It's Friday afternoon, the Q-Blog for Sunday is in the can (don't miss this one: it deals the beginning of sura 9, including the "Verse of the Sword"), and Miller Time is fast approaching, and then Jihad Watch reader John sends me this exchange from the comments field of a post at Mideastyouth.com, "Most Arabic Yahoo groups are about sex":
On 09.11.07 at 09:36 MST Tor (Norway) Wrote:[...]
I’ve toyed with the idea of setting up a “moderate muslim pinglist” on FreeRepublic to bring attention to the work (or even just existence) of these allegedly mythical beings, but aside from the fact that I wouldn’t know where to find the relevant stories/events, I’m not sure I’d want to expose them to the armies of Robert Spencer wannabes that would descent on said moderates. And the point of this forum at least is to have middle easterners be well represented on it, You won’t find many of those on FreeRepublic unless you count soldiers posting from Iraq.
So that would be a bad idea, what would be a good one?
#
On 09.11.07 at 11:18 MST
Esra'a Wrote:The armies of Robert Spencer wannabes are linking to this site from all over the web, twisting everything as usual and making idiotic claims about our Muslim “death cult.” I never intended for this entry to be used or interpreted in this hateful manner.
Hi, fellows. It is I, the real Robert Spencer. As for anyone who would want to be me, well, as Mr. T might say, I pity the fool. But I must say I'm puzzled by the reference to me. For one thing, I have never, ever, denied the existence of moderate Muslims.
And you yourself -- Esra'a, the author of the original post, as well as of the second comment above -- already noted the only thing that I myself think interesting about such information (that Muslim countries lead the world in sex-related Internet searches): "All of this information is not in the least bit shocking, but it’s quite ironic."
It is indeed, especially in light of Dinesh D'Souza's fantastic but widely-believed claim that the jihad is simply a defense by people attached to traditional morality against the encroachment of Western libertinism.
Why is this hypocrisy rightly noted by Muslims such as yourself, but when non-Muslims note it, it becomes an expression of hate?
I expect that you might respond that it is hateful coming from non-Muslims because non-Muslims wish you ill, and hate you, as evidenced by the fierce and contemptuous words of the writer "liberty1" at the first site you linked. But you should remember: no non-Muslim would hate Muslims, or wish them ill, or think about them at all, were it not for the violence committed on a more or less daily basis by people who explain their actions by referring to Islamic texts and teachings. If you want to eradicate that hatred, do your utmost to end acts of violence committed in the name of Islam.
And also, speaking strictly for myself but as the man who you think has inspired this hatred, I don't hate you, or any Muslim. I would like to see Muslims worldwide acknowledge the violent and supremacist aspects of their tradition, renounce them definitively, and work to formulate ways in which Muslims and non-Muslims can live together in peace as equals on an indefinite basis. I'd like to see ulama worldwide formulate new laws that establish the equality of dignity of women with men, abolish the commodification of women, and safeguard the equality of rights of all people by abolishing the dhimma (thus nipping in the bud nascent attempts to revive it in Iraq and among the Palestinians). I'd like to see ulama worldwide embrace the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion forthrightly and without equivocation.
Is all this "hate"? I don't think so. And you shouldn't either. And finally, hypocrisy is hypocrisy, no matter who points it out. I've been excoriated and vilified for six years for quoting passages of the Qur'an and Sunnah that the excoriators and vilifiers have said not a peep about when they've been quoted by Osama bin Laden and his ilk. Truth is truth, no matter how inconvenient. I invite you to deal with it.
Robert, aren't the very changes you lay out for peaceful co-existence basically apostasy, at the least that comes with a death sentence?
The victimhood fairly drips of those comments. People in that comfortable state are not ammenable to reason.
Awsome, just awsome.
Either the "moderates" make a decision or we will be compelled to make it for them
The Genie is out of the Bottle with few caring for what he offers.
Robert Spencer wannabes? You mean guys who can rattle out Quranic verses and Hadith references @ the drop of an Islamic skullcap? I doubt many of us fit that dinar bill.
SNAP!!!
The things Robert calls for amount to the elimination of Islamic supremacy. This, to them, is as bad as the elimination of Islam and is definitely "hate" in their book.
Does anyone in the American press raise an eyelid at statements such as those in the "Hard Times for Prophets", where a police investigation would determine whether a Muslim had blasphemed? Is that what they want to see in America? Do they really think the First Amendment will protect them?
This thing about the "gay porn" is interesting. How could it be ... what only about say 5% of homes in the Middle East have internet access. Either every guy is at home whacking himself silly 24/7 to "gay porn" or this is a Zionist plot to defame Islam. Millions of Jews must have infiltrated Islmamic countries and searched for "gay porn" to spread this outrageous lie.
Would any deny that Robert Spencer, Praise and Blessings Upon Him, is the Seal of Revelation and the Perfect Model among men? Dare they? Blasphemy! [From a most enthusiastic Islamomisiast follower--who cheerfully elevates the Most Preeminent One to cult status as Leader of Counterjihad. Deus vult!]
You know I'm gonna feel even more uncomfortable now when I see Arab looking men walking behind me.
Got 9 minutes to spare?
Watch this video as a devout Muslim claims that the "Moderate Muslim is a Myth" -- and he also CHASTISES the Moderate Muslim for befriending Christians and Jews, of whom he clearly hates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5t5E3ROYBM
Islam is evil to the core....need I say more
I am an atheist with no religious background, living in Norway. I harbor no illusions about the history of any religion. My chief point of disagreement with you is that where you demand that any reinterpretation of Islam has to make sense in the light of Orthodox Islamic tradition, I view religion chiefly as an exercise in nonsense and will happily settle for any concoction that respects my rights.
If a Muslim were to argue say, that any surah coming out of Medina was a historical one off, somehow magically justified just that once, and with no implications for contemporary morality, you would challenge that argument based on Islamic orthodoxy. I would consider it a promising development, and would hope for it to catch on so that Muslims at some point in the future might engage in such mental contortions as universally as contemporary Christians and Jews do when faced with the atrocities of the old testament. Religions change, even “literally interpreted” scripture based ones, and consistency, both internal and historical, is optional.
The people I referred to as wannabe you’s are people who wish they could make the arguments you do in regards to Islam, though they usually settle fore a couple of Quran-quotes. Typically they are too busy trying to convince everyone that the terrorists have more Muslim credentials than our allies, sometimes even calling for an outright declaration of war on Islam, to recognize that on the actual points of contention in this conflict we have allies who self identify as Muslims, and who will back their words with action. They are too attached to this notion of one true interpretation of a text to which they ascribe no truth regardless, to realize that they are, in trying to cast this war as a war against Islam, aiding the enemy’s efforts in driving a wedge between us and large number of crucial allies.
I do not intend to imply that you share all the quirks of these people, I wouldn’t know. I called them wannabe Robert Spencers because they, almost to a person, idolize you for your ability and persistence in debating the particulars of a religion to which neither you nor they adhere. I never understood this fascination with “the one true heresy”, and I fear I never will.
I do believe you will find a couple of specimens in your own comment section.
Tor (Norway):
Thanks for stopping by.
In reality, I have never made such a demand. I have pointed out that bland assertions by Islamic spokesmen in the West that Islamic doctrine is peaceful are actually not in accord with orthodox Islamic tradition. That is not the same thing.
And if they're not in accord with orthodox Islamic tradition, they have scant hope of gaining a wide following among Muslims. Yes, I have dared to point this out to non-Muslims, so many of whom are so anxious to be fooled in this regard.
And I have expressed the hope that reinterpretations of Islam that remove from it violence and supremacism be convincing enough to enough Muslims to make them not idiosyncratic, but evidence of genuine reform. If these consist of the insistence that the Medinan suras were all a big joke, or that the Qur'an is to be regarded not as the literal word of God but as a metaphor for transcendental meditation, or that the Black Stone is made of Green Cheese, or anything else, that is of no concern to me. If it convinces Muslims to live in peace with everyone else, it's good enough for me, orthodox or not. I do think an orthodox non-supremacist, non-violent Islam, if such a thing could be constructed, would stand a better chance of gaining a wide following.
