| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
I was recently invited to speak about Islam and terrorism to a group in the Northeast. This afternoon, however, I received a call from a leader of the group; it seems that someone (he wouldn't tell me who) had told the group that I was "anti-Muslim," and therefore should not address his organization. He asked me what I would say if I did speak to the group. I told him that in my work I exposed how jihad terrorists used core Islamic texts to justify their actions and recruit more terrorists, and it was the great challenge for those who identified themselves as peaceful or moderate Muslims to confront the elements of these texts that give rise to violence and repudiate them, not to deny that these elements exist as so many do today. Both Muslims and non-Muslims, I told him, had to confront these elements of Islam and come up with constructive ways to deal with them, or jihad violence will only continue and increase.
I was disinvited to speak to the group.
This got me thinking, however, about the larger question: am I indeed, and is the entire Jihad Watch enterprise, "anti-Muslim"? Of course the jihadists and their allies would say yes: charges like these have become an oft-used tool in the arsenal of American Muslim advocacy groups (such as the one that has never explained the curious lacunae in its anti-terror condemnations, or why so many of its officials have been arrested on terrorist charges), who have fully grasped the principle that the worst thing one can be in American society and public discourse is a bigot. If they can tar their opponents with this brush, they can prevent many people of good will from considering what they have to say. They have used this effective little bit of mudslinging not only against me but against others such as Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson. But that doesn't make it true.
A key problem here is the fuzziness of the term itself. What does it mean, in the first place, to be "anti-Muslim"? Does it mean to hate all Muslims, and wish them ill? Then I am most emphatically not anti-Muslim. But for many in the American public sphere, some of whom I have tangled with publicly but most of whom are content with behind-the-scenes backbiting (I recently received a misdirected email from a somewhat prominent writer consigning me and another author on these topics to the "fringe," and I have heard other dire stories), one can earn the "anti-Muslim" tag simply by daring to speak about the roots of Islam violence in the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Islamic jurisprudence.
But in reality, these are matters of fact. The facts are not really "pro-" or "anti-" anything; they are just the facts. If it is anti-Muslim to speak of them, so be it; but I don't really think it is. If jihadists use the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Islamic law to justify their violence, and I explain how they do it, I do not become anti-Muslim, any more than a scholar of the Hitler period becomes a Nazi if he writes about how the Nazis appealed to ordinary Germans. Contrary to the belief of many analysts today, it does the genuine moderate Muslims whom they profess to support no favors to gloss over or ignore these facts -- the Qur'an's statements on making war on non-Muslims, or Muhammad's words and actions confirming and expanding upon them. Instead, any sincere Muslim reformers must be encouraged to speak openly about those elements of Islam, and to reject them as having any applicability in the modern world. No reform can come when everyone is pretending that no reform is necessary. You cannot fix what you will not admit is broken.
Am I "anti-Muslim"? Some time ago here at Jihad Watch I had an exchange with an English convert to Islam, who signed his name "Yusuf Smith Indigo Jo)." I said: "I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc." Is all that "anti-Muslim"? Yusuf Smith thought so. He responded: "So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims."
In other words, he saw a call for equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies, including freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, and equal employment opportunities, as a challenge to his religion. To the extent that they are, these facts have to be confronted by both Muslims and non-Muslims. But I make no apologies: it is not "anti-Muslim" to wish freedom of conscience and equality of rights on the Islamic world -- quite the contrary.
In any case, my disinvitation today is evidence of a deeper problem: a laziness of thought in American public discourse, and too much of a willingness to exchange sloganeering and button-pushing for fact. If the things I say cannot be said and must not be heard, so much the worse for all of us if they are in fact true.
Posted by Robert at October 19, 2005 3:53 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Tell us who disinvited you, so we can all be sure to disinvite them.
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 19, 2005 4:37 PM
Bomfoggery -- Brotherhood-of-Man-Fatherhood-of-God stuff -- is not in my line. And it certainly can't be in the line of those whose duty it is to instruct (well, they seem incapable of that, so we'll all fill in for them) and protect us (one hopes they can do that). Harder, harsher attitudes, I'm afraid, a desire that they themselves confront, instead of hiding behind silence or taqiyya, or thinking it is enough that they themselves do not share those views, are merely "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims, or filiopietistic "cultural Muslims" who will not "betray" as they see it, that kindly grandfather or uncle who was so pious, and so kind withal. No, won't do. Not any more. Not when the mere swelling of Muslim numbers can cause politicians to appease on domestic policy, to fail to act on essential matters (such as Muslim numbers in the Infidel lands, regarded as behind enemy lines), to refashion foreign policy to meet Muslim demands.
No: those who have thought it is enough if, having been made fully aware of what is contained in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, they can privately dismiss most of it, but can continue to defend Islam, or misconstrue it for unwary Infidels, or merely by being so pleasing and acceptable help prolong Infidel confusion, have to decide: Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina, and a cast of tens or hundreds of thousands of apostates who represent the most intellectually and morally aware of those born into Islam, or -- the others. As "moderation" can always metamorphose into "immoderation" Infidels should not be expected to base their own security, and customs, and laws, on the permanence of "moderation" when there are so many examples of the contrary.
This is not cruel. This is the most obvious kind of self-defense. If it displeases some, too bad.
Posted by: Hugh at October 19, 2005 4:47 PM
In the vein of "love the sinner, hate the sin", why not say love the Muslims but hate much of Islam?
If Islam were just the 5 pillars- what would be not to like (or at least tolerate) about professing faith in one God, going on pilgrimage, praying five times a day, fasting, and giving alms?
It's all the other stuff we do not like at all, in fact, we are ANTI- all the other stuff, we HATE the other stuff and we will fight it until our last breath.
Posted by: miasarx at October 19, 2005 4:48 PM
On the logical equivalence of quotation and defamation:
If one quotes certain passages from the Qur'an and Sunnah, one defames Islam. If one defames Islam, one is 'anti-Muslim'. Therefore, if one quotes certain passages from the Qur'an and Sunnah, one is 'anti-Muslim'.
It follows logically that if one is not 'anti-Muslim', then one does not quote certain passages from the Qur'an and Sunnah.
Also, if one is 'anti-Muslim', one should not be invited to speak to a group about Islam. And, if one quotes certain passages from the Qur'an and Sunnah, one is 'anti-Muslim'. Therefore, if one quotes certain passages from the Qur'an and Sunnah, one should not be invited to speak to a group about Islam.
And, hence, it also follows that if one should be invited to speak to a group about Islam, one should not quote certain passages from the Qur'an and Sunnah.
And so it goes.
at October 19, 2005 5:01 PM
RS - Keep up the good work. It is not being anti-Muslim to speak the truth, a truth that is plain as the nose on our face. The lessons of history and current events are speaking to us now about the inherent dangers of certain tenets of Islam that disdain all non-Muslims and certain of their co-religionists.
Muslims would have us remain silent, accept our fate without protest. This I will not do. Your work is not Islamophobia or tarring all Muslims with the same brush. You point out that you wish for a flowering of Islam. Some of us believe that this "flowering" will have a negative result as what we see happening in Nigeria, Darfur and other places where Islam is on the move, that it is only wishful thinking. I will will lose skepticism when and if a "flowering" of Islam does not have a deletorious effect.
Please do not give up your work. It is so very important. Those that speak the truth are often labeled because often the truth is unwelcome. Nevertheless it should told.
Posted by: epg at October 19, 2005 5:03 PM
One of the above conditionals requires and conjunction in the antecedent. "If one quotes certain passages from the Qur'an and Sunnah, and one is an Infidel, then one is anti-Muslim."
Muslims would not be considered anti-Muslim, of course, if they quoted these same texts; this appears to be very anti-anti-Muslim to me.
Posted by: JTF at October 19, 2005 5:08 PM
Re: "American Muslim advocacy groups ........ , who have fully grasped the principle that the worst thing one can be in American society and public discourse is a bigot. If they can tar their opponents with this brush, they can prevent many people of good will from considering what they have to say."
Too bad that some form of Godwin's Law doesn't apply to public discourse and not just to discussion groups on the internet.
Godwin's Law (to those who haven't heard of it) states:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
Additionally: "There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Substitute bigot for Nazi and there you have it.
Posted by: johnb at October 19, 2005 5:10 PM
These groups want to flee from the truth
Posted by: Franze at October 19, 2005 5:14 PM
..and fears about allowing Turkey into the EU are
"..tinged with racism.." and.."..a form of "ethnic cleansing.." according to seattle times oped by Taso Lagos..(oct 19)
"Fears about hordes of Muslims spreading around Europe are tinged with racism. It is ironic, since Turkey has a history of relative tolerance toward other religions; Turkey probably could teach the EU something about religious diversity."
"Recent European history hints of the emergence of the continent's darker side again, the one of pogroms and ethnic cleansing. Isn't keeping the Muslims out of Europe a form of "ethnic cleansing"?
"Turkey's record with its own people, however, does not help its cause. The slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians beginning in 1915 in Ottoman Turkey and ongoing skirmishes with its Kurdish minority, not to mention three brutal military dictatorships in the past 50 years, leave Turkey looking less modern than its slick travel brochures indicate."
