Esmay... Pig Latin for "mess?"

Ixnay on the Esmay.

Posted by: Shinoliite at May 17, 2006 10:02 AM

"One convinced against their will, is of their former opinions still;"

Bicker to and argue fro;

Minds thus changed;

Revert you know

So debate. So win? What would be gained anyway in this case?

Posted by: witness at May 17, 2006 10:04 AM

Witness,

As I said, I do not expect to convince Esmay, but only people of good will and open mind.

And the point? To continue to try to awaken America and the West to the nature of what we face, so that we can confront it more effectively.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 17, 2006 10:11 AM

Incredible stuff Robert, everytime I read your material I learn. This in turn helps me, in my own small way on a local level, inform others about the threats all of us face from Islam.

Posted by: adobe at May 17, 2006 10:13 AM

There is always the problem of the "neduel'nij" (not-duellable because it would be undignified even to recognize) opponent, but in this case the effort was worth it. It allows for the spelling out, once again, of why what Islam inculcates, not as an afterthought, not tangentially, but centrally, matters, and must always matter. What it teaches matters even if there exist here and there a small sect (e.g. the Ahmadiyya) who reject the most disturbing doctrines of violent Jihad (but nonetheless look eagerly toward Islam covering the globe through non-violent means -- see the tireless "Naseem"). Seeking to deny, or wilfully ignore, the contents of Islam, because it is too disturbing, and to replace 1350 years of dcotrine and of history (of Jihad-conquest and imposition of the dhimmi status -- humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity -- on every kind of non-Muslim, Christian, Jew, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, Sikh, and all others -- is not the way to deal either truthfully, or helpfully, with the problem. The sentimentalism of the person who bases his views on anecdotal evidence (his Muslim "friend" who assures him of all kinds of things, or intimates that his own rejection of certain doctrines means that those doctrines do not exist), and above all that business of the "loyal Muslim allies" fighting "side-by-side" -- well, the biggest fighting "side-by-side" in a sense was that of the Saudis, who contributed money and weapons and even volunteers to the mujadiheen fighting Soviet troops in Afghnanistan. So what? They did so for their own reasons -- they hated Infidels, and wanted them out of a Muslim country. If some Muslims in Iraq fight "side-by-side" with American troops (and very few do, and they are rightly distrusted by the Americans), it is only out of self-interest, and not becdause they are stout friends of the American Infidels. The minute they no longer think those American presence will not guarantee Americans doing most of the fighting for them, and the continued flow of American taxpayers's money to "rebuild" Iraq, they will turn on the Americans. No matter when the Americans pull out, the ingratitude and hostility will be made completely clear, save in the case of the Kurds, who will continue to be grateful for the air cover from 1991-2003, and who will continue to see the Americans as necessary allies against the Arabs. That's it.

This whole business of "Muslim allies" misses the point. The only reason Saudi Arabia and Egypt approved of the first Gulf War was not because of any moral outrage, or any real friendliness toward the United States (ask the airmen who have been stationed in Saudi Arabia how they are treated by the Saudis). It was simply a matter of fear that Saddam Hussein might, if he was successful in seizing Kuwait, then move on Saudi Arabia. That's it. And that is always it.

It is absurd to think that any Muslim people or polity could ever offer heartfelt support for Infidels except in those limited cases where their own immediate self-interest will be furthered.

Posted by: Hugh at May 17, 2006 10:23 AM

Witness,

As I said, I do not expect to convince Esmay, but only people of good will and open mind.

And the point? To continue to try to awaken America and the West to the nature of what we face, so that we can confront it more effectively.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

A good and noble point it is sir; if we do not confront it effectively, it will confront us certainly.

Keep up the good work -- your supporters are growing in number despite what your boisterous detractors might have you believe.

Posted by: witness at May 17, 2006 10:36 AM

One more thing. Iraq is mentioned above.

The sentimentalist in the White House who contents himself with bromides about how people everywhere "love freedom" and that all we have to do is bring "freedom" to Iraq and with that "freedom" (demonstrated by those purple-thumbed elections that drew tears from sentimentallists everywhere) all manner of things will be well, and that Islam's resurgence -- not return, because it never left --in Iraq is nothing to worry about, because Islam is not the problem, only those "extremists" who "pervert" a "noble religion" are the problem. Nonsense on stilts.

This kind of sentimentalism prevents the kind of colder calculation that is necessary. How best to husband, rather than squander, resources? How best to exploit fissures within the camp of Islam? How best to recreate, for example, that Iran-Iraq War that tied the Islamic Republic of Iran up for eight of the first nine years of its hideous existence, and at the same time used up so much of the aggressive energy, and wherewithal, of Saddam Hussein, and also soaked up tens of billions in cash from Kuwait, the U.A.E., and Saudi Arabia, who helped to fund him as the Sunni champion against Shi'a mad-dog (if not Rafidite dog) Iran.

As long as we keep talking about our "Muslim allies" we will not talk about the ways to use the ethnic, sectarian, and economic fissures within the camp of Islam to divide, demoralize, and weaken that camp. And those fissures are so obvious, and presented to us on such an obvious platter in Iraq, that it would be remarkably stupid to ignore them, and even stupider to try to end those fissures, to patch them up, to make Iraq that Light Unto the Muslim Nations it isn't and never could be. Much the same kind of idiocy -- hoping to make Indonesia another "model" of what can be done, rather than taking the occasion wherever it presents itself of forcing Muslims to make the connection between their own despotisms and economic paralysis with the nature of Islam itself. For it is the encouragement, by Islam, of the habit of mental submission, and obedience to authority as long as the authority is Muslim, that explains the despotisms, ruthless or quasi-enlightened, that are to be found in all Muslim states save those few that have consciously constrained Islam as a political and social force, as in Turkey, with its systematic series of measures knonwn as "Kemalism." It is Muslims who, no longer rescued by the Jizyah of Western foreign aid, and with efforts made to limit their returns from oil and gas revenues (which are not economic development, but rather an accident of geology), will have to begin to comprehend that inshallah-fatalism, which comes from Islam (Allah knows best; no one can predict what will happen for it is all in Allah's hands, etc.), explains the economic stasis that is everywhere evident. Finally, the intellectual, social, and moral failures of the Islamic societies is not a matter of genetic makeup but rather of Islam and its teachings. It is important that the conditions be created, by Infidels ceasing to help Muslims, ceasing to pretend that there is nothing about Islam itself that explains their situation, and instead, allowing the creation of those conditions which will force Muslims to confront the link between Islam and the failures of their own societies. Whether they do something about this within Islam, or take the route of Ataturk, so as to create a sufficient number of secularists within their socities, is unclear. But at least the Infidels will have seen things clearly, and rescued themselves. And that is the most important thing. We are not here to save the world, but to save ourselves. It is we who are threatened by those instruments of Jihad--Da'wa and demographic conquest and the "money" weapon -- that we persist in ignoring, as we clump-clump-clump, at great expsense, into places we did not study sufficiently, and remain, hideously stuck through the sheer obstinacy of this administration that is incapable of admitting it was mistaken, and would rather continue to sacrifice men, money, materiel, on an unproven, sentimental, and by now self-evidently foolish theory about "victory" in Iraq that convinces no one, and in fact, has not even been coherently explained. For in what would such a "victory" consist? Some nation-state, with the Americans still there, keeping Kurds from exiting, defending from attack now the Shi'a, and now the Sunnis, those American soldiers under attack but still, that ultimate symbol of madness and folly, that 21-building "Embassy Comnplex," costing $595 building, continues to be built. It will never be used as an American Embassy in a safe, grateful, friendly Iraq. That is certain -- certain to everyone but those in the Amdinistration who keep building the damn thing. But does anyone speak out about this folly, symbol of all that is crazy in tarbaby Iraq?

