Noting my remark below, "for the umpteenth time someone assumes I am saying something that I am not saying," which I made in reference to the dialogue of the deaf here, Steve Schippert over at Threats Watch (thanks to James) says:
When he says “for the umpteenth time someone assumes I am saying something that I am not saying,” if so often people are assuming something that he is indeed not saying, there is a distinct pattern of miscommunication.Spencer himself acknowledges a trend. With all due respect to Mr. Spencer, are the “umpteen” consistently misinterpreting him because they are all dolts, or is it perhaps that Mr. Spencer is failing to articulate what he is indeed trying to say? Is his tone perhaps causing misperception?
In business, if the employees are all misunderstanding your direction, is the most effective corrective measure to berate the employees or to adjust the delivery? For at the end of the day, what matters is that the employees understand the directions or requests, not that the employer bends the employees to understand his language. Results matter.
Sadly, I expected the discussion on Iran’s ‘Vice List’ to descend into an “everything that is wrong with Islam” discussion. It did that in short order.
Read the FrontPage Symposium for yourself and draw your own conclusions on whether I am an apologist for radical Islam or Mr. Spencer’s tone pushes away otherwise reasonable Muslims from its outset.
Point well taken, although of course I never called him "an apologist for radical Islam," or anything remotely close to that, which may indicate here again that the problem lies with what he thinks he is reading rather than what he is actually reading. But I readily admit that I may be a very poor writer, and just haven't managed to articulate what I mean properly, so as to rule out misapprehensions like Schippert's.
But as far as I am concerned, I articulated it several times during our exchange, linked above: Islamic law teaches certain things, and indeed all the schools are unanimous about certain issues. But when I say that, Mr. Schippert and others like him seem to haer me saying that all Muslims believe a certain way or act a certain way. They don't seem to be able to make the elementary distinction between belief and practice -- that is, between the teachings of the religion and the huge spectrum of belief, knowledge and fervor among the adherents of the religion.
It's a common problem: speak about Islamic supremacism, and people think you're saying that all Muslims are terrorists. But it really isn't a difficult distinction to make, much as it seems to elude Mr. Schippert. Taking his own words, I ask you to read the FrontPage Symposium for yourself and draw your own conclusions: am I saying that all Muslims believe or act in any particular way, or am I merely calling upon sincere Muslim reformers to acknowledge that there are elements of Islamic teaching and tradition that need reforming?
Finally, Mr. Schippert never specifies what it is about my "tone" that he thinks "reasonable Muslims" will find so offensive. Do I say that all Muslims are evil terrorists? Do I say anything remotely insulting? Do I say anything that is false or inaccurate? I submit that no one except someone who has imbibed Sharia standards of offense could find anything wrong with my tone in this exchange.
Oh, the "tone" again.
Apparently, speaking the truth has an inherent offensive "tone" to it, unlike the blatant offense of accusing someone for words they didn't actually say.
If Schippert's misunderstanding is not deliberate -- we must be charitable and give him the benefit of the doubt -- the problem might lie here:
"...They don't seem to be able to make the elementary distinction between belief and practice..."
If the emphasized word were replaced with doctrine or dogma, Mr. Spencer's point would be unarguable, even by the most determined hairsplitter.
Interesting. I understood you with no problems, as did the other participants of the debate.
It seems like the only ones who would misunderstand your statements would be those, such as Mr. Schippert, who choose to do so for their own political/ideological reasons.
ROBERT: "But I readily admit that I may be a very poor writer, and just haven't managed to articulate what I mean properly, so as to rule out misapprehensions like Schippert's."
On the contrary, it has nothing to do with style. In fact Robert, one of your great strengths is the exactitude of your use of language.
It is the CONTENT, not the form, of what you write that is so disturbing to Mr Schippert and so many others.
The truth can be a bitter pill.
It seems that Mr. Schippert is anxious that attention not be called to the historic teachings of Islam. This is a fundamental disagreement with Mr. Spencer, who (rightly, I think) reckons that certain of these historic teachings lie at the root of the present threat that emerges from the Muslim world. Mr. Schippert seems to want awareness of the reality of the threat without deeper public examination into the roots of the reality.
It is tempting to interpret this posture to be rooted in a desire to reduce the likelihood that less- or un- or not-yet-radicalized Muslims may notice the worrisome teachings and adjust their lives into greater conformity to them. Mr. Spencer thinks that these teachings must be faced squarely by both the non-muslim and Muslim worlds if they are to be contained and repudiated.
That's a fundamental disagreement that will never be resolved.
"With all due respect to Mr. Spencer, are the “umpteen” consistently misinterpreting him because they are all dolts, or is it perhaps that Mr. Spencer is failing to articulate what he is indeed trying to say? Is his tone perhaps causing misperception?"
Well, after reading his note - I vote for the first option - yes, he is indeed a dolt. There comes a time when one has to acknowledge the fact some people do not either WANT to understand, or they are UNABLE to understand. With islam - most are in the first category - they do not WANT to understand. Much to their own detriment.
