| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
The New York Sun has been generally worthwhile reading for its jihad coverage -- at least compared to the ridiculous obfuscations and red herrings purveyed by the behemoths of the mainstream media -- but now The Sun has shown itself to be just another tiresome mouthpiece of the oft-discredited conventional wisdom, publishing an astonishingly ignorant and irresponsible review of Oriana Fallaci's The Force of Reason: Ira Stoll's "The Faith of an Atheist."
Encountering a pro-American European journalist who writes passionately and in chilling detail of the threat to the West from the rise of Islam in Europe, one is tempted to be supportive. But in her new book, "The Force of Reason" (Rizzoli, 307 pages, $19.95), Oriana Fallaci strains the good will of even the most sympathetic reader.
How? By typographical errors, for pete's sake. Emblematic of the frivolousness of this review is the fact that we are a world on the brink of war, and Ira Stoll is so exercised about some misplaced hyphens that he considers them noteworthy enough to mention at the very top of his review:
Never mind the eccentric way this volume has been published by Rizzoli, which seems not to have English language typesetting software in house. (In the first few pages of the book, both the words "have" - "have"- and "whore" - "who-re" - are hyphenated, as if they were being pronounced in a bad Italian accent.)
But then Stoll gets to the real problems he perceives with the book:
The more serious problem is the sweeping nature of her condemnation of Islam and Muslims. She faults them for the fact that "they breed like rats"; for requiring their meat to be slaughtered in a "barbaric" manner she says is similar to kosher butchery; for having their own schools, hospitals, and cemeteries; for immigrating; and for wanting accommodation of their religious holidays and Sabbath in schools and workplaces.Much of her complaint about Islam, in other words, might as well be directed at Orthodox Jews, and a good deal of it at American Catholics. Ms. Fallaci's cry of alarm - "Wake up, West, wake up! They have declared war on us, we are at war! And in war we must fight" - rings less alarmingly when it turns out that what she's alarmed about is religions having their own cemeteries. Anyone familiar with the graveyard behind the Congregational church in any traditional New England town - or, for that matter, the Trinity Church graveyard in Lower Manhattan - realizes that, in itself, isn't much of a threat at all.
This is disingenuous. Fallaci isn't alarmed about cemeteries, and I expect that Ira Stoll knows that full well if he has actually read The Force of Reason. The cemeteries are just a symptom of a much larger problem: large numbers of Muslims are immigrating to Europe without any intention of accepting the values and principles of the societies to which they are coming. Instead, they are hoping to remake those societies by ultimately imposing Sharia upon them. Are there Muslims who oppose this agenda? Of course. But they are not organized, vocal, or likely to prevail against their supremacy-minded coreligionists.
Ms. Fallaci makes clear that her aversion is not to Islamist terrorism alone or to Islamic extremism but to Islam and Muslims in general. "Moderate Islam does not exist," she writes, calling it "an illusion," an invention of naive Westerners.This is undermined at least in part by her own reporting, which includes an interview she had in 1975 with the Saudi oil minister, who offered her champagne from his cellar and invited her to accompany him to Mecca, notwithstanding the strictures of Islam against alcohol and against non-Muslims visiting Mecca.
All right. Because Fallaci was offered champagne and a trip to Mecca by a Saudi, therefore moderate Islam exists? Stoll is confusing, or hoping we will confuse, laxity in Islamic observance with the existence of an actual Muslim group or tradition that does not teach Islamic supremacism and the subjugation of the infidel.
Of course there are millions of Muslims who don't follow the teachings of Islam to the letter. There is a spectrum of fervor and practice in Islam as there is in all religious traditions (and in every group of every kind, for that matter). They will never fight jihad. There are even some Muslims who oppose these ideas and would like to see them definitively rejected. But none of that changes the fact that jihadists today can point to teachings that are firmly rooted in the Qur'an and Sunnah to justify their actions.
The existence of moderate (or, in this case, simply lax) Muslims does not establish the existence of moderate Islam. There are eight madhahib, or schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Every one of them teaches that the Islamic social order, as delineated by Islamic law, must ultimately be imposed over the whole world, and that Muslims must fight for this. This will involve institutionalized discrimination against non-Muslims and women. I do not consider that a "moderate" idea. The only Muslim groups that reject these ideas, such as, notably, the Ahmadiyyas, are reviled and persecuted as heretics by members of mainstream Muslim sects.