"Admission into the EU might help Turkey erase this unsavory image and plan a more peaceful road ahead."
So, if you think keeping hordes of muslims out of Europe might be a good idea..BOO!!! you are a
racist supporter of ethnic cleansing.
at October 19, 2005 5:15 PM
I've always believed that Robert Spencer is anti-Islam, but not anti-Muslim.
I say this because, as much as he tries to avoid ugly confrontation, sticking to the facts of Islam is to forthrightly condemn it. As a good lawyer would put it, if Islam were a case it would be said to have "bad facts." Very bad.
And therein lies the problem. Islam is so bad, and so dangerous that, despite Mr. Spencer's best efforts at equanimity (and he's really good at it), it is inevitable that he be consigned to the fringes. How can a George Will or a Bill O'Reilly bluntly state the factual truth about Islam? First, doing so would not only cost them millions, it'd destroy their credibility. Second, they and their loved ones would be put into danger of immediate physical harm (as we know, killing critics is another charm of Islam).
That's why you gotta love and cherish our anti-Dhimmitude intellectuals. They're not only donig our dirty work, they're putting their lives at risk. It's incumbent on all of us to buy their books and donate to their operations.
I believe the regrettable Yusuf Smith is right. The notion that Islam can be reformed is badly mistaken, because how can one moderate a belief system that is immoderate from its foundation on up? Truly reform Islam and you'd be left with an empty shell.
A more viable option is to deprogram (and thereby de-claw) the cult. No easy feat, but it could be done by spraying them down with their myriad BAD FACTS much like you treat a sexually transmitted disease with a fat dose penicillin.
The way to avoid relegation to the fringe -- and, more importantly, to ineffectuality -- is to bypass our authority figures and take the FACTUAL CASE directly to the infidel population via mass media.
Islam is so bad that going through the normal channels just won't work. Ever. Even, IMHO, after the Big One hits, which may be soon.
Groundwork laying is fine; but excising infectous sores is a higher priority at this critical juncture.
Posted by: Shaughn at October 19, 2005 5:31 PM
"Muslims would not be considered anti-Muslim, of course, if they quoted these same texts; this appears to be very anti-anti-Muslim to me."
-- posted by JTF
It's not anti-Moslem, it's very pro-Moslem, because unutterable hypocrisy is a quintessentially Moslem trait. In fact, it's one the the pistons in the engine that powers the Islamic Self-Perpetuation Machine that threatens us all.
Another piston in the motor, as someone noted yesterday, is that the practice of Islam leaves Moslems angry and with a sense of injustice.
Posted by: Shaughn at October 19, 2005 5:52 PM
I was recently invited to speak about Islam and terrorism to a group in the Northeast.
What do they expect? I guess the group was prepared to hear the "tiny minority" speech. The WOT will not be won until we learn to face the truth. It is funny how muslims don't worry one little bit about being perceived as anti-semitic or anti-infidel, they just announce to the world what they intend to do and our people refuse to believe them.
at October 19, 2005 5:56 PM
Very well said Shaughn.
I'll admit it, I'm anti-Islam right down to my marrow.
I'm also capable of appreciating and enjoying the company of individual Muslims.
I once had a Muslim neighbor. This guy had lived in the states since the 60s. He seemed as American as apple pie. I always thought of him as one of the "good guys." We joked around as neighbors do. I'd get his mail when he went out of town.
One day we got to talking in depth about geo-politics. Turns out this Muslim who was as 'American as apple pie' believed that the Iraqi War was part of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the Middle East "from the Nile to the Euphratees."
When I pointed out that Israel has actually been contracting in size ever since Camp David, he shrugged it off.
I have to admit, it was eye-opening for me. He had intended to apply for a job at Homeland Security as a translator and had asked me to give him a reference. After that conversation, he never brought it up again.
at October 19, 2005 5:58 PM
Sorry, but islam sux!
http://www.rawa.org/handcut3.htm
Posted by: otterfisher at October 19, 2005 6:17 PM
The Moslem neighbor story prompted me to think about the brainwashing powers of Islam.
There's a good piece over at 6thColumnAgainstIslam.com that discusses this. I mean, some of their beliefs are so untenable that it's left to be explained how they can buy into this crap. Brainwashing!
Posted by: Shaughn at October 19, 2005 6:26 PM
Liberty and Culture, an excellent blog has some useful thoughts on this matter.
As I said in the comments box there, I believe that there is an emotional fogginess about Islam that persists long after one sees it logically for what it is. For would-be apostates from Islam, those with family ties, the conflict must be acute. Even for those like me who only have fond memories of travel to Muslim countries, Muslim friends and colleagues, it is very difficult to see Muslims as the enemy. It is very easy to see Islam as the enemy, however, and it is Muslims, even kind, peaceful ones, that are transmitters of Islam. Many Muslims, including close friends genuinely believe Islam is just the five pillars and that Mohammed was a Jesus-Ghandi-Buddha. They are not a problem, but their children, whom I have held and read to, may be when they grow up and find Islam-lite is not enough.
Is there an alternative to all out war? Perhaps. If emphasis is placed on Islam as a political ideology, which it is much more than it is a religion, this could polarise Muslims into those who believe Islam-lite and those true Muslims who follow in the path of Mohammed, the first 'Islamist'/political Muslim/'hijacker' of Islam. Political ideologies can be questioned in the West, while questioning religion is taboo.
For those who choose the true Islam, a subversive political ideology, there should be no holding back - even from repatriation/expulsion. Those who practise Islam-lite will need to be regulated, as in Turkey, Singapore, or - correct me if I'm wrong - Tunisia.
Posted by: Interested at October 19, 2005 6:29 PM
from BBC oct19
..a poll by a Turkish university..".. questioned 430 people, most of them men. When asked the appropriate punishment for a woman who has committed adultery, 37% replied she should be killed."
"Twenty-five percent said that she deserved divorce, and 21% that her nose or ears should be cut off. "
yeh..the EU needs this cretinous bunch in its midst.
Posted by: otterfisher at October 19, 2005 6:39 PM
Truth is anti-Lie.
So if telling the truth is anti-muhammedan
Then muhammadanism must be a lie (and muhammadans liars)
--------------------------------------------------
Robert might be underestimating the hatred liberals and many non-Christians have of Christianity and Christians.
They would rather join with the enemy and be traitors than side with Christians.
Liberals are anything but liberal.
They are the most fanatical bigots there are, with the exception of muhammadans.
They can not accept Robert's and others' truthful and honest assessments of muhammadanism because Robert and others don't use the liberal interpretation technique. For liberals there is no good or bad anything, Islam or any other religion. They are neutral. There is no absolute truth. All is relative. If something is bad then it is not because islam is bad. It is because of some fanatical non-liberals hijacking the religion.
For them the text is blank.
It is up to the reader to make out what it means.
And since the text is blank and if something is wrong then it is the fault of the reader (the terrorists for example) not the text (Islam).
The terrorists don't buy this line of reasoning and no honest person would either.
--------------------------------------------------
Can you people have a look at this muslim cartoon video clip at and see what you think.
http://www.islamicity.com/IslamiTV/
Go to that address and then when you get there click on "Comedy" and after that click on "Animation". It appears underneath after you click on "Comedy".
Then go to the middle section and go down and click on "Comical Views - Christmas"
South park rip-off of "Ali" making fun of Christimas. Looks like it.
Posted by: Informed Christian at October 19, 2005 6:46 PM
Our society needs to get this near impossible “utopian” view out of its head that “all roads lead to heaven”, that “all are equal” and that any form of discrimination is “bad”.
It is not wrong to discriminate between good and bad, right and wrong. If Islam has a little bit of good in it (which it does) that’s great, but we cannot ignore the huge amount of bad in it. These things in a democracy should be debated, and if they cannot be debated because Muslims take offence (or kill us - see the Dutch example), then the alarm bells should be ringing all over.
PS On the news last night I saw that the Arabs now have a version of “The Simpson’s” where Homer no longer eats bacon, drinks beer – along with other changes to the original. Surely these little things in itself should warn of the looming danger facing the West with increased Islamic immigration? That we have to change for them?
at October 19, 2005 6:52 PM
I looked up Robert Spencer. Somehow I missed the bigot, the racist, the fringe character. Maybe I should have checked stormfront for that or jihadunspun.
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Robert_Spencer
Posted by: sonofwalker at October 19, 2005 6:58 PM
Arabs now have a version of “The Simpson’s” where Homer no longer eats bacon, drinks beer – along with other changes to the original.
Well, in that case, it's only fair that we should have a version of the Koran, in which Mohammed screws around like a tomcat.