"are the “umpteen” consistently misinterpreting him because they are all dolts..."
-- from the article by Steve Schippert above
In Mr. Schippert's understanding of English, "umpteen" is a term that counts not the "times" that something has occurred -- in the fixed phrase "for the umpteenth time" -- but, rather, a term that is used to imply a large number of people -- "umpteen people" --who are doing something. In Schippert's view, it is these people -- the "umpteen" -- whom the benighted Spencer claims are "consistently misinterpreting him because they are all dolts."
The misuse and abuse of language, the reliance on cliches, for example, that are merely words on tap, the acceptance and parroting of such senseless phrases as "the international community" or semi-literate phrases as "on a daily basis," iarethe surest stupidity-banality indicator that I know. My meter is always on, registering like a geiger counter. And I'm afraid as that mental-meter approached the prose of Steve Schippert, it started to give off a frantic sound that told me I was in the presence of someone not merely careless with language, but beyond all hope of cure or care.
Sorry about this. I wish I could offer some remedy. But I can't. And my language-meter is infallible.
Steve Schippert criticizes Robert's tone, yet Schippert's initial criticism of Spencer was not based on Robert's words, but rather a construct of what Schippert either believed or desired Robert's words to be.
"The vice-list Symposium", and Schippert's criticism of what he deemed it "descended" to, is most egregious. There is no reason to discuss an ailment of a particular Islamic theocratic regime without dicussing Islamic theocracy itself.
It is akin to putting a dormer on a house without a foundation. The current Iranian regime will ultimately at some point be replaced by another, distinctly similar in nature, and based on Islamic doctrine. The root-cause must be identified and acknowledged for any meaningful change to the specifics, to occur.
"Dolt" seems like a high class term for a dolt. Maybe "simpleton" or just a plain old Homer "dummy" will work better.
There are many who have a framework for [mis]understanding new concepts, and refuse to recognize their framework must change.
Shipper is another one of those who refuses to take his medicine because it tastes bitter.
Just a spoonful of suger makes the medicine go down, Mr. Shipper.
A lot of people do understand what you are trying to say, Robert, which is a point that Schippert doesn't seem to acknowledge.
For the 'umpteenth time' Schippert, like many in the West are stating that is the West that has communication problems.
I ask how is Islam trying to communicate their violence vs. peace?
How is Islam trying to communicate tolerance vs. self critisizm of Islam?
Why are Imans in the West saying it is 'Us' that does not understand Islam, but it is the masses of Islam that are killing?
Schippert, Robert Spencer is but one man. One man that is trying to make a point, against millions of people, dozens of countries, and billions of dollars that are trying to silence him and others like him
If you think Robert is a bad communicator, then help him out. I am sure he would appreciate it. If you want to help out others with their communication then go and critisize the radical muslims and see how quickly all of them turn on you.
For the 'Umpteenth time' why is communication completely the responsibility of Westerners?
"And I'm afraid as that mental-meter approached the prose of Steve Schippert, it started to give off, frantically, a sound that told me I was in the presence of someone not merely careless with language, but beyond all hope of cure or care."
Exactly.
Robert, it is your tone and delivery skills (along with Hugh's and everyone else here) that made me wake up and YELL...Holy Shi'ite these people are nuts!
As a thought experiment I'm going to make an argument for Shippert. I'm going to suggest that Shippert really meant "emphasis" when he used the word "tone." Schippert's argument, worthy or not, might be that Spencer does not give in his presentations of Islam a sufficiently "whole" picture, but focuses almost exclusively on the many undeniably destructive aspects of Islam: the darker verses, traditions and behaviors. Shippert seems to be saying that presenting that almost exclusively negative critique, and referring too rarely to whatever is positive in Islam or among Muslims, is an ineffective way for Spencer to gain allies among Muslims and others. An almost exclusive focus on the negative in Islam creates an undertone of enmity to Islam itself, rather than to those aspects of Islam that are destructive. Meanwhile, it seems hard to deny that Spencer's close ally at this website, Fitzgerald, is negative to Islam itself.
Spencer's discussions of Islam are hard-hitting, well-sourced to Islam's own core texts and traditions, and filled with a subtle undertone of indignation toward evil.
Spencer modestly says he might be a very poor writer, but the problem, if there is one, is surely not with the precision of Spencer's writing. The problem may be almost the opposite: that Spencer focuses so effectively on the precision of his words that he sometimes gives short shrift to the spirit of what he is writing. Looking at the literal content of Spencer's words, there seems to be nothing, or virtually nothing, incorrect. Nor, in the literal content of his message, does Spencer paint with an overly broad brush. But maybe it would be accurate to say that the quantity of his references to the negative, versus the quantity of his references to the positive, makes the spirit of Spencer's message a "broad brush spirit," one that is out of accord with the letter of Spencer's message. The spirit or undertone of Spencer's writing is one of restrained and fairly continual indignation toward Islam's evils.