As for Ms. Fallaci's claim that "95% of Muslims reject freedom and democracy," it's just false, as demonstrated by the remarkable turnout in repeated Iraqi elections and in the fact that so many brave Iraqi troops have been willing to risk their lives and die fighting the insurgency there. They are fighting for precisely freedom and democracy....
Stoll does not, of course, mention the fact that the Iraqis drafted a Constitution that mandates Sharia as the law of the land, rendering hollow -- at least for non-Muslims and women -- his claim that they chose freedom. Democracy? Sure -- for Shi'ites. The Shi'a supported the democratic process with great enthusiasm because they calculated that it would bring them to power. The Sunnis, for the same reason, were less enthusiastic. Is Stoll even aware of this tension and interplay? Does he recognize the implications of the Sharia provision in the Iraqi Constitution? I doubt it.
I am disappointed that The Sun has chosen to print such a silly and substanceless review of such an important book. Perhaps its editors have given up on defending against the jihad and are now looking for approval and acceptance from the corrupt and wrongheaded journalistic mainstream. Good luck with that.
Posted by Robert at March 17, 2006 7:55 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Oriana never had anything but contempt for book reviewers. In her own words, "they are nothing but failed writers."
She insists that it is the readers themselves who are the true reviewers. It is their opinions that matter to her.
Posted by: Cornelius
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 17, 2006 8:10 AM
I read the Sun's review after having finished the new Fallaci, but I was not taken aback by Stoll's wrong-headed comments. The Sun also treated with kid gloves the NY-prison-Imam story and the Black-Muslim-reared seven-year-old racist poet story.
Let's face it: Fallaci is news because such courage as hers is rare among journalists--or among any group you can name.
Posted by: Bob
at March 17, 2006 8:15 AM
Okay...am I simply being paranoid re conspiracy here or is there a concerted effort EVERYWHERE to deliberately obfuscate, minimise, distort or simply lie about the problem with Islam?
It simply cannot ALL be due to left wing liberalism, Christian overzealous altruism, political oilsucking sycophancy, mindless blind ignorance or some guilt feeling about the so-called past crimes of the western world.
Is it possible that there is a definite and widespread attempt by controlling interests in the west(media/poltical) to minimise or ignore the problems until all hell breaks loose (which it will if it continues at this rate)?
at March 17, 2006 8:31 AM
So, Fallaci was treated to champagne and a trip to Mecca 30 years ago. Has it been lost on Ira Stoll that a few things have happened in the Muslim world since, like the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the Taliban government in Afghanistan, the spread of Wahhabi mosques around the world courtesy of wealthy Saudis, bin Laden and A-Q...
...30 years ago not too many people were worried about Islamically-inspired terrorism because the problem seemed to be confined to Israel, and, even today, well-intentioned idiots like Amos Oz insist that it's only about land and that the "real estate dispute" is very much grounded in a religious belief that Islam should dominate and any land once held by Islam should remain Islamic, no matter how many locals the Muslims slaughtered to lay claim to it.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 17, 2006 8:41 AM
Ira Stoll's review is not much of a surprize. We are simply seeing in action what Oriana aptly calls the cicadas who are noisily chirping along totally unmindful of the impending threat from Islam.
Posted by: Razdan at March 17, 2006 8:52 AM
Perhaps I'm alone here in being disappointed by this book. There are far better ones. It has a lot of the faults of "The Rage and the Pride".
Fallaci would be just as brave, intelligent and passionate, and just as right, if she got herself a decent translator and stopped ranting.
The NY Sun review is wrong on several counts, not least the attempt at moral equivalence between Islam and Catholicism or Judaism. But just because Fallaci outshines the Sun doesn't mean that the sun shines out of her backside. She does herself no favours.
at March 17, 2006 8:52 AM
I read "The Rage and the Pride", and found no glaring errors in it. Just started "The Force of Reason." Both works are idiosyncratic, in punctuation--to American eyes, certainly. The thing to do about that is to put the book down, and go back to your Danielle Steel novel, or get over it, and pay attention to the book's content.