Not yet. But they will. And then, for those who continue to believe that the best way to deal with the Jihad is to build up this or that Muslim army or state, to find "friends" and create "models" in the Muslim world while ignoring the real nature of Islam and refusing to pay attention to the demographic problem in Western Europe, the silly cheerleaders for "transformative diplomacy" and the Democracy-Is-On-the-March movement, it will all be over.

And that should be the end of sentimentality as state policy.

Posted by: Hugh at May 17, 2006 10:49 AM

"Sentimentalism" is about right.

It is very very thin stuff and only works if you are operating at an intellectual level where you do not pay attention either to the Koran and Traditions or to the historical record but make vague statements and false parallels - e.g., mythical "Christian nutjobs". In other words, the outline is determined by the, so to speak, outcome Esmay wants to draw and does not emerge out of an analysis and understanding of the evidence.

This is sentimental in precisely the sense popularized by F. R. Leavis. It is intellectual kitsch. (See here for an interesting parallel: Kitsch and the Modern Predicament.)

Esmay is striking a pose, using the world as an excuse for self-regarding emotion. The times are too serious for such games, but I doubt anyone could get through to him.

The rest of us can only look at such evidence as this learned (not educated but highly learned) ayatollah on Al Jazeera calmly drawing death and mayhem from his exegetical tradition -

http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1135

- and feel scorn for the ignorant, opinionated, self-satisfied - and frankly dangerous - Esamys of this world.

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 17, 2006 10:52 AM

Mr. Esmay is not permitting new registration, so we can't post a response at his site.
I wonder if Esmay has ever heard of the duty of muslims to lie to infidels?
http://www.ci-ce-ct.com/Feature%20articles/02-12-2002.asp

Posted by: Carolyn2 at May 17, 2006 11:02 AM

BTW, "childish"? If Robert Spencer is childish in bringing the truth to a sleeping population, I wish for thousands more to sound the alarm. Was Churchill "childish"?
Since politicians and neocons like to make themselves seem strong when responding to Muslim terrorism by joining themselves to the ghost of Winston Churchill, it would be appropriate to see what Churchill himself thought about Islam. This is from his 1899 book, The River War, written when he was 24 years old:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.…A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities ... but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome. [The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pp. 248-50.]

Please note that the Islam that Churchill is describing as inherently a slave system, as inherently presenting an ongoing threat to Europe, is not “radical” Islam, not “political” Islam, not “Islamo-fascism.” It is traditional, normative, orthodox Islam.
Yet the very people who rush to put on Churchill’s mantle would deny this truth. Imagine if one of the speakers at that Claremont Institute dinner, where the Winston Churchill award was given to Mark Steyn, had read aloud this passage of Churchill’s. The room would have fallen into an embarrassed silence. The speaker would be seen as having committed an unpardonable offense against propriety.
From http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/004826.html

Posted by: Carolyn2 at May 17, 2006 11:13 AM

I had a quick look at his site - I found his postings gramatically challenged to say the least which leads me to the conclusions that either

a) He's a speed freek who's been up too long and is a little bit fraid at the edges.
b) He's a borderline teeneager using his mums computer without permission
c) He's a MUSLIM practising the noble art of disinformation.

Either way he's a jerk of the highest order !

Posted by: johnmac at May 17, 2006 11:22 AM

Dean Esmay's ignorance of Islam leads him to step into making some awfully stupid statements. Dean Esmay expressed his support for Sistani, perhaps not realizing that Sistani considers non-Muslims to be literally the equivalent urine and feces, and that Sistani, like other Shia leaders, has called for the summary execution of homosexuals.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011364.php#c213280

Dean says "talk to Muslims." Well, we do talk to Muslims, Dean, and some of them say things like these:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010698.php#c193420

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010698.php#c193711

We also have had some moderate progressive Muslim posters (e.g., Haidon) who disagree with such harsh views and are actively working against the jihadist ideology, and in general support the objectives of Robert and the jihadwatch site.

Some questions Dean might like to ask his Muslim friends:

1. Do you believe the Koran cannot be doubted? (2:2)

2. Do you believe that in Islam (a) there should be a penalty for "crimes" such as apostasy and blasphemy, and (b) if the answer to (a) is "yes", Do you believe that apostates and blasphemers should be executed?

3. Do you accept the validity of the following insults (see below) directed against those who reject the Koran and Mohammad?

The Koran says that disbelievers (non-Muslims): are “worst of created beings” (98:6), are “miscreants” (2:99, 24:55), are the worst beasts in Allah’s sight (8:22, 8:55); (some Christians and/or Jews are) turned into “apes and/or pigs” (2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166); are like frightened donkeys chased by a lion (74:50-51), are like cattle (7:179), are like dogs (7:176); they (idolators) are unclean (9:28); “evil” is upon them (16:27), evil (2:91, 2:99); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); the “wrong-doers” (42:45, 2:254, 5:45); evil-doers (42:44); evil-livers (5:59); they have no good in them (8:23); are “guilty” for disbelieving (45:31, 83:29); on the side of Satan and are fighting for him (4:76-77); of the party of Satan (58:19); Allah assigns them devils for protecting friends (7:27); they choose devils for protecting friends (7:30); are partisan against Allah (25:55); “enemy” and “perverted” (63:4); disgraced lives (22:9); hypocrites (4:61); have a “diseased heart” (2:10, 9:125); are ill (84:20); deaf, dumb, and blind, and have no sense (2:171); deaf and dumb and in darkness, Allah sends them astray (6:39); have no sense (5:103, 10:100); a folk who do not understand (9:127); their fathers were unintelligent and had no knowledge or guidance (2:170, 5:104); are “a folk without intelligence”/ “most ignorant” (8:65, 6:111); losers who are deceived by Allah (2:6), and deceived by Satan (4:60); Allah sends devils against them to make them do evil (19:83); Allah cursed them for their unbelief (2:88-89), liars/they lie (2:10, 4:50, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11) “losers” (5:53, 7:178-179); foolish and liars (7:66), liars and losers (58:18-19), in false pride and schism (38:2), among the lowest (58:20); the lowest of the low (95:4-6)

In reading those insults, keep the following points in mind:
-these insults apply to disbelievers because they are disbelievers (disbelief is the worst crime)
-the insults are assumed to be the words of Allah and are therefore true of disbelievers for all time, until the Last Day
-the disbelievers cannot do anything to improve Allah’s perception of them (He does not accept the good works of the disbelievers), except to believe in and obey Allah.
-the insulting adjectives refer to the inherent character traits of disbelievers

Posted by: Archimedes at May 17, 2006 11:25 AM

What Esmay needed to have done is take some time to see what Mr. Spencer writes (those things called "published books" might help, for a starter) before going off half-cocked about what he "thinks" the purpose of this site is, or what Mr. Spencer's critiques of Islamic "extremism" (AKA- the central behavior in historical Imperialistic Islam, as directed by Mohammad and Allah, and reinforced by the Hadiths) actually amount to.

His "Nope. Don't have to." dismissal has the eerie ring of one of my three year old nieces when asked to pick up her Powerpuff Girl videos.

But, in general, his citations of moderates will do nothing to counteract the Koranically-based terrorism that gruesomely leavens the Muslim world with daily carnage, from beheading schoolgirls in Asia to blowing one another up in Iraq over the Shi'ite Sunni schism.

Mr. Spencer is attempting to find strong moderates who can read the Koran to their violent brethren in a way convincing enough to disarm their "misunderstanding" of the putatively "peaceful" religion of Mohammad/Allah.

Building a conceptual structure on the sand of wishful thinking leads to predictable failure. Islam MUST reform the bloodthirsty Koranic Suras and Hadiths into metaphorical poetry (as Judaism and Christianity tempered their state-based depredations... from Deuteronomy to the Inquisition, when they held earthly power... into a secularized vision of a ministering to the soul, and not an ordering of the body, or direct control of the government, as Islam STILL decrees).

Or the ongoing (since 700 A.D.) jihad terrorism will continue to escalate into a WMD attack on the infidel dogs of the West. And it will be "perfectly" justified by Allah's Sura 9:29-30, et al.