Spencer might be able to satisfy the Shipperts of the world better and make more Muslim allies if he increased, even perhaps by only some slight degree, the quantity of his references to positive aspects of Islam's texts, traditions and behaviors. Doing that need not stop him from being just as hard-hitting as ever against the huge evils and totalitarian aspects of Islam. A slight increase in references to the positive aspects need not prevent Spencer from advocating restrictions on Islamic immigration. It need not require him to exaggerate Islam's potentials for good.
Robert, I agree with the others - their view seems to be that they are upset that you are simply pointing out that current scholars continue to use the original language and teachings of the Koran! They will usually rebut with statements of Christianity, but the statements they use are generally only still used by truely fringe elements, not the 'apparent' mainstream, a la current modern day Islam. Read about the 'peace loving Imams' that were illegally removed from a flight and what they taught....
Spencer's adversaries have it in their interest to misconstrue what he says.
They are not his "employees".
Schippert's analogy is pretty doltish:
***"In business, if the employees are all misunderstanding your direction, is the most effective corrective measure to berate the employees or to adjust the delivery?"
As far as "pushing away other Muslims".
Canard.
The only way to counteract radical Islam is to confront it, and call a spade a spade. Otherwise, the Snake is in the room, growing, until it can attack full-blast.
That is the way I see it.
In the full article, Steve Schippert said
Again, the problem is not the pointy knife at our collective throat, the problem is our pointy finger on the Muslims' collective chest. Again, the problem is not the jihadists sawing off our heads, the problem is us saying "Hey, waitaminnit, you're sawing off our heads".
The problem is not the thousands (well, how far back does one start counting?) of Islamically-motivated murders, the problem is Robert's tone of voice.
So, please, people, back off. Take your pointy fingers off their chest. Give them a little time to figure this whole "reformation" thing out. It's only been 1400 years of murder and rape and mayhem; have some patience people.
I enjoyed many of the comments on this thread, especially the one about the prosemeter. Treahs point of quantity has some merit, but the context of the website is Jihadwatch, it makes it rather problematic to include such things as wedding celebrations among the Bedouins of North Africa, which might be more positive but rather off topic regarding Jihad. Could it be possible to find some articles of a positive nature on Jihad? Probably not from the point of view of people not emotionally invested in the desirability of subjugating others to what you yourself are subjugated to.
stickman,
The site is called Jihad Watch, but the subject of Spencer's writings is frequently Islam in general. So your counterargument to what I said doesn't work as far as I can see. Spencer, as I understand him, calls this site Jihad Watch not because the subject here is exclusively jihad. To understand jihad, after all, one must try to understand Islam. Spencer calls this site Jihad Watch because, in part, he wants to emphasize that he is criticizing Jihad, not everything and everyone in Islam. His attack is on jihad and dhimmitude, and anything in Islam that supports those.
I'm not sure I agree with the argument I made in my 4:11 pm comment above, by the way. I'm just trying to think about this.
Having read the Frontpage discussion in which the dispute arose, it is my opinion that Robert has been clear, and has nothing about which he needs to apologize.
Here is an abbreviation of the discussion showing the nub of the disagreement:
Frontpage: … “What is this moral crackdown about? What impulses engender it?”
Schippert: … (Arguing a political motivation to repress dissent): It is not an accident that those most at risk in this crackdown are those who oppose and resist the regime the most. So the question remains, why now? …
Spencer: This is no accident at all, Jamie. Traditional Islamic law mandates and institutionalizes second-class status for both non-Muslims and women. … During the modern reassertion of Islamic law in all its strictness as part of the Islamic supremacist agenda – the agenda being pursued by the Iranian mullahcracy as well as by other Islamic supremacist groups around the world – the status of both has been threatened.
(Spencer goes on to cite Islamic law justifying the Iranian crackdown, chapter and verse)
…
Schippert: … There are many 'traditional' Muslim families who would argue that women are neither relegated to or treated as second-class citizens in the 'traditional' Muslim home. …
Spencer: … I noted above that “Traditional Islamic law mandates and institutionalizes second-class status for both non-Muslims and women.” Mr. Schippert in response asserts that “there are many 'traditional' Muslim families who would argue that women are neither relegated to or treated as second-class citizens in the 'traditional' Muslim home.” Mr. Schippert has scolded Ms. Kobrin and me for, in his view, not choosing our words carefully, but in reality he is here glossing over a crucial distinction: I spoke about “traditional Islamic law,” and he in response brings up “‘traditional’ Muslim families.” …
Schippert: … I would argue that the Muslim men and women who are going to help us to win the war of ideas are not aided by the sweeping criticism of Islam by Western experts. We should be able to advocate women's rights without tearing at the fabric of the religion. …
Spencer: … I find it rather astounding that immediately after I have said that “some Muslim families may take [Islamic] law very seriously and follow it to the letter; others may not,” Mr. Schippert responds by suggesting that what I have written is "that such behaviors are believed in and supported by all Muslims,” and that I “truly believe” that “all Shi'a” are “at fault.” It seems as if he has understood me to mean exactly the opposite of what I said, if he actually read what I wrote at all. …
I find it rather astounding that immediately after I have said that “some Muslim families may take [Islamic] law very seriously and follow it to the letter; others may not,” Mr. Schippert responds by suggesting that what I have written is "that such behaviors are believed in and supported by all Muslims,” and that I “truly believe” that “all Shi'a” are “at fault.” It seems as if he has understood me to mean exactly the opposite of what I said, if he actually read what I wrote at all. …
I understood you quite clearly, and I still remember the first time I did.