Fallaci may indeed be ranting. What of it? Someone should rant! Several someones should rant!
Most of us cannot, because we are placed in a daily situation that demands PC or else!
But those who have the wherewithal to do so, and do not are, in my opinion, more to be blamed than Fallaci.
at March 17, 2006 9:19 AM
Interested; Fallaci would be just as brave, intelligent and passionate, and just as right, if she got herself a decent translator and stopped ranting.
Not having read the book yet... so I may possibly be shooting off my mouth here... I do believe that there is a need for someone who can write with strong passion about the threat from Islam, even if it borders on being called a rant. There are plenty of writers who have quite dispassionately and analytically examined the threat of Islam, Robert Spenser being one of them, and that is fine and no doubt needed. However, what makes Oriana's work unique is her ability to make your blood boil with anger & rage... emotions that the Western World has too long been taught to control & keep in check. I believe that there is a place for righteous anger, and to me Oriana's work serves a much needed need to bring these emotions out.
Posted by: Razdan at March 17, 2006 9:22 AM
If the choice were between Fallaci and Danielle Steel we would be in a bad way. Fortunately it isn't. Nor is the choice between ranting and being politically correct, or between good punctuation and courage.
Posted by: Interested at March 17, 2006 9:27 AM
Robert, You always display the correct attitude. You patiently, intelligently and factually dissect faulty views without getting perturbed. I'm pretty sure Tony Blankley reads your stuff, but even he hasn't quite mentioned your name on the McLaughlin Group that I can remember. He really should cross this line. :-)
at March 17, 2006 9:57 AM
I just emailed Robert's article to the editor at the NY Sun. Perhaps they will look into it further by contacting JW.
Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at March 17, 2006 10:26 AM
Interested, you're right about the translation. Her other work is still vibrant, but more lucid due to the work of a good translator. Nevertheless listen to the rhythm and force in this paragraph:
"...if I am invaded by weeds, suffocated by ivy, poisoned by an insect, bitten by a dig, attacked by a human being, I fight. I make war, I fight. I do so with a weapon which does not spread blood, agree. The weapon of ideas expressed through the written word, not through death. But should that weapon not be enough, I would be ready to make war with something more. Like I did as a young girl when my country was invaded by weeds, suffocated by ivy, poisoned by insects, bitten by dogs, subdued by the enemy. And no jester bawling at me in a square, no jackass smearing my photo on TV, no vicious comedienne deriding my deadly illness is going to stop me. No march of louts waving disgusting placards is going to intimidate me, to shut me up. No son of Allah calling out to punish-the-infidel-bitch in the name of the Koran is going to frighten me or tire me out. Even is I am in the evening of my life and I no longer have the physical energy of youth. Because my war is right. Legitimate, dutiful, right. And it is not true that all wars are wrong. Sometimes they are right. Legitimate, dutiful, right.
Too many words, you think?
Posted by: Rebecca JW at March 17, 2006 10:35 AM
Yup.
Posted by: Interested at March 17, 2006 10:36 AM
This review sounds like a note written by someone onboard a sinking ocean liner to the captain, complaining that the instruction sheet for putting on life-jackets is in the worst possible font ("very unprofessional"), and that the word "dye" (as in dye marker) was mispelled "die" twice!
For this level of quibbling, they thus refuse to put on the life-jacket.
As the reviewer here fails to address the issue of the book, and not its style:
-What does Europe face through the massive numbers of unwilling-to-assimilate Muslim immigrants?
Fallaci points out the mortal danger facing the Continent, and the reviewer chooses instead to notice a smudge on Fallaci's fingertip.
The psychology and political spin is intriguing:
Ignore the message, because the messenger is passionate.
(Perhaps a lesson they learned too well from their studious ignoring of Islam's endless impassioned ranting?)
at March 17, 2006 10:40 AM
Robert, no not the Sun, the one paper that did a decent job covering Islam .
If this is so, I will stop reading it and send a letter the editors.
Interested, we need a little rant and passion, being use to Spanish oratory I understand that from Italian to English something is lost in translation.
