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 Islam is corrupt, as Robert illustrates through countless quotes from the Koran and Hadiths. Indeed, that is what Robert does - demonstrate that there is a direct cause and effect relationship between what is in the islamic holy book and the horrors being committed by islamics all over the world and also the subterfuge being commited by agents like CAIR. To me, islamwatch.org proves that direct connection. So Robert should not back away from stating outright that ISLAM IS A BAD RELIGION. I just hope that one day soon it becomes politically correct to say that.

http://www.theres-something-about-islam.blogspot.com

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 17, 2006 7:04 PM

Eteraz said

I am Ali Eteraz. I am not Dean Esmay.
[...]
So, I ask: what's the confusion?

Well, this was the first posting ever at JW/DW under the name Eteraz.wordpress.com, but you talked to Robert as if you were continuing an ongoing conversation. This thread is an ongoing conversation between Robert and Dean Esmay.

You said "You have now addressed my writings twice and always painted me out to be some kind of apologist". Robert has addressed Dean Esmay twice; if this is your first post, what are the two times that Robert addressed you?

You said "most Muslim traditionalists on my website spend most of their time calling me an apostate." which is also a claim of Dean Esmay.

Confusion explained?

Posted by: special_guest at May 17, 2006 7:06 PM

Eteraz said

But you'd be surprised at how many of "us" do nothing but attack me.

Attack you? We've never heard of you. Are you yet another Muslim with a persecution complex? Are the infidels all out to get you?

Posted by: special_guest at May 17, 2006 7:10 PM

And, no thank you, I won't be visiting your website anytime soon. Too many undesirable things can happen from visiting unknown websites (viruses, spyware, adware, IP tracing, etc.). But we can chat here if you like, since you seem to be a moderate and nice person.

Posted by: special_guest at May 17, 2006 7:14 PM

Ali Eteraz said

we can use the elimination of Muslims as a way to end our reliance on foreign oil

Hey, that sounds like you are advocating genocide against Muslims. That is naughty. I take back what I said about you being a nice and moderate person. You are a bad man. Be nice, or DesertDawgN29 will reprimand you.

Posted by: special_guest at May 17, 2006 7:29 PM

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.

Does the elimination of Islam seem the same to you as the elimination of Muslims? Islam offers its POWs the choice of Islam, Death or Dhimmitude. We can drop death from the menu, and offer Muslims the choice of apostasy or perpetual enmity. Completely consistent with the Quran, although not in the way it envisaged.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 17, 2006 7:37 PM

Hugh- Re: "Jihad always existed."

Agree. Islamic jihad will continue to exist in some form or other on earth because is in the very nature of human beings, in all of living nature, to be at war, and human beings only coperate with each other when they have some enemy to sudue or some common danger that requires them to unite in order to survive. Otherwise individual "man is to man as a wolf is to a wolf." There will only be peace on earth when we are invaded by aliens from some other planet and humans are "what's for dinner." Then we will unite to preserve humankind against a different species of jihad.

There is not one nation, not one empire, that has been established on earth without the conquest and very often the extermination of what were the most recent "native inhabitants" of a region-and the establishment of Islam and the Arab Empire are not unusual in that matter. Islam merely provided a holy reason to kill and establish a nation, an empire.

The recent declarations of Islamic Jihad (via al qaeda, the pronouncements of OBL, etc.) are merely a revival of an ancient conflict that expanded Islam via mass killing from India to France (732)-and wider than that. (Oil money has revived the recent jihad.) But 70 years ago it was Nazi Germany that was on jihad. Communism then launched its jihad. "Jihad always existed" and always will exist.

Posted by: Frank at May 17, 2006 7:46 PM

There seems to be some confusion here. Eteraz is apparently the Muslim gentleman (Ali) referenced in Spencers' original April 11 post ("If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride"). Dean Esmay is not a Muslim. He's just someone who has always supported the Iraq war because he believed, like many of us did, that Islam is a religion of peace - when we went into Iraq. In short, he bought Bush's line and hasn't been able to let go despite all the evidence to the contrary about what has happened in Iraq. I don't actually read his blog but I would guess that he is a follower of Pipes claim that "radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution".

I think what Mr. Esmay needs to confront is the fact that those who continuously espouse the notion that the radicals are a minority, when the exact opposite is far MORE likely - that the TRUE MODERATES are, as Spencer points out in his post, a "tiny minority of extremists" (heh-funny twist that) - are directly responsible for instilling complacency in many westerners about the issue of demographic jihad. The issue of "moderation" and "extremism" doesn't simply turn on the issue of violence. It rests on the numbers who would like to see Sharia law instituted in the west. And if the poll from Britain is illustrative - suggesting 40%! who would like to see sharia law in the UK - then it is completely irresponsible to keep pretending that the vast majority of Muslims are basically liberal western democrats at heart, whose help we need in going after the violent jihadis. Mr. Esmay is missing the point entirely and in the process of lulling westerners to sleep about the "moderate" nature of most Muslims (just because many of them are not violent jihadis), is facilitating the demographic jihad that will eventually result in the imposition of sharia law in the west. This is NOT O.K. His words as a blogger have serious consequences. It is when most westerners come to understand that a hugely worrying number of Muslims would like to see Sharia law in the west (not to mention the the sheer number of violent jihadis living in their midst who will now have to be monitored round the clock)- that they will understand the imperative to stop the Muslim immigration to the west. That is the critical thing. And people cannot come to see the necessity of that fact if they are led to believe, by the likes of Esmay, that the vast majority of Muslims are "moderate" in the way we liberal westerners understand the term.

Posted by: Caroline at May 17, 2006 8:09 PM

Caroline-

I'm sure Neville Pipedream thought "radical Nazism is the problem and moderate Nazism is the solution". Human beings like "peace in our time" pipe dreams in every era. It will never happen.

I think individual freedom of conscience and the rights to life, liberty and property, due process of secular law, elected officials, the power of secular public opinion (what we call "democracy") and the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions are the side we defend against this latest totolitarian threat. I do not want to live under Sharia law.

It appears the Almighty likes conflict as the basis of creation. We all play our part in some saga-conflict, on one side or other, in every era and will till "the latest generation". Such is life-such is (I believe) the Will of the Almighty.

Posted by: Frank at May 17, 2006 8:37 PM

Esmay obviously knows nothing about the Qur'an, hadith, biography of Mohammed, jihad conquests, or modern Islamic clerics.

The instant I saw his remarks on "Christian terrorists" it was clear he's another modern who thinks all religion is the same and bad. It's a mental blindspot for millions of people in the West.

Fact is, of course, it would be easy to come up with scripture to prove groups who call themselves Christian are not following the beliefs set down in the bible. Doing the same with the Qur'an is impossible if the abrogation verses are applied. That leaves us with Sura Nine as the final word. And that's bad, very bad.

Esmay seems to be blissfully unaware of the Enlightenment and the lack of any similar period in Islamic history. He also doesn't understand the totality of Islam in lieu of being a spiritual religion.

But he's right that not all Muslims are bad people, which he erroneously spins into a theological argument.

Posted by: Beagle at May 17, 2006 8:46 PM

i saw that esmay noted my comment on the last thread that he disbelievs that HIV causes AIDS.

esmay argues that this is off-point and and unfair attack.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

it reveals his weak abilities at rational thought.

and a BNIZARRE bias:

esmay is more skeptical of WHO's analysis and treatment of HIV/AIDS (which is actually WORKING!) than he is of mullahs who LIE about the koran.

esmay proves - by his own words, his pown posts, at his own blog (AND I THIS THREAD) -

THAT HE IS A JERK.

Posted by: reliapundit - the astute blogger at May 17, 2006 9:26 PM

From the comments at Esmay's blog,
also, lgf commentators are nuts, but the jihad watch guys believe that eteraz is esmay. go check.
Paint with a broad brush much? Not everyone here thought that.
I have figured out that Esmay is of the group that believes that Christians are "just as bad" as muslims. Go figure....

Posted by: Carolyn2 at May 17, 2006 10:06 PM

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

So, I ask: what's the confusion?"

I would reiterate what special_guest said (somewhere above) in his response. This eteraz character just posts out of the blue, without saying, "I am that person referenced before as Ali" -- saying that he has been in contact with Robert (just like Esmay) and that Robert has misunderstood him (just as he supposedly misunderstands Esmay), all in a context where 99.9% of the discussion is about Esmay's interaction with Robert.

Not only that, but nowhere on that eteraz post in question above do we see the name "Ali". Esmay could easily have more than one website. Before this week, I didn't know Esmay from Adam -- or "Ali".

Then we see that on Esmay's blog, his footsoldiers are disparaging us for making a reasonable assumption?

Posted by: Television at May 17, 2006 10:28 PM

Well thanks Hugh for answering.

I think there is an answer, for jihadist islam, just as there was an answer for Japanese militarism and Prussian vanity. Notice though that I didn't use the terms fascism, or even NAZISM. For the latter terms describe a political phenemenon, whereas the former describe the particular nationalist eminations of those political ideologies.

I think you DRASTICALLY underestimate the psychological and cultural consequences of being militarily crushed. When Sherman went romping through the deep South, it wasn't just the ability of the south to offer ongoing organized resistance that was ended, it was a way of life. Hence Margaret Mitchell's famous novel: "GONE with the Wind." Looking back farther in history, and casting our eye back to antiquity, when the Theban General Eponomindas marched his victorious men out of Sparta, it was a VERY DIFFERENT Sparta that he left behind in his wake, for the myth of Spartan invincibility was forever shattered.

Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne, Nurnburg, Bremer, Berlin, et al., within their rubble and smoking embers lied the German fascination with all things military, and it wasn't just the end of the Third Reich, it witnessed the end of Germans making speeches about such things as "the shining armour," "blood and iron," and the quest for German domination within Central Europe. Very similar things could be observed about the rubble in Tokyo, Kobe, Yokohama, and of course, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You've often critiqued Bernard Lewis, but you are failing to connect some dots. Lewis wrote in his book "What Went Wrong," that there is an existential turmoil within the busom of islam. It can be succinctly stated thus: "If God is for us muslims, and for no other, if we muslims are the corps de elite of mankind, if the Christians are meant to serve as our footstool, and the Jews but to serve as target practice for our weaponry, and their women but to serve for our entertainment, then why can the Jews kick our ass, and why has modern history been a story of Christian/Western dominance?" There IS a palpable panic within islam, barely stated, but nonetheless present, where they are deeply frightened that islam is false, the promises of Mohammad vain, and the words of the recitation, worthless. There are telltale signs of this existential panic, scattered throughout the length and breath of islam. Their very determination to destroy homegrown critics is but a reflection of their latent insecurity, besides indicating the totalitarian nature of islam.

It is beyond the scope of this brief note to delineate upon those telltale signs, but you and Spencer have noted such signs many times. Although I think the both of you fail to grasp their true nature.

What's the conclusion that I reach from these signs?

ISLAM IS READY TO BE TOPPLED.

Repeat, ISLAM IS READY TO BE TOPPLED. Notice here I used the term that covers over a billion adherents, here I used the term that has tortured man for over 1,300 hundred years.

All it would take is one powerful psychological blow delivered. Which begs the question, how and where could such a blow be delivered. Answer, where islam was born, the Hijaz, Mecca and Medina.