Schippert says:
"I would argue that the Muslim men and women who are going to help us to win the war of ideas are not aided by the sweeping criticism of Islam by Western experts. We should be able to advocate women's rights without tearing at the fabric of the religion. Shouldn't we? Even though those who practice genital mutilation upon girls and women say they do so out of religious conviction? There are members of the ulema who are more enlightened. We should be championing their views, advocating their advancement and reinforcing their arguments against the abuse of women and children rather than distancing them as well by attacking the center of their faith - the Qur'an."
How is quoting the Qur'an "attacking" anything? It isn't westerners whom want to shack-up in Islamic countries. Due to the nature of western society and the many obvious conflicts with Sharia law,and the Qur'an this makes it impossible to bring up the subject without appearing to critisize. Sorry there isn't any way to breach the subject without huring feelings.
"Self-determination and liberty, once understood by the people of the Middle East, is much more likely than criticisms of Islam to put an end to the horrible practices we've discussed."
Once understood? How long will that take? 500 years? Well we have like 30 or less ... I don't care whose feelings are hurt by the truth if you can't handle the truth get out of the debate you are part of the problem. Sorry do I offend?
Did you notice folks how Schippert came in spoiling for a fight....going after Nancy Kobin with his first comments....and later Robert.
Had he merely enunciated his ideas without the adversarialism, the symposium atmospherics might have been entirely different.
He tipped his hand with this statement:
"Sadly, I expected the discussion on Iran’s ‘Vice List’ to descend into an “everything that is wrong with Islam” discussion. It did that in short order."
Like I said, Steve Schippert came spoiling for a fight.
My view on Mr schipperts comments is that I think that Mr Schippert has a mental narrative template that he wether consciously or unconsciously fits over what he hears. I have noticed that in many conversations, what a person says is often not what is heard, it is not always the fault of the speaker, conversation depends on two, and the act of hearing can be as easily botched as the act of speaking.
As for employees, they are a diverse lot, and in my years of employment I have worked at places where the people were treated very well and still were almost always in a state of being offended, I have also seen the opposite where the workers were almost UNoffendable.
The template I think that Mr Schippert applies is the we cannot win any conflict without winning hearts and minds. There are loads of leftover templates from the Vietnam war that are casually applied to the current war declared by the Jihadis that is one.
The other is the template that violence and such are the offshoots of poverty, In other words if we want to end terrorism we must first end poverty, which UNneccessarily confuses the issues, and complicates them to make them essentially UNdoable.
The best way to end miscommunication is not by ceasing to communicate but to make sure the people you are communicating with are actually hearing what is said, which is valuable in personal relations but in todays modern adversarial culture is UNlikely. Our adversarial culture would rather paint one side as being all sweetness and light and the other side as being the embodiment of every evil ever invented.
Traeh wrote, "I'm not sure I agree with the argument I made in my 4:11 pm comment above, by the way. I'm just trying to think about this."
It is a good exercise, to do so requires being able to construct logical arguments, I have not been on this site very long so I will take your point that it is not all Jihad related, I do remember reading one thread some time ago about Muslims in an Iraqi neighborhood who were anxious for their former Christian neighbors to return, which was a positive in my opinion, it might have been on the dhimmi side which would be more apropos.
"Oh, the "tone" again.
Apparently, speaking the truth has an inherent offensive "tone" to it, unlike the blatant offense of accusing someone for words they didn't actually say."
I think he was referring to the fact that Mr. Spencer kept referring to him by his first name, which can sound patronising at times. Still, there's no doubt who won that debate.
Mr. Schippert reveals more about himself than he realizes. Though not quite a fool, he is still off the mark enough that Lincoln's remark about it being better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and leave no doubt is still a maxim Mr. Schippert might do well to ponder.
Seems to me most of the issue is over quoting the Qur'an. If quoting the Qur'an is considered attacking Islam then I'd say any rational discussion about Islam is virtually impossible. If the reason for westerners engaging in discussions about Islam is to try to integrate it into western culture the purpose is already lost if we can not bring up the Qur'an and the offensive behavior of Muslims against minorities in Islamic lands. The weight of evidence isn't upon us to hobble our debate by avoiding things that might offend Muslims, if you are a Muslim and quoting the Qur'an offends you maybe you should become an apostate.