A passionate speaking and writing style in the context of Latin culture is the norm, and what my appear hysterical when translated to English is perfectly reasonable in Spanish or Italian,
We need passion like Fallaci's work, we also need dispassion and reason the other side of the coin of human expression. There are plenty of authors that have dissected Islam with method and a stiff upper lip and far fewer who use forceful and yes ranting.
Imagine, a scenario, the current one, where the worlds cultures are crossing the dangerous tracks of a post-modern world and in the not too far distance a huge train is barreling down upon it a full spend. Some on he tracks and have made a correct analysis of the beliefs and motives of these men and women with their hands on the throttle, they have explained that they are motivated by totalitarian convections and that they will not stop and that running over the world's children is an acceptable act as long as they reach their destination, but as the train, with increasing speed bears down on us few have shouted with passion. stop! we must get off this track or perish.
I will take a rant any day, or a shout or a yell if this is the only way to warn my fellow global citizens of the danger.
You need both passion and intellectual thought to survive Jihad, Sharia and Da'wa, but what we need most is passion.
A belief in one's culture that is strong and not constrained by meek politeness.
Yes, the time has come to let off a few rants or too, before it's to late. It took passion and yes a little excess, for the Spanish to free themselves from Moorish domination.
I'm of the mind that the farocity of the struggle in the reconquista sowed the seeds for Spain's subsequent decline of ciivc culture and that the long years of Moorish occupation contaminated it's European values, but this was eventually overcome and the alternative would have been defeat and surrender.
The time has come for passion, Bravo Fallaci and god bless you.
Interested, in the privacy of your home if necessary i want to hear you say,
I AM MAD AS HELL AND I WON'T TAKE THIS ANYMORE!
Since I'm a soft spoken old man with many grandchildren it would be hard for me to rant, thank god Fallaci does it for me.
Posted by: El Cid at March 17, 2006 10:46 AM
Stoll's review is unfair in its presentation of Fallaci's case; her insistence on translating into an English that makes no attempt to take account of certain conventions of the English language, and what is or is not desirable to an English ear, also turns out to be unfair to the presentation of her case.
It is Fallaci's book. The same amour-propre that has been so useful in preventing her from toning things down, may have lead her to decide that she, and she only, could translate the book, local Tuscan references intact, Italian word-order and rhetorical pitch, a pitch which demands much of well-disposed English-speaking readers and may not convince them in the way that her message should. But she can do whatever she wants; she may never have run across a William-Weaver-level translator she trusted, may believe that the force of her Italian prose should be imitated as closely as possible in English, and readers should have to make adjustments. But in a war one may modify a weapon, for most effective use.
She can be forgiven.
The reviewer, in his mix of stolid uncomprehension and sly mispresentation, cannot.
Posted by: Hugh at March 17, 2006 11:01 AM
Rebecca, I don't know about others but I certainly enjoyed the little excerpt of Oriana's writing that you provided. It may be verbose... but it sure packs a lot of punch and imagery.
P.S. El Cid, I love your spirit!
Posted by: Razdan at March 17, 2006 11:06 AM
I think you have misread the NY Sun. Although it has slightly better coverage than the Times (and who wouldn't), they are classic neo cons in the mold of the National Review, Weekly Standard, etc. In fact, they tend to be open border liberterians in that they support unlimited immigration. They opposed Debra Burlingame in her fight against the Freedom Center fight at the World Trade Center, defending what was going to be in that museum. Establishment conservatives, that is all.
Posted by: susie at March 17, 2006 11:11 AM
National Review, classic neocons? Buckley, bless him, was called a neo-con by somebody this week too.
When words become so degraded, is it any wonder our politics keeps entering the twilight zone? Does anybody know what anybody means by neo-con anymore? I don't.
Posted by: Rebecca JW at March 17, 2006 11:28 AM
Interested, in the privacy of your home if necessary i want to hear you say,
I AM MAD AS HELL AND I WON'T TAKE THIS ANYMORE!
OK. This Islam business really isn't quite the thing, and I'm rather less than chuffed about it.
How's that? Fallaci - eat your heart out.