We should repeat the tutorial that our illustrious forefathers delivered to the Japanese and the German. We should use Medina and Mecca as an opportunity to make a statement, a statement that reverberates throughout islam, and that for a thousand, the echo of the great wrath of the United States can still be discerned.

I ask you and Spencer to ponder long and well what would be the psychological and cultural consequences of the utter destruction of the two prime holy sites in islam, the birthplace of islam, the birthplace of Arab supremacism.

Recall too, EVERY other major capital, just about every other birthplace of a major religion has known foreign conquest. Rome was sacked repeatedly, likewise Jerusalem. Even our own capital, Washington, D.C., was burned by the forces of Great Britain. The German Sixth Army paraded down the wide Parisian boulevards, before they met their doom at Stalingrad. Japan, which had never known defeat, knew and experienced American occupation, after the complete destruction of military power. Moscow too, knew the enemy within her confines. Napoleon inspected the Kremlin, and the Mongols received tribute from the Princes of Muscovy. Peking also knew foreign occupation.

But what of islam? What of Mecca and Medina...?

Within islam, the fact that infidels have never destroyed, sacked or occupied the Hejaz betokens the "truth" of islam.

Therein lies the "answer" to the problem of jihadist islam.

And every single 9/11, Madrid, London, Beslan, suicide bombing, kooky preacher going off, brings the reckoning nigh.

It's coming.

And thus your criticism of GW's policies are 180 degrees off. GW is offering islam the last great chance to reform, to alter, to change, to come into conformity with the spirit of the modern age. GW doesn't himself probably perceive it that way, but nonetheless, GW is preparing the way for the utter and supreme destruction of islam. For Americans are a practical people, and they know that what GW has done is noble, charitable, generous, and is without precedent in history. Americans went to war to help the Arab people emerge from the shadows of autocracy, strongmen, fascism, theocracy and totalitarianism.

BUT IF THAT OFFER SHOULD BE REJECTED, if the Arab world should continue to insist upon supremacism, if they should continue upon jihad, if say, they should continue upon razzias, ...........HOW LONG do you think the American people are going to put up with that crap. Americans aren't just slowly seeing the Arabs as ingrates, but they're also beginning to see them as implacable, incorrigible, as their fathers saw the German. And once the American people reached that conclusion about the German, the German cities soon were ash, dust, rubble, covering the remains of tens of thousands of Germans.

Have you ever read of what happened after the first great raids on Hamburg? About 80,000 Germans were obliterated, the city effectively made inhabitable, and so the survivors were dispersed throughout Germany. AND THEY TOOK THEIR HORROR stories throughout Germany. Go review General Adolf Galland's memoirs, where he relates how Germany was stricken to her very soul by the enormity of those raids, which were followed by so many others.

As I said earlier, you fail to grasp the full horror that we could unleash upon Arab pride, Arab delusion, Arab folly.

And thus you're not seeing an answer, that is very much present.

But thanks for answering.

Posted by: Dan at May 17, 2006 10:36 PM

And the previous observations shouldn't be taken as advocating nuclear destruction of the Hejaz.

Nothing so drastic needs to be done.

But with the muslim pursuit of the bomb, and their fixation with the extirpation of "the Zionist entity," that too, and many another horror, is looming on the horizon.

AS FOR ESMAY, he's simply behind the curve. As has been observed by many, it's the 1930s all over again. And as then, there is an arc of understanding, a trajectory if you will, and Esmay has barely begun his ascent into the heavens of knowledge, into the stratosphere of understanding. Others have soared higher and farther than he, but there isn't any need to excoriate the poor fellow. He's barely begun. And our muslim enemy has within him many Londons, many Madrids, many Beslans, and each and every single one is going to serve as an afterburner for Esmay, inexorably propelling him higher into the stratas of knowledge, WHETHER HE WILL OR NO.

There are many Esmays out there, and before the muslim has done with them, they will have a comprehensive understanding of islam, and they will be thoroughly disabused of their multi-cultural reveries.

Thus there isn't any need to be angry with the poor fellow, he's on a path of discovery, which is apt for him to be one of horror, pain, grief and the intense stultification of his ego, his pride, his overweening pride in his own intellect.

I actually feel sorry for the poor guy. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

Posted by: Dan at May 17, 2006 11:06 PM

HOW LONG do you think the American people are going to put up with that crap.

I agree with what you say, that islamic nations that support terror, and almost all do, need to suffer a shocking blow to their psyche. And there is no doubt that the islamic mind is deeply insecure.

However, I do not believe that any president will order such a blow under any circumstances. And it certainly will not come from GW. Nor do I believe that the American public will form a concensus that islam needs to go.

Because the enemy is already behind our lines, and in our institutions, military strikes are useless and impossible. The plan of islam is to take over the west through infiltration, which is working, as the dhimmiwatch section of this site testifies. Essentially islam will prevail through nothing more than birth rate differences. Some muslims of prominent position have already stated as much publically. How do we propose to fight islam when it attacks us from the nusery? Bomb the nursery? We can bomb every islamic country to shreds and islam will still prevail by simply taking over the west from within. Deport muslims just for their faith? Won't happen. It is not the fast jihad that we have to worry about. It is the slow jihad that will do the trick. The only defence against the slow jihad is to institute policy based upon race and religion, which is anathema to the West. The muslims know this and are currently exploiting this. And they will wait until they present a voting majority. Then, ironically, democracy will hand them the United States by default. There will be no war with islam. Islam has already won.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 17, 2006 11:31 PM

Hugh for president. Where do I send the check?

Posted by: 2pacshakur at May 17, 2006 11:43 PM

As many here have observed, besides being shame based, islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacism. Faoud Ajami, prominent author has also fingered the real problem of islam as being an Arab one.

As extreme bushido was a reflection of intense Japanese nationalism, and as NAZISM, was an incredibly extreme strain of German romanticism and nationalism, so razzia and jihad, can similarly be identified as pathologies flowing from Arab nationalism.

Once that understanding takes, and day by day, terror attack by terror attack, bizarre street theater after bizarre street theater, that lesson is being constantly driven home, once that lesson takes, the political leaders won't be left any choice but to inflict upon Arab pride the will of the American people.

Again, this needn't necessarily be nuclear laying waste, although recent events within islam make precluding such a possibility increasingly foolish, for the muslim may very well draw down upon themselves their own utter destruction. If a single bomb detonates within Israel, just one, well, the horrors the Israelis will unleash upon the Arabs and Persians won't bear dwelling upon.

Recall, when the Civil War began, was anyone in the North mentally and morally prepared to allow Sherman to go "down South." When the Great War began, were the Allied Powers prepared to unleash chemical war upon the Central Powers? Who in 1938 in the United States was as prepared to unleash death upon their enemies, as they were eager to do so, as they were in 1945?

It's as I said, we're moving along an arc, a trajectory, we're moving along a path, and the grim milestones we pass, only prepare us for the far more grim ones we most asuredly will pass.

Who saw in Weimar Germany the deadliness of the Wehrmact circa '42, '43?

Who saw within the materialism and wild hedonism of Weimar Berlin, the triumphant parades after the utter defeat of France, summer, 1940.

The muslim is sowing seeds of great wrath, and strewing them with eager abandon. What shall come to fruition from such sowing?

Posted by: Dan at May 17, 2006 11:44 PM

Dan-

I read your first comment very carefully and it is well thought out. However, one thing that came to my mind (since it relates to religion)re Japan: the US kept the infrastructure of Shinto and Emperor intact after the occupation and we never bombed the sacred of city of Kyoto during the war. Gen. Mac Arthur strongly advised against that. But the US certainly destroyed their infrastructure-and all their ability to make war.

In all, I tend to agree that the Islamists are going to push the region to a terrible catastrophe-even a nuclear retaliation. But I believe that it will be Isreal (not the US) that will be so harmed by these wack-jobs that 1,300 years of bloodletting by Islam will be paid back in two weeks. I believe we share a presentiment with regard to catastrophic results for Islam-though we may be arriving at the presentiment from different directions. Mecca and Medina may vaporize-but it will be Israel that will wield the terrible swift sword of revenge.

Posted by: Frank at May 17, 2006 11:44 PM

BTW, who is this esmay guy? Its starting to look like "Killroy was here" on JW every time I see his name.

Posted by: Frank at May 17, 2006 11:53 PM

BTW, who is this esmay guy? Its starting to look like "Killroy was here" on JW every time I see his name.

Posted by: Frank at May 17, 2006 11:53 PM

http://www.financialsense.com/Market/kirby/2005/images/1010.h1.gif

Posted by: Frank at May 18, 2006 12:07 AM

Neither the Fascist Japanese nor the German Nazis were as globally widespread and culturally inveterate as is Islam. One could effectively stop the WWII Axis by atom- and fire-bombing a few cities in two countries (and major invasion of a third, Italy). Islam would be a far more globally sprawling enemy in over 20 countries from the Pacific to the Atlantic -- with, furthermore, untold numbers already spread out within the West (including, by the way, the major "Muslim Triangle" in South America where Muslim drug runners and terrorists are taking advantage of a vast lawless region embracing the trilateral commarks of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil).

Even Communism, though it had global pretensions and a kind of trans-national ideology like Islam, and though it caused considerable tension and problems, sometimes military (the biggest of course being Vietnam), was not as globally widespread as is Islam. And again, Communism was not as culturally inveterate as is Islam.

On a psycho-cultural level, it seems Islam is also far more successful at brainwashing minions than were Nazism, Fascism or Communism.

Posted by: Television at May 18, 2006 1:00 AM

(different Dan from above)

I used to be a regular reader of Dean's...I stopped visiting his site maybe a year ago or so, not because I didn't like his stuff but just because I just found other stuff to read.

I liked Dean, though, and he was a really smart guy. He had some screwy notions, but he also pointed out some really interesting stuff and made insightful comments about things (and I like screwy notions myself sometimes too).

This jihad flamewar is the first I've heard from Dean since I stopped reading his site, and it doesn't seem like the same Dean to me at all.

I wouldn't say Dean is a jerk...at least he never came off that way to me in the past. I'd guess he's either got personal history with Muslim-haters getting in the way or maybe he's just in a bad place in his life and spewing on his blog.

All that said, I'll withhold judgement on Dean himself, but his argument in this case is absolute crap. I've examined many of Robert's arguments for a long time now, and I haven't been able to poke any holes in them. Dean won't either, until he puts away the straw men and comes up with real answers.

Posted by: Dan at May 18, 2006 1:25 AM

Esmay is scared of being marginalized. To say certain things about islam is to become toxic. Part of maintaining yourself in the national conversation is to repeat certain mantras.

Spencer and Fitzgerald don't repeat those mantras. Which is why they're often used as extremes, against which a fellow like Esmay can favourably compare himself. And thus maintain himself ostensibly within the national conversation.

It doesn't matter, the conversation will turn, as the events within the mideast become more ominous. Beslan if you recall was covered by Oprah, she did a whole show on it. Watch a few more Beslans occur, and someone like Oprah devote a show to it, with tens of millions of American women watching, and it's as I said, islam is drawing down upon itself it's own destruction.

Television accurately observed that islam is diffused, whereas my previous examples were confined to a certain locale. But my suggestion encompasses that problem. The destruction of the Arab menace, and the reduction of Arab pretensions to dust, will involve the utter obliteration of sites like the Kaaba. Much like the vast and ornate NAZI regalia was blown off of monuments and stadiums in postwar Germany. Likewise the utter and systematic destruction of mosques and holy sites within the Hejaz will initiate a psychological shockwave throughout islam.