Well, I've always been funny this way -- this has interested me for over two decades, and I guess it always will. But I expect that if Muslims stopped blowing things up in the name of their religion whilst their coreligionists insisted that their religion is peaceful and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot, a lot of the people who supposedly idolize me would lose interest in me, and in Islam, very quickly.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Folks note what Tor above me here does? The classic ignorance of moral relativism ad nauseum!!
Note he alludes to those big bad awful OT verses as they are somehow the same as the overtly brutal Quran and Hadiths!! HUGE mistake Tor and you show your ignorance not only of the Judiac scriptures but of Islamic!!
Have you noticed something Tor ...mmmm...have you noticed Jews for 3000 years slaughtering and raping in the name of their God??? NO..you havn't notice that HAVE you?? That's because they rightly understand in the Tanach that those harsh verses ARE NOT doctrinal but historical happenings...in othewords , one off events....
Of course you will find nothing in the Greek Bible using Force to advance Christ's kingdom...
It is sad that you are beholden to Atheism since you have never read nor understood the Biblical Accounts!!
NOW, contrast that with the Quran....which is EXPLICIT in its admonitions over and over again....in their proper context..to JUSTIFY force against the non muslim....
WHY TOR do you think this has been going on for 1400 years??? Why do you think that Modern muslims in poll after poll agree with the Bin Ladin's and Hamas and Hizballah's of the world?
WHY do you think that their was no mass protest or rage from the Islamic world on 9-11?? Indeed, they were celebrating from Indonesia to Morocco!!
The only more dangerous to our survival in the West and East is the ignorance of people like Tor who are either dhimmis or moral relativising fools that cannot tell good from evil...
For Tor and his dangerous ilk...their is no difference between Civilizing Judeo/Christian/Greco culture and the madness that is Islamic culture...
Here is a hint Tor...grab the Quran and a collection of the Burkari Hadiths and actually do some learning....
And then, throw away all the liberal crap you have learned about the West and relearn the greatness of our past...and the reason why that is so....our shared Judeo/Christian/Greco heritage!!
If their all the same Tor, then I would suggest you go live in any Islamic hellhole for a year or so and then get back to us....
As much as Western Civilization itself is dangerously sliding away from its Christian moorings, we are still vastly superior to any Islamic civilization!!
Open your mind Tor!!
Robert,
A troll at HotAir has smeared you:
“It is indeed, especially in light of Dinesh D’Souza’s fantastic but widely-believed claim that the jihad is simply a defense by people attached to traditional morality against the encroachment of Western libertinism.”
which is fine, i guess. but if he’s going to claim to have “never” denied the existence of moderate muslims, i can’t feel bad for pointing out that he’s lying. his entire thesis is that coersive brutality is in islam’s genes, from which it follows that any ostensible muslem who doesn’t want to chop your head off is not a “real” muslem.
when spencer speaks, he makes a liar of all of us who recognize the distinction between the perpetrator of takfir and their victims.
jummy on November 9, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Since my undeserved banning, I was not able to respond, but you may want to.
Okay, I am a short, bearded, balding man who has read the Qur'an, but that's where any similiarity between the esteemed Robert Spencer and myself ends.
Tor, read the Qur'an.
You'll find Mr. Spencer's contention is true. The reason jihadists attack the west are based in the Qur'an, the Hadith and the Sira.
Just as the Reformation changed the direction of the Protestant and Catholic churchs, Islam needs to examine the elements of its faith that have no place in the modern world.
PRCalDude,
Thanks, but what would be the point? Anyone fair-minded will see that that's not a "smear" of D'Souza, who has spread plenty of falsehoods about me without bothering to heed my corrections, but a disagreement.
And as for the other bit, it's just silly. I've said it again and again: there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam, and that business about my thinking that "any ostensible muslem who doesn’t want to chop your head off is not a 'real' muslem" is just absurd.
A good rule of thumb: never bother replying to someone who doesn't observe basic rules of spelling and grammar.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
I always thought your thesis was that all orthodox interpretation of the Qur'an supports the idea of violent jihad vis-a-vis Surah 9:29, though most Muslims choose to remain peaceful anyway.
Your thesis is there plain as day for anyone who actually reads your books. Too bad many in modern "conservatism" choose to attempt to fisk you nowadays rather than actually read you. It's much more comforting to be blind on this issue than to see, I guess.
Beats a horde of Britney and Madonna wannabes.
The secret code of the Robert Spencer wannabes?
Freakin' Batman.
Spoken in reverential tones.
(Easier than the sword and fish that Harpo Marx had to carry around during the speakeasy era.)
Well said, Robert. Your statement of intent is as cogent as one could wish. It is a pity that its conciliatory spirit will never be reciprocated, save in the aftermath of a World War II-style crusade (A word I use advisedly, as did the man who led it: Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower).
Speaking of pity, it was the great Bobby Blue Bland who first sang "Pity the Fool."
I suppose you envision the future of this religion differently than I do. I expect any reformation of Islam to coincide with a period and population of relatively little fervor.
I expect people, in time, to derive their morality from modern day society and, working from that conclusion, skim trough their holy books looking for citations. I expect them to win accolades from others who have not immersed themselves in the religion. Very few of the religious devote themselves to the sort of studies you undertake, and may well remain blissfully unaware of any break with orthodoxy. The less devout might even ignore it, focusing instead on convergence with their own morality, and on its effect on their image.
In short, I expect to see the sort of gradual watering out of the religion that Christianity has seen in my country, and to a lesser extent in the world in general. Even the religions of the book are principally oral traditions, and edicts of holy books that followers find uncomfortable are overridden by oral decree.
Consumerism, on the rise in the Muslim world as we speak, will distract a great many from immersing themselves in Muslim mythology and related ideologies. These, not the ones memorizing the words of long dead scholars, will be the ones to change the nature of Islam.
I foresee a lightweight, populist reformation spearheaded by the nonpracticing and the non indoctrinated, an uprooting as much as a reformation. And unlike the massive scholarly undertaking you seem to be hoping for, I already see it happening.
Tor
Sorry Tor but you cannot reform that which is unreformable...if you had any understanding of Islam and its history, you would have realized it actually has had a reformation ...the Wahhabi one a couple of hundred years ago was a return to the pure days of early islam (islam at its most bloody in reality)...
You can no more reform Islam then you can Marxism or Nazism...it is what it is....
UNLESS they are willing to edit the Quran and Sunnah and that is NEVER going to happen...
Tor:
On the contrary, the secularists are everywhere in intellectual retreat in the Islamic world, and sometimes in literal retreat -- as with Mr. Musharraf.
The "massive scholarly undertaking" has to be taken on because the Islamic secularists you blandly assume will win out have actually been losing ground steadily since the 1960s and before that, in the face of the jihadist claim to represent "pure" and "true" Islam. This appeal is based on copious citations of Qur'an and Sunnah, and this makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the secularists to refuse to engage that material. Unless and until they confront and refute the Salafist claim, or even attempt to do so, nothing is more certain than that they will continue to lose ground.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Better to be a Robert Spencer wannabe than a Mo wannabe-the latter has killed a hell of a lot more people than the former.
Albertanator wrote:
"Note he alludes to those big bad awful OT verses as they are somehow the same as the overtly brutal Quran and Hadiths!! HUGE mistake Tor and you show your ignorance not only of the Judiac scriptures but of Islamic!!
Have you noticed something Tor ...mmmm...have you noticed Jews for 3000 years slaughtering and raping in the name of their God??? NO..you havn't notice that HAVE you??"
They did once. The book didn't change. They did. This was my bloody point.
The imaginations of religious people are not constrained by the books they carry around.
Pray tell, how do you account for those who self identify as Muslim, yet risk their lives fighting islamists in Iraq and Afghanistan? I'm sure you can account for the people who rig girls schools with explosives, how do you account for the parents of the girls?
You think they're wrong. You also think the terrorists are wrong. But they're the right kind of wrong? There's a right wrong and a wrong wrong? Wake up and smell the coffee, none of them make sense.