Muslims need to rein-in their numerous militant terrorists through an acknowledged religious leadership who can convincingly cite Mohammedan scriptural interpretations that transmute their external, triumphalistic, imperialistic, intolerant and despotic "holy war" mentality into a true "inner struggle" with their fallen natures' bestial desires (or doesn't cutting peoples heads off, while shrieking "Allahu Akbar", fall into that category?).

Keeping an eye on the Islamically-rooted rationales used by jihadists for their theocratic-tyrannical impulse to "subjugate all peoples and lands" into Islamic "submissives", as JW/DW does, only seems common sensical when these "holy warriors" are actively attempting to destroy the "pigs and apes"'s Civilization that secures we infidels our basic human freedoms.

If Christians, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, Bahais, Shintoists, Moonies or Hindus were at work with a global network of war-making against all "infidel" faiths, then keeping an eye on such maniacs, and the religious doctrines which they use to prop up their rampages, would make equal sense. But they aren't. (All of Dean Esmay's microscopic and ineffectual Christian Identity and KKK'ers notwithstanding.)

What I wonder is: what exactly is Mr. Esmay trying to accomplish by citing various Muslim moderates, who appear to have no effect whatsoever on their extreme jihad-spreading brothers? Since these moderates cannot honestly deny the Koranic instructions for dominating the world in the name Allah.

They may be welcome types, these non-strict Muslims, but they are considered either borderline-apostates or religious cowards by their more militant Islamicists. And are easily swept away (see Iran in 1979) or, if resisted (see Algeria's election and rejection of the jihadists which led to a decade-plus long "holy" war within that country), fight on from the shadows, seeing 1350 years of inspiration and spiritual reinforcement behind them, from Mohammad to Saladin, the 19th century Egyptian Mahdi to Osama Bin Laden.

The problem is Islam's.

If we point it out here, because the general "moderate Muslims" continue to fail to (spectacularly), it only means that we support the defanging of the killer Koran. And the true uprising of such "moderates".

Until there is a Council of Nicea-level effort within Islam (quite hard, because it is so decentralized) to reinterpret the bloodlust of Mohammad into a spiritualized realm of symbol, Muslim jihadists will be a simmering danger to all infidels.

Self-defense requires an analysis of the texts and behaviors of those who threaten you.

Mr. Esmay may need to take a few days off to read the basic Islamic documents.

They may appall him.

But, as someone said, "The truth shall make you free".

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 17, 2006 11:43 AM

In his blog, Dean Esmay said

I see in the comments that much abuse is being piled upon my head, including people bringing up totally irrelevant side issues like my skepticism of the WHO's position on AIDS.

I guess Dean didn't notice my comment that gave specific examples of why his claim that "the Koran says war is forbidden unless you're attacked and treaties with you are broken" is a false statement. Dean can call me "ignorant" and "incoherent" and "ridiculous" and "traitorous", but it will not change the falsity of his statement.

I cannot speak for JW/DW or Robert or Hugh, but my interpretation of JW/DW's stance is "Islamic terrorists, of which there are many throughout the world, are religiously motivated and use the Qur'an and the Sunah to justify their violence. These documents are the core of Islam, and are followed by Muslims of all sects". Dean Esmay's stance seems to be "There exist Muslims who claim to disavow violence". These two beliefs are not mutually exclusive. Even if we agree with Esmay's belief, which Robert has done here on multiple occasions, it does nothing to disprove JW/DW's thesis. Dean wants to resist the jihad? Great. He thinks that there are Muslims who will join in that fight? I disagree (and sitting in your basement and silently disagreeing with the jihadists doesn't count), but Great. If Esmay is right, then we'll soon see a flood of Muslims standing up to take back the Religion of Peace from the few radicals who have hijacked it. It could happen, but I'm not holding my breath.

Dean Esmay has a blog. So what, Foehammer has a blog too, so does the watch-jihad-watch person. If I start a blog, does that oblige Robert to engage me one-on-one in debates on whatever topic I choose? Esmay's writings remind me of a JW poster Haidon who claims to be an American Muslim who, like Esmay, is very concerned with the loyalty of Muslim-American troops. I would rank Esmay as just another poster, one who concerns himself with convincing the infidels (not the jihadists) that Islam does not condone violence. We've had plenty of those before.

Posted by: special_guest at May 17, 2006 11:57 AM

Esmay asks Spencer about Yenny Wahid.

Spencer responded with a link to a previous discussion about her style of Islamic "reform":

when she says, "the prophet Muhammad said the greatest jihad is against yourself, how to make yourself a better person," she is referring to a tradition that does not appear in the collections of hadith considered most reliable by Muslims, and she takes no account of the polemics by Hasan Al-Banna, Abdullah Azzam and others that make exactly that point, and are influential among Muslims...

Yenny Wahid's prescription for Islamic reform is to put forth bald lies (or lies wearing a conspicuous hairpiece).

An accurate analogy for Esmay to contemplate would be this: imagine a Nazi reformer who is a nice person and seems sincere, making a public statement declaring that "Hitler said the greatest struggle is against yourself, how to make yourself a better person, and he never really meant to be belligerent against other countries nor did he mean to oppress minorities in Germany."

Why should we even give the time of day to such a Nazi reformer who tries to sell us a Hitler that is not reflected either in the texts of history (including Hitler's own words and the words of his followers) nor in the opinions of the vast majority of Nazis and neo-Nazis? Same thing goes for this Yenny Wahid: she is basing her reform of Islam on a false picture of Mohammed, and a false picture of Islam as we know it from its bloody, expansionist, supremacist, intolerant history.

One would ask Esmay: what kind of reform is that? Would Esmay be so willing to embrace a neo-Nazi who based his kinder, gentler new "reformed" and "moderate" neo-Nazism on such a misrepresentation of Hitler and the Nazi past?

We know the answer: Esmay would not.

So why is he so gullible about Islam and Muslim reformers?

He takes Spencer to task for expecting only the best from Muslim reformers: unvarnished, un-whitewashed, accurate representations of what Islam's fundamental texts teach, and what Muslim history has done.

We know that Esmay would not demand any less from Christian reformers: and Christian reformers (who are the vast majority of Christians, and this doesn't count the millions of modern Westerners who don't see themselves as Christians) have done just that: recognized the gravity and sins of past actions (Inquisition, witch-burnings, slaveholding, mistreatment of slaves, women, excessive puritanism, etc.) and apologized for them, and participated in movements of unprecedented historical ethical progress in the areas of social mores, laws, and political institutions.

Furthermore, the modern West (Christians and ex- or non-Christians) has over the past 200-odd years put its founding holy texts through the ringer of a comprehensive, radical process of skeptical, open-minded, rational analysis, with the result being nothing less than the deconstruction, on a sociopolitico-cultural level, of the Judaeo-Christian Bible. This has resulted in extraordinary existential disarray, which is both deleterious, and good (human nature grows and evolves through crises of thought and conscience, and facing the disturbing aspects of the mystery of life where the Absolute Truth is not to be belligerently assured, as it is to too many Muslims around the world).

These processes of change and evolution which Christendom suffered to give birth to the modern West are not only not occurring in the Muslim world, they are being resisted as being treasonous to the "nation" of Islam: and as Spencer tirelessly repeats, such an attitude has both the immutably divine texts of Islam, as well as the mainstream history of Islam, on its side.

Esmay is that type of person who cannot wrap his mind around the dismaying prospect that it is the Muslim reformers who are the minority extremists, and that it is the intolerant fundamentalists who are the mainstream, grassroots majority in Islam. Esmay cannot accept this, on basic abstract principle, not on any facts. He then bases every subsequent opinion of his on this abstract principle.