Oh wait...(as they say)
Posted by: Interested at October 19, 2005 7:04 PM
Gates of Vienna has a breakdown of shar'ia ,islamic law
(caution..graphic image)
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2005/04/by-book.html
at October 19, 2005 7:08 PM
I am not surprised. I am reading Mohammadanism by C. Snouck Hurgronje. This was published in 1916. I've only read the first chapter and in this chapter, he goes through the 'scholars' of the 16th to 18th century who first attempted to analyze Islam. Just like today, most were terribly wrong, glorification to vile denunciation, and a few got it right. And that was only in the 19th century that accurate historical studies by a nonMuslim Heidelbur Professor Weil (Mohammed der Prophet) became available after accessing historic Muslim texts previously unavailable. And just like today, the sniping between the 'scholars', 'pseudoscholars' and clowns was intense. Even Voltaire got into the act with his tragedy Mahomet ou le fanatisme, which I think translates to Mohammad the fanatic. C'est la vie.
Posted by: John Sobieski at October 19, 2005 7:25 PM
What is distressing about being labeled or pigeon-holed as "anti-Muslim" is that the stigma it is attaching to this term is very insidiously dangerous--because it implies through the use of the term "anti" there is a problem with the person being labeled. But the term is also misleading isince it fails to explain the REASON behind the view held by the person labeled "anti." All we are told is that the person is "Anti" and, for many that is a major turn-off! Many people hearing the term "anti-muslim" will tune out the "anti-Muslim" person a priori (to their personal detriment...although they wouldn't if they knew it was in their interest NOT to do so).
In the case of Islam there is a very real danger posed to ALL non-Muslims (labeled without their knowledge or consent "infidels")who have been marked for death. How can we tell the public this when we are being labeled "anti"? We can't.
By calling a person who is attempting to warn the public of the danger posed to the general public by Islamic ideology and the people who are trying to force it on the rest of the world the term 'anti' broadcasts a distortion. The person labeled "anti-Muslim" is left unable to do the job of informing the public--because the term is causing prejudice before he can tell anybody anything.
Labeling persons such as Mr. Spencer "anti-Muslim" also fails to explain a critical difference. It is Islamic ideology that is the culprit leading Muslims to commit the atrocities we are trying to help the public avert...NOT the Muslims themselves, most of whom have been lied to and thoroughly brainwashed in their Islamic indoctrination. Being called 'Anti-Muslim" may ensure that people such as Mr. Spencer are unable to tell the public this either. The term, as already stated, has likely already prejudiced many people.
It is very likely that most Muslims if divested of Islamic ideology would be NORMAL people. How can we tell anybody this when we are being called "anti-muslim"? We can't very well.
I think most of us might be OK with being labeled "anti-Islam"...not 'anti-Muslim.' But as stated labels generally don't help anybody who has something to tell the public.
Posted by: pythagoras at October 19, 2005 7:56 PM
How sad it is to think that if one believes that one's culture is superior, and if one doesn't wish to have one's culture invaded by primitives who would degrade, undermine, and destroy one's culture, in essence, if one believes in keeping one's culture "clean" from the dark malignant influences of Islamic fascism, clitorectomies, sharia head chopping, hand sawing, toungu slicing, then one is guilty of "ethnic cleansing..."
What a sick perversion of the term.
What a grotesque distortion of the notion of self preservation.
George Orwell, move over -- Islam had this stuff figured out over a thousand years ago -- and now the leftist fantasist filth is doing its best to make the dominion of Islam-uber-alles into a reality...
Sick
Posted by: jsla at October 19, 2005 7:58 PM
I'm so glad to see John Sobeski here. Those of you who haven't read Pedestrian Infidel are in for a treat:
http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/ ">PedstrianInfidel
As for being anti-Islamist, I sure am. We've been covering Jamaat al-Fuqa, and find they're right in our back yard. It's scary to speak up --these are nasty dudes, connected to the guy who had Daniel Pearl killed. And they live down the road away in a compound where the girls don't go to shcool.
Here's our first-hand account of the compound where supposedly the Beltway Sniper went for refuge between rampages. The Baron went down to see for himself:
Jamaat-ul-Fuqra in Virginia, Part I
They're all over the country. Look in some of the comments for more information.
at October 19, 2005 7:58 PM
Anti-Nazi = Anti German? Same thing, right.
Does this mean had Robert been speaking about the danger of child molestors that he would possibly be called not only sexist but racist if one or more child molestors were black, mexican or...?
In our multiculrural society only white Europeans can be publicly accused because they're bad, bad, bad. Even if blacks kill whites and say they did so because they hate white people, it won't be heard on our media.
According to the mostly "thoughtful" people in our society, it' wrong to say terrorism is perpetrated by mosly Muslims. Even though we read that in every country where people are being blown up and beheaded, raped and stoned Muslims are responsible.
Political correctness is really a wink to people, as if to say, You know I'm lying but lets pretend I'm not...
Posted by: Kemaste at October 19, 2005 8:22 PM
Thanks for the link otterfisher
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com
They had this notice posted:
October 11, 2005
NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing on
“Saudi Arabia: Friend or Foe in the War on Terror?”
for Tuesday, October 25, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 226
of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.
By order of the Chairman
Will Robert and Hugh be commenting on the outcome?
Posted by: lonely_soul at October 19, 2005 8:28 PM
That's alright, RS. We have your back.
What a shame it is that so many in this great country have become sissified, Brady Bunch versions of themselves.
Millions know about Islam. Multitudes. So those who want to stick their heads in the sand will have a sandal across their asses first.
Shame on them for that, not you.
What was that famous saying in I think it was "Cool Hand Luke"
"Some men, you just can't reach."
Plenty more want to know....so we move forward.
Posted by: DCWatson at October 19, 2005 8:41 PM
Groups like this will be the first to accept dhimmitude. They do not want to hear anything that might "upset" them and their preconceived beliefs that all religions are inherrently the same, good and "just another path to God", but will gladly put on the chains of slavery in order to have "peace". They will gladly accept "protection" under an Islamic state and pay protection money to get it, like the pitiful sheep they are. Good thing you didn't waste your time speaking to them. Don't cast your pearls before swine.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at October 19, 2005 8:42 PM
Islam, Muslims, Jihad ideology
= Islamic ideology = warfare against infidels and Jews.
Islam cannot spread without Muslims.
ISLAM, MUSLIMS, JIHAD: SAME THING!
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 19, 2005 8:45 PM
Chilling stuff.
British Muslim group declares new jihad
A declaration of war on Britain and the West is continuing to be issued by British Muslims in the United Kingdom, as the pro-jihad message of Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, recently banned from Britain, is echoed by his followers who have remained behind."9/11' was the best thing that happened to the Muslims" - message in the chat room
..“Islam is better than everything and it will rule over the whole world, whether the kuffar likes it or not,” declared Mizaan.
“We should, all of us, glorify the terrorism. And we should incite religious hatred. Don’t worry… it’s not illegal for us to say that mujahadin (jihad fighters) on 9/11, were the magnificent 19, and it’s not illegal for us to say that Mohammad Sidique Khan (the suicide bomber who blew himself up in London) and the four on 7/7 (London attacks), that they were the fantastic four – now we can say so without any worry.”
“We will always glorify killing the kuffar in the name of Allah. To raid the kuffar in the name of Allah. Even if some women and children are caught in the raid by accident. They are part of them, it is not your fault,” said Mizaan.
In fact, we should give them another magnificent day in history. Another fantastic four (the four London suicide bombers). We should hit them time after time, day after day, every single week, every single month, every single year, we should hit them from every side, from the left and the right. From the planes above them, and the trains below them, we should hit them every way we can.”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3156809,00.html
Read it all. It is a clear statement of intent. As I've maintained for a long time, there is no alternative but separation from islam and muslims. If this is not done soon, it will to lead to a civil war in Europe and the US that will make WWII look benign by comparison. Separation is the only humane way forward. It is sad that it has come to this.
Posted by: DP111 at October 19, 2005 8:55 PM
Robert -
Yes, you are 'anti-muslim'. But, I don't think it can be otherwise. You are certainly anti-islam. You cannot be true to yourself if, in addition to opposing islam, you do not also oppose muslims - islam's agents on earth.
Were not the Allies 'anti-Nazi'? Of course. It could not have been otherwise. Moreover, the Allies were anti-German because Germany provided the medium in which the Nazi's prospered.
There can be no war without a taking of sides, Robert. If we do not take sides, we lose. I don't intend to do that.
I don't think you intend to lose, either.
- Havoc
at October 19, 2005 8:59 PM
I think it's perfectly proper to be anti-muslim.
Muslim is not a race, it is not a person, 'muslim' is a title taken by people indulging in a certain belief system.
That belief system ensnares, entraps, enslaves and spiritually harms true believers. Unless ones mentality has already been dulled by Islam,
there is little there to be pro about. Anti-muslim does not necessarily mean hate, although it could, which is why the term is a little confusing. It may be possible to hate the title and all it implys, without hating the person who wears it. Ensnared, entrapped, enslaved (get that, enslaved) and spiritually harmed, muslims as people, are to be pitied unless their behavior dictates otherwise. (Which we have seen in numerous incidents). We have seen the wretchedness of this belief system, we have seen the crippling mental and moral decay comming from the mouths of the leaders, spokesmen and apologists. We see wanton murder and destruction comming from it's very heart, and we see billions of otherwise good people, sucked in by this system, enslaved and basically wrecked.