Your bitching is helping our enemies drive a wedge between us and people who, on all points of contention in this war, are on our side. People who were raised to self identify as Muslim. They genuinely are on our side, who cares if their rationalizations make sense?
You're being counterproductive.
Tor:
Maybe, but are you aware of the fact that when they did change, they did so in the context of a "massive scholarly undertaking," to use your own words -- the same kind of massive scholarly undertaking you airily dismiss as unnecessary for Muslims to pursue in order to achieve lasting reform?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Tor (Norway)
"I foresee a lightweight, populist reformation spearheaded by the nonpracticing and the non indoctrinated, an uprooting as much as a reformation. And unlike the massive scholarly undertaking you seem to be hoping for, I already see it happening."
Where is that happening? I don’t see that at all but instead the forces of standard issue Islam are winning. History has proven that backlashes do sometimes win and in this case it appears they have the upper ground on two counts. One is what Mr. Spencer points out above which is that they have the backing of traditional Islamic teachings. The second is they are willing to die for their cause. They are motivated by their faith (as insane as it is) to fight. You simply hoping consumerism is going to change that will be in for a rude surprise. Look at Saudi Arabia for example. The leadership has been consuming western goodies for years and it has not stopped them from supporting the forces of jihad.
The forces of violent jihad are maybe small but backed up with money from the forces of non-violent jihad are very powerful indeed. Unless the so called secular forces within the Islamic world meet that challenge head on then the forces of pure Islam will win by physical force alone. You can’t do that if you ignore the fundamental weaknesses in a whole way of life (Islamic civilization) and keep bitching about people who point it out.
Robert Spencer should be the least of your worries…
Tor,
Do you EVER grasp the meaning of hyperbole? Do you know the meaning of tongue-in-cheek? Are you such a humourless rationalist that you can't discern self-deprecating humour [Brit usage]? Lighten up! Or isn't there enough light up there this time of year? Anyway, you couldn't possible fathom the fanatic devotion some of us have for Robert, who articulates what, for many of us, are unspoken feelings of unease in the wake of 9/11.
Robert Spencer overtaken by the course of events and promptly forgotten? Perish the thought--he should at least be commemorated by a monument erected by his grateful countrymen, if not the global citizenry. Deus vult!
We laud Robert in a convivial spirit of jest--neither he nor most of us take ourselves too seriously.
Tor (Norway)
Also one more thing..
The Northern U.S. hoped the Southern U.S. would get rid of slavery on their own and how did that work out?
The cotton gin did wonders...
Consumerism at its best...
"This appeal is based on copious citations of Qur'an and Sunnah, and this makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the secularists to refuse to engage that material. Unless and until they confront and refute the Salafist claim, or even attempt to do so, nothing is more certain than that they will continue to lose ground."
I don't see how one would overturn the orthodox Muslim framework working from their premises. I expect to see rejection of premises coupled with appeals to conscience and independently derived ideals. Logical fallacies will be pointed out and then ignored. Logic won't stop people with an agenda.
People who are primarily motivated by the religion will not be convinced. I expect Muslim orthodoxy to remain pretty much as they are until the religion withers away. I expect it to wither away as other products begin to compete for peoples money, and with it their time. Islam is a tedious religion, it will not hold its own against the X-box when the living standards in the Muslim world allows those to become part of the culture.
This as far as I can tell is the only challenge the radicals face in their community, and I don't see how that is going to change. If you orthodoxy can be challenged on its own terms, you are as well positioned to figure it out as anyone. I'm sure you could find some Imam willing to take credit.
Meanwhile, I say we work with the moderates we have.
Typo: --should read, "couldn't possiblY fathom ..."
Posted by: Tor (Norway) at November 9, 2007 9:27 PM
Just replace every phrase, "I expect to see" with "I hope to see" in Tor's posting as referenced above. That would make more sense for he can offer absolutely no validation to his claim.
Tor's comments, being completely uneducated about the ideology of Islam, as was applied historically and as is to date, speaks volumes.
I am sure many many others have hoped for the same thing in regards to Islamic ideology and those who adhere to it. That hope is enduring for almost 1400 years now, historically.
This is a pedagogical site. There is always hope for people to learn about the true nature of Islam, at least those not predisposed otherwise, so there is a chance for Tor and the likes of him, but it is not a safe bet in my estimation.
Religious moral equivalence is a weak argument as we all here know. The unique problem which Islam poses, comparative to Christianity for example is the origin of their respective canonical texts themselves. The New Testament is a witness, written by man. The Qur'an, on the otherhand, is supposedly the direct immutable word of Allah.
True reform to the inherent nature of Islam is doubtful at best. To suggest re-interpretation of the Qur'an is to essentially strip it of its divinity.
That is not likely to happen, and no amount of hope can offset that practical reality.
Wake up mate, or shove off.
Regards,
Robert Spencer wannabe
I miss your point, greatcometof1577. I had thought that Eli Whitney's cotton gin gave plantation slavery, already ebbing away, a new lease on life; basing it on cotton production made more profitable, coupled with an expanded world market, an increase in demand.
Tor (Norway):
Who said anything about working from their premises? Any peaceful Islam would almost certainly be non-literalist. But it would at least have to confront orthodoxy, rather than simply pretend that orthodoxy is something other than what it is -- which is what most Muslim and non-Muslim spokesmen in the West do today. Apparently some hope that if we just pretend Islam is a religion of peace, it will become one.
Oh, I'm all for that.
I am, however, not interested in working with pseudo-moderates who are really just deceivers. And one of the easiest ways of telling pseudo-moderates from real ones is this: does the moderate in question acknowledge that Islam has traditions and doctrines involving violence and supremacism, and is dedicated to reforming them in some way, or does he deny outright that such traditions and doctrines exist?
Most of the people the learned analysts accept as moderates fall, unfortunately, into the latter category. But reform is not deception, and you cannot reform what you won't admit needs reforming.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
I missed the irony, the pointed edge to your comment, greatcomet. Very sorry, Mate.
Hmmm, the X-box is indeed available in the UK: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Xbox-360-Console-wireless-controller/dp/B0007SV72A
What do you think--is Islam "holding its own" against the X-box in the UK?
Tor wrote:
"Islam is a tedious religion, it will not hold its own against the X-box when the living standards in the Muslim world allows those to become part of the culture."
Oh. That must be why there are no second-generation muslims with jihadist tendencies in the UK. An X-box for every muslim!
Another reply to "Islam...will not holds its own against the X-box when the living standards in the Muslim world allows those to be come part of its culture."
Is the X-box prohibited in prosperous Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or the UAE? Your premise appears to be that poverty drives Muslims into orthodoxy, which leads almost inevitably into qital (open warfare against infidels). Recollect, please, that most of the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis, and all had engineering degrees. So did their Egyptian cohort. As has been pointed by many, most terrorist acts in the West, including Israel, have been perpetrated by middle class Muslims with professional backgrounds (law, engineering, computer science, etc.) Your contention that jihad is fueled by poverty and depressed living standards is an erroneous one.
You realize Tor's central premise for a reformed Islam is that he hopes Muslims will chuck Islam for the religion of consumerism just like his descendants flushed Christianity for consumer goodies.
Well Muslim faith is far stronger that a X-box and its adherents are a lot more devout or fanatical than most Christians can ever hope to be.
Give the Mujahideen a shooter game on xbox and I think they will warm up just fine to it. Just not in the way we'd hope.
I wish that Islam were only “tedious,” when really lots more pejorative adjectives are appropriate. I am reminded of when John Kerry declared that terrorism is a nuisance. The only thing that really alarms relativist pinheads like you, Tor, is the likes of Robert Spencer speaking inconvenient truth in absolute terms. You can’t bear calling a spade a spade. For you there are only garden implements.
At least bring here a new argument if you’re going to criticize. You think your allusion to the X-box is cute, but do you really think it’s original? OK, we’re all going to stop and consider in earnest the novel idea that the problem of militant Islam is caused by deprivation and poverty. That’s quite an insight. Thanks for sharing. I don’t need to point out, as other posters have already suggested, that the world is crawling with millionaire jihadists who, if they have any interest in the X-box, it’s to practice mowing down digital infidels.