Posted by: Television at May 17, 2006 12:00 PM

PS: the quote from Spencer's comment about Yenny Wahid consisted only of this one paragraph:

when she says, "the prophet Muhammad said the greatest jihad is against yourself, how to make yourself a better person," she is referring to a tradition that does not appear in the collections of hadith considered most reliable by Muslims, and she takes no account of the polemics by Hasan Al-Banna, Abdullah Azzam and others that make exactly that point, and are influential among Muslims...

Everything that followed that is my words.

Posted by: Television at May 17, 2006 12:04 PM

Television-

Succinct.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 17, 2006 12:07 PM

"I think there's only one thing that will get the violent Jihadis to put their weapons down: kill enough of them that the rest of them give up. Then we have to bring free speech, free press, and free elections to the people of the region, as much as possible, so they can join the rest of us in the modern world."

From above a la Mr. Dean
-------------------------------------------------
WOW, how ignorant...

Posted by: Erik at May 17, 2006 12:13 PM

I for one do not think Esmay is a purposeful liar, hateful or insincere. We have to understand that there are millions of people born into Islam who do not see the religion as we do. The great majority of them accept the diversions and canards that Jihadists use to justify themselves to the western leftists. The cause of Jihad, they say, is all the evils of the west, and we Muslims are helpless victims, and if you stop there will be no more Jihad.

Esmay is of another group, who want their religion to be reformed, and are in my opinion cherry picking from their canon to support their goals. I would like to advance the idea that, while we may not agree with people like Esmay's ideas about Islam, we should not set about tearing them down. We cannot expect every Muslim to abandon their culture and faith upon the revelations that critics present. If Muslims internalize the values of the west, such as secularism and tolerance, we should welcome them. Esmay has a very valid point in that moderate Muslims cannot convince Jihadists to lay down their arms; what they can do is raise families and create a culture that is resistant to their entreaties. The corrosive influence of Islam's canonical texts will still be there, of this we are all in agreement, but a generation brought up with the values Muslims like Esmay hold dear will be able to further the cause of reform, abrogation and reasoned analysis of Muhammad's actions and teachings that we all want to see.

In short, Rome wasn't built in a day. Cut the moderate Muslims some slack, and disagree with them in a respectful manner.

Posted by: Quijybo at May 17, 2006 12:20 PM

Mr. Esmay:

I hope that you will take the time to respond to Mr. Spencer.

Have you ever wondered why Mr. Spencer is never constantly posting debates he has had with Muslims? Given that Islam is the "Religion of Peace" and can so easily be proven to be so, you would think they would be falling all over themselves to prove Mr. Spencer wrong. The problem is: they can't prove Mr. Spencer wrong. He is simply reporting on what mainstream Islamic theology is.

Read the Koran Mr. Esmay. It is, in short, hate literature. Read Ishaq's The Life of Muhammad (the biography that Muslims consider themselves to be most accurate). Muhammad was a thief, a war-mongerer, an accessory to mass murder and assented to the assassination of his opponents. In short, he was a psychopath. As well, Muslims consider him to be the perfect man, whose example is to be followed in every way. (Are you beginning to understand now why Muslims act the way they do, yet, Mr. Esmay?) If Muslims act decently, it is in spite of the doctrine of Islam.

Ibn Warraq, in his introduction to Andrew Bostom's The Legacy of Jihad, states as follows:

" Sir Isaiah Berlin once described an ideologue as somebody who is prepared to suppress what he suspects to be true. Berlin then concluded that from that disposition to suppress the truth has flowed much of the evil of this and other centuries. The first duty of the intellectual is to tell the truth. By suppressing the truth, however honorable the motive, we are only engendering an even greater evil.

We are all beholden to Dr. Bostom for helping us to see more clearly and honestly past events that have such an important bearing on present travails. In the words of Albert Schweitzer, "Truth has no special time of its own. Its hour is now, always, and indeed then most truly when it seems most unsuitable to actual circumstances."

Ibn Warraq
p. 23, from the foreword to The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, by Dr. Andrew G. Bostom

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591023076/002-6434606-0773624?v=glance

"The first duty of the intellectual is to tell the truth." Where do you stand Mr. Esmay? What do you really believe in?

Posted by: Mentat at May 17, 2006 12:24 PM

"Cut the moderate Muslims some slack, and disagree with them in a respectful manner."

I don't mind cutting the moderate Muslim some slack and disagreeing with them in a respectful manner -- as long as this is juxtaposed with keeping them under constant suspicious surveillance, with our guns cocked.

Remember the 70's song "Smiling Faces"?

Posted by: Television at May 17, 2006 12:30 PM

If Mr. Esmay starts accepting comments again at his site, any of us who post there should be temperate in our comments --- challenge his factual errors, not his character. He is mistaken and it is hard for most people to acknowledge their errors. We make it harder for him to perceive his own errors by explicitly or implicitly attacking his character.

I wonder whether Mr. Spencer may unintentionally do that in some of his commentary on purported "moderate" Muslims. In the current post, he objects to being "lied to" by moderate muslims. It seems to me that implies conscious intent, doesn't it?

For example:

'I have never said or written, anywhere, that "muslim moderates who defend their own faith and its interpretation are wrong or dishonest." I have simply objected, as I explained above, to being lied to about the Qur'an and Sunnah and Sira and Fiqh.'

This seems to affirm that self-proclaimed moderates aren't dishonest about their own private faith, but they do lie about the Islamic document trail (if I am lied to by someone, that implies that the one lying to me is a "liar", doesn't it?). Perhaps it would be better to say "I object to being misinformed about what is actually taught in Qur'an and Sunnah and Sira and Fiqh by people who seem to not know what is actually there" or even better "I object to being told that the real teaching of Qur'an and Sunnah and Sira and Fiqh is XYZ when the historical and present understanding of the vast preponderance of the Islamic world has been of an entirely different character." The question of conscious intent to misinform (which really is deception) then depends on the extent to which the moderates actually understand their own religious heritage. Mr. Spencer makes a good case that many of them seem not to.

Doubtless some and perhaps many of the "moderates" are indeed conscious deceivers who secretly hope to aid and abet the jihad by anesthetizing the infidel world. But that should be a case by case, and not a blanket, judgment.

Finally, I think that one could interpret some of Mr. Esmay's writing (at least what I have seen of it here) to be an appeal to not try to discourage Muslims who are seeking to formulate Modern understandings of Islam that can coexist in peace with the infidel world. I think that sometimes Mr. Spencer's public interactions with self-identified "moderates" (at least the little of them that I have seen) do have the "feel" of "you're wrong, it's hopeless; give up." A recent Frontpage symposium comes to mind. I don't think that is intended (though I am inclined to agree with the 'feel'. The bald facts appear quite discouraging to me). I think that Mr. Esmay may be reacting in part to this, though that does not excuse his errors of fact or his hostile attitude and inflammatory language.

Again, I suggest patience firmness with Mr. Esmay. It would be better to persuade him than to humiliate him, though perhaps he is unpersuadable.

I thank Mr. Spencer for his outstanding work.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at May 17, 2006 12:33 PM

Robert, you write, nor have I ever said flatly that "Islam is a dangerous, violent religion." That would be simplistic and in many ways misleading.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is so simplistic and misleading about such an assertion?

Posted by: Razdan at May 17, 2006 12:42 PM

sometimes Mr. Spencer's public interactions with self-identified "moderates" (at least the little of them that I have seen) do have the "feel" of "you're wrong, it's hopeless; give up." --Dhimmisoftheworldunite

If a purportedly moderate and/or reformist Muslim reveres Prophet Mohammed as a model worth emulating and as a source of predominately good counsel (if not immutable revelation!) for personal, social and political action, then, yes, any self-respecting rational human being would be obliged to tell such a Muslim: "you're wrong, it's hopeless; give up."

The question then becomes: how can Islam be reconstructed, when you take away the crucial, rotten pillar Prophet Mohammed ?

The sine qua non of any acceptable Islamic reform: That Prophet Mohammed was an evil and delusionary fanatical supremacist bent on imperial conquest to impose an intolerant, anti-liberal and anti-humane system upon the world, on the basis of eschatological fantasies and personal psychosis. If this cannot be candidly faced and productively digested by a purported Muslim reformer, then his or her enterprise is doomed to perpetuating a Potemkin village rotten to its core.