Is there something here to not be anti about?
at October 19, 2005 9:24 PM
Look, if the koran says thus and so is part of islam and is either expected or required of muslims wishing to be in "good standing"; and you advocate against what the koran teaches; then by definition you are "anti-muslim" in that specific case.
As such, are you a "bigot?" Probably so. Is biggotry wrong? That depends on which political winds are prevailing at the moment.
Damn it man, take a position and stick with it.
Forget about being "painted." Jesus is considered a "bigot" in some circles, so if you truely are a bigot on account of what you are pointing out regarding islam; then I suppose that you are in fairly good company.
Posted by: witness at October 19, 2005 9:28 PM
Why should we not hate the enemy?
They make no beef about it. They want to destroy us by any means.
Seems to me (to hate the enemy without feeling guilty) is something we have yet to learn.
We better learn fast!
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 19, 2005 9:56 PM
To Robert Spencer:
In light of your post today about the disinvitation, I thought that now would be a good time to thank you and the people who put together this excellent website. I've been reading your articles on this site and following the developments on the main sites (jihadwatch and dhimmiwatch) for several months now. I've seen many sites on this issue, but yours are top-notch. I take them in as part of my almost-daily ritual of reading the news. Your site and others make up for the huge gap in coverage on this issue. Not once have I read you saying anything that I would consider anti-Muslim (as in against Muslim people). It has always been clear to me that you are criticizing the violent and intolerant core Islamic doctrines, and those who adhere to them.
Concerns about sharia, censorship, intimidation, terrorist attacks, tyranny, and the culture clashes in Europe, are not uncommon topics at the dinner table, but not much appears in the mainstream news. (I'm Canadian, and also follow American news). Some supposedly educational websites present a "Disney" version of Islam that is misleading and totally unbalanced (e.g., see the CBC's website on Islam, with links to sites sympathetic to Islam and at least one site funded by the Saudis; and there are no links to critical sites for balance). Most people still do not know that terrorist attacks on innocent people are fully in accordance with the core Islamic doctrines. There is some progress being made in getting the message out, but the whole process of education is being impeded by fear and ignorance, often disguised as political correctness.
How does one deal with such disinvitations? Should anything be done differently? As but one reader of this site, I would say keep up what you're doing. The notable weakness I see on the site involves a few of the reckless and juvenile commentators with their posts (e.g., some people actually gloating over the disaster in Pakistan), but I suppose screening all of those would be hugely time-consuming. Maybe someone checking out your site for the first time would see some of those comments and get the wrong idea. (Of course, I've seen worse statements on some mainstream news comment posts).
I think framing the problem of Islamic imperialism as being "not a left versus right wing" issue, as you have done recently, is effective and true, and it is worth repeating when addressing the mainstream media. Koran-based Islam violates women's rights, multi-cultural tolerance, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. It involves aggressive expansionist imperialism. The prophet Mohammad was guilty of numerous abominations that we need not list here. People across the political spectrum should oppose strict Koran-based ideology. Point these things out often enough, and long enough, to the appropriate people, and eventually the message will get through to the majority.
Islamic imperialism, as you know, will be one of the biggest impediments to achieving a satisfactory standard of human rights for the 21st century. Strong arguments, evidence, and moral reasoning can go a long way toward defeating this imperialist, intolerant ideology. Keep up the "good works."
at October 19, 2005 10:12 PM
Hi Archimedes.
I know what you mean about Disney sites. :(
You can visit my (unfinished) site too, and send in ideas: http://www.geocities.com/ibn_rushd2
Posted by: Ibn Rushd at October 19, 2005 10:20 PM
Mr. Spencer and I share the same frustrations. I am an average person with an above average understanding of the insanity that we've invited into the west by Islamic friendly, revisionist history directed at underming our resolve as a Western secular society.
When I discuss Islam with almost everybody, I am confronted with the same nonsense and illogic that has come to typify the state of the western intellectual mind.
Tonight, I attend a long, several part series on Islam and Christanity at a Presybeterian Church on Manhattan'West side. The female minister was well versed in Christian history but not Islamic, though she was surprisingly blunt.
I was glad I was there to clarify her glossing over the whole issue of the treatment of non-Moslems under Islamic subjucation. The term "dhimmitude" to her was not used and not even brought up. One thing I noticed was the the lone Moslem in attendence was very polite and considerate, but quick to point out the "good treatment" of non-Moselms in Islamic conquered lands almost as a matter of blind faith irrespective of the facts.
I of course was more than happy to challenge this view of the dhimmi completely glossed over by both the minister and the Moslem AND the other members of the lecture. It is almost as though dhimmitude is unknown to us here in the West dispite the untold suffering it has cause all non-Moslems consumed in it's path.
I cant wait until next week's meeting...
BTW, the assigned book is by Ron Kerr enhtitled "Christanity and Islam."
Posted by: Anthony at October 19, 2005 10:34 PM
With all due respect, I think Robert Spencer is maintaining a kind of disingenuous ambivalence. The only way out of that, I think, would be for him to clearly articulate one of the following two positions:
1) Optimistic: Islam is not only capable of reform and moderation, but there are substantial numbers of reform-minded Muslim moderates out there: here they are (supply substantial evidence, statistics, and include representative names and organizations). While these reform-minded Muslim moderates may not be a majority in Islam today, there exists a majority of decent though fundamentalist Muslims who, with concerted education, could be persuaded to join a progressive Islam and abandon the regressive Islam of the extremists. The reform-minded Muslim moderates are, minor disagreements aside, on my side, and together we can work toward universally isolating and ostracizing the Muslims who are regressive and extremist and as such threaten not only the West but also non-Western regions all over the world.
2) Pessimistic: Islam is essentially regressive and extremist in nature and there exists only a pitifully small minority of reform-minded Muslim moderates in the world, and most of these reform-minded Muslim moderates are fooling themselves into thinking that Islam is capable of reform, while a tiny handful among them are really actively seeking to alter the essential nature of Islam into something new and friendly toward the modern values of human rights: this leaves, however, hundreds of millions of Muslims all around the globe who are, on various levels, passively or actively enabling and nourishing a lethally regressive supremacist culture that is not only incompatible with the modern values of human rights but presents an escalating threat to our safety.
Part and parcel with this choice I think Robert Spencer should clearly take a stand on, should be his explicit and unambiguous articulation of the definition of a "modern-friendly" Muslim. What are the features of a reform-minded Muslim moderate?
The definition would be different, depending on whether Robert chose #1 or #2 above. A definition under the terms of #1 would presuppose and draw upon an existing reality of reform-minded Muslim moderates out there, with some roots in Islamic tradition and even texts; a definition under the terms of #2 would be more of a hypothetical, hopeful conjecture based upon the input from the "tiny handful" mentioned above.
Of course, untold numbers of Muslims would probably resent and be deeply offended by a non-Muslim critic of Islam defining what a "good Muslim" is. So what? There will be such resentment and offense no matter what Robert Spencer does at this point (short of reverting to Islam).
at October 19, 2005 10:55 PM
I was having a chat with a friend on IM and he referred to the comment of "Islam is not a nice religion" as anti-islamic. In his defense, the OP of that comment should've qualified his statements, but I have this nagging feeling that my friend would've still called it "anti-islamic".
Now, this is a Christian friend with many muslim friends, but I guess he hasn't done his research into the Qu'ranic verses which are quite brutal towards non-believers.
Quite sad actually.
Posted by: Canadian Christian at October 19, 2005 10:56 PM
It is a fundamentalist teaching of Islam that is the problem here. If Christians chose to teach (paraphrased) "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" as giving us license to slaughter Muslims in kind and one chose to oppose that teaching would it mean one was anti-Christian? Or anti-"that teaching"?
Sounds like the whole thing was a set-up to me FWIW.
Posted by: Khepri at October 19, 2005 11:26 PM
Dr. Pepper wrote - "..a tiny handful among them are really actively seeking to alter the essential nature of Islam into something new and friendly.."
Hey Dr., would that be like an attenuated virus - mildly annoying but no longer deadly?
Posted by: Thumper at October 19, 2005 11:40 PM
Dr. Pepper,
People like you really embody what it means to be intrinsically opposite to Islamic civilization, which is why we are succumbing not to MAD from the Soviet Empire, but the patient, relentless march of the faithful of Allah.
You demand more from Mr. Spencer than is even remotely necessary. His position has been staten a hundred times and during that period, Islam has proven itself time and again to be a deadly threat to our (all in its path) civilization, the civilization you use to question the danger they will eventually use to silence you and extingush.
Why not seek less deeper into the smog of Islam as the victim and look at the fruits of Islam wherever it has entrentched itself before you blab/whine about Mr. Spencers desperate, Paul Revere like alerts which reach all too sadly dunderheads like yourself.
Posted by: Anthony at October 19, 2005 11:52 PM
have no idea who the "group" was or what their interest in Islam might be, but their decision to disinvite you to speak based upon one person's assessment that you are "anti-muslim" speaks volumes. Did they replace you with a Karen ARmstrong or Esposito clone?