I’m really curious about the “one true heresy” line, though. Wherever did you get the idea that anyone, Robert included, gives a nine-bob bit about Islamist theology except as it relates to subjugating us? I for one don’t care if Muslims believe in the tooth fairy, so long as the fairy isn’t calling for my death. You’re insinuating that there is a doctrinal agenda driving Robert and his wannabes, and you are way off base. We don’t care to reform Islam for religious reasons, Tor. Frankly, as religions go, there are worse, but when a religious faith is traditionally and scripturally supremacist, racist, and imperialistic we do have a problem. Believe Robert and his wannabes when they say they will settle for Muslims renouncing literal interpretations of violent directives in their holy books and traditions. They can go on prostrating themselves with their butts in the air in supplication to Allah and we can live in peace. Heresy is not an issue on our radar.
Incidentally, the 9/11 hijackers trained for their martyrdom/suicide mission on X-box-like virtual flight simulators.
Regards,
HAID
@Tor
Your basic assumption of man is wrong from the beginning. You are looking at it with logic and make assumptions based on your own limited experience. These are non-Islam concepts you inject.
Did you ever see the TV show Stat Trek. Remember the Borg. Islam is the Borg. The operative word was "You will be assimilated." Islam says, "You will submit to Allah." It is a simple as that. I wish like you it was not so but it does not line up with the facts that everyone here has been saying. You are only doing wishful thinking.
Psa 53:1
Only fools say in their hearts, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; no one does good!
هيكل السلام والامن 53:1
الا تنطلي على القول في قلوبهم ، "لا يوجد الله". فهي الفاسده ، وأفعالهم هي الشر ؛ لا احد صالح
It seems clear. If you are a true muslim, you want non-muslims to
1)Convert
2)Subjugate or
3)Die
If you don't believe these things, you are not a true muslim.
It seems clear. If you are a true muslim, you want non-muslims to
1)Convert
2)Subjugate or
3)Die
If you don't believe these things, you are not a true muslim.
Tor (Norway) wrote:
1. Why “armies”? Do you think that a few Quran-quoting Islam critic internet posters constitute an “army”?
2. Why “Robert Spencer wannabees”? You are implying that there is something wrong or “bad” about Robert Spencer, and by further implication, something "bad," undesirable, or objectionable about those who criticize Islam and who support their criticisms by quoting evidence such as from the appropriate texts. These texts include the Quran, but also Hadith, Sira, tafsir, etc., Islamic Laws, Islamic history, the present situation and policies, news and recent history, statistics, statements of popular Islamic leaders, and other information. You also suggest that it would be a bad thing if the moderate Muslims in the Forum (which you have been thinking of setting up) were exposed to Islam critics who quoted those texts. But surely you are aware that Muslim sites all over the internet allow some Islam critics to post. Are you suggesting that your site, which you envision, would block such debates, ban quotation of Islamic textual sources, etc.? How exactly would this work? Are you suggesting that the views of so-called moderate Muslims would be shielded from criticism? Have you devised a test to determine who qualifies as a moderate Muslim? Have you thought this through?
3. By saying “wannabees” you are implying that this small number of internet posters is mindlessly imitating Spencer out of some kind of hero-worship. In doing so, you rhetorically deflect attention away from the various problems in Islam and onto your allegations about irrelevant characteristics of the critics (i.e., you are engaging in ad hominem), and you attempt to trivialize and dismiss the contents of these criticisms of Islam without actually addressing the most serious and substantive ones. Are these critics wrong? Show us where. Please cite evidence to support your claims.
4. Not all of us agree with Robert Spencer on every point. However, one cannot help but express appreciation for Spencer’s academically solid presentations about the problems in Islam, presentations often delivered bravely to hostile (and in many cases, dangerous) audiences. Spencer is putting his life at risk to reveal important factual information about Islam. While the more straightforward physical jihadists threaten to kill Islam critics, we have seen many times on JW/DW that many of the well-known so-called moderate Muslims make false accusations, character assassinations, deflections, denials, deceptions, etc. This of course does not mean that all Muslim moderates are deceivers. However, the existence of these problems suggest we adopt a healthy skepticism.
From another poster:
It is not “hateful” to point out the problems in Islam. Esra (and Tor) fail to specify what they believe is an appropriate (non-hateful) way of criticizing Islam.
Tor says:
I'm an atheist too, but I wouldn’t make assumptions about a religion/political system without first researching the evidence about that religion/political system.
Tor:
(emphasis added)That’s very funny. Do you follow the news? There is a significant percentage of Muslims who can generate quite a bit of fervor over mere cartoons of their religious-political leader, and quite a few Muslim reformers have been put to death or are threatened with death. You are not being realistic.
Tor:
I would also like to believe that classical Islam is on the decline and that science, reason, freedom of expression, and human rights generally would prevail, but this just is not happening with regard to Islam. We are seeing a decline of the West both in terms of influence and in terms of population size, whereas classical Islam and its adherents are increasing on both counts. Muslims in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Palestine, and elsewhere have voted in hard-line Islamic regimes. Muslims in Turkey have elected an Islamist-leaning leader. So-called moderate Muslim countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia are piece-by-piece moving closer toward classical Islamic law.
As for technology, the Muslims who already have the video games, internet, etc., as a population are not becoming more moderate as a result of this. In fact, polls of Muslims living in the West indicate that there are significant numbers of them who accept classical Islamic law and mores.[1] Also, a recent major poll of the largest Muslim countries indicates that, while Muslims agree with using technological advancements, most tend to reject Western values. Moreover, most Muslims want a strict application of sharia in every Muslim country and most favour the implementation of a Caliphate. [2] A major internet poll conducted by Al-Jazeera in 2006 indicated that 49.9% of “Arabs” said that they supported bin Laden. [3] That doesn’t even account for the other Sunni sects that do not support al-Qaeda but support other terrorist groups, and ignores the fact that most Shia do not support al-Qaeda. Indeed, 75% of Iranians say they support Hizballah. [4]
[1]
Living Apart Together: British Muslims and the Paradox of Multiculturalism.
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/libimages/246.pdf
“That Muslim conversion is forbidden and punishable by death.” Agree 31%, disagree 57%, don’t know/ refused 12%. (Note. Agree 36-37% among 16-34 year-olds; Agree 19% for those aged 45+)
“That homosexuality is wrong and should be illegal.” 61% agree, 30% disagree, 9% don’t know/ refused.
86% of Muslims feel that “my religion is the most important thing in my life”. (60% “strongly” agreed, 20% “tend to agree”)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml
Many British Muslims Put Islam First
NRO: Survey Shows Many Are More Loyal To Fellow Muslims Outside U.K.
“Seventy-eight percent support punishment for the people who earlier this year published cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Sixty-eight percent support the arrest and prosecution of those British people who "insult Islam." When asked if free speech should be protected, even if it offends religious groups, 62 percent of British Muslims say No, it should not.”
[2]
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/apr07/START_Apr07_rpt.pdf
Source: Muslim Public Opinion on US Policy, Attacks on Civilians and al Qaeda. April 24, 2007. WorldPublicOpinion.org.
p. 21. “Most respondents express strong support for expanding the role of Islam in their societies, a view that is consistent with the goals of al Qaeda. Large majorities in most countries—an average of 71 percent (39% strongly)—agree with the goal of requiring ‘strict application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.’ Pakistanis were the most enthusiastic with 79 percent agreeing. About three in four Moroccans (76%) and Egyptians (74%) also agreed. Indonesians showed the lowest support: 53 percent agreed and 40 percent disagreed.”
p. 22. “Majorities even agree with the ambitious goal ‘to unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or caliphate’ (overall average 65%). Seventy-four percent of Pakistanis agreed with this goal, as did 71 percent of Moroccans and 67 percent of Egyptians. However, in Indonesia, only 49 percent agreed while 40 percent disagreed.”
p. 22. On average 76% agreed with the aim ‘to keep western values out of Islamic countries.’
