Jihad Watch is a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. When David Horowitz was interviewed recently on the leftist Campus Progress site, the interviewer tried to hang him for his association with a wretched fellow like me (as well as sometime Jihad Watch contributor Greg Davis, producer of the film Islam: What the West Needs to Know, in which I appear):
I’m sorry, your website has this description of a film you are promoting: “‘Islam: What the West Needs to Know’ reveals the violent, expansionary ideology of the so called ‘religion…’”—Yeah that’s Greg Davis’s film. Look—
So you disagree?
I haven’t actually seen this film. I’ve read parts of his book—
Right, but that is on your site, to be fair.
Well, I think that it’s a point of view. I’m not excluding from my site points of view that think that Islam is the problem. And the reason—I mean, I’ve discussed some of the reasons with you. I would not have somebody on my site who took this out on individual Muslims and I have a lot of Muslims who write for my site. And it’s not—again, we always have to keep in mind that Islam is a political religion, or where it’s a political religion it’s problematic. And I think that that’s what that book is about and the film. And I haven’t seen the actual film.
Right, but I mean, if the focus of the question is whether the problem is on Islam qua Islam or on fundamentalism— you know, Robert Spencer has a book is called “Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity is and Islam isn’t” and he is one of the Front Page, major contributors [on FrontPage.org, Horowitz’s site] [Note: actually, the site is frontpagemagazine.com.]
— Well I’ve read the book, it’s a good book. Read the book.
Do you disagree with the assertion in the title?
Well, I don’t disagree with any of the particulars. I have had my disputes with Spencer over this issue. It’s a huge and very complicated issue. It’s one that I intended, with [Islamo-fascism Awareness Week], to raise. But we haven’t been able to really raise it, because of the hate storm it was greeted by. If you can’t discuss it—“Is Islam a peaceful religion?”—it ’s a good question. You know, when a Danish paper published some cartoons, they killed people, burned embassies. They killed some nuns in the Middle East. I didn’t see a lot of outrage coming from the Muslim community against that.
So this is a much bigger problem than people who want to just dismiss Spencer say. I don’t… I have not in my web site or in anything I said, said that the United States shouldn’t be engaged, supporting Muslim countries, which we do. We support Pakistan. I think Saudi Arabia is really problematic but I haven’t said we should break off relations with Saudi Arabia. So I, you know, you have to—I think there’s an intellectual issue and, you know, Spencer is an expert in Islam and Greg Davis knows a hell of a lot more about it than I do. I’m not going to rule out their points of view and I’m certainly not going to consider them bigoted because I’ve read Spencer’s book, and if you see the way it’s argued, this is not the ravings of a religious bigot, this is a scholar of Islam who’s saying things, trying to tell you something. So, it needs to be discussed, not just attacked.
Indeed. But civil discussion and mutually respectful disputes about these issues, such as I have had with David Horowitz, are extremely hard to come by. Mostly the opposition just heaps abuse on those who speak honestly about the elements of Islam that jihadists use to recruit terrorists and justify their actions, or ignores them altogether. And meanwhile, of course, the jihad proceeds apace.
It's actually on my Christmas list, as are Robert's other books.
Intellectual honesty, I'm afraid, is a rare commodity in today's society. A victim of PC. But hope is not to be abandoned as long as people such as Spencer, Horowitz, Steyn, et al, continue to speak their minds and refuse to silence those who would disagree with them.
If you truly discuss the necessary standard disclaimer before mentioning Islam, you'll never discuss Islam.
Do you mean beliefs, writings, people, what writings are likely to cause in people, history...?
Non-Muslims who mount rousing defenses of Islam tend not to not know much about the Quran or life of Mohammed, and why those are important. Islam includes a medieval legal system and theocratic despotism. If you don't get that, well, you don't get the absolute basics of Islam.
The agenda of the interviewer was onbious. His predisposed beliefs on the matter were immutable. He was not asking Horowitz whether the refernces to Greg or Robert on his site were acceptable, for he already deemed them as not. He was simply asking horowitz if he agress with the interviewer's position.
That unfortunately passes as journalism these days.
David
Watch Greg's film. You'll be in a far better position to either support or refute it, come next interview.
I also look forward to reading your arguments as to why supporting Pakistan, and for that matter Saudi Arabia (and presumably Egypt) is a good idea. Don't just say you respectfully disagree - explain why!
I have some civil and mutually respectful advice for David:
For your own sake get conversant with Davis' film and all of the main materials that get, as this interviewer said, promoted on your site. While you needn't be called accountable for things that you don't promote, you need to be able to answer directly and articulately about these things. If you disagree with Spencer or Davis on some points, that's good. So do I (and I imagine they disagree on a few points). But you don't do yourself any favours going in to hostile interviews unable to represent the materials themselves, to discuss their content in general, or to articulate exactly how you differ from their authors. You were lucky in this interview that the interviewer knew less about these materials than you did. What if they started citing cherrypicked passages from Greg's film and pressing on the "Look, you're promoting this material!" line; you need to understand context, and the line of argument, and you need to have your own assessment. If you disagree on some points you need to be able to say, "Yes, I disagree on this point, but here's how I regard this and why I still promote this work..."
It's not that your responses in this interview were bad, it's just that I foresee them as being inadequate when facing down an interviewer prepared to do his homework and prepared to cherrypick and spin for hostile purposes.
I am surprised Mr Horowitz has not watched the film.
Which issues does Horowitz dispute?
Kamala
From the above, it looks like relationships w/ 'moderate', or at least ostensibly Islamic 'Allies', such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Horowitz seems to buy into the admin line that these countries, as well as others like Egypt and Turkey are allies, whereas the JW staff don't labor under that illusion, as illustrated everytime they put sneer quotes around the term 'Allies' when referencing stories about these countries. It would be nice to see doubting Thomases, or Davids, explain why they think such countries are allies - beyond their simply having the same enemies that we do.
Personally, I think it would be interesting and helpful to see where Robert Spencer, David Horowitz, Hugh Fitzgerald, Daniel Pipes, etc. disagree with each other. It would also be instructive just to see a discussion where that disagreement is handled in a respectful and thoughtful way. If Robert and Daniel Pipes disagree on the likelihood of an Islamic Reformation for example, it would be nice to see/hear the thought process behind each opinion. It doesn't mean that either person is a "traitor" or an "idiot"; it should be perfectly fine for intelligent people to disagree.
There was a recent posting with the results of a Front Page symposium with Robert and Daniel Pipes that was a good start.
[To continue rambling...]
The hard part would be getting the participants to not try to convince everyone that they are "right", or that those who disagree are "wrong". Ideally, each person would present their point of view, and it is up to the audience to decide which viewpoint sounds most accurate.