When people are unreceptive or hostile to ideas, opinions, or even facts that do not resonate their own set of established beliefs, they aren't interested in learning or even considering another point of view. Open minds seem to be a vanishing species. It is so much more self-gratifying, polite, and politically correct to live in denial, welcome the wolves with open arms, and hope they appreciate your magnaminity enough not to eat you.
Such an utter lack of intellectual curiosity is pathetic. Most people attend such functions to gain insight from an expert on a given topic. But these people obviously wanted an Islamic apologist to mimic their own erroneous beliefs about Islam. I am very curious as to why people would go to so much trouble to have their collective ignorance affirmed by an "expert."
No, you are not anti-muslim. You tell the truth about Islam and to many people, that is simply not acceptable because it is controversial and judgmental. Moral judgments are a no-no. If it is controversial, it might create conflict; that's what revisionist history is for. If the ignorant, lower classes learned too much about Islam, they might retaliate against muslims. That would create racial/religious strife and upset the multiculti bandwagon. We can't allow that to happen so it's best to pretend that Islam is a benign religion and muslims are just like everybody else. I don't know how long they think they can hide the truth.
at October 19, 2005 11:53 PM
Thumper,
I was thinking of Muslims like Sayyid al-Qimni of Egypt (who has stopped writing and has "apologized" for his "heresies" because of death threats from Muslims recently). Google him and you'll find some interesting stuff.
Here's an example of what al-Qimni has written:
"While for the Christian it is enough to make the sign of the cross, which only takes one second, the Muslim is required to be a mechanical instrument, performing the same action every day. He is required to go to the mosque five times a day, and is required to constantly read the Koran, and to force himself to weep if he cannot weep, and to spend an entire work day in the mosque. No one can make him work so long as he is reading the Koran and reciting endless supplications and devotions. [Such recitations] accompany his every motion and position, from the moment he gets up at dawn to the moment he retires to the conjugal bed...
"There is a barrier separating the [Muslim's] mind from the real world around him, so that he falls into a state of constant hallucination and, as a result, loses the capacity to distinguish between good and evil. He only recognizes the value of halal and haram [i.e., permissible vs. prohibited] according to the Islamic point of view. Muslims are burdened with many repressive restrictions… Freedom of thought and expression are fenced in by Islamic restrictions…"
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at October 20, 2005 12:05 AM
I'm seeing Islam as the lesser problem as each day goes by, seeing it as a symptom of a greater and more urgent illness in the West. Today, for example, a Spanish judge issued arerest warrants for threee US military men who fired a tank shell at a hotle in Iraq, killing a Spaniard. Such is war, sorry to say. And the war is now becoming increasingly open against not just America but the whole of the Western programme. Or greatest enemies are our own, our dhimmi fascists, our fellow citizens who seem to have bought into anti-Modernity as a personal religion. That religion is what I call fascism. The history of fascism backs me up.
Where do we go from here? We likely go nowhere, most people being so completely passive that they are the drowned, as Primo Levi so nicely puts it. We are doomed to die like cattle, like the passive people Levi says have no names in the camps, those who are dead already. For all the ocassional bluster there are few who will take to the hills of the front-lines to batle the enemy. It's not even personal cowardice that stops them from taking action: it's a built-in inability to move outside the herd. That's a good thing, because think of the chaos if many were like Ali Sina, rebels and anti-social free thinkers who will not conform just because.
Islam is a garbage ideology. It hardly warrants our attention. As far as the Muslim world's populations, they are no threat to modern militaries. Our greatest enemies are such as the Presbyterian Church, the filth of Christianity who pander to each and every fascist strong-man they can seek out to pay for their self-flagellating enjoyment. How does one go to war against parodies of Pat Boone?
Perhaps the atheists of Christianity, those who do not believe in anything at all, the Christians who care for nothing at all, the hollow men, the professed and professional Christian filth who pass themselves off as Christians but who are in effect nothing but philistine atheists, perhaps, as Orwell would have written about them, perhaps they ar the only hope-- if one can ever get them to believe in anything at all other than their own navels. Maybe it takes those who are genuine atheists to choke the phonies till they see stars and perhaps come to their miserable senses. Our own are our enemies.
The triumph of dhimmi fascism. It must be time to rally the Christians who are left in the world to fight back. Maybe it's time to MAKE a Second Coming. Let the nameless cry in the wilderness they've made. Let them ask in the sight of those who are strong what rough beast it is who slouches toward the bethel to be born.
Posted by: sonofwalker at October 20, 2005 12:07 AM
Anthony,
So you're happy with Robert Spencer's official position that he is "most emphatically not anti-Muslim"?
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at October 20, 2005 12:11 AM
Dr. Pepper,
Yes. And I would contribute that I am not anti-Moslem either, but anti-Islam.
Posted by: Anthony at October 20, 2005 12:16 AM
Anthony,
How is that different from being anti-Nazism, but not anti-Nazi?
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at October 20, 2005 12:56 AM
Anthony,
The difference is that he is against the ideology, but not against the people themselves.
In Christendom, we have a saying: "Hate the sin, not the sinner". Understand that and you understand what is most likely Mr. Spencer's position.
Posted by: Canadian Christian at October 20, 2005 1:33 AM
Anthony,
The dunderhead phrase in one of your above comments, and the "You said it, not me" a few posts up are both crummy behaviors on your part.
I'm just an anonymous nobody. Nevertheless, please make your points without the obnoxiousness, eh? And I'm not saying I disagree with (my understanding of) your points.
Posted by: del at October 20, 2005 1:41 AM
Having read Spencer, I can say that he is not a bigot. He obviously has a view point that is not mainstream. Still it is close to the truth. But if you tell truth without being subtle or without ornaments, you become unpalatable to the mainstream media. Cest la vie. Still the truth needs to be spoken and recorded by someone.
Posted by: Naresh C. at October 20, 2005 1:44 AM
Dear del
Don't say you are an annonymous nobody. God don't make no junk.
Posted by: Anthony at October 20, 2005 2:16 AM
Anthony,
When I asked you, "How is that different from being anti-Nazism, but not anti-Nazi?", I am assuming you do in fact think it's a different case. Your somewhat enigmatic response to my question implies that my assumption is correct. This leaves the question hanging. If you do think the two cases are different, I am asking you how they are different?
Secondly, the Christian bromide "Hate the sin, not the sinner" is a commendable spiritual precept; however, it does not always translate into a complete blueprint for pragmatic political or military action. For example, say that you found yourself in a situation where you were confronting Zarqawi minutes after he has just successfully sawed off the head of an innocent woman, and he is alone and you have a weapon. How will the precept "Hate the sin, not the sinner" guide you in this situation?
at October 20, 2005 2:20 AM
Robert:
You have proven to me to be a seeker of truth. I have found your analysis to be rigorous and thorough. You are extremely disciplined in applying your principle technique of analysis, which is to allow the teachings of islam itself to define the characteristics of islam. You do this without exogenous interference or personal prejudice, and you do it very well.
However, you have a problem. You didn't cause it, but it has found you. Given the facts of the teachings of islam, there are certain conclusions and judgments that are unavoidable. Having arrived at those conclusions and judgments, especially by the means you have chosen, does not make you anti-islam. It makes you a person who has recognized and revealed the certain truths.
I think you can genuinely say that you are neither pro-islam nor anti-islam, but simply a person who has revealed (along with others, if you want to be modest) the true teachings of islam. And you can add that your readers can interpret that truth either way, which is true. Jihadist scholars, for example, would probably agree with what most of what you say. This certainly wouldn't be anti-islam in their eyes. So, point this out. Others, of course, less informed readers, would reject or deny your conclusions.
I am glad you think about this accusation, however. "Postmortem" analysis and self-reflection are two of the thinking tools that distinguish a truth-seeker from a propagandist. So, take comfort. The fact that you are self-reflective will keep you on the right track. Plunge ahead. We love you.
Posted by: texan at October 20, 2005 3:00 AM
I am anti-Muslim. I am anti-Islam. And no apologies for that. Simple logic: Muslims are pro-Islam, I am anti-Islam = I am anti-Muslim.
It is not so much important what I am but rather why. Anybody reading Koran, some books on Islam and Muslims and this site will understand why I am anti and anti.
During the WW2 I would be anti-German, because I would be anti Nazi. I am not anti-German now because they are not Nazi.
I am an atheist so my feelings are not based on religion. I am a mixed race, so my dislike of Muslims is not racist. I am trying as much as I can to get a massage to as many people as I can about Islam and Muslims.
I can see Islam is losing its position everywhere and we are getting on top. We are better, cleverer, better educated and stronger. We will win. We have to push our views and our concern, emphasizing why we do that.
We are against Islam and Muslim because we are for our history, culture and values. And please, those of you who are Christians do not forget that apart of Muslims you are not a majority in the world. Muslims are not against Christians – they are against anything which is not Islam and that includes Buddhists, Jews and many others. That is why we should not criticize Islam from a religious position.
at October 20, 2005 4:48 AM
Mr. Spencer, you are right to point out the rot, at Every level and in Every aspect of society. It must be rooted out at all levels, including but especially in the academia.
Keep on Keeping on.