Thus the ruination of the Arab delusion, will hold within itself the answer to the global problem of islam. Islam is driven by the Arab, most of the schools are Arabic, the language of the recitation is Arabic, well, you guys know the drill, you all are well aware of the importance of the Arab world to the creation, expansion and maintenance of islam.

Posted by: Dan at May 18, 2006 1:40 AM

Robert wrote:

"Neither one. They're just a Tiny Minority of Extremists. Why did they only draw 25 Muslims to their March Against Terrorism after an avalanche of national publicity?"

Having been at that rally, it is more accurate to say that they drew 25 people to their rally (media excluded.) How many of them were Muslims is of course impossible to assert with any real proof -- however, I have maintained to this day that aside from the speakers and their relatives there were no Muslims at that rally.

Posted by: JB at May 18, 2006 2:14 AM

Dan (one from above, not the other Dan), agree on many levels, however, the destruction of Mecca and Medina may not be the final straw breaking the Islam's camel back. There are some variables that are missing from your analysis. Specifically, wahhabist ideology. If it were possible, they would destroy Mecca mosque themselves. But they know that they are a minority in the ummah, so that has been on a backburner. Meanwhile, they managed to destroy many sites that contained parts of the Islam's history. Just google 'destruction of Islam's heritage' to see what I am refering to.

What is their end game, I don't know. Perhaps they want to detach the whole Islam's edifice from it's history, remove any vestiges that may be construed as idolatry, so they can define, substitute and impose... their extreme views on the rest of the muslim world without much of a baggage.

In other words, the destruction of Mecca would probably be an eye opener about the power of their false deity to great majority of muslims, but for wahhabi/salafi ideologists, it would mean something different--an actualization of their will and a fulfillment of contract with Allah, so to speak. There's a similar strain amongst shia, framed a bit differently, but the goals correspond.

They are a tiny minority, but a dangerous one. It would be probably easier to hunt them down if support for them, either outright or tacit, would be yanked from them by multitudes realizing that they were bowing to a false god, but the wahhabists could be ambers that in time could become a fire, be it 300 years from now, and unleash another war, strife and mayhem, being deaderest of the dead cult.

True, it seems that if it is possible to lead the overwhelming majority of muslims from the subjugation of their creed, it must be attempted, and the wahhabi factor can be perhaps eliminated in time.

Of course, I would suggest that the destruction of Kaaba should be done in a manner that may lead to rumors that it was caused by the true god. That means not exploded, but "disappeared", if I can use that term. In other word, a replacement event.

How to disappear Kaaba... where there's a will, there's a way. I wish I could provide at least some outline... but as they say... "I can't say no more", beyond that there would be some people, undoubtedly, working on that kind of problem.

Posted by: LGJ at May 18, 2006 3:41 AM

"How to disappear Kaaba..."

I smell another David Blaine special.

Posted by: Television at May 18, 2006 3:45 AM

This has been an often interesting thread.

I disagree with those who say Robert was pulling his punches in the debate above with Esmay.

I believe Robert was merely refusing to over-generalize. You over-generalize if you make a statement without awareness of any limits to that statement's validity. Spencer's refusal to offer overly general or totally universal statements about Islam has several benefits:

1. In basing himself always on specifics, and on generalizations of only finite applicability, he adopts a purely factual mode that sidesteps interminable philosophical debates and is extremely hard to argue with, much less refute.

2. In his manner of seeking to help protect the West, he thus exemplifies the West’s values, in particular the fact that the West respects individuals (specifics) at least as much as generalization, and thus rejects over-generalization, which rides roughshod over specifics and individuals. Three examples of the relatively unique Western emphasis on the individual/specific:

a) Modern science, born in the West, consciously limits the frame of reference within which just about any generalization may be held as true.

b) Ancient Greece, where the West had its spiritual beginnings (which is not to deny that the Greeks stood on the shoulders of earlier civilizations), saw the first culture in which individualism emerged on a society-wide scale. Cultures before Greece had been far more collectivist and/or hierarchical. Philosophically, it’s true, the Greeks often over-generalized, surely more than we do today, yet their over-generalization was insignificant by comparison with how individualizing the Greeks were in forming societies of independent citizen-thinkers and a proto-scientific mindset.

c) The Judeo-Christian tradition, also at the core of the West, individualized human beings in powerful ways. Because of the Jews, for example, time is no longer felt to be a circle, as Mircea Eliade showed it had once been for all other known religious cultures on the earth. Judaism transcended the cyclical sense of time and brought the first full consciousness of history, linear history, in which any given moment was felt to be specific and individual to itself, not a repetition on an eternally spinning wheel. Pre-Western humanity, though to decreasing degrees as time went on, had lived not really as individuals. Meaning instead was felt to reside in imitating procedures and lifeways established by the storied actions of gods or demigods believed to have lived at the beginning of time. Daily tasks had meaning only if done as the mythical archetypes had demonstrated at ‘the beginning.’ To do things that way was in some sense to return to the divine beginning itself, to circle back in time, and thus to resacralize ordinary profane time. The latter was not felt as individual so much as a meaningless, profane fall out of the divine origin. But with the Jews and the emergence of linear history and individualized time comes also the individualized person who begins to consciously make his own personal history, not seek to submerge his individuality in an archetype or mythical exemplar. Arguably Christ then enhanced this individualization process. Believing in the Incarnation of the Christ meant or came to mean believing in the incarnation of the Hebrew God, Yaweh, which word is of course a Hebrew form of the verb ‘to be.’ Thus, in the Torah, Yaweh identifies “himself” to Moses as the divine “I AM.” And thus believing in Christianity in some sense meant and means believing that the divine individuality, Yaweh, the I AM, had incarnated in a human being and as Jesus Christ had communicated to humanity new awareness of a divine and divinely sanctioned individualism (based on love). Greek individualism had arisen instead out of the breakdown of ancient beliefs and traditions, and through a dawning skepticism that slowly hollowed out of the unbroken plenum of the world an empty space, so to speak, for subjectivity, a place to withdraw into oneself instead of merely reacting instantly to the ‘voices’ of gods and to sensory stimuli. Christ then filled the space that had been opened up by the Greeks (and by the Jews, though in a different way), filled what had been a negative space or hollow with something substantial, a powerfully active outgoing impulse of love. Thus Christ modeled individualism as an inner power, and not merely an inner space. The aspiration after a Christ-like individualism of love and inner power is one of the chief ideals that has animated the West for two thousand years and profoundly influences the values even of many atheists and agnostics who may have little idea of where their own values stem from.

So because of the West’s origins in Athens and Jerusalem, it seems quite fitting to me that Spencer rejects over-generalization, insofar as over-generalization, besides being just plain unscientific, rides roughshod over the individual and has something totalitarian about it.

When Robert refuses to detach himself from specifics (individuals) in talking of Islam, when he refuses to over-generalize about Islam, he is merely showing himself to be a good Westerner. (As should be obvious by this point, by ‘Westerner’ I am not referring to a geographic category.)

Posted by: traeh at May 18, 2006 4:17 AM

Would to God that Blaine could make the problems disappear with quite the same ease as his other legerdmain, but alas, it is not to be....

There are significant problems with my suggestions:

1} Moral, the destruction of cities, people and monuments of antiquity is not a thing lightly done;

2} Time, have we the time to leisurely allow forces within islam to acquire nuclear, and thermonuclear weaponry, while we are waiting sufficient provocation to strike; and

3} Human suffering, for allowing provocations to accumulate before unleashing upon islam necessarily means more Beslans, more subway bombings, more suicide strikes, more tears, more pain, more partings.

I do not veil these criticisms and problems from you. Additionally, such suggestions would draw cries of horror from the devotees of the High Church of political correctness. To be sure.

The American people are not yet ready for such moral burdens, but it does not mean they never will be.

As for Mr. Esmay, he is fighting a losing battle, and within various corners of his mind, he begins to suspect as much. But as yet, he banishes those concerns, stifles his doubts, repeats the party line, and more or less repeats the observations of a fellow like Daniel Pipes.

And even Pipes, look at how he is demonized. Imagine his reception if he were scheduled to speak at Columbia.

I do not doubt the final outcome of any collision between the United States and Iran, or even the whole of islam for that matter.

No. What I fear is the loss we shall sustain prior to a fearful reckoning.

If Washington were to disappear, were Manhattan to be turned into a charnel house, what this nation would do to islam does not bear description. And a foolish policy, and a pack of too-clever-for-their-own-good-Arabists in the State Department are leading this nation down a dark and grim path.

But when it comes, such as Esmay you needn't fret about, such as he, apt to run with the herd, will be cheering the loudest when the mushroom clouds appear throughout islam. If he runs with the herd now, rest assured, he'll run with them then.

There is a great deal hanging upon the Iraq gambit. The lives of millions, the fate of generations and civilizations. Thus it's no time to indulge in despondency or despair.

So let us resolve ourselves for victory, {yes Mr. Hugh Fitzgerald, even you, let us all resolve ourselves for victory}.

Posted by: Dan at May 18, 2006 5:32 AM

Very well done Mr Spencer. I read all of the links, and all of the replies. I rarely do so. For some reason, I was reminded of that many that is often on Fox (on WoT issues- he's someone that used to give me hope) - American of Pakistani heritage, I think. Seemingly nice & intelligent, but there was a to & fro on Islam with someone else a while back, and he shocked me. He threw out the "racism" card. It was very telling. Wish I could remember his name. IIRC, LGF linked to the discussion on Islam (it might have been a PJ Media thing).

Posted by: Baldy@LGF at May 18, 2006 6:17 AM

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

"islam" maybe regarded as a legal relgion, but with more Westerners reading the Koran, and with more examples of how peaceful this religion is, examples of fires and destruction of property of embassies,
killing by heheading of civilians, we in the West are onto you. and when the level of our tolerance will be reached, islam as you know it will be classisfied as a terrorist orgainization. If it were not for the oil that the Saudi's butts sit on, islam would still be an obscure cult of the desert.

Posted by: Lulu at May 18, 2006 6:34 AM

Ah - here it is. His name is Mansoor Ijaz, & he debated Andrew McCarthy of the National Review. He fooled me for a while. He probably still fools himself. He sees nothing wrong with Islam, it is only a tiny bunch of extremists... http://www.opinionduel.com/debate/?q=NDk=

Posted by: Baldy@LGF at May 18, 2006 6:35 AM

JB,

I want to corroborate your observation.

I happened to be in Washington the day of the rally and decided to attend. If anyone wants to go to the Jihadwatch archives about the FreeMuslimsAgainstTerror rally, I wrote on the comments section then and I maintain now, there were about 15 to 20 Muslim speakers and rally organizers, there were about 25 members of the media, and there was about 10 or 12 curious passers-by who came and went, almost all white Americans.

The media were getting impatient, asking the rally organizers to begin. They were told that "busloads of people are on their way."

Guess what? They never came.

JB is absolutely correct. Aside from the organizers/speakers themselves, there was not a single Muslim who attended the 'Free Muslims Against Terrorism' Rally.

It was a joke.

Posted by: Cornelius at May 18, 2006 8:01 AM

nor have I ever said flatly that "Islam is a dangerous, violent religion."