Does anybody know if Nancy Kobrin's book has been published? What is the latest on that? I thought she contributed some important insights into the roots of Islamic violence....the brutalisation, abuse and indoctrination of children from birth, the terror of female sexuality and indeed hatred of the feminine in Islam and the terror of these truths taht lies behind the 'scolding' and invective from the dhimmi deniers. Her comments provide a refreshing change of perspective, a psychological appraisal of the Islamic/totalitarian mindset and a deeper examination of the fear that drives it. Could this lead to another unpublished volume: 'Mohammed: A Case Study' I hope so.
Schippert has it exactly wrong, and wrong in two ways.
First, the most important audience, at this point, consists not of Muslims but of Infidels. It is they who must learn about Islam, learn about its doctrine, and about its practice, through time and across space. Once they have thoroughly assimilated this, and cannot be confused or fooled, they will be in a position to see, and to explain, that the failures of Islamic states and societies (as in Iraq, despite the best efforts of those eternally optimistic Americans), politica, economic, social, moral, and intellectual, are a result not of anything from outside, not of anything done or not done by Infidels, but a result of the nature of Islam itself, and what it inculcates, and what it discourages or punishes.
And once that understanding has been achieved by Infidels, at a level close to that achieved by the most articulate apostates, then Muslims in Dar al-Islam and in the Lands of the Infidels (as so many Muslims think of the, to them, scarcely-to-be-distinguished Infidel nation-states), will be forced to recognize the validity of the charges, or at least have a difficult time ignoring them, and many will be demoralized, lose their elan vital, and cease to be such an aggressive threat, while still others, especially non-Arab Muslims who may be encouraged to recognize Islam as a vehicle for Arab imperialism, will jettison Islam altogether. Why should they stick with it, after all? What has it done for them, during the last thousand years?
"Finally, Mr. Schippert never specifies what it is about my "tone" that he thinks "reasonable Muslims" will find so offensive."
---------------------------------
Probably the part where you indicate you don't think everybody else in the world should have to accommodate Islam on Islam's terms (ie - establishment of the new Caliphate) ?
I understand true Muslims grit their teeth (or worse) at insolence like that...
The Bible states that 'man will follow great deceivers and will be so use to deception that they will be unable to recognize truth'.
Is that the problem we are having right now? The truth 'looks' and 'sounds' confusing.
Ethoman, it is not only the resistance to quoting from the Koran, it is also the resistance by Westerners to accept the constant of 1400 years of Islamic jihad, which cannot be separated from the Koranic teachings and the sunnah.
The falsehood and distortions of our own history teachings, the bizarre, suicidal blame on our own society, the crusades which were defensive wars, the inquisition (which, as deplorable as it may be, was mostly a reaction to the 800 years of Muslim atrocities on the people of Spain) all that has to be understood in context.
Plus there is still the insistence that everything that's wrong in the world is somehow our fault and that we have to make up for colonialism, imperialism, capitalism or heaven knows what. Our own way of thinking has become heavily polluted by PC and multiculti-diversity nonsense.
Fundamental changes are needed here.
An authority should speak in an authoritative tone.
Knowledge runs down hill, which is why there was no debate here. Schippert did not bring a debate to the debate, he brought a chip on his shoulder as someone above pointed out.
I find it amusing that he would chastise someone for tone when his own reflects a serious ego problem.
Roobart Sbunsar:
Just what are you trying to do? I didn't refer to him by his first name even once. Are you a complete fool who is unable to read, or a malevolent smear artist?
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
I wonder, though, if Jihad Watch makes essentially a little too many obligatory “of courses” that the less diplomatic Mark Steyn refers to in his important “America Alone”:
“Of course, not all Muslims support terrorist- though enough are fir hot jihad to provide an impressive support network or mosques from Vienna to Stockholm to Toronto to Seattle. Of course, not all Muslims support terrorists- though enough of them share their basic objectives (the wish to live under Islamic law in Europe and North America) to function wittingly or otherwise as the “good cop” end of an Islamic good cop/bad cop routine.”
As the Muslim demographic starts to really dominate block voting and hence politics, it will be - as is usual in societies undergoing some sort of social revolution - the more militantly ideological types that wind up steering the course. In other words, don’t make too much of the existence of the presumed “moderate” Muslim majority. It won’t protect our offspring, our civilization or us. The only hope is to diminish the Muslim population as such, which why I advocate a ban on Muslim immigration and an all out ideological warfare against Islam itself. It’s really a pretty flimsy 7th century con that won’t stand up to much intelligent assault, which is why IMO you see such idiotic hysteria over something like cartoons or Muhammad teddy bears.
FM: You wrote above that you advocate "an all out ideological war against Islam itself." I'm very sympathetic here along with your suggestion of banning Muslim immigration (which many others who post regularly at JW have advocated as well). But here's my question to you should you care to respond: Are you still prepared to work with some Muslims against others? For instance, should America and its allies continue to support the Kurdish population in Iraq, and if so, to what extent? As another example, how much should Muslims already here in America be consulted, litened to, worked with? Or should all Muslims be shunned? What would be the optimum course of action, as you see it, that the West should take in the immediate years before us?
re; Roobart
"Are you a complete fool who is unable to read, or a malevolent smear artist?"