[3]
Poll of "Arab" opinions from al-Jazeera: 49% approval of Bin Laden.? Are all the respondents Muslims?
[source]
[source]
[4]
"In sharp contrast to their views of al Qaeda, Iranians tend to evaluate Hamas and Hezbollah favorably. Fifty-six percent see Hamas as a “mainly positive influence” in the world and only 8 percent see the Palestinian group as a negative influence. (Another 14 percent say “it depends” or “neither,” while 23 percent decline to answer). They view Hezbollah even more favorably, with three in four (75%) calling the Shiite militants a positive influence, and only 6 percent labeling them a negative influence."
[source]
Also see Michael Freund. Right On: The straightforward arithmetic of jihad. Jerusalem Post. Updated Jan. 31, 2007 14:08
[source]
"In Lebanon six months ago, the Beirut Center for Research and Information found that over 80% of the Lebanese population said they supported Hizbullah."
---------------------------------------------
In regards to the issue of literalism, here is what the relatively moderate Muslims in the U.S. say about the Quran [Note that the Quran itself states that it contains some “clear” verses and some that are metaphorical, 3:7]:
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf
“Q. E4 Which comes closest to your view?
Q. E5 And would you say that--?
86% The Koran is the word of God
[50% The Koran is to be taken literally, word for word.
25% That not everything in the Koran should be taken literally, word for word.
11% Other/Don’t Know/ Refused]
8% The Koran is a book written by men and is not the word of God.
1% Other
5% Don’t Know/refused”
Tor:
I disagree. Outside pressure for change from non-Muslims can be beneficial. Indeed, Islam has not changed significantly in 1400 years except where non-Muslims have exerted pressure to bring about those changes. For example, slavery was not abolished in Islam until Muslim countries were either forced or pressured by the West to stop the practice. Yet despite these efforts, we have seen a revival of slavery, as part of the widespread revival of Islamic law, over the last approximately 40 years [e.g., see Rudolph Peters, (2006). Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law: Theory and Practice from the Sixteenth to the Twenty-First Century. (Themes in Islamic Law, 2.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press].
Another form of pressure for reform is to ensure freedom of expression, including freedom to criticize Islam and the freedom to leave Islam without penalty. However, as long as Muslims are forbidden from criticizing Islam or leaving Islam, there is not much pressure for Muslims to change the policies of their religion/political ideology.
Tor:
You claim to be an atheist. If that is so, why is your first impulse to help alleged moderate Muslims rather than those who are apostates? After all, supporting apostates would be more consistent with your own views, particularly if you are supporting apostates who have turned to non-religious views (atheists, agnostics, etc.). Also, apostates are in more need of help, whereas moderate Muslims are not under as great a threat. Only the very outpoken moderate Muslim reformers are in danger of being killed or ostracised for their expressing their views, whereas all apostates of Islam are potentially in danger if any other Muslims find out about their apostasy. Therefore it is a greater priority to help apostates.
The prominent atheist Richard Dawkins has spoken in support of ex-Muslims, such as Mina Ahadi, who was awarded Secularist of the Year.
About the award
http://www.secularism.org.uk/iraniandissidentwinssecularistof.html
Brief information about Ahadi
http://www.secularism.org.uk/minasex-muslimgroupspawnsamoveme.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,468828,00.html
Ahadi: “I don't think it's possible to modernize Islam. We want to form a counterweight to the Muslim organisations. The fact that we're doing this under police protection shows how necessary our initiative is.”
However, the options are not necessarily mutually exclusive, because genuine moderates would not object to helping apostates. One can help genuine moderates while also helping apostates. There are some Muslims who will become moderate, but also many who would like to leave the religion.
The primary objective of non-Muslim critics of Islam is, as I see it, not to coddle moderate Muslims and their beliefs with all kinds of protections that no one else in society enjoys. Rather, the primary goal of Islam critics is to educate non-Muslims about the problems in Islam. The Islam critic must struggle against mountains of politically-correct pro-Islamic fluff. Non-Muslims need to hear objective, unbiased information about Islam. Hearing information about Islam as told from a believing Muslim is like hearing information about a car from someone who is selling that car. Anyone who wants to be well informed about the car would research some more objective sources in order to evaluate the credibility of the car salesman’s claims. This is why we need to support fair Islam critics generally.
Therefore reform of Islam does not only involve direct dealings with moderate Muslims but will also involve indirect pressure by supporting apostates and Islam critics. Islam will not be reformed until major pressure is brought to bear, directly targeting the hostile policies such as the Islamic legislation which currently calls for death or other harsh penalties for apostates, critics, homosexuals, etc. The other thing that has to happen is that we must oppose Islam’s malignant social policies such as its promotion of hatred and segregation, which are expressed in the Quran and Islamic law. We must also pressure the more hard-line Muslims to reject their bigoted, quasi-racial ideas about “najis” or uncleanness—a concept which is expressed in the Quran and which is adopted in both Sunni and Shia legal systems. As long as Muslims continue to deflect attention away from these issues and deny the hundreds of verses of hatred in the Quran [5], and continue attack the honest messengers, it will be difficult to make progress.
[5] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html
I never suggested that poverty caused radicalism, I think radicalism results from people having too much time on their hands. People who are too poor to sit around all day working themselves up over ancient texts and geopolitics tend not to be waging war on the west. People who are too caught up in movies, games, tv-shows, parties and the like won't either. Elites in the middle east are usually less radical than their subjects.
As for the UK, circumstances are such that quite a few Muslims there have lots of time on their hands. I understand though that there is a large non-practicing population there, though I don't have numbers.
My perceptions are colored by the fact that I spent a good amount of time, a few years back, debating the followers of wacky ideologies on the internet. Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, even Creationists (not an ideology, but DAMN!). I found that people derive their arguments from their conclusions far more often than the other way around, and you really shouldn't expect any different.
I gave up on my grand crusade to end all stupidity when the oil prices rose, and a number of people who had been on my side arguing against the socialists lapsed into bashing speculators for being greedy. A few questions about futures revealed that they didn't know the first thing about markets, they were just parroting each other, and the ones of us who did, to the best of their ability.
Reasoning doesn't influence people nearly as much as we like to think it does.
Oversimplification...
I've been wanting to say this for a while, so I'm gonna grab this chance to do so.
Robert Spencer, I hope you know that you're oversimplifying the issue of "hate" towards muslims when you write, "no non-Muslim would hate Muslims, or wish them ill, or think about them at all, were it not for the violence committed on a more or less daily basis by people who explain their actions by referring to Islamic texts and teachings."
There will always be hate. No amount of denouncing terrorists and terror-attacks as well as finding an effective (theological) way to deal with muslim-exstremist teachings, will completely eradicate the "hate" of muslims. However, only those who truly HATE islam and/or muslims should be left in the "islamofobe" camp.
DanishDynamite
In the wake of 9/11, this American slowly awoke to the realization that we, the people of the United States, were engaged in a broad, wide-ranging ideological struggle, on fronts both close at hand and far-flung, confronted with a tenacious and committed foe. I further realized that this conflict was unlike any other this nation has faced, as it was essentially driven by a religious imperative, emanating from a faith whose values and worldview were profoundly alien to my own and--yes--those of our nation.
Having seen the fall of the Berlin Wall, the global repudiation of communism and the end of the Cold War, I envisioned a world transformed by scientific discovery and technological advances; a new age of exploration, human endeavor and achievement; a world empowered by human freedom and individual dignity, thus capable of dealing with the most pressing and intractable problems we face.
Events that, to my mind, heralded renewed hope of human progress, ironically signaled a return to the past, to a time of mythic glory and fulfillment, arrested but now resurgent--to those who knew their own history and traditions, signaled the Third Wave of global Islamic expansion.
Much as I wanted to believe in the benign nature and common aspirations of this freshly assertive faith--in its reassuring posturing, typified by purposely edited citation of Quranic Sura 5, verse 32, and similar distortions--I nevertheless became convinced of the violent nature underpinning Islam, its sacred texts, history, and traditions.