-From Roberts answer to Esmay's charge

Traeh, this is what I mean. Robert proves that Islam is exactly that - a dangerous violent religion - he connects all the dots between the jihad and the fundamental tenets of islamic doctrine - but he won't actually come out and say it. That is what I mean by pulling his punches.

I realize, however, that in his position, it is wiser to connect the dots and just let the reader draw the conclusion. Afterall, it is his face and name posted on the site. We, the readers, don't have to face the public, so we can safely say, anonymously, Islam Is a Bad Religion, from our homes. Robert, speaks publically, so he doesn't have that same luxury. He's a brave man, but there is a limit to what he can get away with saying and still be invited to speak publically.

The downside to that, however, is that someone like Esmay can challenge him to say 'Islam is a Violent Religion', and he is forced to deny that charge after connecting all the dots for his readers.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 18, 2006 8:03 AM

Ouch! Robert, I've always been impressed with the depth of your knowledge on Islam, and Jihad. I follow your site(s) more and more each week. All I can say about the truths spoken here to Mr. Esmay is...

"That's gonna leave a mark!"

Posted by: idgit at May 18, 2006 8:12 AM

Come. Both of you. Please sit and have some baked sheep.

Posted by: Neo at May 18, 2006 8:55 AM

something about islam--

I am not pulling any punches at all. Religions are many things. Islam contains teachings that incite to violence. It also contains many other elements that do not incite to violence. That's why I am uncomfortable with flat, broad formulations.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 18, 2006 9:05 AM

That's why I am uncomfortable with flat, broad formulations.

Robert, I know why you are uncomfortable. If you made that claim, what few doors are open to you now to speak publically, would be shut. At the end of the day, political correctness still holds sway.

But being uncomfortable with saying Islam is a bad religion, is not doing justice to your work. There is no other conclusion I, or anyone, can draw from this website, or other websites like it. Islam is corrupt ideology and it has made for a terrible religion with a terrible history.

Esmay wants you to deny that islam is a bad religion to make you look like a bad guy. You denied it. Or at least you denied ever saying it. I hope that one day you can come forward and not feel 'uncomfortable' with that claim.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 18, 2006 9:47 AM

Hello,

It seems to me that Islam is more a political system than a religion, particularly when it acts to spread itself. It seems more akin to the old-style Soviet/Chinese/Cuban communism in that it works to keep a small group of self-appointed and self-serving people in positions of power.

So, it also seems to me that the real reform that needs to take place is to separate church and state first. Once that is done and the religion stays purely in the realm of religion, there would be far less incentive to violence.

What this means then is that internally the leaders of Islam must renounce political power, a tough thing to expect of fallible human beings living in a tough part of the world. But if we look at it -as- a political system, then I think we can be more clear-headed about how to deal with it.

TW

Posted by: TWood at May 18, 2006 10:05 AM

(different special_guest, so why the confusion?)

From Ali Eteraz's website(*):

we must carefully and good-naturedly invite our newest arrivals to America — the Muslims from all the far away shores of the Muslim world — into the holding areas outside our steam generators, and immediately begin taking volunteers for purposes of incineration. Once the volunteers are taken care of, we can randomly go into the immense mass of Muslims at our disposal and take out any and all that we wish to fuel the incinerators. As a result of their terror-infested bodies burning, our steam generators and turbines will whirr and spin like nobody’s business [...] in the event that we are somehow able to exhaust all the Muslim flesh in the world in our “pits” we can then turn to the North Koreans and the Chinese

I have a modest proposal for the evil Ali: give up your genocidal dreams, and swiftly. We will stop your violent genocide before it can happen, you will be defeated. I don't care if your Qur'an justifies this sort of behavior. You are a bad, bad man.

(*) I know I said I wouldn't visit his website to avoid security issues, but I used a co-workers' computer, so it's okay

Posted by: special_guest at May 18, 2006 11:41 AM

Dan (you know which one you are)

I have in the past been ambivalent about taking out Mecca & Medina, but reading your post, it seems to make strategic sense. Today, the armies of Islam are out to conquer as many areas in the infidel world as possible, starting with Jerusalem, but by no means restricted to it.

While nukes are by no means necessary, I'd suggest militarily occupying Mecca and Medina with Infidel troops, and expelling all Muslims from those places. In fact, make sure there are no Muslims among the Infidel occupying troops. Whether the Ka'aba itself would need to be demolished or not, I don't know - it might have pre-Islamic archeological value - but certainly demolish Mohammed's resting place at Medina. Also, a la Adolf Eichmann, cremate him and scatter his remains over the Arabian sea, so that no Muslims can re-create a resting place for Mohammedans to continue homage to the most evil figure in history that ever existed.

Once such a status is achieved, this would be a real affront to Muslims everywhere. But what can they do? None of them have the military manpower to retake those places. Are they still going to pray towards Mecca? One thing for sure - every place in dar ul Harb would slide way down the pecking order as the re-conquest of these 2 sites become their #1 priority. Hold these sites over 2 or 3 generations, and if Muslims grow more aggressive during such an occupation, level these places and then leave. Let Muslims re-build them. If they can.

To answer your original question about victory, an alternative I had in mind was a military war, which would take out as many major mosques in the world, and level (with nukes if needed) the top 10 populated cities in dar ul Islam - Djakarta, Cairo, Lahore, Dacca, Karachi, et al, as well as Mecca, Medina and Jeddah (during Haj). Preferrably simultaneous bombing. With that sort of a shock, it's unlikely that Muslims could survive the psychological blow, and it would greatly reduce their appetite for destruction.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 18, 2006 1:23 PM

Dan (you know which one you are)

I have in the past been ambivalent about taking out Mecca & Medina, but reading your post, it seems to make strategic sense. Today, the armies of Islam are out to conquer as many areas in the infidel world as possible, starting with Jerusalem, but by no means restricted to it.

While nukes are by no means necessary, I'd suggest militarily occupying Mecca and Medina with Infidel troops, and expelling all Muslims from those places. In fact, make sure there are no Muslims among the Infidel occupying troops. Whether the Ka'aba itself would need to be demolished or not, I don't know - it might have pre-Islamic archaeological value - but certainly demolish Mohammed's resting place at Medina. Also, a la Adolf Eichmann, cremate him and scatter his remains over the Arabian sea, so that no Muslims can re-create a resting place for Mohammedans to continue homage to the most evil figure in history that ever existed.

Once such a status is achieved, this would be a real affront to Muslims everywhere. But what can they do? None of them have the military manpower to retake those places. Are they still going to pray towards Mecca? One thing for sure - every place in dar ul Harb would slide way down the pecking order as the re-conquest of these 2 sites become their #1 priority. Hold these sites over 2 or 3 generations, and if Muslims grow more aggressive during such an occupation, level these places and then leave. Let Muslims re-build them. If they can.

To answer your original question about victory, an alternative I had in mind was a military war, which would take out as many major mosques in the world, and level (with nukes if needed) the top 10 populated cities in dar ul Islam - Djakarta, Cairo, Lahore, Dacca, Karachi, et al, as well as Mecca, Medina and Jeddah (during Haj). Preferably simultaneous bombing. With that sort of a shock, it's unlikely that Muslims could survive the psychological blow, and it would greatly reduce their appetite for destruction.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 18, 2006 1:24 PM

I am not pulling any punches at all. Religions are many things. Islam contains teachings that incite to violence. It also contains many other elements that do not incite to violence. That's why I am uncomfortable with flat, broad formulations. Posted by: jihadwatch

How does the fact that Islam contains teachings that don't incite violence negate the assertion that it is violent - especially when it explicitly contains teachings that do? The real message would be the summary of what it teaches - and the message of Islam can be summed up in 5 words, "Conquer the world for Allah". Allah of course, being the stand in for Mohammed.

Even though other religions contain passages that would make their present day adherents cringe, violence is not the sum total of their message. But how can one make the same claim about Islam? Just because there is a way for violence to be avoided by folding and embracing Islam? Note that Hitler would probably have been perfectly happy had every country in Europe meekly surrendered to him a la Austria, but would that have made it misleading to label him as dangerous and violent?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 18, 2006 1:32 PM

Re: Robert's statement that -- "Religions are many things. Islam contains teachings that incite to violence. It also contains many other elements that do not incite to violence. That's why I am uncomfortable with flat, broad formulations" -- I would second Infidel Pride's post above.

Specifically, I would suggest that religions should not be exempt from laws of logic any more than any other group or institution.

The logic I am referring to is simply this: if a group commanded its followers to rape and murder innocent old ladies, but that group also commanded its followers to bake cookies and distribute them to poor children and a thousand other nice things, the horrible evil of its command to rape and murder innocent old ladies would irrevocably tarnish all its nice commands, rendering the group subject to utter -- not equivocating -- condemnation.

One wonders, then, on what basis does Robert think that the nice aspects of Islam somehow have any shred of relevance to the question of the utter condemnation of Islam based upon its ethically horrible (not to mention its geopolitically dangerous) aspects?

Posted by: Television at May 18, 2006 2:13 PM

Mr. Esmay refers to America's "Muslim friends."

Now correct me if I'm wrong but the Kuran warns Muslims in more than one verse to "make friends with neither Jews nor Christians" --does it not?

Since America was founded by mainly Christians and is predominantly Christian it is logical to conclude that the Kuran would prohibit Muslims from making friends with Americans.

So the question we have for Mr. Esmay is WHAT MUSLIM FRIENDS DO AMERICANS HAVE??? AND WHERE WOULD THEY BE??? AND FOR INSTANCE, WHO WOULD THAT INCLUDE???

Mr. Esmay alludes to 'Christian nutjobs'. Yes, they exist. But what Mr. Esmay does not understand is that in Christianity as well as Judeism the founding deity (Yahweh) EXPRESSLY FORBIDS killing of human beings except in the case of self-defense per the TEN COMMANDMENTS issued to Moses on Mt. Sinai by Yahweh (Thous shalt not commit murder). There is no gray area about this commandment either. Anyone who has read the Kuran or parts of it knows that al-lah states "and when the forbidden months have passed, slay the infidels everywhere they are found, besiege them, capture them, prepare every stratagem of warfare upon them....." The difference between al-lah and Yahweh, Islam and Judeo-Christianism could NOT be more stark. As I have said, clearly Mr. Esmay hasn't bothered to opened a Kuran in his life even once.

Now as for these "Christian nutjobs' such as those currently terrorizing Uganda aren't Christian at all. (Whatever they may call themselves). These nutjobmass murdering militias are in 100% villation of the TEN COMMANDMENTS issued to Moses on Mt. Sinai. By the laws of Christianity such murdering thugs as these "Christian" militias of Uganda are criminal menaces to the populace and may be eliminated by whatever means necessary. Whatever you want to call such extremist organizations as the Lord's Resistance Army of Uganda it is NOT Christian if only because it does not include Christian teachings in its actions and violates many real Christian teachings it apparently is unaware exist). Most Christians would sensibly run for their lives if a member of the Lord's resistance Army arrived at their doorstep! So I maintain Mr. Esmay loses on this one.

Also, Mr. Esmay contends he does not 'have to' prove Robert Spencer wrong. Apparently, it has never occurred to Esmay that HE MIGHT BE WRONG. (And is).