I vote for both.
Wellington, FM
To properly answer the question we need to come up with at least one benefit of having Islam integrated into our society. Every move has risks, what is the possible up side vs possible downside? Every proper analysis must evaluate possible risks against possible gains.
-Upside: Muslims get to move to a nice place to live, and find a good job if they can get it, or live off of the social welfare system.
-Upside: If you are a Muslim, and you can out breed your host, you may be able to wrest controll of the government and install your own form of gevernment through Democratic means or otherwise.
-Can't think of any other upsides.
-Downside: Possible total destruction of your civilization, and subjugation of all your descendents.
Anyone got anything else?
Here's an analog that might help explain why this issue comes up over and over, and why this "misunderstanding" hits seemingly otherwise intelligent people.
Imagine the process of a mother deciding how to tell her child that his father has been put in prison for a terrible crime. The father's guilt was not contested. That's not in dispute.
The child's old enough to know that his dad wasn't perfect. Maybe dad had yelled at him quite a bit, maybe even punished him a bit too harshly a few times--maybe that shove against the wall really scared him. But it's his dad. It sure is hard to accept that a figure so important to his heritage, so important to who he (the child) is and how he defines himself, could have done something so wrong--that his dad could have such fundamental flaws.
There is a whole industry of psychologists and counselors whose job is it to help children deal with the heavy burden of having parents in prison. The facts to be communicated are not in dispute. Lies should not replace the facts. But that's not to say there aren't better or worse theories about how to reveal the truth, and--ultimately--how to help that child best overcome this strong headwind, to lead a normal, crime-free life.
Thoughts?
kamala, that's an interesting analogy.
I suppose there's room for a variety of approaches to communicating the facts about Islam. After all, there are so many different kinds of audience. Spencer, at least rhetorically, appeals frequently to the need for reform in Islam. By contrast Ali Sina's rhetoric presents Islamic reform as a hopeless goal, like seeking to reform Nazism. Sina's goal is to get Muslims to leave Islam. Daniel Pipes, whose position apparently does not differ in substance from that of Robert Spencer, nevertheless sounds somehow a bit more optimistic than Spencer about the potentials for Islamic reform, or seems somehow less negative toward Islam.
Despite the different approaches, the three men are allies and are all doing essential work suited to various audiences.
OT
traeh - you did your big mailout of "Religion of Peace?"? How did it go? Feedback, please!
There is no doubt in my Mind about Mr Spencer's knowledge and conviction is enough to put even a Muslim back on their Heels.
It is one thing to use Scripture to prove the the fundamental problem/Root cause. It is another matter to apply it for the desired Goals.
What is the Goal and who is the Audience ?
Some People need to stop Tap Dancing around Egg Shells so that others can sweep them off the Floor.
And to continue the analogy:
It's not hard to imagine that child getting defensive, angry, or evasive when confronted by someone who tells him his dad has done awful things, someone who doesn't know what a "good guy, deep down" his dad really is. Perhaps the child might even lie about what his father had done.
dumbledoresarmy:
I'm waiting till January and then I'll be checking with all the volunteers about what feedback they received from senators and reps. We sent out not only 100+ copies of Robert's latest book, but also over 60 copies of the DVD Islam: What the West Needs to Know.
One bit of feedback: Roger Hedgecock, who sometimes sits in for Rush Limbaugh, did a radio interview with me (on KOGO, a San Diego station) about the Jihad Awareness Project.
Allah must have loved stupid people, because he created so goddamned many of them.
(Paraphrase of Abe.)
Schippert thinks that by reporting accurately the words of the Koran and the Hadiths and decrying the claims of the jihadists who use these "holy" texts, verbatim, to foster Islamic terrorism, that this somehow "pushes always moderate Muslims".
If so, then they ain't very moderate, buster.
And perhaps should push off.
Back to Mecca.
To learn some humanity.
And decency.
And humility.
And rationality
And intellectual integrity.
Who needs their passive mealymouthings in the face of a militant global deathcult?
kamala: I believe the flaw in your analogy is that you can't make your father not your father but you can make your religion your religion no longer. Huge difference here I would contend.
@kamala
I did not read how the child was finally told were his dad was. Did I miss something?
I know we can't take analogies to far but I take it that even though dad is a convicted criminal he is a good man (in the boys eye). If that is true then are you saying that Islam is good inside in regard to the moderate Muslim?
If while talking to a moderate Muslim you are telling him that his core values and beliefs are wrong you need to offer something to replace it. That is why I say, at the heart if it this is a spiritual war. Not a religious war, although some will think both words are the same. Unfortunately the west is willfully ignorant or offer weak or just as perverse alternatives. As wick as Islam is these people are proud of their spiritually. Something much better must be offered.
The Christian message is the best thing to offer the questioning Muslim. It is far superior in all ways to Islam. Muslims are just like all other men they are sinners. Their whole twisted POV is to get into heaven. When you ask them, do you know for sure that you well get there, they answer they do not know. The Christian massage is that you can know.