What dismayed me most was discerning the intractably, implacably dualistic worldview of Islam; its stark division of Humanity into two camps, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, the goal and destiny of the One, the Umma, being the subjugation and ultimate effacement of the Other.
This is the fact of our day I am forced to accept, that there is a religious war being waged against us, an institutionalized cosmic struggle called JIHAD; however repugnant and inhuman the idea of religious, so-called "holy" war is in this 21st Christian Century.
For all the Robert Spencer wannabes out there, please consider the wisdom of the philosopher king of the hardcourt, LeBron James, who states in his latest Nike commercial, "You don't want to be me...you want to be better than me." My guess is that the gentleman and eminent scholar Robert Spencer would agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment.
Regarding Islam, it appears to me that at the very least, as a sanity test Mohammad could have had one of his scribes obtain a copy of the New Testament so that he could fact check what he'd been allegedly told by the "angel Gabriel." Had he done so, he'd have learned that his precious Qur'an radically departs from the NT record, even contradicting the "angel Gabriel" whose words to Mary are recorded in Luke's Gospel, at which point he would have had to choose to believe either that Christians are liars, or that he was a dupe at least, and maybe even insane. A third possibility would have been that both he and the Christians were dupes, but what glory would there have been in this admission? Mo's disciples knew better, right?
(Shades of L. Ron Hubbard, whose fevered imagination gave us Scientology and Dianetics, and who eventually repudiated it all as so much science fictional nonsense. Too bad for him. Statues aren't erected to apostates.)
The short of it is that Allah's self-identified last and best prophet eventually became an intolerant and bloodthirsty tyrant who rejected Christianity as so much blasphemy. What a surprise! Islam has been making wretched excuses for itself ever since. "Moderates" close their eyes, but others see clearly and are glad. God help us all!
Tor wrote:
"I think radicalism results from people having too much time on their hands."
Aye, the old bored out of their minds syndrome?
awake, at the risk of being labeled a bigot, methinks that Tor should get more specific and write that radicalism results from people reading the Qur'an and Hadiths and attending services in the mosques. The problem isn't having too much time on one's hands, but of ingesting toxic waste.
Khaybar says:
I don't.
Khaybar says:
(emphasis added)
That’s very funny. Do you follow the news? There is a significant percentage of Muslims who can generate quite a bit of fervor over mere cartoons of their religious-political leader, and quite a few Muslim reformers have been put to death or are threatened with death. You are not being realistic.
I never said this period was it, only that religions don't abandon orthodoxy during periods of revival.
Precisely my view.
Apostates deserve support, and I do support them. I just don't think apostates will become a force to be reckoned with in Muslim societies until freedom of speech and of religion has been established. Even if they had the numbers they couldn't assert themselves for fear of the violent backlash. I believe only the moderates are positioned to effectively push for these freedoms, with our support off course.
I agree, and I do support both. The people at the forum Spencer linked to are the same people organizing the campaign in support of Abdul Kareem, the Egyptian atheist imprisoned for criticizing Islam and the Egyptian president. They also run a number of other campaigns in support of various ethnic and religious minorities, and other oppressed groups, in the middle east.
I wholeheartedly agree that these things need to be addressed, I just don't see how insisting that the illiberal bigots are the better Muslims, to the faces of those Muslims who are working on our side, will help bring about change. Perhaps you are trying to establish their interpretations and quotes as the exclusive domain of Muslim bashers?
We get more support when focusing on the issues.
On the whole though I think we are in agreement.
I'm Spartacus!
Hi Robert. I'm an author over at Mideast Youth who is a staunch advocate for freedom and coexistence; and could never be mistaken as an Islamist shill.
You said to Esra'a, "But you should remember: no non-Muslim would hate Muslims, or wish them ill, or think about them at all, were it not for the violence committed on a more or less daily basis by people who explain their actions by referring to Islamic texts and teachings. If you want to eradicate that hatred, do your utmost to end acts of violence committed in the name of Islam."
As you know, Islam spans many ethnicities. So, just to clarify, it seems to me you believe:
1) in communal guilt for heterogeneous populations;
2) the onus of hatred is upon the hated rather than the hater;
3) negative actions by Muslims are far more prevalent in real life and not merely the media than are prosocial actions, which therefore provides a rational result of hate toward an entire community.
I mean, come no Robert, "NO (!) non-Muslim would hate Muslims" if Muslims didn't act criminally and violently? Is that really your point?
Hmm ...
OK ... Do you feel personal responsibility for being hated is exclusive to the Muslim community? If not, which other community does that hold true for, either now or historically? Please enlighten us as to who deserves hate. And, while you're at it, please enlighten us as to what are appropriate expressions of hate.
Your problem, sir, is that you just don't get it. You've been blinded to think that the most obvious and public displays of culture and religion are the only valid and representative ones. I live in L.A. and people talk about our racial tensions all the time. And yes, we have them. But far more than our tensions, people interact peacefully all the time here in normal society ... on the bus, in the market, at the mall. And those interactions include a lot of prosocial behavior -- helping each other, being kind and empathetic toward each other, even sticking up for each other. This is true for Muslims too throughout the world, but these types of interaction are mundane and not newsworthy and hence, get no publicity. It doesn't make them less relevant or prevalent. Every day Muslims conduct good actions, but they are rendered inconsequential by those who get excited by gossip. The Muslim community is far more nuanced than what gets covered by PR. That is not to say that there isn't a scary, and formidable element out there. What it does say is that it doesn't tell the whole story.
For you to stipulate that an entire, and heterogeneous, community deserves to be hated is really ... well ... outrageous. You run on the same broken paradigm that we find throughout the world -- "identify the problem" in others, criticise them, demand they clean up their own act, and stand in moral judgment over their dysfunctions -- but don't expect help from you except to be the light from which wisdom, moral clarity, and direction will shine, is that it? Sounds rather corrupt to me, especially from someone who has recently claimed that large masses of people who live upon a cultural and religious continuum nevertheless are all responsible for being hated because of their affiliation rather than their personal philosophy. But hey, who am I other than just some shlump who thinks people should be judged based upon their own individual merits and not their identity or religious/cultural affiliation?
Khaybar says:
"I'm an atheist too, but I wouldn’t make assumptions about a religion/political system without first researching the evidence about that religion/political system."
Tor answers:
"I don't."
Ah, but you do, Tor. I agree with Khaybar's comment, because in this next statement made by you, you do elude to a Better Tomorrow regarding Islam, so you ARE assuming on the future here: "I suppose you envision the future of this religion differently than I do."
Several atheists frequent JW/DW, but I think you're the first to place your faith in Islam changing some time in the future. I consider your position to be both naive and dangerous, which is why I don't share your 'hopeful' vision for Islam.
"It is I, the real Robert Spencer. As for anyone who would want to be me, well, as Mr. T might say, I pity the fool".
That reminds me of the Groucho Marx remark when turning down membership in a club, "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members".
Their judgement on this is bad. Most of the crowd that post here are independent types. They are about as needy for recognition as Fitzgerald. Only insecure people want to be anyone but themselves.
There is only one Robert. When your folks left Turkey, it was America's gain. JW is very important.
"Peaceful Vanguard":
No, I do not believe in that.
No, I do not believe that.
Are you saying that Muslims do not commit violent acts and justify them in the name of Islam, but that all this is a media creation?
Having read the writings of Osama bin Laden and many other jihadists, I do not believe that to be the case.
Yes. You are needlessly obfuscating what is really a quite simple points. Of course, there will always be bigots -- real ones, not the ones trumped up by Leftists and Islamists -- but this will be merely a lunatic fringe. I mean, who hates Hindus, or Buddhists? I'm sure you can find someone who does, but my point is that "Islamophobia" as a phenomenon exists because of Muslim violence. Take away the Muslim violence, and you'll take away the great bulk of "Islamophobia," except for that lunatic fringe.
Sorry, I won't play your game. Some communities perform actions that deserve hate from all decent people -- or do you think everyone should have loved Nazi Germany? But hate is just an emotional reaction, which will do nothing to end the evil. In the face of evil, people should focus not on hating but on working for justice. That's what I'm doing here at Jihad Watch.