Posted by: pythagoras at May 18, 2006 2:15 PM

Robert,
I appreciate your work and those who comment at JW. I have a question. Having represented myself in court I know there comes a time when (a) the opening remarks are in, (b) the evidence is in, and (c) closing remarks marking debate are made, and it is time for judgement by the trier of fact. I have seen where the judge has to call an end to the closing remarks because the two sides resort to endless back-and-forth repetition.

Concerning Islam, we have a wealth of evidence in 14 centuries of history driven by Islamic texts interpreted in consistent straightforward fashion by Islamists over that time period. I see the current "debate" over the nature of Islam and its reformability as endless back-and-forth repetition. I continue to follow it, but the conclusion is obvious. I find Islam to be irreconcileable to my American freedoms as well as my Christian faith. I find Islam to be non-reformable. I find rejection of Islam to be the only intelligent option for all people concerned about peace and freedom. As a judge or jury needs not anyone's approval for their decision, I need not anyone's approval for mine.

Now my question: how much longer must this go on before YOU are convinced, how much more evidence is needed, how many more must be enslaved or killed, etc, before you realize that there comes a time for judgement to be made, make it, and state it without apology to anyone?

This is my first post here. No disrespect intended. I am like the judge on the bench who grows impatient with the endless repetition, yet the evidence never changes.

Posted by: neverpayretail at May 18, 2006 2:45 PM

To somethingaboutislam and, indirectly, to neverpayretail:

I understood what you (somethingaboutislam) were saying the first time you said it. I'll try to put more clearly and succinctly what I meant: there are exceptions to virtually every pattern and rule. One can recognize very broad patterns (for example Robert points out that all four main schools of Sunni jurisprudence prescribe harsh penalties for apostasy) without pretending that one's generalizations apply to absolutely every situation. You seem to want to indulge in absolute statements. I don't say that you are lazy, but I note that often the desire to make an absolute statement is just a form of lazyness that doesn't want to trouble about learning specifics.

Why do small exceptions to patterns matter, you might ask? Why do such small details matter? Well, the 'puny detail,' in practice, can turn out to be a flesh and blood individual human being, or a particular community of human beings. Those 'puny details' tend to be murdered by grand universal theories. Collateral damage is sometimes necessary in war, but the ideologue who treats a pattern as if it always is accurate wouldn't even acknowledge collateral damage. He would claim that every single innocent killed was in fact an enemy.

When you try to make an absolutely unqualified statement, it seems to me you go against the Western values you imagine you are defending. Western values -- at least the best of them -- forbid ignoring the existence of individuals who don't don't conform to pattern. Western values also forbid ignoring the existence of specific facts that don't fit into grand theories. It is not the best of the West, but the totalitarians who don't care about exceptions, about the individual, about the little guy, the puny detail that doesn't confirm their idea of utopia.

What you and other over-generalizers are doing without knowing it, is applying in your thinking what totalitarians apply in practice. If you believe in freedom and the individual, I believe you must liberate yourself from the deadly universal abstractions that don't give a damn about specifics and individuals, and you must restrict yourself to recognizing patterns, sometimes very broad patterns, but ones limited by specific observations and without universal claims.

Posted by: traeh at May 18, 2006 6:45 PM

While I find Television's argument strong, I'm not sure it's decisive. He seems to ignore the difference between establishing broad patterns rooted in specific observations (which Robert does), and asserting universals, (which Robert scrupulously avoids doing). I think to assert universals about 'Islam' is to rise into the non-empirical, and is trickier than Television makes out, and much harder than establishing broad but finite empirical patterns.

Robert's procedure, by staying away from the philosophical plane of universal statement, and adhering to the scientific or reportorial plane of empirical observation establishing general but finite patterns rooted in specific observations, has tactical, epistemological, and moral advantages.

In effect, Television, you are operating on a philosophical plane when you try to make a universal statement about Islam, whereas Robert is trying to operate on a plane where specific factors can be directly observed and confirmed, as in science. I have already said in my first (long) post on this thread why I think Robert's approach (as against a universalizing one) is the one most morally in tune with Western individualistic values. Robert's approach supports taking defensive actions as necessary, but puts an appropriate firewall up against genocidal or collectivist thinking.

Posted by: traeh at May 18, 2006 7:35 PM

traeh

It would be one thing if Robert was to mention that there are violent and non-violent verses in Islamic texts, and leave one to draw one's own conclusions. Instead, he explicitly states that "it would be simplistic, and in many ways, misleading" to assert that Islam is a dangerous and violent religion. The point both TV and I were making is that such a statement is downright false.

I understand what somethingaboutislam says above when he states that being a more public figure than any of us, Robert isn't at liberty to say the sort of things we do (something that I suspect Robert may not agree with). But it's one thing for him to avoid jumping to the conclusion(s) that are there to be arrived at, but quite another for him to actually contradict (or water down) such conclusions.

Therefore, if he wants to contradict them, it is incumbent on him to prove that they are wrong conclusions to arrive at, using examples of Muslims themselves interpreting down such teachings in a way that allows them to not only ignore such teachings in the first place, but actually void the application of such teachings in real life.

Given the examples of Mohammed, it's impossible, and therefore, Islam is not reformable. Put in another way, if Islam does get altered such that it is as benign as say, Christianity, it won't remain Islam any longer - as a result of Mohammed ceasing to be uswa hasana.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 18, 2006 8:25 PM

Traeh, this is intellectual dishonesty, sophistry because you know that this comes down to political correctness. How can anyone know the things about islam as we do, and NOT make a statement that "islam is bad"? Robert has preached for years that the basic tenets of islam lead to the madness and evil in the islamic world. There is no getting around that.

are exceptions to virtually every pattern and rule.

Concerning youself with exceptions, and not the rule of islamic doctrine that inspires terror and mayhem, is a mistake only a dhimmi would make. Let's concentrate on what the rule is. And the rule is that the Koran and hadiths were inspired by a very bad man. Robert is an expert on how mad the koran is. There is no need to balance any of that with exceptions.

You seem to want to indulge in absolute statements. I don't say that you are lazy, but I note that often the desire to make an absolute statement is just a form of lazyness that doesn't want to trouble about learning specifics.

I have learned the specifics. This site has been invaluable. From that conclusions can be made. You call those conclusions, 'absolute statements' just as if absolute statements were a bad thing. I call them conclusions. But just for sake of argument, what specifics could possible undermine the statement that 'Islam is violent religion?' Ask CAIR for help with the answer to that question.

Collateral damage is sometimes necessary in war, but the ideologue who treats a pattern as if it always is accurate wouldn't even acknowledge collateral damage. He would claim that every single innocent killed was in fact an enemy.

If I didn't know better, I would think you wrote for the Guardian. We are in a war with an evil ideology. You obviously disagree. But there is no virute in observing that not every muslim is a terrorist that deserves to die. Nobody is saying that. What I and most everybody on this site is saying is that Islam is a bad, dangerous religion. If that statment makes me an 'ideologue', then I happily accept the charge. Along with all the other 'ideologues' on here.

If you believe in freedom and the individual, I believe you must liberate yourself from the deadly universal abstractions that don't give a damn about specifics and individuals, and you must restrict yourself to recognizing patterns, sometimes very broad patterns, but ones limited by specific observations and without universal claims.

I don't have any 'deadly univeral abstrations'. I think the jihadists are the ones with those.

If you want to espouse the view that islam is NOT a fundamentally corrupt ideology, that it is not a "dangerous, violent religion", you are entitled to that naive view, as are millions of other people in this world. I just didn't think that Robert, the publisher of jihadwatch.org, was one of them.

But I think Robert, in his own words, should explain why he DOESN'T think that islam is a dangerous religion. He has convinced many people of the opposite.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 18, 2006 8:49 PM

Robert's approach (as against a universalizing one) is the one most morally in tune with Western individualistic values. Robert's approach supports taking defensive actions as necessary, but puts an appropriate firewall up against genocidal or collectivist thinking.

Well, I can say that 'western individualistic values', have gotten the west into this problem with islam in the first place. Moral relativism has done a lot of damage.

I know that Robert may not care for the more virulent anti-islamic statements on this site. And perhaps, he is even getting a little nervous that he could be charged with running a hate site that encourages violence if someone here goes and blows up a mosque. I understand that concern. But I don't think anyone here is like that. When and if the war with islam does comes, he will be looked upon as one of the few people that spoke out. But to only make clinincal observations, while avoding making a moral conclusion about the subject, is not intellectually honest, in my opinion.

But I'm afraid that if we really are in 1938, as Robert likes to point out, that now is the time for Robert to get off the morally ambiguous fence of mere clinical observations about islam, and take a more passionate stand against islam as a religion. The Left is going to label anyone wise to islam as a racist, so what does it matter anymore? But then again, to do so, would isolate him more in the media. So I can appreciate he is caught between a rock and a hard place. Between us on one side, and the political correct world on the other.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 18, 2006 9:09 PM

What is the big mystery about Spencer's behavior.

As far as he has gone describing the nature of the islamic problem, and some of you desire him to go further....

The guy and his website are deemed by many, particularly in the media, particularly amongst the elite, both of which play so profound a role in the formation of policy, and both deem Spencer and his website a place for whackos and loons, foaming at the mouth, barking at the moon.

And some of you want him to go further, and come out and unequivocally say that "islam is war."

I mean come on.

The guy is BARELY hanging on in maintaining a place within the national conversation, and some of you won't be happy until he is well and truly marginalized.

Good grief.

Sure he's pulling his punches, and of course, he'll deny that he's doing so.

Acquire some sophistication, and see the politics involved, and the contours of the playing field.

Purity is not a political virtue, many of you would do well to recall.

This battle has barely begun.

And Spencer has done well to the extent that he is getting people to slowly grasp that there is far more to islam than the oft repeated phrase: "islam is peace."

He's done well so far, although I'm sure that he and Fitzgerald, {especially Fitzgerald} feel a great deal of frustration.

Posted by: Dan at May 18, 2006 9:31 PM

"I think to assert universals about 'Islam' is to rise into the non-empirical, and is trickier than Television makes out"

Two words (which you yourself used): collateral damage.

I think when Robert is wary of condemning Islam, he is making a distinction between two things:

1) Islam as a religion or belief-system

2) Islam as the totality of Muslims.

I think Robert would be more comfortable condemning Islam as #1, though he seems a little fastidiously gingerly about doing so because #1 can so easily blend into #2.

As for #2, the only Muslims who are not apparently categorizable as sufficiently premeditating supporters of #1 are the Muslims who are, for want of a better term, "wishy-washy" Muslims, or "bad" (i.e., not faithfully practicing) Muslims, or as Hugh puts it "Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only". This category of Muslim may embrace millions. There are two pragmatic problems with this category for us Infidels:

1) We cannot know which of these wishy-washy Muslims are lying and/or sincerely wishy-washy now but in the future may become more authentic and agree to carry a vial of smallpox into a large Western city, or merely start shooting people at random in Times Square, or blow him or herself up at LAX.

2) Even the many wishy-washy Muslims who will never go postal are, by the mere act of continuing to remain passively Muslim, shoring up and nourishing the larger world of Islam (#2) which is, in turn, a massively crucial bedrock of tacit support to the jihadists who are working to make Islam #1 dominant in the world.