Posted by: Gary at October 20, 2005 6:11 AM
I’m more then willing to be wrong, And I’m begging for people to bring it.
I’m not gonna fall for any hypothesis they happen to be in the mood to advance I have some counterarguments to make I’m not unreasonable but I’m not gullible anymore.
The proof I require may be of a higher level than their source material will allow them to go. I don’t think that is my fault The brought it on themselves by not being willing to make anything resembling a credible explanation of what was going on.
Mere assertions and personal opinion and a convenient disbelief in doctrine are simply to frail a foundation to support a convincing argument were hard evidence is required.
It is convincing enough if you don’t care or until it is challenged then it seems to unravel and I’m afraid That the stakes are to high to leave it unchallenged.
at October 20, 2005 6:13 AM
Democracy was a good idea at the time.
It has a use-by date.
We cannot conquer Islam with 90 per cent of the population in cloud-cuckoo-land!
Civil liberties, rule of law, all our ideals are (were) wonderful things for those *who believe in them* - Too bad for many among us who cannot get their heads out of their butts, for not being able to see that there are far too many Mohammedans -now among us- who want to destroy these very last bastions of sanctity, the last 'holy cow' of civilization.
And you, Robert, do you really believe you can separate the enemy from the ideology, the Muslim from the Koran, the hatred for the infidel from your analysis, when you know very well that the slaves of Mohammed are just waiting for you to make a mistake so they can 'clip' you for good in the name of 'Allah?"
Hatred for the enemy is not necessarily a bad thing.
THEY have no problem with it, they suck the hatred in with the mothers milk.
For us this will be the biggest problem, bigger than winning any war, bigger than anything we ever had to deal with, since it goes against everything we are taught to believe in: Equality, human rights, etc. Do I have to spell it out?
Islam has nothing but Islam. We don't want it, we have to fight it. That's all.
at October 20, 2005 7:30 AM
I always quickly define my terms because of the ambiguity of the word Muslim. I stress that I use the word Muslim as a demographic term that streches from the most devout to the completely secular. This makes Muslim a nominal designation for many. Some Muslims label themselves as such as a family tradition or for fear of being killed as an apostate. This nominal designation is used by demographers; my Almanac, for example, says that 99.8% of Turks are Muslims.
I tell people I use the word Islam for the religious ideology. A nominal Muslim may or may not practice the religion and may do so in part or in a perfunctory manner.
Thus, I use Muslims as a sociological term and Islam as an ideological term. For sociology you study the people; for ideology (religious or political) you study the doctrines in the seminal texts (Koran, Hadith, Sira, etc.) If there is a “Moderate Islam” you ask to see the texts and study the theologians. But if you’re talking about Muslims being lax or lapsed, you see that in the sociology.
That generally straightens most people out and helps them to understand what I’m talking about (if they truly want to understand.) But beware of the "bait-and-switch". This is an attempt to try to get you to make an equivocation between the demographic group and the full practice of the ideology. It’s an attempt to make an attack on Islam, an attack on a nominal demographic group and imply that this is racism.
The same thing happened with other ideologies. There were nominal adherents and true believers. Some went along following their families (or for opportunistic reasons) and others fully embodied the ideology. Nominal adherents do sanction the ideology but the full adherents embody the principles. But to be clear, I stay focused on the ideology/philosophy/religion and ask what does it mean if it is fully practiced? Here history is clear.
It’s clear that this website is called “Jihad Watch” and not “Muslim Watch.” If that doesn’t make the intention clear, the person wants to make an equivocation for purposes of distortion.
PS Thanks to “Interested” for the link!
at October 20, 2005 8:00 AM
RE: In any case, my disinvitation today is evidence of a deeper problem: a laziness of thought in American public discourse, and too much of a willingness to exchange sloganeering and button-pushing for fact.
You hit the nail on the head with the "laziness of thought" comment and that is one of the most powerful things that you can say.
Posted by: learjet0450 at October 20, 2005 8:03 AM
Sorry that link to "Bait-and-switch" should be this.
at October 20, 2005 8:03 AM
While there are posters here on this site who might fairly be described as anti-Muslim, I don't think that's a fair accusation against Spencer, who simply states the obvious: it will be very difficult for reform-minded Muslims to affect a reform of Islam because the fundamentalists will thump scriptures in support of their views. The 20th century has been a difficult one for the Muslim nation, torn between those who want to see their civilization advance and those who hanker for a return to the days of the Calipha and are willing to die for the cause. The balance of power seems to be held by the latter group right now, thanks to petrodollars.
Salim Mansour, a Muslim and a professor of Poli Sci at the University of Western Ontario recently published an Op-Ed in the Toronto Sun describing the real enemies of Islam as the faction of violent fundamentalists. And Tariq Fateh of the Muslim Canadian Council (MCC) wrote similarly about the smears and rantings by Mohammed Al-Masry of the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) against the MCC and other Muslim organizations and individuals who opposed the institution of Sharia civil and family law coursts in Ontario.
If anything, Robert and others like him, are facilitating the process of reform by shining a light on things, forcing the debate out into the open and insisting on keeping it honest. Reform has to come from within the Muslim community for it to be a true reformation; pressuring and supporting the reform-minded Muslims can only serve to help the cause.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at October 20, 2005 9:20 AM
sheik yer'mami writes, And you, Robert, do you really believe you can separate the enemy from the ideology, the Muslim from the Koran, the hatred for the infidel from your analysis, when you know very well that the slaves of Mohammed are just waiting for you to make a mistake so they can 'clip' you for good in the name of 'Allah? Hatred for the enemy is not necessarily a bad thing.
While I am somewhat sympathetic to your view, I think it is important, especially for Robert Spenser if he wants to be taken seriously and not be summarily dismissed as some kind of 'bigot', to make the distinction between 'hatred for Islam & Islamic beliefs' and 'hatred of muslims'. As JasonP pointed out, the word 'muslim' can have two distinct connotations, i.e. one as a demographic group and the second as followers of Islam. The distinction is important, because many muslims are muslim simply because of pure happenstance, having beeen born into it. Many muslims don't even have the foggiest idea about Islam, save for what they have been brainwashed into believing. Many muslims themselves suffer grave injustices due to Islam. Think of all the muslims whose hands & feets have been chopped off for petty crimes, who have been stoned to death because of Islamic justice, whose women have been forced to hide their body and faces behind the hideous chaddor. While Islam is a serious threat to non-muslims, it is a terrifying reality for muslims who are under its sway. As duh_swami points out, "Ensnared, entrapped, enslaved (get that, enslaved) and spiritually harmed, muslims as people, are to be pitied..". Now it is true that there are a sizable number of muslims who are completely immersed in Islam and who are actively engaged in a jehad against the non-muslim world... it is this group that all of us are united against.
Posted by: Razdan at October 20, 2005 10:00 AM
One must be prepared to be anti Muslim as a policy unless and until Islam, which is the problem, reforms itself.
We cannot afford to do otherwise.
"Begone and reform yourself and only return if you can convince us that you are prepared in heart and spirit to acknowledge and support a brotherhood of man."
At present, being anti Muslim (an apostate is no longer Muslim - since Muslim infers a follower of Mohamed ) is the only rational sensible course.
Posted by: dgene at October 20, 2005 10:09 AM
While Islam is a serious threat to non-muslims, it is a terrifying reality for muslims who are under its sway.
Yes, of course. Muslims are the primary victims of Islam, and ideally, they should be liberated from this straitjacket, either by reform or by secularisation, forced or otherwise.
However, non-Muslims must come first. As Edmund Blackadder said to Baldrick, 'It's you or me. Let's face it, Baldrick, it's me.'
Posted by: Interested at October 20, 2005 10:15 AM
"I was recently invited to speak about Islam and terrorism to a group in the Northeast."
And then this happened...."I received a call from a leader of the group; it seems that someone (he wouldn't tell me who) had told the group that I was "anti-Muslim," and therefore should not address his organization."
OK here is the thing...
THEY invited you, if they invited you then they knew what you were about and the tons of work you do here at your site to bring the truth out about Islam/ the terrorists and Jihad. You state facts not make believe and are consistent in your desire to bring the truth forward to the front.
Obviously the person that said you could not speak to the group has their own agenda and it is an easy guess that he/she is pro terrorists!
To un-invite you with no proof of what you were being accused of only proves to me what kind of low life’s that group is. THEY are the ones with bigotry and hatred and they are the reason so many of us out here have had enough of kissing up to the followers of Islam so we don't look anti-Muslim.
The truth is that Islam is not a religion of peace. It was founded, built and maintained on the basis of open warfare - against other Muslims and against Christians. Its "prophet" Mohammed, a rich trader turned savage warrior, shed the blood of fellow Muslims who refused to follow his new religion. He and his savages conquered proud cultures such as Persia and Egypt and reduced them to slaves of Allah.
The Quran states clearly that the right of the believer is to kill, in exchange of which he will go to Paradise : "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an" Quran 009.111
This is the basis of the "religion of peace".
You are doing a fine job, a massive awesome job and I appreciate it more then I can say.