Nonsense. I have never stated that jihadism is the only valid or representative manifestation of Islamic culture. If you think otherwise, produce the quote from me, please.
Right. This is Jihad Watch. Thus, I watch jihad. It is not Muslim Watch. It is not Islam Watch. Get the distinction?
Yes, if I had actually ever done that, it would be outrageous. But in fact, I have done no such thing.
No, in fact. I'd be glad to help in any way I can. But you folks should get your story straight. Just a couple of weeks ago I was on Radio Islam with Salam Al-Marayati of MPAC, and he told me haughtily that Muslims didn't need or want my help. Now you're coming and scolding me for not giving it. Look, let me make this very clear: I am happy to help anyone who wants to work for human rights and justice, Muslim or non-Muslim. But I am not so enthusiastic about working with people like you who come in and scold, moralize and castigate on the basis of things I've never said and do not believe.
Third time: I never said that. I said that if you peaceful Muslims want to eradicate "Islamophobia," you can do it real easily by eradicating Islamic violence and supremacism. That is not to excuse any moron who victimizes innocent Muslims. It is to point out that you're getting hated because some of you are committing violence in the name of your religion, and others -- like you yourself -- are in self-righteous denial about it, instead of doing something about it. That is not to excuse the hate, or to say it's legitimate. If you had actually read what I wrote above, you'd see I don't hate you or anyone. I am, as I said, interested only in working for justice. Are you?
How magnanimous of you!
Cordially
Robert Spencer
A reminder to the freaks at CAIR, the Muslim cabbies, and every other Islamo-whiner in the U.S.
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an e xact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.
But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we h ave room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
@Robert
As you were answering Peaceful Vanguard
I was struck that he is talking about the people (Muslims) and you are talking about the belief system (Islam). That to me seems to be at the bottom of this or other discussions about the problem. It is like what I read in the Bible, God hates the sin but loves the sinner.
When I bring this subject up in polite conversation. I point out that I never mentioned Muslims directly. I have only talking about Islam or the text of their books. The difficult part in all of this is the misdirection (intentional and unintentional) that happens. If we could get over that I think people would see from whence we come.
Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.
الامثال 6:16-19
هناك ستة أشياء الرب يكره ، هي ان سبع مقيت له :
عيون متغطرس ، وهو يرقد على اللسان ، اياد شلال الدماء البريءه ، القلب استطاع ان يستنبط الشرس مخططات والقدمين التي تندفع بسرعة الى الشر ، زائف الشاهد الذي يصب من اصل الاكاذيب والرجل الذي يثير الشقاق حتى بين الاشقاء
Notice in the above, God hates the actions not the actor.
Tor says: "I expect it (militant Islam) to wither away as other products begin to compete for peoples money, and with it their time."
Uhm, sorry, NOT. They have been successful so far in the 20th and 21st century rapid spread of jihad precisely BECAUSE of their using modern technology such as cell phones, internet, rapid and cheap air travel, etc. to plan and carry out their evil plans.
Robert, please take responsibility for your own comments instead of expecting me to deconstruct them for you. If you misspoke, then admit it, and if you spoke correctly, own up to it. You were not talking about phobia or fear toward militants, you provided a clear rationalization for hatred itself -- again, not fear, not phobia, not caution, not angst, but actual hate toward an entire group of people, here defined as Muslims.
You said, "no non-Muslim would hate Muslims, or wish them ill, or think about them at all, were it not for the violence committed on a more or less daily basis by people who explain their actions by referring to Islamic texts and teachings."
This is a clear rationalization of hatred no matter how you try and spin it.
Then you say, "If you want to eradicate that hatred, do your utmost to end acts of violence committed in the name of Islam."
The way to do this is to cultivate and elevate prosocial acts in the Muslim community so they become role models, not to demand that people clean up their act upon pain of more castigation. Robert, people don't act dysfunctionally because they are stupid and need to be told how to behave. They act out because they are emotional -- angry, frustrated, fed up, whatever -- and need a pathway to get out of it.
You ask me, "Are you saying that Muslims do not commit violent acts and justify them in the name of Islam, but that all this is a media creation?"
No I am not. What I am saying is that there is no justification or rationalization to hate entire groups of people who live upon a continuum, rather than a fixed system, in this case Muslims.
"but my point is that "Islamophobia" as a phenomenon exists because of Muslim violence. Take away the Muslim violence, and you'll take away the great bulk of "Islamophobia," except for that lunatic fringe."
Hmm ... so when you were talking about, "hate," you really meant Islamophobia? Are you saying the two are the same thing and the terms are interchangable? Because, by your own words, you were talking about hating Muslims not Islamophobia. And, p.s. the very definition of a phobia is an irrational fear toward something, and the last time I checked, irrational fear is hard to justify.
"Some communities perform actions that deserve hate from all decent people -- or do you think everyone should have loved Nazi Germany?"
You are being disingenuous, it's not the same thing. Nazism is a singular ideology that people chose to adhere to. Muslims live upon a continuum of Islamic philosophy, which makes them extremely heterogeneous unlike the case of Nazism. With a Nazi, you know exactly what you can expect philosophically. With a Muslim, the same is not true. That's why I so highly disagree with your statement about why hating Muslims as a group can be rationalized.
"Nonsense. I have never stated that jihadism is the only valid or representative manifestation of Islamic culture."
But you are telling Esra'a that it is powerful enough to make all Muslims responsible for being hated, as if the good works done by Muslims don't count as part of the equation when determining hate.
"No, in fact. I'd be glad to help in any way I can. But you folks should get your story straight. Just a couple of weeks ago I was on Radio Islam with Salam Al-Marayati of MPAC, and he told me haughtily that Muslims didn't need or want my help. Now you're coming and scolding me for not giving it."
I'm not going to cover for al-Marayati. But Robert, you don't offer help in a culturally sensitive manner so you can't expect it to be received with welcome.
"I said that if you peaceful Muslims want to eradicate "Islamophobia," you can do it real easily by eradicating Islamic violence and supremacism."
Well, this may be your general point, but that is not what you told Esra'a. You rationalized hate itself.
Let me ask you something. Do you think it is fair to rationalize hate toward Christians in general because some of them use scripture to stigmatize homosexuals, and commit human rights violations and violence against them, not just in this country but elsewhere in the world? I'm curious, if the City of West Hollywood, for example, came out and railed against Christianity because of the scriptural abuse gays suffer at the hands of some Orthodox and Catholic and Protestant Christians on the international stage, would you support it?
I'm just looking for some consistency here, thanks.
You're on very shaky ground, Peaceful Vanguard.
Accusing Robert Spencer of "rationalizing hatred" is like accusing you of "rationalizing terrorism" or "rationalizing muslim violence". After all, "They act out because they are emotional -- angry, frustrated, fed up, whatever -- and need a pathway to get out of it" is as much a "rationalisation" as, "If you want to eradicate that hatred, do your utmost to end acts of violence committed in the name of Islam" is a "rationalisation". Ofcourse, neither are rationalisations but opinions of the causes for the actions/feelings.
Unless you wanna admit to "rationalizing muslim terrorism and/or muslim violence", I suggest you withdraw that particular accusation.
With regards to the hate/islamophobia dichotomy(is that the right word?), I think you're just being pedantic. Robert Spencer and others are often accused of hating muslims and of being islamophobes. The words are interchangeable when it comes to critics of (extremist) islam. I'm sure you know this, so I can only view this as a deliberate attempt by you to be annoying.
You are however correct that nazism and islam aren't directly comparable. Robert didn't make that comparison though. He wrote "Nazi Germany". Not every German was a nazi before or during world war II. But I can guarantee you that pretty much all Germans were painted with the same brush by large/majority segments of non-Germans in Europe and probably the US, wether they were nazis or not. It's what humans do...
DanishDynamite
"Peaceful Vanguard":
No, it isn't. I take full responsibility for everything I say, but not for your misreading of it. I have explained this above, and stand by that explanation.