2b) There are many shades in between the type 2 Muslim and type 1 Muslim -- many shades of defensiveness about Islam short of supporting jihadists, many shades of hating the West (or hating non-Believers in general) short of supporting jihadists. These many shades, however, do not support a militating complexity that has any relevance to the fundamental distinction.

My two cents: Robert should at least make the distinction between Islam #1 and Islam #2 explicit, and reserve his gingerly ambivalence strictly and clearly to Islam #2 (the total population of Muslims), while utterly condemning Islam #1 -- and also making clear that Muslims who, by their mere wishy-washy existence, make Islam #2 more complicated and less obviously condemnable and are thereby contributing to the power of the Muslims who foment an Islam #1 as a concrete presence and threat in the world.

To return to my two words: collateral damage: we Infidels may be able to be fastidious about trying to avoid collateral damage now, but we should not erect such fastidiousness as an abstract apodictic principle, as though our ethical superiority depends upon never breaking that principle; for there may soon come a time where the lives of untold numbers of innocent people will be betrayed by such a principle.

Posted by: Television at May 18, 2006 10:03 PM

I'm with you Dan.

Robert documents daily the atrocities of jihad and the indignities of dhimmitude. He consistently refuses to concede that there is such as a thing as a "moderate" Islam...though he readily and rightly conceeds that there are moderate Muslims. He regularly quotes from the foundational texts to correlate the violence of today's jihadis with the traditions of the faith.

Why the hell is writing 'Islam is violent' so superior to writing 'there is a broad tradition of violence in Islamic theology and history'?

To quote Robert, 'Good grief'....(or was that Charlie Brown?)

Posted by: Cornelius at May 18, 2006 10:36 PM

"Robert documents daily the atrocities of jihad and the indignities of dhimmitude."

Yes. Robert lets the facts speak for themselves. Many on the other side get confused by the facts, emotionally upset-and then accuse Robert (or himself (aka Hugh) of saying what they think. It's interesting to watch the process of projection with many of the anti-JW folks.

I am not a psychologist-but I know projection when I see it.

Posted by: Frank at May 19, 2006 12:37 AM

First a general comment to Infidel Pride, somethingaboutislam and Television:

Regarding Robert Spencer's refusal to universalize about Islam, I find the positions you are taking intuitively pretty persuasive, but I'm not sure if that's because there is indeed an inconsistency in Robert's approach, as some of you are saying (namely that Robert supposedly tells us all the time that Islam is bad, then tells us it would be oversimplifying to say that Islam is bad), or if something else is going on.

But I think it important to remember that trying to forge a consensus about absolute universals is nearly impossible and virtually indistinguishable from trying to get a consensus about metaphysics. Robert is such a master of debate in part because he doesn't attempt the impossible and instead takes on the manageable task of establishing that there are specific problems, even huge specific problems, with Islam. If you want you can consider it a mere fringe benefit that Spencer's powerfully down-to-earth approach to his subject also places him firmly in the best Western humanist and Judeo-Christian tradition of respect for the individual and the specific.

An analogy that seems relevant: Newtonian physics contains huge truths and applies very broadly to the universe. But at significant fractions of the speed of light, and at the subatomic level, Newton no longer fully applies. As important as limits to large patterns are in science, they are even more important when dealing with human beings.

Now specific responses:

Infidel Pride said:

"[Robert said] 'it would be simplistic, and in many ways, misleading' to assert that Islam is a dangerous and violent religion. The point both TV and I were making is that such a statement is downright false."

Infidel Pride, what you assert here is in one sense surely right. The problem, I suggest, is that the phrase "Islam is a dangerous and violent religion" can be false if the phrase is understood in ways that you did not intend. For example, it can be taken as an assertion that Islam at every moment is nothing but dangerous and violent. Obviously that would be a false assertion. And however violent Islam in fact is, that phrase is so vague that it can be taken to assert that Islam is even more violent than it really is. And the phrase can be understood in other ways that give a false impression. That is the problem with overly general and unqualified phrases. They are like dull knives that do not make a well-defined and clear cut but rather a vague, jagged boundary. Overly general phrases vaguely suggest too many possible interpretations of the situation on the ground, and many of those interpretations are not correct.

somethingaboutislam said:

We are in a war with an evil ideology. You obviously disagree.

Actually, I didn't disagree, I have till recently agreed with that way of putting it, but I hesitate lately because I have been studying Robert's perhaps subtler and, more importantly, perhaps truer approach. You also say:

Concerning youself with exceptions, and not the rule of islamic doctrine that inspires terror and mayhem, is a mistake only a dhimmi would make.

Hold on a sec. The mistake a dhimmi makes is not that he concerns himself with exceptions. The mistake he makes is to concern himself only with exceptions, and to act as if they are not mere exceptions, but rather the rule. For example he focuses only or mainly on outspoken moderate Muslims, but pretends they are the rule and the norm rather than the exception. Remember that if we understand something to be an 'exception' or ‘exceptional’ then we take it as an unusual deviation from a more general pattern that is not exceptional but rather quite common. This is what is meant by “the exception proves the rule.” The dhimmi points out seemingly benign Islamic phenomena which he claims are not mere exceptions. If he admitted they were mere exceptions he wouldn’t be a dhimmi, in fact the dhimmis might all attack him. Sometimes the dhimmi wants to argue that there is no big picture or rule at all (no predominant pattern), or to say that the 'rule' in Islam is just like the rule in any other culture. Sometimes the dhimmi affirms there is indeed a predominant pattern or set of patterns in Islamic culture, but misrepresents those patterns to make them look more tolerant and peaceful than they are.

Anyway, if you add the word 'only' to your statement, as in "Concerning yourself only with exceptions..." then your statement comes close to the truth.

When you say simply that "Islam is a bad religion," you may be essentially correct, you might have the 'big picture', the main truth. I'm inclined to think you do. So I understand why you are adamant. But you give no sign of having understood why I question your approach. The big picture is good enough if you are talking about something theoretical or something inanimate. Even when you are talking about human beings, the big picture remains valuable and necessary. My point is that if you believe in freedom and the individual, and your subject is real human beings, the big picture is necessary but not enough. You must know the exceptions also. On your side of the argument however, maybe a good case could be made that in some war situations, effective self-defense requires simplifying the truth about the enemy. But being on the internet writing a comment is not one of those war situations.

Television said:

I think when Robert is wary of condemning Islam, he is making a distinction between two things:

1) Islam as a religion or belief-system

2) Islam as the totality of Muslims.

I think Robert would be more comfortable condemning Islam as #1, though he seems a little fastidiously gingerly about doing so because #1 can so easily blend into #2.

I agree Spencer would be more comfortable (I would rather say "less uncomfortable") condemning #1, but even there, I suspect he rejects total condemnation simply because it is a factual untruth. The truth I think is that Islam is in the main a force for bad. But saying that is very different from saying there is nothing good in it at all, which is basically what you guys are saying or coming close to saying. That is incorrect and it is a kind of incorrectness that at best can only be justified as a tactical move to simplify our concept of the enemy so as to gain the kind of resolve that can win a war. Maybe that tactic is justified or in future will be justifiable as a way of generating the quick solidarity necessary for a nation to defend itself. But the tactic may also backfire because it is morally flawed and rather than creating solidarity may lose us many of the people we need to persuade to be our allies in the war. It is morally flawed because it begrudges recognition of good where recognition is due, even if recognition of good is due comparatively rarely. It is morally flawed because it rejects a part of the truth.

To everyone on the thread (especially Dan):

Some have suggested that Robert is afraid of some hypothetical possibility of legal action against his site and so is watering down his views for that reason or because he doesn’t want to be completely marginalized and rejected by mainstream opinion. There might be something to those claims but I am reluctant to credit them much because Robert’s refusal to universalize is such a deeply integrated part of his argumentative technique and strategy. It is part of how he almost never loses an argument. Universals are very very difficult to prove. Big but finite patterns are much easier to establish. Furthermore, respect for the concrete and individual if of the very essence of what Robert is defending in defending the West, while the abstract universals that are so much a part of totalitarian thinking are naturally his enemy.

Posted by: traeh at May 19, 2006 7:15 AM

traeh,

"I suspect he rejects total condemnation simply because it is a factual untruth. The truth I think is that Islam is in the main a force for bad. But saying that is very different from saying there is nothing good in it at all, which is basically what you guys are saying or coming close to saying."

I think you are with your last post (of which the above quote is a representative kernel) tending toward sophistical analysis. It's very simple: if we have an organization -- say the Elks Club -- that has as one of its rules for members that they rape and murder little girls, then it doesn't matter if they have a thousand other rules that are good, nor does it matter if not all its members seem to be following the one evil rule: this one evil rule makes the Elks Club evil, and it makes all members who refuse to quit instantly and publically condemn the Elks Club and express profound regret for ever having been a member in the first place -- it makes all such members ethically complicit in (let alone functioning, at best, as passive enablers of) that evil. Period.

Posted by: Television at May 19, 2006 1:16 PM

P.S.: The very fact that we are having this debate and that Robert can even express such gingerly fastidiousness points to one important reason why it is so difficult for the West to condemn Islam: Islam has acquired this aura of being a vibrant, rich, complex, historically inveterate organism and cultural oh-so-variegated "tapestry" of many-splendored-hues, and as such, the moral clarity of condemnation becomes obfuscated as it wouldn't, were we confronted with my hypothetical Elks Club. In fact, such an Elks Club would be immediately shut down and its members legally punished, and only tin-foil flakes on the Internet would be defending its thousand good rules.

The only way such an Elks Club could escape the unequivocal condemnation it deserves, it seems, would be for it to have waged ruthless barbaric imperialistic war, piracy, enslavement, genocide and mass-rapes in the name of its own religion and to have lasted 1400-odd years doing so -- thereby becoming part of the "fabric of our lives"...

Posted by: Television at May 19, 2006 1:26 PM

I have asked Mr. Spencer a question. He has not responded, and I realize, "Nope, he doesn't have to". I also realize he may not be aware of my question. So, just a little humor, don't nobody go ballistic.

This thread has presented much speculation regarding Mr. Spencer's thoughts. I appreciate the sincerity of that speculation, but it is still merely speculation.

Recall the last lines from Judgment at Nuremburg;

Ernst Janning: Judge Haywood... the reason I asked you to come: Those people, those millions of people... I never knew it would come to that. You *must* believe it, *You must* believe it!
Judge Dan Haywood: Herr Janning, it "came to that" the *first time* you sentenced a man to death you *knew* to be innocent.

Like Nazism, Islam is evil from its very founding 1400 years ago. The evidence is in. The case is made. Mr. Spencer of all people should know that. It is weakness, not strength, to refuse to make the obvious judgment that your own research supports, and the opposition knows it. So, the opposition claims he has made judgment that Islam is evil as if such a conclusion is bad, and he denies it. This only makes it difficult in future to FINALLY make the judgment, exactly what the opposition wants - pure manipulation. We should "wise up".

And why is it difficult to make the judgment in future, after refusal to do so NOW? Well, what new data is on the horizon that would compel it in the future, but not now? Answer, none. Refusal to judge now weakens any future judgment. Hence, I make my judgment now, and I am grateful to those who provide the data that substantiates my conclusion.