I am not wishing this be the start of a back and forth merits of Christianity because Islam is the subject. For the record however I would say freedom, life, liberty and any other virtues that you can think of are a result of Christ's influence through the centuries by his followers. Just as we all agree that Islam has the record of evil, deception, murder and all other vices.
I John 5:13
These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life ...
أنا يوحنا 5:13
هذه الأشياء وقد كتبت اليكم الذين يؤمنون باسم ابن الله ، بحيث يمكنك ان تعرف ان لديك حياة ابدية ...
Wellington writes:
Sure. In theory. Yet to "make your religion your religion no longer" has always been hard for Muslims. Muhammad made sure of it. So psychologically, the impact/effect may be just as difficult as "disowning" one's father.
Im.mad writes:
The point I was making isn't that there's one right way to tell the child. It's that figuring out the right way to tell the child is the hard and important part, rather than arguing whether or not the father committed the crime or whether the father has some--maybe even lots of--good in him.
I'm saying that a boy will always have a strong loyalty to his father, and perhaps only want to see the "good," even if there's lots of "bad."
Traeh,
Great work!
@kamala
Thanks, yes I would agree how best to tell the child is the hard part. But as you replied to Wellington the hard part is talking to a Muslim so he would consider what I stated as an better and alternate to Islam. This would appear as an impossible task but I am speaking of things that are greater than men. That is the mystery.
I know of men and women who are Christians working in Islamic countries and they are showing and convincing them of the better way. If this country would stop the multicultural nonsense and not worry about offending and boast how (what is obvious) we have been so bless by God. We would be turning the spiritual corner.
John 6:44
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;...
يوحنا 6:44
لا احد يستطيع ان يأتي الى ما لم يكن لي الآب الذي أرسل لي تلفت إليه ؛...
kamala: I see your point, the psychological factor and all that, but nonetheless one is still faced with an impossibility versus a possibility. And I'm not all that sympathetic here with the Muslim that can't see his or her faith is fundamentally flawed. Shouldn't be that hard to see. Hell, Islam's got rot written all over it. In the final analysis I'm rather cold to the suggestion that a believer in any warped ideology is to be thought of as some kind of victim because he or she can't assert their humanity and common sense over an invidious belief system. Would you use the same argument to have exculpated Nazi Youth members who grew up to be part of the Waffen SS?
Khaybar Oasis, thank you.
Kamala,
How would one approach a member of the Ku Klux Klan? Gently I suppose, so as not to offend him or drive him away?
Wellington -
Since you asked, the answer to your question is no, I won’t actively work with anyone who believes he is a ” Muslim” because I don’t think there should be any Muslims. Why should I trust anyone who believes the Koran commands not to be friends with anyone but Muslims and to subdue the infidel who is doomed to hell and the “worst of creatures” if they don’t convert? There simply is no excuse for an intelligent educated person living in the West to be a Muslim – it just too ridiculous & obvious a 7th century con. But I see too few real ideological warriors against this cult (like Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina, Ayaan Ali, Sam Harris and some others) who go after the militant theology and ideology itself, not just report about how atrocious the “radicals” are. IMO a thousand of them all over the world are needed - even in politics.
Robert Spencer is not exactly such a warrior – he informs on what the Koran & Hadiths actually say and how they have been widely interpreted by Islamic authorities historically and by terrorists today, and hopes that Islam can be reformed. This is his diplomatic style and he is so good & successful at it I wouldn’t presume to ask him to change. But a large force of ideological warriors IMO in time could cause the fall of Islamic governments and reduce the ummah to a nutty looking mid-east fringe group. Of course I’m aware there are many things acting against the rise of a large force of such anti-Islam warriors but I hope to live to see at least a much better start than what we have today.
I read the exchange. Schippert is being emotional, not logical.
He is responding to the emotions that RS' comments inspire in him, not to the meaning of the words.
He is also having a very hard time with the simple fact that there is plenty in the texts of mohammedanism to justify the behavior of the Iranian police -- and certainly the Iranians seems to see it that way.
What is it with westerners that refuse to accept it when mohammedans assert that they themselves think that mohammedanism demands their excesses?
The mohammedans say so, they grew up in that culture, the books themselves provide plenty of support ... so what's up?
What's so awful about keeping that fact in focus and considering that the mohammedans might have a point to make about their own religion?
FM: Thanks for your response. I'm very sympathetic to the position you have taken because of my great distaste for so much found in the Islamic faith and the wonder of it all that anyone would want to be a Muslim, but for the time being I think America can proceed on the Lincolnesque principle that one can hate the sin without necessarily hating the sinner. It's what I call a divide and conquer strategy. This could change, in which case your approach would be the one I would adopt, although it will present at least as many problems as the one we're pursuing now and I certainly hope we wouldn't go to it before we (and our major allies like Japan) have weaned ourselves off Middle Eastern oil. After all, the major economies of the world are not a negligible factor in this equation. Ah, it's a mess, isn't it, and the mess is entirely due to that creed formulated by that 7th century Arab merchant who had way too much time on his hands.