As for me, IMO we are at war with Islam and we better start saying that because it is Islam that that the terrorists follow. And Islam is their source and guide, their how to book for destruction of anything non-Muslim in the world.
You should consider it a compliment that you were un-invited by that group. It means you are doing a fantastic job of getting the truth out to the world and the only person that could possibly be offended would be someone that is siding with the terrorists.
at October 20, 2005 10:25 AM
Susanp writes, Such an utter lack of intellectual curiosity is pathetic. Most people attend such functions to gain insight from an expert on a given topic. But these people obviously wanted an Islamic apologist to mimic their own erroneous beliefs about Islam. I am very curious as to why people would go to so much trouble to have their collective ignorance affirmed by an "expert."
Unfortunately, the unwillingness to challenge one's own 'sacred' beliefs, even when presented with incontrovertible facts, is an all too human characteristic. Most of these people know in their heart of hearts that there is something wrong with Islam, but they just don't want to admit it for fear of ridcule or being considered as 'bigots'. Hence all the various attempts to clothe the bigotry within Islam with moral equivalences (such as comparisons to the Christian crusades). As a kid reading the well-known story by Hans Christian Anderson "The Emperor's New Suit", I was amazed by the fact that so many grown-up folks refused to acknowledge what they clearly saw with their own eyes, i.e. that the King was buck naked, and kept up the pretense about the King being clothed in a magnificent suit. Like the child in the story, Robert Spenser is stating the obvious, i.e. that Islam is clearly anti-Jew, anti-Christian, anti-Hindu, anti-Buddhist, anti-atheist... anti-anything-but-Islam! But the general intelligentsia (akin to the townspeople in the fabled story), fed with the taquiya about Islamic tolerance, refuses to accept what stares them straight in the face.
Posted by: Razdan at October 20, 2005 10:46 AM
Hey Robert Spencer, would you like to divulge the identity of the somewhat prominent writer of the who authored the misdirected email consigning fringe?
Posted by: Shaughn at October 20, 2005 10:56 AM
However, non-Muslims must come first. As Edmund Blackadder said to Baldrick, 'It's you or me. Let's face it, Baldrick, it's me.' from a comment by Interested.
Don't get me wrong. While I was trying to point out that muslims themselves are the biggest sufferers under Islam (albeit, much of it being self-imposed), this should not be construed to imply that we should place the interest of muslims before our own selves. Speaking up for muslims suffering under Islam and highlighting the danger of Islam towards us (the non-believers) is not a zero-sum gain, i.e. highlighting one does not come at the expense of the other. In actual fact, when people like Robert Spenser highlight what is wrong with Islam, they are speaking up not only for all non-muslims (like you and me) but also for those pitiable muslims who suffer under the yoke of Islam).
I believe Robert Spencer should go out on the offensive against those idiots who consider him a bigot against muslims. The biggest bigots against muslims are actually the very people who act as Islam apologists, thereby condoning some of the worst atrocities of this century (what else can you call suicide bombing, blowing up of non-muslim religious sites, chopping of hands/legs of people for some perverse sense of justice, stoning women accused of adultery... the list goes on and on).
Posted by: Razdan at October 20, 2005 12:13 PM
Bottom Line: As someone posted above:
"Simple logic: Muslims are pro-Islam, I am anti-Islam = I am anti-Muslim."
Again, Robert Spencer and some posters here are being disingenuously ambivalent about this issue.
(Other posters proudly and obtusely forge ahead by erring in the opposite direction -- casting all ambivalence overboard, declaring "I hate all Muzzies!", as though this is going to help the complex problem that is mushrooming all around us; and Mr. Spencer officially disavows them even though they continue to hang on to the periphery of his penumbra as wayward family members to their fellow posters who rarely criticize them, providing for a kind of semi-official yet plausibly deniable fringe element.)
While of course, the position of "anti-Muslim" would recognize the nuances of passively enabling Muslims and Muslims as quasi-victims of being born into Islam, the bottom line remains, and as long as it is not addressed and articulated head-on, there will be room for ambiguity which others can exploit, and I think it's a mistake to think that this ambiguity allows for wiggle room to avoid charges of bigotry and prejudice.
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at October 20, 2005 12:48 PM
Bottom Line: As someone posted above:
"Simple logic: Muslims are pro-Islam, I am anti-Islam = I am anti-Muslim."
Again, Robert Spencer and some posters here are being disingenuously ambivalent about this issue.
This logic is flawed. All muslims are not pro-Islam. There are plenty of muslims living in Islamic countries who are muslims purely by accident of birth and not by choice. I don't believe Robert Spencer is being disingenous in making clear that his being anti-Islam is not the same as being anti-muslim. As I wrote before Robert Spencer speaks as much for the hundreds of thousands of muslims suffering under the yoke of Islam as he does for all of us.
Posted by: Razdan at October 20, 2005 3:42 PM
King Kong, you lyin', cheatin' da'wa doctor!
Your "tolerance" is legendary!
"...meaningful debate between parties who simply see the world through a different filter,.."
What kind of filter was that again?
Still using screws?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 20, 2005 5:50 PM
Informed Christian, to the extent to which how you characterize Liberals is true (and I don't think it is, I think yours is a mischaracterization, and influenced by the rants and propaganda that you hear from your pulpit, just as Muslims are influenced by the rants they hear from their pulpits), then your rant is actually a self fulfilling prophecy.
There are indeed many "anti Islamic" or "Islamophobic Liberals and leftists", and they are Islamophobic precisely because they are Liberals.. true liberals, the secular liberty loving, free speech loving kind. For instance Pym Fortuyn (well he's dead) Van Gogh (he's dead), Ayan Hirsi Ali and Orianna Fallaci all of them secular atheist leftist liberals, but America becomes a seperate case.
You see, the problem in America is mouths like yours, and rants like yours that drive out allies.
Any liberal or leftie, who is in the slightest aware of the problem and threat of Islam reads your posts and is exposed to your rants and unreason and he or she can't help but think, damn him, if I'm going to get the blame I might as well do the crime..
Truth is Informed Christian you sound as unreasonable and irrational as the Azzam the American or any other Jihadi. And folk like you are your own worst enemies.
You should be building bridges to your fellow Americans, not burning them. Worse than they you aren't even burning bridges, you are firing cannonades at people whom you should be reaching out to.
How utterly stupid, what a waste.
Posted by: Nariz at October 20, 2005 6:40 PM
King Shmuck,
Still having those frequent ideations of "locker-rooms full of 13 year-old boys.."(previous thread)
..and, yes or no, have you dropped your support for NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association)
Posted by: otterfisher at October 20, 2005 7:25 PM
Well, Robert, unlike you I admit to being anti-Muslim! The only good Muslim is a convert to Catholicism! Of course, the same goes for protestants, Jews and pagans!
Posted by: jovan66102 at October 20, 2005 7:28 PM
'Any liberal or leftie, who is in the slightest aware of the problem and threat of Islam reads your posts and is exposed to your rants and unreason and he or she can't help but think, damn him, if I'm going to get the blame I might as well do the crime.. '~ nariz
Any reasonable person will be persuaded to at least Look at the evidence, nariz.
Hard-core, hate-at-all-costs-to-the-world elitists will not. That is whom IC is referring to; that is the kind of people we beat 60 years ago.
Rinse, Repeat.
Posted by: Gary at October 20, 2005 7:33 PM
I am quite impressed that Lord Tolerance is against "fulminant hatred" in speech and writing. Does that mean we can expect him to protest the regular, every day hate agitation on al-Jazeerah TV? How about the hate preachings of Shaykh Qaradawi, who just happens to regularly appear on al-Jazeerah?
Here El Rey de Tolerancia has an opportunity to prove himself truly against "fulminant hatred." Now, we also bear in mind that al-Jazeerah is located in Qatar, a statelet which is floating in moolah. So I don't think we need to feel sorry over any lack of funds there. The poverty excuse doesn't work here.
Back to El Rey. If he doesn't prove to us that he regularly protests the hate agitation on al-Manar, al-Jazeerah, Egyptian TV, Saudi TV, etc., then we would have to conclude that he is a hypocrite.
at October 20, 2005 7:57 PM
Mr. Spencer,
As a Muslim myself, I don't consider yourself to be anti-Muslim. You do not advocate hatred or violence upon Muslims in any way. While I may not agree with everything you say, I respect you as you seem like an individual who stands by his convictions, and presents his views in a very intelligent manner.
I take no issue with you at all. I only take issue with those that wish to harm or "deport" me and my family from my country due to religion.
Posted by: Issac Ali Kharish at October 20, 2005 11:03 PM
Issac,
That was very eloquently stated and I'm sure Robert will appreciate your honest, heartfelt views.
If I can ask, what country have you emmigrated to and what is your opinion on having your mosque monitered by the authorities to ensure the safety of you and your family and me and my family?
Posted by: William The Crusader at October 20, 2005 11:53 PM
If I can ask, what country have you emmigrated to and what is your opinion on having your mosque monitered by the authorities to ensure the safety of you and your family and me and my family?
I was originally born in Western Jordan, in a tiny Bedouin village near the Israeli border. I came to the United States when I was only 12 years of age. Since then the United States is the only place that's felt truly like home to me.