Posted by: neverpayretail at May 19, 2006 6:31 PM

TV

My only divergence with your Elks club example would be:

If the Elks club had that one rule that commanded rape and murder, and only an insignificant minority followed it. Not only did everyone else ignore it, and do the thousand other good things it commanded, they also came down hard on the minority that did indulge in this criminal practice, either with the help of the Elks club rulebook, or without. In such a case, despite the one bad rule in the book, that Elks club would be like the other religions, not like Islam.

Reason we are in this discussion is that the majority of this Elk's club membership follows that one rule, and the remaining members either condone it, or are unable to do anything about it, since the Elk club founder wrote this rule, practiced it, wrote it in stone, and died, so that it is unalterable.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 19, 2006 8:30 PM

Robert’s refusal to universalize is such a deeply integrated part of his argumentative technique and strategy. It is part of how he almost never loses an argument.

Of course, if you never take an absolute stand, then you never have to defend one either. Kind of like a politician. Hard to lose an argument if all one does is make observations or cite quotations. Good strategy for getting elected, or appearing in public.

Universals are very very difficult to prove. Big but finite patterns are much easier to establish. Furthermore, respect for the concrete and individual if of the very essence of what Robert is defending in defending the West, while the abstract universals that are so much a part of totalitarian thinking are naturally his enemy.

I understand that generalizations about race or religion are frowned upon in polite society. The enlightened mind is supposed to be interested in the nuances of humanity, parsing away the black and white looking for the gray. But to what end?

Hitler, for example, loved animals, was a vegetarian, had a sweet tooth for Danish pastry, loved dogs, and brought homosexuals and the handicapped into his inner circle. He was a 3-dimensional human being with frailties and foibles, not just a one dimensional bad guy that we see in the news clips with an outstretched arm. But that doesn't matter because the man was fundamentally bad and the ideology of his party was equally so. It was dangerous and violent. There is no virtue in avoiding a universal statement that Nazism was bad to the core and the world would be better off without it. Danish pastry not withstanding. (How bad can a guy be who likes Danish pastry, right?) But to avoid such a conclusion simply out of a scholarly distaste for absolute statements would be intellectual sophistry. Is there moral virtue in that?

I suppose if there were a billion Nazis in the world, with most minding their own business in 1938, one could argue that absolute statements about Nazism would not be scholarly and should be avoided. But from where I sit tonight, I'd say, the world is better off without it. As Rocky would say, 'Absolutely'.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 19, 2006 8:32 PM

Television said:

I think you are with your last post...tending toward sophistical analysis.

The difference we seem to have is this: You want to say simply that "Islam is evil". I want to say that "Islam is in the main evil, but is not absolutely and totally without any good elements."

Television said:

It's very simple: if we have an organization -- say the Elks Club -- that has as one of its rules for members that they rape and murder little girls, then it doesn't matter if they have a thousand other rules that are good, nor does it matter if not all its members seem to be following the one evil rule: this one evil rule makes the Elks Club evil

It makes them mainly or essentially evil. Not totally evil. I think confusion is arising here because there is a real sense in which saying something is mainly evil is exactly the same thing as simply saying: "It's evil." But for you it seems, a thing has to be 100% evil to be able to say "It's evil." To me, a thing need only be at least 51% evil to say, "It's evil." So that when I say "it's evil" I indicate not absolute evil but merely that the main force of the thing is evil. However I sometimes prefer not to say "it's evil", even though that expression is essentially true of anything 51% or more evil. I sometimes prefer to use a qualifying phrase like "in the main evil" of something I think evil, so that people will keep their eyes open for the details of what is evil and what is not in the thing discussed.

Television said:

...and it makes all members who refuse to quit instantly and publically condemn the Elks Club and express profound regret for ever having been a member in the first place -- it makes all such members ethically complicit in (let alone functioning, at best, as passive enablers of) that evil.

I agree with you completely on that. I would say if a group's doctrine is 51% or more evil (of course one cannot really precisely quantify, but I mean if something is mainly a force for evil) then all members must either dissolve the group or explicitly reject the evil part of the doctrine, in other words the main part of the group's doctrine.

Television said:

P.S.: The very fact that we are having this debate and that Robert can even express such gingerly fastidiousness points to one important reason why it is so difficult for the West to condemn Islam: Islam has acquired this aura of being a vibrant, rich, complex, historically inveterate organism and cultural oh-so-variegated "tapestry" of many-splendored-hues, and as such, the moral clarity of condemnation becomes obfuscated

Yes, but if you refuse to say "Islam is mainly evil" and insist on instead simply saying "Islam is evil," in some though not all circumstances you yourself will make it harder for the West to condemn Islam because you create the impression, in some, not all listeners, that you have a metaphysical not a factual beef with Islam. And few people will simply adopt other's metaphysics. If you say "in the main" evil you still make a morally strong and decisive judgement leading to huge consequences, and moreover you will likely persuade more people -- at least more thoughtful people -- of your position, because they will see that you do boil things down to a decisive judgement yet without denying some of the facts.

I enjoy your posts, as I said, and find them cogent but perhaps we have gotten as far as we can on this issue for now and will have to agree to disagree for the time being?

Posted by: traeh at May 19, 2006 8:39 PM

There isn't any particular need to reach a universal position on muslims. Just as there wasn't any particular need to damn ever single German, before reducing their city to dust.

I'm confident there are some rational muslims, who don't want any part of war, confrontation, or islamic supremacism. And I'm pretty confident that not all Arabs desire war with the West. Nonetheless, those people are either in insufficient number to make any real difference, or they are so thoroughly cowed that effective policy cannot be predicated upon them.

To this day, no major repudiation of the terrorists has been made in the major sites in islam. Al Azhar hasn't condemned terrorism. Has anyone heard any repudiation from Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, or Najaf, Karballa?

There may be some clerics who have denounced terrorism, razzia and jihad, but they're not significant, nor powerful enough to leave a permanent indentation upon the substance of islam.

Admiral Yammato didn't want to go to war with the United States, and vehemently fought the policy of war, but despite his resistance, despite his doubts and fears, he followed his orders. And when we had the opporutinity, we blew him out of the sky.

We never held back on the South, the Japanese or the German, because of undiscerned pockets or elements within those societies, that were well disposed towards us.

So again, why is the mohammedan receiving an exemption, why is he getting a dispensation?

Why are we reluctant to tee off upon him, just like we did our former mortal foes?

Posted by: Dan at May 20, 2006 12:58 AM

traeh,

"I think confusion is arising here because there is a real sense in which saying something is mainly evil is exactly the same thing as simply saying: "It's evil." But for you it seems, a thing has to be 100% evil to be able to say "It's evil." To me, a thing need only be at least 51% evil to say, "It's evil." "

I see your point. I don't, however, say Islam is 100% evil -- my hypothetical Elks Club was, strictly quantitatively, only 1/1000 evil. It had one command to rape and murder little girls, but 1000 other commands that are good. In my view, the one evil command pollutes the good commands: the good commands become worthless and irrelevant for establishing any goodness in that Elks Club. We could be agreeing, but coming at this from diametrical angles. This business about 51% evil seems also a distraction: it's not a matter of a tipping point past the mid-mark: it's a matter of whether there exists at least one thing that spoils the whole pot of soup.

The Pakistani quasi-ex-Muslim, "Mohammed Rasoel", who wrote that interesting essay, "The Downfall of the Netherlands: Land of the Naive Fools", has a passage that expresses the same logic I'm talking about, though from a different metaphorical angle. Allow me to quote at length:

The world and all the cultures within it are like a painting palette, with on it several beautiful colors of paint, each with their own unique hue. Mix them all up, and you don't only have any color left, it'll be impossible to point out one individual color in the sludge. That's how the EU culture will look in the future. I can see it before me: all the people of the world who look alike - speak the same language... "Where are you from?" "Planet Earth.", "Ah, right.” What a wonderful world it would be! Where would the Dutch go to with their holiday paranoia? Or imagine, somewhere after 1992, a football game between the Netherlands and Germany, where nine players of the Dutch team are German, and the other way around.

With what sort of flag would the supporters wave, whoever they may be? I'll let the cultural threat from foreigners in general be for what it is now and focus on the more specific threat of the Muslims, which is also a political threat, and limits the amount of colors to two. We can mark the Dutch and Muslims with respectively yellow and red, as to be expected symbolizing "soft" and "hard". A teaspoon of yellow in a pot with red won't harm the red. The other way around the pot with yellow will never be the same: it's a lot easier to make a honest man dishonest, to make a calm person nervous, than the other way around, or to get addicted in bad company than it is to get clean in good company, and finally it's much easier for a hard person to dominate a soft person than the other way around.

The crucial phrase in the above quoted passage is this: A teaspoon of yellow in a pot with red won't harm the red. The other way around the pot with yellow will never be the same.

I.e., a good rule integrated into an evil institution won't change that institution, but one evil rule integrated into an otherwise good institution will ruin that institution, make it as good as 100% evil.

"if you refuse to say "Islam is mainly evil" and insist on instead simply saying "Islam is evil," in some though not all circumstances you yourself will make it harder for the West to condemn Islam because you create the impression, in some, not all listeners, that you have a metaphysical not a factual beef with Islam."

I agree with this; however, I think that the majority among those who would get that impression after at least deigning to listen to me present some of the features of my case are irrationally stubborn types: if they can't tell the difference between the factual beef and the metaphysical condemnation, then they probably have ideological lenses on hypocritically painting their opponents as doing the very thing they are doing; and the majority among these types, I think, probably can't be persuaded by anything other than the rubber meeting the road -- nothing short of seeing actual conquering military invasion by Muslims visible to the naked eye in their neighborhood and coming after their asses would shake them out of their PC box.

Posted by: Television at May 20, 2006 4:55 AM

To Television:
An even more interesting response.

You said:

I don't, however, say Islam is 100% evil -- my hypothetical Elks Club was, strictly quantitatively, only 1/1000 evil. It had one command to rape and murder little girls, but 1000 other commands that are good. In my view, the one evil command pollutes the good commands

If the quantitative measure is the number of rules, then you are absolutely correct that a group could be 1/1000 evil and that would "spoil the whole pot."

And I agree that the "evil command pollutes the good commands"

Television said:

:the good commands become worthless and irrelevant for establishing any goodness in that Elks Club.

Here you take an additional and, as far as I can see, unwarranted step beyond the correct: "evil command pollutes the good commands" principle. There are degrees of pollution. By taking the additional step and saying "the good commands become worthless...for establishing any goodness" you do not consider that part of what toxicologists do is measure degrees of toxicity. (I can hear you objecting to my toxicologist analogy at this point, but bear with me.)

As to the painter's analogy you quoted:

"a teaspoon of yellow in a pot with red won't harm the red. The other way around the pot with yellow will never be the same"

Add a teaspoon of red to a pot of yellow, and you get some degree of orange. Actually, you could get something closer to yellow than to orange, depending on the size of the pot of yellow and so on. But to see where it goes let's make the analogy work perfectly for your point and say that we never get a yellow-orange result, we always get something in a range from orange to red. You and I are agreed that there is a defining line of some sort that determines something is "evil", or, in this analogy, in the "orange" zone. You argue that it doesn't matter a whit if the thing is orange, orange-red or scarlet. All are to be considered lethal. I agree. But I also can see that in some circumstances the difference in shades of evil does matter, even if in our analogy the shades are all brothers in the same evil family. The most wicked brother might, for example, be a sadistic serial killer. The next most wicked brother might be a pathological liar who runs a criminal organization that occasionally murders people. The third most wicked brother might be a thief and a thug who has not yet killed anyone but has beaten and terrorized many. Between orange and red, computer technology can now differentiate how many shades? Well over a million? For human purposes most of those shades are imperceptible and irrelevant. But they exist, and even if most are usually practically irrelevant, people do regularly distinguish and employ perhaps ten shades on the orange to red range. How many shades of evil do we distinguish?