Posted by: Interested at March 17, 2006 11:35 AM
It's not Buckley's National Review anymore. He essentially gave it over to another generation. So the comment was not directed at him, but at those at the magazine now.
Posted by: susie at March 17, 2006 11:35 AM
In my generally dry writing style, I envy someone who can pull off a good rant; maybe if I can snag a copy of Fallaci's book for the plane ride back to Texas, some of that flair will rub off on me.
As for the Sun critic, it's been said that a critic is like a eunuch. He can write about it, talk about it, and think about it, but...
Anyway, the reviewer in question is probably just a tad jealous that his own more passionate discourses are well-received only by a hard drive or desk drawer.
Posted by: Shinoliite at March 17, 2006 11:43 AM
El Cid, just a harmless old man, eh? Crazy like a fox, more like it.
Posted by: Rebecca JW at March 17, 2006 11:44 AM
I'm going to translate "The Rage and the Pride" into a form of English more suited to us buttoned-up Brits. Suggested title, "The Fuss and the Bother", or "The Noise. And the People".
All references to "sh*t" and "breeding" will be replaced by euphemisms such as "unpleasantness" and "you know what".
El Cid, you're quite right, of course. I think you're a bit of a tiger.
Posted by: Interested at March 17, 2006 11:53 AM
Fallaci from Rebeccas posting: "...Because my war is right. Legitimate, dutiful, right. And it is not true that all wars are wrong. Sometimes they are right. Legitimate, dutiful, right."
In my view, war is never 'right'. But if it is in response to a 'legitimate' case of self defense, then it may be understandably necessary. The word 'legitimate' plays a central role. There really is no such thing as a 'just' war, but there may be such a thing as an appropriate, and legitimate, response to an attack or aggression. Bush's tactic of 'pre-emptive attacks , push legitimacy into question.
I suppose its all in how Bush and the Bushmen define attack and agression.
I understand what Fallaci means, but disagree on the terminology.
I never read the Sun...could care less about it...I never heard of Stoll, so his meanderings are meaningless, I have heard of, and read some of Fallaci, and would give her credibility before I give any to some nameless writer from space...
Posted by: duh_swami at March 17, 2006 11:56 AM
I would like to apologize for the many misspellings in my last post., as I reread it, with some horror, I noticed them all, I asure you they were quite hidden when I did my proofreading.
It's a shame, because I have found English, my adoptive language, to one of the worlds most beautiful and versatile and at the same time most complex with it's spelling, still it sure beats Arabic.
I guess I must re-read my copy of "Eats, Shoots and Leaves".
Interested, I will confess, that I prefer to read most things in English. I can stomach reading to much in Spanish as it's prose is heavy influenced by expressive stylistic sentence structure that reminds one of the old fashion writing styles of the past. Sometimes you want bit your tongue and be patient till the author reveals the meat of the issue after many extremely expressive and convoluted linguistic meanders.
Interested, there is something to be said about the restrained passion of English.
I love the clarity of English, it is beautiful.
My son has a hard time with Spanish prose too.
Posted by: El Cid at March 17, 2006 12:31 PM
"The Noise. And the People".
-- from a posting above
Interested is alluding to a remark attributed to an English army officer (and public-school boy) or -- in some versions --to Noel Coward himself, when asked about his experience during the war:
"My dear, the noise, the people!"
at March 17, 2006 12:34 PM
I certainly don't want to detract or gainsay the heroic accomplishments of those people who have sounded the alarm. To be sure, these prophets should be extolled for their prescience and bravery - for their incisive truth seeing eyes and truth telling minds. Do that for a day -- a weekend -- continue to do it with havarti cheese and hoist toasts to those bright heros -- It is virtuous to pay homage to them.
For quite some time I've been posting here about the inaccessibility of the message. It may not be popular to say, especially just when the truth seems to be peeping out here and there from certain crannies and crevices which are forming. But the resistance to this anti-Jihad story persists. This recurring pattern needs to be carefully and thoughtfully dissected by those who care about the anti-Jihad. We're not ready for prime time yet!
Who else is stunned that fully 5 years after the 'wake-up call' of 9/11, the larger world still slumbers? Who else cannot believe that most people still seem asleep, despite the slouching beast we plainly see creeping around our house?