Posted by: Television at May 17, 2006 12:58 PM

Esmay asks the readers at Jihad Watch "what you doing to recruit anti-jihad-muslims?"

Ironic question. I have spoken to many muslims to understand their view, perception and position.

I have viewed that most muslims that are older are not necessarily "johnny on the spot pro-jihad", but they can justify it in two sentences instead of the younger generation. The younger generation is quick to pro-jihad and doesn't need even one sentence, they live in two worlds pro-jihad and jihad, and they can move between them quickly and without rationizing.

That is why we see in the media they can be incited to anger, riots, and uprising so easily. But yet it is so difficult to give them a job and KEEP them going to work, even France admits this.

A FEW (very little few) older muslims will say they do not support what is happening, or Wahhabism, or Jihad. But they say they cannot say anything about that for either fear of their lives, or fear of extended family lives back in the middle east.

I agree with Robert from my own personal experance. If there are moderates their numbers are so small, they have no voice and fear for their lives.

If Esmay is really concerned he will move away from his definition and application of the word Jihad, and he will locate moderate muslims, he will support and protect them and he will give them a voice. Because these moderates are in fear of their lives from the people that Esmay says are justified for defensive jihad.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at May 17, 2006 1:29 PM

Quijybo said

Cut the moderate Muslims some slack, and disagree with them in a respectful manner.

That should cut both ways. Esmay and his fellow "moderates" can skip the namecalling (calling Robert a traitor is beyond the pale in my book) and have a rational fact-based discussion. To this point, he hasn't. He says it is ridiculous to debate the jihadists; his only goal is to criticize the critics of Islam.

Esmay doesn't need our support, he's got the support of the Bush Administration (and Blair's and Chirac's and Berlusconi's and Schroeder's) and the mainstream media and the UN and CAIR and all those interfaith multiculturalists. We need his support, or rather we would if he was someone with any authority to change Qur'anic interpretation within the Muslim world. It is critics of Islam (like Theo Van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) who are under attack. Esmay is in no danger from the jihadists. All's he has said is that he knows some nice Muslims.

Posted by: special_guest at May 17, 2006 2:17 PM

Robert,

That was actually a well reasoned post. I commend you.

However, you seem to have taken what I have said in one discussion as the sine qua non of everything I stand for. I have never seen you cite any of my other posts (i've been blogging for months). You have now addressed my writings twice and always painted me out to be some kind of apologist, when, most Muslim traditionalists on my website spend most of their time calling me an apostate. I encourage you to look at my top ten posts on Islam

http://eteraz.wordpress.com/posts-hall-of-fame/

In addition, I would like to say that yours and mine approach with regard to approaching Islam are not that different, but I cannot align myself with you. Why? Because you have a tendency to polarize average Muslims. Whole 'objectively' speaking, having a name like "Jihad Watch" makes sense -- since you are fighting Jihadis -- it also makes average Muslims (who in their daily life are often wrongly accused of being Jihadis) feel like you are out to get them too. In other words, the difference between you and I is not our agenda, but our approach. If men were agendas and theory only, life would indeed be simpler.

The other problem, no offense, are your commentators. Obviously because of what you are saying a lot of people who like to believe that *all* Muslims are evil gravitate to you. Frankly, I will never feel that I can get a fair shake in your comments' section.

Anyway, check out my posts. My blog is full of other attempts to highlight the work of reformists all around the world. The last two or three weeks I have spent an inordinate amount of time dealing with islamic traditionalism (not jihadism, but intellectual conservatism). You ought check those posts out as well. In fact, my critique of Islamic Traditionalism began an entire blogwar amongst Muslims. A good summary can be found here.

I am alerting you to these things not because I care for your approval. I care only for being authentic to what I believe in. However, you have unfairly characterized me on two occassions now. In my discussion with Anchoress I highlighted some positive characteristics of Muhammad. However, that has not precluded me from highlighting his negative characteristics either. Consider:

https://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/03/03/prophet-muhammad-and-those-pesky-jewish-poets/

I have also attacked apostasy on six different occassions on my blog, from every angle imaginable. I'm currently working on something clearer. I exist on Gates of Vienna, Watcher's Council, and for some time on Infidel Blogger's Alliance.

Finally, I am aware that you are on the speaking circuit, have books, and are able to make the time for these things. Me, I'm a regular guy, with a job, who until a few months ago was busy writing his novel. I do not always have time to address the COPIOUS amounts of a) vitriol b) challenges c) intellectual challenges d) Muslim reprisal or e) anti-jihadist miscommunication that takes place. I started out my blog in order to post random musings and poetry. While I have studied Islamic Law, I do not have the time to make citations or references. What I do like about you - despite what I have been disappointed by - is that you appreciate two things:

1 - The idea that talking to the jihadis and proving them wrong using textual sources is the way to go. I think this to be terribly naive (not in a bad way). You cannot gain the seat to sit in front of OBL and prove him otherwise much less make the attempt. Otherwise scholars far more courageous and smarter than any you or I know would have done so. Pray tell: what are we to do about the fact that they have guns? Might I suggest: fighting them with guns?

2 - I appreciate that you are aware that Islam is a legal religion and that the Quran, Sunnah and fiqh are all tied together. I can have a healthy debate with one such person because our disagreements wouldn't be over what language to use, but what elements of the language to give primacy to.

Thanks for the time. Hope this reaches you.

Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com at May 17, 2006 2:28 PM

the islamic traditionalism blog war is here

http://www.zackvision.com/weblog/2006/05/islam-traditionalism.html

i am 'unwilling self-negation'

i should also add that my research in that arena is not finished.

Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com at May 17, 2006 2:30 PM

Special_Guest,

You are absolutely right that Esmay was quite hostile and insulting in his comments about RS and JW. However, we should remember that we have the Islamic texts and history on the side of our interpretation. We can afford to answer in a manner that enhances our efforts. Like I said in my post, Esmay might not be a threat to Jihadists, but the culture he encourages among his co-religionists will over time create a space for real questioning of the Jihad ideology. Give them some time and I believe it will happen. Islam has never confronted anything like western secular culture. It may appear to us that we are weak but in fact the Jihad ideology is what is on shaky ground. Reasoned discussion is deadly to it.

Posted by: Quijybo at May 17, 2006 2:33 PM

"I think there's only one thing that will get the violent Jihadis to put their weapons down: kill enough of them that the rest of them give up. Then we have to bring free speech, free press, and free elections to the people of the region, as much as possible, so they can join the rest of us in the modern world."

"WE have to bring"? Why are WE, the unbelievers-in-the-ways-of-Allah, the ones that have to bring in free anything to the people of Islamic regions? Don't moderate Muslims believe that Islam more than equips them to bring such Allah-ordained freedoms to "the people of the region" on their own, even in the face of un-Islamic tyranny, despotism, colonialism, etc.? What then does this imply about Islam, other than its impotence to do this very thing for Islamic countries? Why not leave Iraq now and let this free-speech-free-press-free-election-loving Islam take control, inshallah, if it's as great as moderate Muslims say it is?

In his above statement, Esmay pretty much issues a "no-confidence vote" against Islam and its ability to bring even basic freedoms for its people. The irony.

Posted by: yadayada at May 17, 2006 2:44 PM

Show me a person that won't listen to reason and the facts and ends arguments with statements like "Nope. Don't have to." -- and I'll show you a person that only deserves a good bitch-slapping.

We could ignore this idiot if he wasn't pushing his illusions onto a host of readers. Unfortunate on both counts.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 17, 2006 2:50 PM

Quijybo said

It may appear to us that we are weak but in fact the Jihad ideology is what is on shaky ground.

I am very interested in this statement. I would say that the jihad ideology is not on shaky ground, I would say that it is solidly grounded in the words of the Qur'an and the Surah.