"Ah, it's a mess, isn't it, and the mess is entirely due to that creed formulated by that 7th century Arab merchant who had way too much time on his hands."
Not entirely--the idiots who have bought his lies are equally to blame.
Hey Roob,
I asked you a question. Why don't you answer it?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019065.php#c482198
re; Roobart
"Are you a complete fool who is unable to read, or a malevolent smear artist?"
I vote for both. ( posted by awake)
Ditto here.
Can we, please, have the votes of the rest of the assembly?
Roobart is a Jerk.
His intelligence makes him a bigger pain in the a** than your garden variety – but he is still a jerk.
"Can we, please, have the votes of the rest of the assembly?"
I vote yes! Roob is both a fool and a smear artist, and he's also a coward. Notice how he 's "deliberately" avoiding Roberts question, and only a chicken would do that. Guess Robert has his number.
"His intelligence makes him a bigger pain in the a** than your garden variety"
Posted by: Davegreybeard at December 8, 2007 7:56 PM
Intelligence, or lack of? Methinks you give him way too much credit in this regard.
I concur with "thomas h". In light of the fact that Roobart's endlessly erroneous statements, have now drawn the direct ire of Robert, and for good reason, I suggest all of us here in the JW/DW community take this opportunity to weigh in, and as I expect, to "pile on".
Roobart was revealed here to be the very same as the one under the previously banned moniker, "GetBornAgain". I am all but sure that most of you know that by now, but just in case you don't, I am more than happy to provide the ugly specifics, provided below:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017928.php
This willfully disruptive, narcissistic ass-hat deperately needs to be shown the door, again.
I encourage all to do their part.
"This willfully disruptive, narcissistic ass-hat deperately needs to be shown the door, again."
You know what the saddest thing is, awake? The countless minutes (if not hours) you've spent here typing all this drivel, trying to turn everyone against me (not much of an accomplishment--you're preaching to the choir, buddy)--those are hours of your life you'll never get back. And you've wasted them on ME.
Now, doesn't that just grind you up inside?
As for the "question" (are you gonna ask it a hundred more times, or are you actually gonna say something original for once?): I was under the impression that Mr. Spencer addressed his opponent the same way he addresses all his opponents: disrespectfully and in a patronising manner. If this was not the case here (an extremely unlikely scenario, given his history with the likes of Khaleel Mohammed), my apologies.
...no offense to anyone, but I'm not gonna lose any sleep over what conservatives think about me. You'd be more productive talking to a wall. The wall, at least, can't argue back, can it?
Robert,
Those misunderstanders MUST be DOLTS all!
Your writing is clear as day,
imaginary reading is their favorite stonewall
they just DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU SAY!
*sits back and waits for the ass-kissers to jump to Mr. Spencer's defense*
*actually, scratch that--I have work to do. Will check in later (under another name, should this one be discarded into the rubbish bin).
The fun ain't over--not by a long shot.
P.S. - Imaginary Reading is the "present tense" version
of re-writing history...
Roob:
So let me get this straight: you're now admitting that you have not read this Symposium at all, and made a statement about what I did in it based on what you think that I probably must have done in it?
And then you expect to be taken seriously?
I don't mind disagreement and I can take a lot of abuse, but I don't like liars.
Sir, to be respected is fine, but to be worthy of respect makes it easier. Khaleel Mohammed, as I explained to you before
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018655.php#c468238
...was defaming me and trying to destroy my reputation by spreading falsehoods about my work. Do you think that is behavior worthy of respect? Apparently you do, because now here you have engaged in it also, albeit on a smaller scale.
I don't like banning people, but I don't think you're adding anything valuable to the exchanges here. Goodbye.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
"His intelligence makes him a bigger pain in the a** than your garden variety"
Posted by: Davegreybeard at December 8, 2007 7:56 PM
His what?...his intelligence???
Is that terminally adolescent, inflated ignoramus intelligent?
Do you mean THAT pathetically primitive subintellectual bag full of sloppy leftist graffiti? THAT desperately boring narcissist?
THAT giggling cretin?
Really, if he ever makes it to the "garden variety" it would be to the compost box.
thomas. h --
So, is it safe to say that you won't be cryin' in your egg nog over Roob being banned? :-)
Roobart (he who will never be heard from again here at this site under than moniker) wrote:
"You know what the saddest thing is, awake? The countless minutes (if not hours) you've spent here typing all this drivel, trying to turn everyone against me (not much of an accomplishment--you're preaching to the choir, buddy)--those are hours of your life you'll never get back. And you've wasted them on ME."
Roobart has done that all by himself. All I have left to say is:
"Buh-bye!"
Now that was a worthwhile "waste" of another two minutes of my life.
awake - check out Erich's blog - I think you'll appreciate his lastest entry!
Thanks, Champ.