One challenge will be holding onto the passion which El Cid speaks of. Another is rejecting despair. Despair is the most destructive tool in Islam's arsenal -- it is the purpose of terrorism and Jihad after all -- it is the thing that shrivels the souls of Islam's opponents, and the enzyme which then digests the sinews of their society. A third and all important challenge is fashioning the message which will reverberate among the masses. A message which can straddle the divides in our society, circumlocute all of the cultural land mines and psychological defenses which exist among those who dangerously still slumber while the monster creeps through the rooms, breaking and stealing, eating the food in the pantry, and even devours the children...
The people are voting in the West. Their resistance to the message is a vote. How can we -- the inheritors of the greatest democracy in history -- how can we not recognize that our message isn't fashioned yet for them? I don't say this to demoralize or contribute to any sense of defeat -- far from it -- I view this as the challenge it is -- how can we craft the message that will resonate?
Posted by: jsla at March 17, 2006 1:15 PM
There are far too many people with a degree and a job in a large city who assume their sophistication is actually leaps and bounds beyond their demonstrable sophistication.
I just finished the book version of The Rage and the Pride. I recall reading much of it in essay form at the time. Presumably, now I'm more dangerous somehow, having read a BAD BOOK.
Too many people are waiting for our allegedly-educated people to "get it." Fact is they've decided to oppose getting it for institutional and, mainly, economic reasons.
I think the 'justification' is protecting the poor, disadvantaged jihadis from the seething masses of middle class professionals and working people out there. The so-called elites in this nation view the average American as somewhere between Ed Norton in America History X and Timothy McVeigh.
Instead of sending our bulgy-eyed, pampered, and diverse college students to "Palestine" they should send them to work real jobs in middle-class suburbs for a few Summers.
Posted by: Beagle at March 17, 2006 1:25 PM
From the review I understand that the writer of that article is criticizing Fallaci for misplacing her rants. It is saying that perhaps Fallaci should rant about serious things: About Sharia, about Muslims' terrorizing others, about their treatmen of women, about their disrespect for the values of the societies they move into.
Instead by ranting about things like Halal meat and separate cemetries and private schools, it is Fallaci who creates a false moral equivalence between muslims and Jews. That, I think, was one of the point in the review.
The problem with muslims is not that the muslim immigrants want halal meat and separate cemetries like the Jews do, but in their violent behaviour, disrespect for values of the host nation, treatment of women,etc. By mixing the two, Fallaci undermines the seriousness of her rants.
Posted by: SeenathePersian
at March 17, 2006 5:08 PM
"Encountering a pro-American European journalist who writes passionately and in chilling detail of the threat to the West from the rise of Islam in Europe, one is tempted to be supportive."
Yeah right; disingenuous from the git-go.
Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 17, 2006 5:15 PM
"both the words "have" - "have"- and "whore" - "who-re" - are hyphenated, as if they were being pronounced in a bad Italian accent."
Italaphobe!
Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 17, 2006 5:17 PM
"...what she's alarmed about is religions having their own cemeteries."
If that's what he really said then his own English "ain't" too good either. It should read, "...what she's alarmed about ARE religions having their own cemetaries." Doesn't he have some kind of English usage reference book?!
Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 17, 2006 5:21 PM
^^^^ bZAPP! -- Sorry, wrong answer! ^^^^
Posted by: jsla at March 17, 2006 5:33 PM
"Does anybody know what anybody means by neo-con anymore? I don't."
They usually mean conservative Jew, former liberal, don't they?
at March 17, 2006 5:35 PM
jsla, are you referring to my is/are post? If I'm wrong about it then will someone please erase that entry and this one. I'm kind of spamming the topic anyway. sorry....
Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 17, 2006 5:46 PM
As Bill Clinton said, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 17, 2006 5:50 PM
El Cid
I'm with you. I'm familiar with a couple of Romance languages. Writing in English is an exercise in mental discipline, sometimes excruciating yet exhilarating.