Bear with me: I am saying that if you believe the tenants of Islam, that the Qur'an is the immutable word of Allah, and that Mohammad is the perfect man to be emulated for all time, then the jihadists are completely justified in their actions and methodology.

I do not believe the tenants of Islam, I think the jihadists are excrecable mass murderers. But if you believe what the Qur'an says, that Allah demands that you must wage war until the disbelievers submit, then how can you argue with the jihadists? It is the "moderates" who are on shaky ground, unable to come up with Qur'anic justification for their interpretation.

And giving the "moderates" more time won't help, since the word of Allah is true for all time. This is not like the Reformation of the Christian religion, where you had different interpretations of the Apostles' writings. This is the direct word of Allah, and it is not subject to change. If the "moderates" want to abrogate sections of the Qur'an and remove the violent parts, and also change the personal history of Mohammad, that would be nice, but would it be Islam?

Posted by: special_guest at May 17, 2006 3:11 PM

Robert wrote: I'd feel fine about it. I'd think you were hysterical, since there are no "Christian nutjobs" who regularly commit acts of mass murder and terrorism, but I am not interested in what you choose to do with your time. Here again, as in your reference to "Jew Watch" before, your analogy is fuzzy: neither "Christian" nor "Jew" are cognate with "Jihad." This is not "Muslim Watch." As for the Scripture quotes, as I said above, any use of Scripture by those groups is already denied and refuted by the doctrines of all mainstream Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant bodies. This is what must be done within Islam, if it can be done. If you think it already has been done, prove it.

It just struck me that there can't be an equivalent of Jihad Watch for Christians and Jews. There is no equivalent word for Jihad in those religions. The fact that there is such a word in Islam/Arabic is telling.

Posted by: Open Eyes at May 17, 2006 3:22 PM

Esmay wrote above (under the name of "eteraz.wordpress.com"): "In my discussion with Anchoress I highlighted some positive characteristics of Muhammad. However, that has not precluded me from highlighting his negative characteristics either. Consider:..."

End of discussion. There is nothing to consider.

The "negative characteristics" of Mohammed obliterate anything that might be positive about him. If I "highlighted" the fact that Jeffrey Daumer or Ted Bundy or Charlie Manson did some charity work with the 4-H Club or the Boy Scouts and helped little old ladies across the street, none of these "positive characteristics" would be relevant at all in the context of the appropriate, rational, ethical condemnation of Jeffrey Daumer or Ted Bundy or Charlie Manson; and to insist or imply otherwise, as Dean Esmay does (and cannot apparently help but do, being a Muslim), puts Dean Esmay (and Thomas Haidon and other who refuse to condemn Prophet Mohammed as they would Adolf Hitler) outside the pale of worthwhile debate on the issue of the problem of Islam and what to do about it.

End of discussion.

Posted by: Television at May 17, 2006 3:25 PM

Television wrote:

If I "highlighted" the fact that Jeffrey Daumer or Ted Bundy or Charlie Manson did some charity work with the 4-H Club or the Boy Scouts and helped little old ladies across the street, none of these "positive characteristics" would be relevant at all in the context of the appropriate, rational, ethical condemnation of Jeffrey Daumer or Ted Bundy or Charlie Manson...

A very good point. All monsters have some humanity in them -- this is what makes them evil. If they didn't, we would just call them animals.

Even Hitler painted. Stalin loved his children. Caligula refrained from executing his Uncle Claudius.

And that is exactly why men like these are monsters.

Muhammad fits squarely into that description.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 17, 2006 3:43 PM

At least a few posters above have made the point that jihadists cannot be convinced to stop their use of violence.

As far as trying to persuade them with rational argument, or based on a modern reformed version of the scriptures, that is probably correct.

However, even al-Qaeda's most blood-thirsty (e.g., Zarqawi) are influenced by Sunni Muslim public opinion. This was shown after the attacks on the hotel in Jordan last November. After demonstrations of protest by Muslims after that attack, al-Qaeda scrambled to save face and issued an apology to Sunni Muslims there. Al-Qaeda obviously doesn't care about the lives of non-Muslims, nor Shia, but they do feed off of popular support among predominantly Sunni Muslims. In Pakistan, polls indicate that 60% of the population approves of bin Laden. As long as jihadists are popular with their target audience--indeed, as long as they have an audience that is sympathetic and supportive--they will continue to feed off of, and indeed be sheltered by, that public support. And until that audience protests the terrorist killing of non-Muslims the same way it (or at least, some of it) protests when Muslims are killed, we will see no changes in the policies of al-Qaeda et al with regard to intentional slaughter of non-Muslim civilians.

I believe the most useful role of sites such as JW/DW is to educate non-Muslims about the threat to modern society that is posed by mainstream Islam. Once a significant majority of non-Muslims are educated, they will put further social pressure on Muslims to reform, as well as put pressure on our political leaders not to acquiesce to the growing Islamization (e.g., introduction, bit-by-bit, of sharia law) of our societies. [This is not a major problem in the U.S., but is a major problem in Europe and in many other regions such as south Asia]. I do not believe that most moderate Muslims will be motivated to change their beliefs simply upon being shown the ugly material in the Koran. They will respond, however, to social influence. That social influence will come from an educated non-Muslim population.

Currently, Muslims and their ideology are being coddled and protected by well-intentioned by naive people in our society. Muslims and Islam generally are being given special immunity from criticism by the mainstream media, whereas all other ideologies are open to be criticized. (What greater contrast could there be than the Christian response to the Da Vinci Code versus the Muslim response to the Mohammad cartoons. Note 58% of Muslims in Britain wanted the Danish cartoonists to be treated as criminals and punished). In fact, plenty of Muslims criticize western society, and they pull no punches in criticizing non-Muslims and non-Muslim beliefs. In a free society, ideologies of all kinds are fair game for criticism, and if someone holding an ideology wishes that ideology to be immune from criticism while denying that right to others, such a person has not a moral nor an intellectual leg to stand on.

Posted by: Archimedes at May 17, 2006 3:53 PM

The idea of debate, and discussion is key to the issues, and should be approached here with welcome as all of the west is in the same boat, even Dean Esmay.

I prefer to see a idea or two at a time discussed, then move on to other issues after arriving to understand ( or somthing close) each side's position.

His first statement above , ("You're spitting in the faces of our muslim friends who are fighting side by side with U.S. troops in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Phillipines") , I would like to start there and ask why he feels this is true?

How and where did he get this? I perhaps missed somthing, but can't find where or how he came up with this idea.

Not from Mr. Spencer, I'm very sure.

A honest debate can only help all involved, as we are truly all involved.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at May 17, 2006 4:01 PM

Yeah, I did love the comment "You're spitting in the faces of our muslim friends who are fighting side by side with the U.S. troops".

I am in contact with many military in the areas that Esmay mentions. He should understand that there is NO side by side fighting. There may be photo ops, and the Pentagon may mention this (Esmay believes THIS from the Pentagon but nothing else!) as a morale booster for the Iraqis. The U.S. military will not allow any small amount of U.S. soldiers to be with the Baathist Police Force because there are so many of everyone disappearing around them.

The Iraqis' are learning OUR skills and we are then seeing it used against us. The Iraqi's will not go into a confrontation unless the U.S. forces are there with them, and then as soon as the shooting starts many times they literally run and the U.S. takes care of it, then gives the Iraqi's credit in the media.

If he doesn't believe it then I suggest he contact some ground soldiers in the U.S. military in Iraq.

Look at the number of islamic terrorist, and world dictators that are agaisnt America that are islamic, and a majority of them have been trained as ALLIES of the U.S. only to then use the training against us on the battle field.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at May 17, 2006 4:30 PM

After weeks of debating European Leftists who can only be described as rabidly anti-American, it's hard for me to look at Dean Esmay with anything more than disappointment at his naivetay.