As for your other question, I do not have a problem with it if there is suspicion of harmful activity occurring at the Mosque. I am actually a police officer myself, so I know that such a thing may have to be done to ensure public safety.
Posted by: Issac Ali Kharish at October 21, 2005 12:59 AM
Issac.
If you are not anti-Muslim, you are pro-Muslim. Being such you support all atrocities committed in the name of Islam. I could not find anything, which contradicts Islam in the words of Bin Laden or other Muslim terrorists. Any Muslim shares responsibility for what is done in the name of Islam. If you don’t – you can not consider yourself a Muslim.
Living in US it is quite simple for you to leave Islam. You don’t have to be a Catholic or Jew or anything else, just stop “consider” yourself a Muslim.
I am an anti-Muslim because of what is done by the Muslims. Some of us are trying to complicate the truth by dividing Islam and Muslims. It is insulting to our intelligence. Islam and Muslims can not be divided. If there is no Islam – there are no Muslims and if there are no Muslims – where is Islam?
I do not believe Islam can be reformed. Christianity has never been reformed in a true sense, nor was Judaism or any other ideology. There are two reasons for people to be Jewish, Catholics or anything in that line: 1. Ignorance; 2. Personal advantages.
The first ones are stupid and the second are hypocrites. But to be stupid or hypocrite is not a crime, to be a Muslim today is a crime. So do not complain about people who hate criminals.
at October 21, 2005 4:42 AM
10-4 Issac,
The reason I asked about the mosques is that many people feel that fellow muslims aren't "ratting" out the jihadis in their midst and hence the call for deportations if the muslim community isn't willing to do what's necessary for everyone's sake.
Survelience only if suspicion is aroused is, in my opinion not going far enough if the muslim community isn't on board.
at October 21, 2005 5:27 AM
God forgives you, Pong.
Posted by: Gary at October 21, 2005 6:34 AM
Right, Gary.
God forgives, Allah doesn't...
But forgive me, Robert Spencer, when you sound just a little bit naive: (I hope: intentionally)
"...But in reality, these are matters of fact. The facts are not really "pro-" or "anti-" anything; they are just the facts. If it is anti-Muslim to speak of them, so be it; but I don't really think it is..."
These 'facts' will get you killed. If ever you should get stuck in an Islamic country, for whatever reason, you 'may not think it is'- but it is enough for them to kill you.
And once my "Winds of Jihad" records are freely sold, -as I hope they will be, just like your books-, (although they may not hit the hit-parades on Kasey Kayson) the message is the same as yours, and the knives of the Mohammedans come out rather quick when the filthy 'prophet' is insulted.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 21, 2005 6:59 AM
Eliyahu:
King knows nothing about what debate means either. When I pointed out to him that there is a world of difference between the defamation of Jews that prevailed in Europe prior to the Holocaust and bloggers here complaining about jihaddists and the failures of western powers to address them, some very intemporately albiet, he merely stamped his little feet up and down shreiking that we were too just like the anti-Semites of Germany and Poland casting absolutely baseless aspersions and attempted to shame me for exposing his egregious moral equivalency (which he calls intellectual honesty) by asking me what kind of Jew I am and demanding to know if I hate Islam. Well, I'm not too crazy about any religion, least of all one that has shown itself to be as intolerant of "the Other" as Islam has, but that's certainly not to say that I hate Muslims.
Recently, this great self-appointed defender of the memory of those who suffered through or perished in the Holocaust, however, had a really wonderful piece of advice for those moderate Muslims who are so unfortunate as to live in Islamist theocracies on a DhimmiWatch thread: if they don't like it, they should just leave and go live where they can practice Islam as they please. Gee. How brilliant. Maybe someone should suggest that idea to the black Muslims of Darfur, or to Naseem the Pakistani Ahmaddeyan blogger, who wants to be able to live in peace in her home country. Or the countless Iranians languishing in the mullahs' prisons.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at October 21, 2005 8:46 AM
The reason I asked about the mosques is that many people feel that fellow muslims aren't "ratting" out the jihadis in their midst and hence the call for deportations if the muslim community isn't willing to do what's necessary for everyone's sake.
Survelience only if suspicion is aroused is, in my opinion not going far enough if the muslim community isn't on board.
This, at least to me is a reasonable deduction. Because of this, like I said I have no problem with such a thing in the interest of public safety, as it concerns my family as well as everyone else's.
The first ones are stupid and the second are hypocrites. But to be stupid or hypocrite is not a crime, to be a Muslim today is a crime. So do not complain about people who hate criminals.
Uh...well, I'll have to disagree with you there, Pong.
at October 21, 2005 11:07 AM
I am struck by the gaping polar disparities between Muslims and all others. Muslims know they can use a term like "anti-Muslim" or "Islamophobe" to press our collective cultural buttons and tug at our placid desires to be inclusive and non-discriminatory -- They often use such terms as "anti-Muslim" or "Islamophobia" to place us on the defensive if we come too close to the mark or we criticize their broken religion and squalid culture.
Evidence of this brand of attack is seen daily on these threads by Islamist apologists and obfuscators.
If one were to accuse Muslims of expressing hatred and intolerance for "kaffr" or "infidels" or point out that the use of such derogatory and pejorative terms is in itself bigoted and hateful -- no Muslim has the moral capacity or the conscience to even understand the accusation -- that is why it's so important for them to attempt to slander Christianity and the West -- attempting to establish symmetry where there is none -- comparing apples and oranges -- delving deep into the remote past to dredge up ancient Western or Christian "transgressions" to excuse and explain away the modern day rape, pillage, and mayhem caused by Islam...
Islam thrives on the notion of the superiority of Muslims and the inferiority of the "Kaffr" or "infidel" -- Any deviation from this notion requires fervid denials, and obfuscation... "Kaffr" translates as "unclean" "unwashed" "dirty" -- and "infidel" translates as "follower of untruth" or "unbeliever" -- Among the Muslims it is IMPOSSIBLE to be criticized for contempt towards those that Islam considers inferior!
There is ample evidence that there is no place for conscience and honesty in the Muslim heart... They have proven themselves to be untrustworthy -- treacherous. All attempts are made to deflect true discourse by their apologists -- every effort is made to relentlessly water down the rapine nature of Islam --
Muslims have shown no capacity to respect non-Muslims. If they APPEAR to show respect, it is only out of a knowledge that they are not yet in a position yet to punch their Islamic fist at the dirty kaffr without reprisal... Their jack boots are not yet in sufficient number to smash the infidel... This is the ONLY THING that makes them behave when in Dar al Harb.
The fascist Islamic ideology promotes a sociopathic lack of conscience regarding all non-Muslims... and it is time for us to stop imagining that they are like us in any regard. They are NOT.
Muslims have endlessly shown themselves to be our mortal enemy -- and among themselves they couldn't be clearer about their hatred and contempt for our nation, our culture, our religion, and our customs. Despite hearing endless avowels of their hatred from their own insidious mouths -- Despite hearing their promises to destroy us, to annihilate us, Despite their chants of Death to America and their tramplings of our flag, and their blaming us for every flaw and horror which they themselves have created -- what insanity prevents us from believing what our ears have heard from their hatred spewing Muslims mouths!? Muslim mouths are telling us they want to destroy us -- Muslim mouths are telling us they WILL destroy us -- what part of this don't we understand?
at October 21, 2005 12:51 PM
Pong, Issac, others.
I hold no candle for Islam. As a Christian fundamentalist, I see those who claim to be prophets after the passing of the generation that penned the New Testament as blasphemers--Muhammad as well as Joseph Smith. However, it is still unfair to see all Muslims as standing with the terrorists, and cannot approve of calls to engage in mass deportations or the like. And I take Issac's claim that the USA is the only place where he feels truly at home at face value.
The Lackawanna Six got fingered by their fellow Yemeni immigrants who were presumably fellow Muslims as well. A planned attack on the New York subway system was thwarted because a Muslim Arab immigrant who could barely speak English went straight to the NYPD after someone tried to recruit him to help with the job.
Of course the Qur'an and Hadith are full of things I find abominable, many of which have been discussed in this blog. Of course one cannot see a "common spirituality" with a religion which misrepresents the Holy Trinity in its Sacred Book and denies the necessity of Jesus Christ's death on the cross. Yes, there are things in the Qur'an and Hadith which support terror against unbelievers, and serve a far more sinister and unholy function than the violent passages of the Old Testament (which I have discussed elsewhere). Yet there are indeed Muslims who feel are as appalled as any at OBL and Co.'s call for jihad against everyone else. Such people will get only a respectful theological disagreement from me; not a call for a new Crusade.
Posted by: Kepha at October 22, 2005 6:59 PM
Well Robert, that must mean that I must be the biggest bigot on this earth,, I am anti, pedophiles, Hitler and his merry men, starlin, murders, killers of other races, etc etc. If it means that I am a bigot by looking at history and opening my eyes to what is happening in this world today, (and history), I am glad that I have my eyes closed thus am considered a bigot. I keep my eyes open be
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)