I had a mental block the other day when I tried to read on the net a French writer living in Canada, Maurice Dantec. He posts at surlering.com. He's clearly talented and has interesting things to say--he's a brave guy, he exiled himself from the unbreathable French political and cultural atmosphere--but there's so much post-modern foreplay, so much narcissism--the French have a word for this kind of indulgence: calophilie--that I couldn't read anymore. He was taking way too long to get to the "good spots." And especially since the subject was the death of Ilan Halimi.
Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 17, 2006 5:50 PM
Bad journalism has emerged as one of the Pillars of Islam.
Based on this confused and mistaken review, maybe some enterprising Middle Eastern Studies professor can come up with a bad college course centered around Fallaci's new book. The kids'd sign up for the course in droves and cluck and shake their heads at Ms. Fallaci's irrationality.
MORE KORANS MORE HADITHS MORE SIRATS MORE MOSLEMS MORE ISLAM MO MO
Egregiously mistaken, but purposefully mistaken. Ira Stoll is one purpose-driven dude. I tip my cap to Ira's mistakedness, and the badness of his journalism. Stumble on.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 17, 2006 5:56 PM
It is a seemingly endless task to address all of these problems in the reviews of "see no evil hear no evil" ignoramuses such as Stoll.
I am very grateful for Robert's efforts to expose and refute such opinions. Robert's refutations are also valuable as examples. Now more people need to take these lessons and apply them.
Posted by: Archimedes at March 17, 2006 6:07 PM
I don't know. I hesitate to support Fallaci. I hate alarmists. She is one. She is not as logical as Mr. Spencer, her wrtiing is over-emotional and often prejudiced. Although she alludes to the same points Mr. Spencer makes she never outright explains them in a sophisticated manner. Secondly, bullshit statitistics like the 95% (did she do research? maybe its more or less) quote demonstrate that her goal is not to be accurate but to be a rabble-rouser. I resent Mr. Spencer's defense of her writing. Also, her claim that there is no moderate Islam is outright wrong. Even Mr. Spencer alludes to the fact that many Muslims do not follow jihadist ideology and a few are even proactive in attempting to end it.
Posted by: Skeptic at March 17, 2006 7:40 PM
I know Fallaci and her writings are highly esteemed here. I also know what she has had to endure because of speaking the truth about Islam. However having attempted to read "The Rage and the Pride" I think she could use a professional translator. The poor translation made the book almost unreadable for me.I think a better translation would make her works more accessible to the masses here in America. Many Americans have come to believe that something is very rotten in Islam which has lead people to seek information about Islam. Fallaci's passionate books combined with a good translation would go a long way toward educating much of the public.
Posted by: Roxane at March 17, 2006 7:58 PM
Hammer_Time
For some obscure reason, my answer to your comment on the NY Sun reviewer's grammar(syntax)was lost.
You are wrong.
at March 17, 2006 9:20 PM
Skeptic,
I agree; Fallaci is often not accurate. This cannot be excused, especially with the amount of information available on the internet. How some of these mistakes get past the editors, I am not sure. (I believe recently she claimed Mohammad was seventy when he married himself to the child-bride Ayesha. According to the Islamic texts, Mohammad was probably about 53 at the time, and he was about 62-63 at the time of his death. Mistakes like this are distracting. Nevertheless, one should not lose sight of the basic point that an old man--the leader of an entire religon--married and had sex with a child). Nevertheless, the general thrust of her argument is correct, i.e., that not only is European civilization increasingly under threat, but over the next years and decades it will be increasingly in peril. This is based on simple demographic trends as well as the known behaviour of Islamists living in Europe.
Re the "moderate Islam" issue, there are different ways to say this, but I am inclined to agree with Ibn Warraq's phrasing that there are moderate Muslims but Islam itself is not moderate. The intention here seems to be to identify the core doctrine (Koran, Hadith and Sira) as immoderate, which I think is a fair assessment, but to also point out that not all Muslims actually follow the immoderate or hard-line aspects (i.e., they are moderate Muslims). Progressive Muslims might not like this characterization of Warraq's because they may truly believe that Islam can be moderate if it is given a modern interpretation. The whole matter of terminology is difficult because as Robert notes there is a wide spectrum of interpretations. Each of these interpretations (or sects, or approaches) purports to be "Islam." There is a trade-off between using accuracy and accessibility of terminology; there are bound to be some inaccuracies introduced in order to communicate to a wide audience of readers in an economical style. As long as the context clarifies what is meant by "Islam," I don't really have a problem with it.