Meanwhile, check out the dawa efforts of the Wahhabis directed at illegal Hispanics residing in Virginia. Aside from the danger of terrorist recruitment, we should keep in mind that entire tribes of indigenous Mexicans in Chiapas have converted to Islam....and that it normally began with the conversion of a single individual. If these dawa efforts are successful, we'll soon be facing the prospects of a growing Islamo-Hispanic community in the USA.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22437

Posted by: Cornelius at May 17, 2006 4:34 PM

Amscray......Esmay....go wipe the spit from the brow of your poor Muslim friends, little Dhimmi. It must be sad to actually have the goal of becoming a second class citizen......Wise up, slacker.

Posted by: Prickzilla at May 17, 2006 4:39 PM

Hugh,

you propose various actions, but where is victory.

All we appear to get from you are prescriptions for the continuation of conflict with islam.

Where is victory, what is it that you have to propose that will get us beyond that conflict?

What's your strategy for actually WINNING, instead of just purchasing additional time for the West? Sometimes purchasing time is worthwhile, to be sure, but how do we win? How do we successfully end jihad, or so alter islam that it's no longer a threat? Because after all of your policies of "weakening," "dividing" and "pitting" one against another in islam, after that has purchased us, say, another 75 years, just to pick a number out of the air, what then? Don't we always come back to the same old problem of expansionist jihad?

So what's your game plan for victory?

I'd like to know, or don't you actually have one?

It's OK if you don't. No one is going to expect from you an answer to a problem, which for over a thousand years has plagued the West.

Posted by: Dan at May 17, 2006 4:44 PM

Haidon/Esmay/Eteraz said

You cannot gain the seat to sit in front of OBL and prove him otherwise

Why do we need to be sitting in front of OBL? Do you have a seat in front of Robert when you write your blogs criticising him? OBL disseminates his Qur'anic justification for jihad via videos, audio recordings, and written statements. Why not refute him using the same mechanisms?

You have created a strawman argument ("Robert thinks we should sit down in the same room with OBL and have a discussion") and then ridiculed that, as opposed to debating what Robert has actually said.

Of course OBL and the other jihad leaders are not going to change their minds. But how about the Islamic mullahs who support the jihadist interpretations, could you change their minds? No? Well, then how about the many footsoldiers in the jihad, could you change some of their minds? No? How about the many people offering money and support to the jihadists, could you change their minds? No? Maybe that explains why you come here and try to change our minds with your vague generalities and hand-waving.

I do not always have time to address the COPIOUS amounts of a) vitriol b) challenges c) intellectual challenges d) Muslim reprisal or e) anti-jihadist miscommunication that takes place.

If you've got enough time to slander Robert multiple times, you've got enough time to post one intellectual response to one intellectual challenge.

Esmay is a poster who paid $19.95 to set up his own blog. Big deal.

Posted by: special_guest at May 17, 2006 4:49 PM

It appears to me that Mr. Esmay may himself be a moderate Muslim. If any of you care to go to the link he provided, you will find some interesting material. I haven't gone through it all, but this one caught my attention:

https://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/04/07/the-hoors-last-sigh/

It appears to be an example of the poetry he mentioned above. It's quite good (by my standards, anyway) and expresses disgust with the sensuality of the traditional Islamic conception of Paradise.

To understand Mr. Esmay as himself a moderate Muslim also makes more sense out other elements of his post above as eteraz, such as "being authentic to what I believe." Also, in the remark about bringing democracy to Iraq after killing the jihadists, it may be that by "we" he means "we moderate muslims," not "we infidels."

If Mr. Esmay is himself a moderate Muslim, that would also explain his strong defensiveness about Mr. Spencer's pessimism at the prospects for a moderate Islam. In this case, Mr. Spencer would not be seem to be attacking a "great Dhimmi hope", but something that is close to the center of Mr. Esmay's own thinking.

Finally, I think that the best stance to take toward the notion of "moderate Islam" is to not discourage these people, at least the ones who are sincere. They have enough discouraging obstacles to overcome. The ones who are deceptively aiding jihad should, of course, be outed. But second, we should also not place hope in their program, since it is objectively unlikely that they will succeed. Thus, I see room for Mr. Esmay's program (if he is indeed a moderate Muslim) and Mr. Spencer's program of waking people up to the real menace of traditional Islam. Infidels have no good reason to share Mr. Esmay's hope.

At the same time, there is some value in muslims of good will trying to reconceptualize Islam in modern, pluralistic terms. This is so because if the Islamic world is ever hermetically sealed off and left to economically implode, and this results in the kind of self-criticism that Mssrs Spencer and Fitzgerald have advocated, it would be good for there to be some alternatives available. Mass defection from traditional Islam to no faith at all, or to Judaism or Christianity, seems even more unlikely to me than the emergence of a moderate Islam.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at May 17, 2006 5:27 PM

"Hugh,

you propose various actions, but where is victory.

"Hugh,

All we appear to get from you are prescriptions for the continuation of conflict with islam.

Where is victory, what is it that you have to propose that will get us beyond that conflict?

What's your strategy for actually WINNING, instead of just purchasing additional time for the West? Sometimes purchasing time is worthwhile, to be sure, but how do we win? How do we successfully end jihad, or so alter islam that it's no longer a threat? Because after all of your policies of "weakening," "dividing" and "pitting" one against another in islam, after that has purchased us, say, another 75 years, just to pick a number out of the air, what then? Don't we always come back to the same old problem of expansionist jihad?

Where is victory, what is it that you have to propose that will get us beyond that conflict?"

What's your strategy for actually WINNING?"
-- from a posting above

These words -- "Victory" and "Winning" (or still worse "WINNING") -- are pointless here. There is no such thing as "Victory" or "Winning" or even "WINNING." There is the reduction of a menace to manageable proportions, including depriving the camp of Islam of the wherewithal which it did not possess until just a few decades ago. How much of a menace was Saudi Arabia, were the Arabs, were the world's Muslims in 1950? Or even 1960? Or even 1970? Diminish the total revenues, halt Muslim immigration to non-Muslim lands, reverse the current Muslim presence by refusing to give an inch in all the things that contradict Islam and unsettle or disturb Muslims (including the right of apostasy, and the right of making fun of everyhing, and by enforcing equal rights for women), and that will help to reduce the Muslim menace.

Once the situation has stabilized, or at the same time, work to create the conditions, or simply do nothing to prevent the conditions from being created, that will force first the more advanced people in the Muslim world, including potential versions of Ataturk, that the despotism, economic backwardness, moral and intellectual paralysis, are the result not of Infidel perfidy, but of the nature of Islam itself. Infidels can help by grasping this themselves, and never ceasing to noisily talk about it. In so doing, they need not be inhibited by some feeling that it is impolite to do so, or that they are estopped to do so because their own societies are nothing to write home about. Politeness is not a virtue if it prevents others from directing their anger at the proper targets, and Infidels should be perfectly capable of deploring, and working to change, whatever is most unacceptable in their own societies, and at the same time, recognizing the origins, scope, and menace of Islam to them.

Such words as "victory" and "winning" are not only false, but tellingly so. They are the kind of thing Bush likes to prate about -- "total victory in Iraq." What's he talking about? Why should this kind of nonsense be endured?

"Victory" here can only mean a recognition and understanding of Jihad and of its varied instruments, a checking of that Jihad and a diminishing of the efficacy of those instruments, and then, by constantly working to emphasize what divides Muslims -- those ethnic, sectarian, and economic divisions -- keeping the camp of Islam unsettled.

Stability in Dar al-Islam is not desirable; instability is. Trying to midwife stable nation-states, such as that being attempted at a cost of $100 billion plus a year, in Iraq, and at even greater cost to our armed services (where equipment, quality of recruits, and morale are, and will continue, to suffer if this lunatic policy in tarbaby Iraq continues), is not desirable.

