still entertains the "rop" propaganda has got serious issues with reality.
Islam is a "mind" implant for ther mindless.
Sadly, it is a sick "mind".
As any reading of the contents of the Koran shows.
I think Mr. Spencer was too generous in his response to the question of how many Muslims were radicalized. Yes, only a small percentage actively pursue jihadist violence. That is irrelevant. In Nazi Germany, only a small percentage fought in the Luftwaffe. So what? Most of the population supported the Nazi goals, and were part of the imperialist, genocidal society. Similarly we are threatened today not merely by the small number of people wearing explosive vests, but by all those who support jihad and shari'a and khilafah. That number is over half, I think, in many countries, including our "allies". Based on the numbers from the Pew poll, which was several months ago, I'd guess we're talking about roughly one quarter of Muslims worldwide.
Mr. Spencer, which congressmen have you had discussions regarding Islam and jihad and would you kindly provide the links? I would love to read them if they are available.
I have often wondered about how women support living under Mohammedanisn. Is this because they know no better, because they really think this is the right way, or are they stating the opinion their owners have told them they have?
Surely they can sense there could be a better way.
{^_^}
It's interesting that Robert raised the point that sharia family courts in Canada were defeated by Muslim women. In France, opinion polls showed that the majority of Muslim women supported the school headscarf ban. I sometimes think a lot more could be done to appeal to Muslim women over the heads of their menfolk, at least those in the west - propaganda of the 'you don't have to put up with this crap' variety, along with the vigorous publicising and financing of support organisations for those seeking to escape.
"Most of the population supported the Nazi goals, and were part of the imperialist, genocidal society." Posted by: Surak
Exactly. And even those passive citizens who did nothing to actively support the regime benefited by taking over the homes, businesses and belongings of those Jews who were "disappeared". They weren't required to act as long as they didn't oppose the Nazis. Imagine what they told themselves to justify their greed, theft and complicity to murder.
I've read books and watched documentaries in which many Jewish people recounted their shock and dismay when most or all of their non-Jewish neighbours (not just in Germany but in Poland and elsewhere), with whom they had always been on good terms, became openly hostile toward them and refused to come to their aid. Of course, the neighbours were nastiest in groups, especially on the days when the Nazis had come to take the Jewish people away.
This is what goes through my mind when I think about Muslims taking power in any country. I do believe that most ordinary Muslims, those passive ones who do not actively support jihadists, would turn a deaf ear to their non-Muslim neighbour's dilemmas. We already know what they would tell themselves to justify our treatment at their leaders' hands.
The issue is human nature, group dynamics and ill-gotten power.
I've read books and watched documentaries in which many Jewish people recounted their shock and dismay when most or all of their non-Jewish neighbours (not just in Germany but in Poland and elsewhere), with whom they had always been on good terms, became openly hostile toward them and refused to come to their aid. Of course, the neighbours were nastiest in groups, especially on the days when the Nazis had come to take the Jewish people away.
But what percent of non-jew Europeans (and current non-violent muslims) were "going along with the program" in fear of becoming victims themselves?
I believe (through stories of relatives that lived in pre 1940 Europe, mainly Holland) and friends that had muslim upbringings (but now atheist) that say fear of being targets themselves make people condone this violence.
And given the speed with which a fatwa can be issued against someone, it's a valid fear. IMHO
Personally I think the primary impetus of our fight (at least in this country and Europe) should be in identifiying and removing the islamist imams and shutting down the mosques where they preach. Infiltrate & record the Friday jihad sermons, jail or deport the imams and shut down the mosque. And eliminate any immigration for any reason from muslim countries.
Any religion that activley advocates the overthrow of our government is not a religion but a political idiology and not protected by the religious freedom protections of the constituition. Freedom of speech is protected, but sedition is a crime (I believe).
walterc -- What percentage of them went along for the ride before there was reason to fear for their lives? And how many would have needed to rise up in order to put an end to it all?
Too many were silent. Too many benefited financially from the exportation and murder of Jewish neighbours. If they had done something at the beginning, what might have been different?
Those who were not persecuted and hunted by the Nazis were not powerless although of course they had reason to fear. They were not isolated from the rest of the world. They could travel, they could write letters. They could tell the rest of the world what was going on. Too few spoke up and therefore those who did were not believed by the rest of the world.
Even if it is true that every single person not targeted by the Nazis was terrified for his own life and the lives of his loved ones from the first moment the Nazis took power, this still would not bode well for any non-Muslim looking to the moderate Muslims in their midst for salvation in the event of a Muslim-majority Canada, United States, England, France, etc., with a Muslim (sharia) government. For it would seem that most moderate Muslims are already silent as a result of fear. That wouldn't improve if non-moderate Muslims were in power.
I think your points regarding "the primary impetus of our fight" are good ones.
Don't expect reasoned response to reason from people who are anything but "reasoned".
Speaking of Dinesh...on his blog today the promotion of the Folsom Street Fair by use of graphic depictions on a poster mimicking the apostles at the last supper is according him, a great recruiting tool for radical muslims.
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/09/30/apostles-in-drag/
Once again, he points to American conduct as the inspiration for jihad.
If there are indeed people who want sharia law, why don't they just migrate to countries that are under such law? Why live in such countries like the USA? Plain hypocrisy, the way I see it.
I wonder how many are applying for immigration to Iran, or even Saudi Arabia? Contrast this to how many Iraqis, Iranians, and Arabs are in the US and enjoying US lifestyle. Not to mention the women, and the "uncountable" who would rather leave such sharia nations but could not.
"If there are indeed people who want sharia law, why don't they just migrate to countries that are under such law? Why live in such countries like the USA?"
Gerry,
An integral part of Muslim hopes and dreams is that every single human on the planet will be under Sharia's yoke. I'm not sure what Muslims are expecting to achieve once we are ALL suffering under this B.S., perhaps some big cosmic orgasm. But I doubt it. I think it is more like, misery loves company.