Posted by: Archimedes at March 17, 2006 9:28 PM
"The existence of moderate (or, in this case, simply lax) Muslims does not establish the existence of moderate Islam."
I think this is correct. When we survey the millions of apparently harmless Muslims, we do not see "moderate Muslims", so much as "lax Muslims" -- two categories that have significant differences. I don't know if these lax Muslims represent a mass of hope. Perhaps if we recognize their existence and learn why they are lax, we can exploit that laxity. I think millions of Muslims are lax simply because reality (of human nature and of societies) doesn't jive with essential Islam. The psychological result for many of them might be a dormant schizophrenia, which certain inflammatory circumstances might ignite and force a choice -- either towards essential Islam, or towards abandoning Islam. Most of the time, however, the schizophrenia remains dormant. I think the theory of Bush, Friedman and Fukyama is that modernity can eventually "smother" their schizophrenia and produce de facto non-Muslim West-embracing Muslims. (Ironically, Bush's policies, such as invading and maintaining indefinite military presence in Iraq, serve to exacerbate rather than mollify that ignition, at least in the short run; I guess Bush thinks he takes the long view.)
In the meantime, we need to stay vigilant and suspicious.
Posted by: Television at March 17, 2006 10:53 PM
I hesitate to support Fallaci. I hate alarmists. She is one. Posted by Skeptic
She is dying of cancer. She is pressed for time. She is desperate. This book is her final passionate warning to the West to do something before it is too late. The situation is serious, worthy of alarm. Her fervor is far more appropriate than the empty rhetoric of apologists, appeasers, deniers, and their politically correct, feel-good, say-nothing gibberish.
Maybe there is a magic formula yet to be discovered that will captivate the minds of the apathetic, the ignorant, the unwary, and even the die-hard apologists. Maybe this secret recipe will have universal appeal and people of all political and religious persuasions will find it irresistible. It will contain perfect measurements of warnings, anecdotes, pedaogogy, history, and hysterics. Its ingredients will be carefully measured words. Once ingested, instant revelation will occur. Until then, those who understand, like Ms. Fallaci, will attempt to enlighten others in their own unique style, which some will hate and others will love. The way I see it, nobody could write with such passion and intensity about an irrelevant, innocuous, or imaginary issue.
Fallaci writes as an observer, not as an expert on Islam. She relates what she has observed and her observations have infuriated and frightened her. She wants others to open their eyes, look around and witness what she has seen, and do something about it. Her resentment, fury, and fear are understandable and justified, and I think she is trying to evoke these emotions in others in an effort to compel them to save their civilization. She has dedicated the last days of her life to the valiant effort of saving Western Civilization, and I am awed by her stalwart perseverance and courage.
at March 18, 2006 12:48 AM
I wonder what that other passionate open-minded Italian(-American) woman of letters, Camille Paglia, has to say about Fallaci?
Posted by: Television at March 18, 2006 1:22 AM
Yes Zathras: it is a conspiracy.
The Communist conspiracy has joined forces with Islam (or infiltrated it)
at March 18, 2006 4:23 PM
"Interested, we need a little rant and passion, being use to Spanish oratory I understand that from Italian to English something is lost in translation."
Funny, this book came out in Polish last summer (presumably earlier than the English version?) and I was devouring it on a beach at a Polish seaside resort. In Polish it came across as passionate, thunderous, uncompromising, temperamental and utterly convincing and very Italian. It felt like I was listening to someone over an already empty bottle of Chianti. No temperature gap whatsoever.
at March 18, 2006 6:35 PM
Well said Susan. There is indeed space for an Oriana Fallaci in the anti-Islamic resistance.
Posted by: Cornelius at March 18, 2006 6:56 PM
ovidius_naso,
I'm sorry that your post did not come through too. When I make a mistake I like to learn from it. The correction should've come from the one who "bZAPPed" me on it but I guess he couldn't be bothered.
Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 19, 2006 3:18 AM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)