I have in hundreds of postings discussed things that could be done, theatre by theatre. In the Sudan, for example, and in Ethiopia, and in southern Nigeria, to support the victims of the Arabs and Muslims, whether the enemy is attempting to kill via famine in southern Sudan or the Janjaweed in Darfur, or using Egyptian pilots against Ibo villagers as happened during the Biafra War, or in Ethiopia, through demographic change and, at some point, perhaps even greater pressure than that already exerted by a malevolent and greedy Egyptian government intent on depriving Ethiopia of use of the headwaters of the Nile. In Asia, by forcing the Indonesians to stop persecuting Christians, and perhaps even by seizing certain territories if the massacres of Christians continues. The Indonesian military could easily be taken care of by Australia (which, like the United States, has been a supplier of military equipment and training to Indonesia, but can at any point, if that same Indonesian military takes the side of the Muslim persecutors of Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians, decide to behave differently).

In Europe, just as the Arab Muslims have, through assorted Euro-Arab Dialogues, and aided by those European politicians and businessmen on the Arab take, managed to appeal to pre-existing mental conditions (anti-Americanism and antisemitism) in order to split Europe from America, there are ways to reverse this, to undo it, to have intelligent Europeans see that the Americans do not wish them ill but represent the only force capable of rescuing them, and other Infidels (including the conspiracy-crazed Russians, believing that America is working feverishly to weaken Russia which, of course, is nonsense) from Islam.

And there is much more. Go through the archives.

You appear to be impatiently insisting that you will settle for nothing less than "WINNING." Well, sorry. No can do. There is not going to be a final "VICTORY" or "WINNING" or "END OF HISTORY" or any suchlike absolute and total and happy-forever-after. Nazi Germany was defeated, but Nazism and Fascism live on. The Soviet Union came apart, but Communism is hardly dead as an idea or an ideal. But the size of menaces can diminish. Jihad always existed. For the last few hundred years the weakness of the Muslim lands prevented Jihad from being pursued. Now the oil trillions, and the Muslim millions of migrants behind what they, not we, have always regarded as enemy lines, and the exploitation of Western technology to disseminate the message of Islam, have changed things. Things can be changed back. Menaces can be reduced. If the Western world can save itself, that may not be your idea of "Victory" or of "Winning" or of "WINNING." It will be good enough for me.

Posted by: Hugh at May 17, 2006 5:32 PM

Dhimmisoftheworldunite writes: I think that the best stance to take toward the notion of "moderate Islam" is to not discourage these people, at least the ones who are sincere.

If I were a 'moderate muslim' who felt truly offended by the way my religion has been hijacked by the OBL types, I would welcome someone like Robert Spencer and his JW site with open arms because in him I would see hope of changing the status quo within Islam. The fact that Dean Esmay doesn't feel the same way makes me doubt whether he really is 'moderate' or 'sincere'.

Posted by: Razdan at May 17, 2006 5:52 PM

I've seen Esmay "debate" Islam on other blogs and it has become pretty obvious that he has no firsthand knowledge of Islam and only goes by things he has heard from his Muslim friends and various news reports that he fits into his liberal world view (i.e. "We all want the same things").

Personally, I've been trying to educate various people both online and offline about the dangers of Islam and the imminent dangers of Muslim immigration and the one thing I've noticed is that many of them (fairly intelligent people themselves) don't want to read. They are either not interested or think they know everything (this also includes athiest Muslims who oppose Islam somewhat but don't think anything should be done about Muslim immigration). This is what makes infidel education about Islam so difficult, there is so much information in English that a neophyte is confused as to where to start and how to separate the scholarship from the da'wa/apologia.

But someone who hasn't bothered to read the Qu'ran (thoroughly), all of the aHadith, the Sira, and has a good grasp of Islamic jurisprudence and tafsir should not be debated. It is a like a professor with a PhD in History debating a highschool student who got a C+ in Western Civ. Just look at Spencer's debate with Esmay for example. Spencer's arguments and references clearly went over his head because Esmay has no background in the subject other than knowing a few nice Muslims and keeping up with the news.

Furthermore, I think we need to be honest with ourselves. If there is no way to reform Islam and abolish jihad, dhimmitude, and the goal to make the whole world into dar-al-islam, then we should say so. Pretending that we are waiting for the Great Muslim Hope to reform Islam and nullify jihad, dhimmitude, and Muslim Manifest Destiny when we are not and know that it isn't possible is a timewaster. We don't need moderate Muslims in our ranks in order to justify our defense against the jihad. We don't need their help and we certainly don't need their approval. This is our civilization and they have no claim to it. Since jihad is inseparable from orthodox Islam and it threatens our existence, we must designate Islam as an enemy to our civilization.

Posted by: igor at May 17, 2006 5:52 PM

Is this guy related to Bruce Esmay, chairman of the white Star Lie, who took the last seat in the last Titanic lifeboat?

Oh wait, that was Ismay. Well, close enough for me.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 17, 2006 6:08 PM

People,

I am Ali Eteraz. I am not Dean Esmay.

I wrote to Robert in the comments section above. I am not Dean Esmay.

I realize that both names start with E, but they aren't spelled the same. Nor did my links direct you to deanesmay.com. They directed you to eteraz.wordpres.com

So, I ask: what's the confusion?

Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com at May 17, 2006 6:14 PM

Looking at the link Esmay provided, it looks like he is one who wants to reform Islam, since he does seem to question some basic ideas, such as facing Mecca, Inshallah, et al. However, like yadayada mentioned above, he should keep us out of it. It's not our business to reform Islam, although it should be our business to end Islam, for the sole reason that it's a threat to us infidels. Whether he is a "moderate" or not is none of our business. Only reason we'd work with him is if he, like an Ali Sina, should openly apostatize and renounce and denounce Islam, since he'd then be an infidel.

It's not the job of Jews to promote gay marriage in Christianity, it's not the job of Buddhists to abolish the caste system in Hinduism, it's not the job of Sikhs to end shibboleth slaughter of animals in Judaism and it's not the job of Confucians to end mandatory beards and turbans in Sikhism. Similarly, it's not the job of Infidels to re-define what is or isn't Islam.

In short, Dean, if you want to reform Islam, do it yourself, and draw your support from as many Muslims as you can. Shouldn't be difficult, since there are a billion of them. Just don't bother us.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 17, 2006 6:26 PM

Sorry, my above comments should then be re-directed to Ali.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 17, 2006 6:27 PM

1. There are NO 'moderates'.

2. Islam cannot be 'reformed'.

3. Islam claims the world & everything in it.

4. Islam is a totalitarian ideology that has no place in the west.

Internment & deportations are overdue. No more mosques & madrassahs or concession to Mohammedans in the west. If we have to fight them militarily, we will. The time for appeasement is over.

Total ridicule & a massive propaganda war against the cult should be a first step. For us infidels, anything other than complete detachment from this cult & its adherents is a first step. I am with Ali Sina on this: Only the complete and utter destruction of this cult will make our future and those of our kids safe.

It can be done. A world without Islam is possible.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 17, 2006 6:54 PM

Sheikh,

I think we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we can use the elimination of Muslims as a way to end our reliance on foreign oil. Consider this proposal:

https://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/03/05/final-solution-to-american-reliance-on-foreign-oil-and-the-muslim-problem/

Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com at May 17, 2006 6:59 PM

Infidel Pride,

"if you want to reform Islam, do it yourself, and draw your support from as many Muslims as you can. Shouldn't be difficult, since there are a billion of them. Just don't bother us."

I don't bother "us." But you'd be surprised at how many of "us" do nothing but attack me.

Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com at May 17, 2006 7:03 PM

Esmay is just another moral relativist. As soon as anyone compares islam to Christianity, in terms of killers, he right there loses any credibility. When someone does that, they show their ideological agenda because that comparision is so intellectually disingenuious that we know that is not an honestly held opinion, but an ad hominem tactic.

But I think that Robert pulls his punches too much. I think Islam is a BAD religion, and yes, it is inextricably linked with jihad and the mess in the world today. No doubt about it. Robert should not back away from that position. There is no shame in admitting that Isl