So are you now doing what you accuse me of doing -- rationalizing violence, where I was allegedly rationalizing hatred?
I won't hold you to it, because you would, if asked, no doubt avow that jihadist violence is evil, and that your saying it was because of this or that cause doesn't mean you don't think it's evil. And that is exactly the same reason why I was not rationalizing hatred in my remarks.
As for the substance of your point, it's hogwash. People are doing evil. I am speaking out against those evils, and calling upon those who also oppose them to speak out against them also. Yet oddly enough, many of those who say they oppose them would sooner speak out against me than against the evils themselves. Hmmm. That's interesting, don't you think?
Right. I agree 100%.
Come off it. You know full well that the term "Islamophobia" is used -- by Muslim groups, and the UN, and hordes of media -- to denote hatred of Muslims, not fear of Muslims. Quit playing games and argue your point honestly.
I told you I wasn't playing. I do not accept your premise that I was rationalizing hatred of Muslims, even when you try to sneak it onto the table as in the paragraph above.
No, I didn't tell Esra'a that. I have already explained to you what I did say.
A "culturally sensitive manner"? I'm not sure what that means. I tell the truth, I make sure that what I say is accurate, and I invite reformist Muslims to join our human rights efforts. Yet again and again these calls are met with abuse and misrepresentations of what I actually say, such as yours above. Would it be more "culturally sensitive" of me to allow people to lie about me without responding?
In fact, no.
I don't think it's fair to rationalize hate against anyone. But I'll tell you something else: if there were a global network of Christians committing violence in the name of Christianity and justifying it by references to Christian Scripture, I would be directing my energies to educating Christians so as to prevent them from being susceptible to this movement. I would not be demonizing and vilifying people who called attention to the use that these violent people were making of Christianity.
Oh, you're quite welcome!
Cordially
Robert Spencer
"Accusing Robert Spencer of "rationalizing hatred" is like accusing you of "rationalizing terrorism" or "rationalizing muslim violence". After all, "They act out because they are emotional -- angry, frustrated, fed up, whatever -- and need a pathway to get out of it" is as much a "rationalisation" as, "If you want to eradicate that hatred, do your utmost to end acts of violence committed in the name of Islam" is a "rationalisation"."
No, Danish Dynamite. Thank you for your response, but these are two very different contexts.
In fact, Robert Spencer is telling Esra'a that she is responsible for being hated because of acts committed by people who share her identity, not because of anything she has done herself. Read his very words. He provides a specific context -- actual excuses -- for the cultivation of hate toward Muslims-at-large, not merely the people who commit and encourage the acts, and that's a clear rationalization.
Please, let's not spin this. Again, read his own words and allow them to stand on their own. He is the one that is talking about hate. He used the very term itself, and made excuses for it being directed at Esra'a regardless of what she may have personally done, and then told her she's responsible for it. That is wrong and very unjust.
Sorry, Danish Dynamite, but Robert Spender did rationalize hate toward an innocent Muslim woman although she has done nothing wrong, and should either take responsibility for it or retract his words and admit he misspoke. We're all human, we all make mistakes, and we're all works in progress. That includes Mr. Spencer.
"But I'll tell you something else: if there were a global network of Christians committing violence in the name of Christianity and justifying it by references to Christian Scripture, I would be directing my energies to educating Christians so as to prevent them from being susceptible to this movement."
EXACTLY!!
"Peaceful Vanguard":
You are retailing falsehoods.
This is exactly what I said, from above:
Does this anywhere say that I approve of that hatred? No. Does this anywhere say that I think anyone should hate Muslims? No. Does this anywhere say that I think all Muslims are responsible for the evil done by some Muslims? No.
Yet you continue to insist that that's what it means. In this you suggest that you are less interested in an honest exchange than in demonizing me. And you aren't the first to have to resort to falsehoods to accomplish the task.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Given that I am just another knee-jerk Robert Spencer wannabe, let me echo Mr. Spencer's point, draw out its implicit meaning:
No non-Muslim would have cause or excuse to hate [in the broadest indictment of that word, regardless of how freely or carelessly applied] Muslims, or wish them ill, or be necessarily mindful of them--but for the shared identity with those Muslims who assert that they, as Muslims, are divinely commanded to hate and wish ill upon those who are non-Muslim. The shame of it all is that there should be any cause or excuse for blanket fear or hate of Muslims on account of these latter.
In light of the actions and attitudes of these latter Muslims, it is incumbent upon Muslims as a whole to differentiate among themselves what passes for Islam, for orthodoxy; to define what Islam itself really is.
That's the rub, folks.
Robert, I'm not attacking you, I only challenge you on your own words above. I have not maligned your character, made any judgments about your motives, labeled you as a bigot, or called you pejorative names. In fact, to be honest, I know very little about you except from what I've heard other people say about you, much, but not all of it good, btw. But I personally cannot recall ever reading your work until today. It is for that very reason -- that I know little about you from my own experience -- that I don't feel compelled to give you the benefit of the doubt -- that you really mean this when you say that -- so I can only hold you to your words and let them stand on their own without additional spin/explanation from you. And yes, you are talking about hate.
"Does this anywhere say that I approve of that hatred? No. Does this anywhere say that I think anyone should hate Muslims? No. Does this anywhere say that I think all Muslims are responsible for the evil done by some Muslims? No.
Yet you continue to insist that that's what it means."
No I don't. I never said you approve or seek to apply this hatred. What I said is that you unjustly have made my blogmate responsible for it when she has done nothing wrong. And I just cannot agree to that.
"But I'll tell you something else: if there were a global network of Christians committing violence in the name of Christianity and justifying it by references to Christian Scripture, I would be directing my energies to educating Christians so as to prevent them from being susceptible to this movement."
Well then I encourage you to start at it, sir, because I can guarantee you that there are a LOT of gay and effeminate youth around the world getting oppressed, harrassed, and routinely physically abused at school, home, and in their communities, hand-in-hand with quotes from Christian scripture. I can't tell you how many gay kids I met while I was growing up going to clubs in Hollywood that were either thrown out of their homes because their "sin was unwelcome," or ran away from the beatings they got at the hands of neighborhood bullies and were living with friends. And that's L.A., so imagine how it is for people in places like Minsk, Santiago, Harare, or Zagreb. Scripturally inspired abuse against gays is pandemic. So I guess the next question is ... what are you doing about it?
Peaceful Vanguard:
Peaceful Vanguard at 12:39PM:
So clearly here you are trying to establish that I think a group deserves hate, and that that hate has appropriate expressions.
Now, when the desperately unfair misreading of my words has become clear, you say:
So now you're trying to have us believe that I don't approve of it but think they deserve it?
I think you're contradicting yourself, and not remotely coming close to arguing fairly. What I said above is becoming clearer: "you are less interested in an honest exchange than in demonizing me. And you aren't the first to have to resort to falsehoods to accomplish the task."
As for Christians, I believe you should reread what I wrote, since you seem also to have misread that.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Prejudice against gays is nigh universal; Christian scripture reflects this, and attaches moral approbrium; nowhere in the New Testament, however, does it say that violence against homosexual persons is commanded or permitted; rather, it commands, in Jesus' words, "Judge not, lest you be judged" "By the measure with which you measure shall it be measured out to you."
The inherent paradox for Christians is that, by their own standards, no one stands unindicted upon close introspective scrutiny--just reflect on the account of the Woman Caught in Adultery.
So much for tu quoque.
"But Robert, you don't offer help in a culturally sensitive manner so you can't expect it to be received with welcome."--whines Peaceful Vanguard.
Awww Jeez! "culturally sensitive"
Anyone who doesn't buy into all the PC "sensitivity" crap is just wrong, right?
Well, let me tell you something:
I didn't find the actions taken by certain hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001 to be "sensitive" to my culture.
I don't find bin Laden's threats to my country to be "sensitive" to my culture.
I don't find "Islam is to dominate, not to be dominated" (uttered here in America) to be "sensitive" to my culture.
I don't find chants of "Death to America" to be "sensitive" to my culture.
I don't find being identified as "swine" to be "sensitive" to my culture.
Go sensitize yourself!