Television said:

This business about 51% evil seems also a distraction: it's not a matter of a tipping point past the mid-mark: it's a matter of whether there exists at least one thing that spoils the whole pot of soup.

Why can't both situations exist? Perhaps Scott Peck (in his book about evil), for example, is wrong, and it is never a matter of a tipping point to evil, perhaps C.S. Lewis is wrong in describing the road to perdition as being often a smooth gradual downhill one without any noticeable signposts until..whoops, suddenly one finds oneself evil, as if having crossed some infinitesimal tipping point. Perhaps toxicity in water is never a matter of a buildup of toxic elements to a tipping point where the water is deemed unfit for consumption. But I am more inclined to credit both possibilities: a sudden total ruin based on introduction of one small powerfully toxic element; and also the possibility of a collection of many toxic elements that add to a tipping point, (not to mention a third possibility: something in between the two possibilities just mentioned.)

Furthermore, if there is a poisoned field, might not a scientist say in some circumstances, "we do not have to fence off this field for all time or destroy it. I have a new chemical that can neutralize the poisons in it." Suppose someone answers, "Nonsense, your chemical doesn't work, and the known laws of physics forbid any possible cure for the field. We will wall it off and then destroy it forever." The scientist might reply, "Only destroy it forever if you absolutely must. The laws of physics are not completely settled yet. And that field could be extremely valuable to us some day if it can be recovered. It is a huge huge field. Indeed it covers one fifth of the earth. You are correct that there is not much promising research or hope for a cure, but there is some hope, and since the field is so huge, avoid destroying it if possible, just in case we find a cure. A field covering one-fifth of the earth is a good thing, and it is a pity it is not useful to us and is even dangerous to us because of the poisons in it."

Television, whether your approach is correct, or the approach I take to be an alternative to yours is also correct, will I suppose depend on the circumstances of an attempt at persuasion and education. You suggest that in most cases those who would reject the "it's evil" approach, despite your way of presenting the case, are too closed-minded to learn from the "it's mainly evil" approach. For that reason and the others you have given, you believe one might as well just use the "it's evil" approach and drop the "it's mainly evil" approach. Well, I can't complain much about this conclusion, because you do at least yield to the extent of saying "in most cases". That still leaves at least a few cases where the "it's mainly evil" approach would be valid. I suspect there are more cases than you are willing to allow, particularly among the so-called highly educated, who justifiably tend to demand complexity with any simplicity, especially when discussing human beings, and tend to reject anything short of complexity when discussing human beings. I maintain that the alternative ("it is mainly evil") provides sharp moral decisiveness yet remains adequate to the complexity of the situation in a way that "it is evil" does not. But I yield to you that in some circumstances (you say the majority of them) the complexity of the situation requires a more summary rendering, such as "it is evil, period." I yield that to you, but at the same time I think that the Judeo-Christian insistence on the sacred importance of the individual requires due consideration of my alternative. Sometimes the broad and sweeping brush you employ (very intelligently, however) may be necessary, but you should be aware that employing it is a tradeoff: you are momentarily jettisoning Western values in order to save them. And that can certainly be legitimate in some circumstances. \

That Robert refuses the broad brush yet is capable of pointing out huge problems and being morally decisive remains to me the truer approach. Yours remains a tactical convenience or necessity, or a shorthand that is roughly true, but not as true as Spencer's approach.

It is a pleasure to argue with you Television, since you actually listen to an opponent and yield a bit if the argument demands it.

Posted by: traeh at May 20, 2006 1:33 PM

traeh,

"Here you take an additional and, as far as I can see, unwarranted step beyond the correct: "evil command pollutes the good commands" principle. There are degrees of pollution. By taking the additional step and saying "the good commands become worthless...for establishing any goodness" you do not consider that part of what toxicologists do is measure degrees of toxicity."

The legitimate principle of degrees of toxicity would be to mix apples and oranges here, I think:
I may not have made explicit my point about the one evil command that pollutes: by using the word "evil" (rather than "bad"), I am talking about any and all commands that are agreed to be ethically beyond the pale. I am not talking about any number of bad commands about which reasonable people can compromise. In the context of my hypothetical Elks Club, if the one (and only) bad command was that all members should shoplift (steal) food to give to homeless people, that would fall in the realm of "degrees". Any number of other types of "bad" commands can be imagined (some even far worse than stealing food to give to poor people), that admit of ethical equivocation. The command to rape and murder little girls, however, rests outside of the realm of degrees: no equivocation is possible, no ethical wiggle-room remains: the condemnation of it is absolute and utter -- which means that any system or organization or institution that gives any particle of support (whether ideological or pragmatic) to that command is to be utterly, not partially or by "degrees", condemned (unless, of course, it demonstrates that it has purged this particle). A "particle" here is the absolute minimum observable.

"As to the painter's analogy you quoted..."

I'd rather not focus on the literal aspects of yellow and red pigment. It might have been a mistake to raise that metaphor. A more helpful metaphor would be perhaps that a tablespoon of chocolate would not ruin a large cauldron of chicken soup, but one clove of garlic would ruin a vat of chocolate pudding. At any rate, my point is, as I said above, that there are some things that when they are present ruin, while there are other things that can damage but the damage admits of repair and is part of the imperfections of life.

"But I also can see that in some circumstances the difference in shades of evil does matter, ...For human purposes most of those shades are imperceptible and irrelevant. But they exist, and even if most are usually practically irrelevant, people do regularly distinguish and employ perhaps ten shades on the orange to red range. How many shades of evil do we distinguish?"

Again, shades of evil are relevant and should orient our ethical solutions, but there are some evils that are beyond the pale and admit of no degrees. The command to conquer people with military violence in order to force a religion (that furthermore commands a multitude of other bad and evil things) on them and kill those who do not submit is one such evil that is beyond the pale. If that evil command is part of an institution, then that institution is to be utterly, not partially, condemned.

"Television said:

This business about 51% evil seems also a distraction: it's not a matter of a tipping point past the mid-mark: it's a matter of whether there exists at least one thing that spoils the whole pot of soup.

Why can't both situations exist?"

As I indicate above, both do exist -- but not about one and the same evil under consideration. You could have one institution whose evils admit of degrees, and you would have to make an ethical calculus about that institution to determine a suitable reform and dialogue with it, etc. This doesn't mean you would never encounter another institution that embraces one or more commands that are of an evil that does not admit of degrees, putting that institution beyond the pale of reform and dialogue: the instant that institution is noticed, the only thing to do is confront it, punish those who are complicit in the evils, and shut it down. (Perhaps at a later date, the institution can be rehabilitated as long as it purges the evil or evils that offended.) Of course, if that institution is so gigantic and globally widespread and protected by armies and historically venerable and obfuscated by auras of fuzzy legitimacy, then you couldn't just shut it down. But you should express the immediate and utter moral condemnation of it that would result in shutting it down if you had the power to do so.

"you are momentarily jettisoning Western values in order to save them. And that can certainly be legitimate in some circumstances."

In modern Western societies, we do this all the time: anytime there is a criminal emergency that threatens the lives of innocent people, the law enforcement personnel mobilize into behaviors that "jettison" Western values, simply because not to do so would result in the loss of innocent lives and the destruction of property.

"That Robert refuses the broad brush yet is capable of pointing out huge problems and being morally decisive remains to me the truer approach. Yours remains a tactical convenience or necessity, or a shorthand that is roughly true, but not as true as Spencer's approach."

Robert's approach has its benefits at this stage of the game (and even his gingerly approach is not appreciated by too many who paint him as a simplistic extremist). There could come a time when we will have to go beyond treating Islam as a wonderfully diverse historically venerable cultural organism and simply recognize that it -- the whole thing -- is an umbrella that shelters threats to us. Tragically and horribly, multitudes of relatively innocent Japanese men, women and children were incinerated by the USA. The USA (and Japan) continues to thrive and progress based in no small part upon the terrible but unavoidable exigency of that (and other similar) acts.

"It is a pleasure to argue with you Television, since you actually listen to an opponent and yield a bit if the argument demands it."

Thanks, I feel the same.

Posted by: Television at May 20, 2006 5:14 PM

I will make one point however, that the Bible, and the some sayings attributed to Jesus are not all that admirable either. There is one quote of Christ that really has me questioning my Christian faith, and thinking that Christ could also be a false prophet.

Matthew 10: 34: Think not that I am sent to bring peace on the earth. I came not to send peace but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

If Christ really did say that, then that doesn't sound like any Messiah I want to follow.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 20, 2006 7:42 PM

Television said:

The command to rape and murder little girls, however, rests outside of the realm of degrees: no equivocation is possible, no ethical wiggle-room remains: the condemnation of it is absolute and utter -- which means that any system or organization or institution that gives any particle of support (whether ideological or pragmatic) to that command is to be utterly, not partially or by "degrees", condemned

You do not here seem to zero in on the distinction between a condemnation that says Islam is 100% evil, versus a condemnation that says Islam is mainly evil. Both are certainly condemnations. Neither is very equivocal. It would be equivocation if I said Islam were equally good and evil, or neither one nor the other. I wonder if you are allowing an understandable desire to stay away from relativism (a desire I share) push you too far to an opposite extreme.

Though I think Islam mainly, not 100%, bad or evil, I find that sufficient to condemn Islam to the extent of calling for an end to further immigration of Muslims to the West.

So the practical results might not be that different if we label something mostly, instead of wholly evil. In the end, the difference between us on this issue may be less substantive than a matter of temperament or style. We are also discussing Islam abstractly, rather than focusing on specifics and concretes, and being concrete was in a way the whole purpose of my arguing for saying "Islam is mainly evil" instead of saying "Islam is evil". So I need to take more of my own medicine!

When Islam says "take care of orphans and the poor," or when Islam says to do other good things, those things are good. You might point out that in an evil organization, anything 'good' in it serves the organization's overall evil goals. A very good point you would be making. The fact that Islam says "take care of orphans" is sometimes used by Islam apologists to further the totalitarian ends expressed in the Koran and the Hadith. But at the same time, if Islam said, "orphans should be burned to death" and "the poor should be hung", we would all point that out and surely we would say that Islam is even worse than we think it is now, wouldn't we? The good bits in Islam are used to further the evil purposes, and that strengthens your argument, but the good bits are not only used to strengthen the evil. Orphans have sometimes been taken care of in Islam because Islam commanded it. That they have been is surely good, at least in some of its effects?

This discussion reminds me of arguments I have had about Cuba with friends, who insisted to me Cuba made the Cuban poor literate and did other good things. In those arguments I guess I was taking the opposite side from the one I'm taking now in this argument with you. I told my friends that those literacy programs were worthless since they mainly allowed people to read the government's approved book lists and propaganda and reinforced the Cuban government's dictatorial power. And I vehemently rejected the reliability of reports that medical care in Cuba was so wonderful for the poor. I didn't want to grant a single shred of virtue to the Cuban government. And while I still think Cuba's system evil on the whole, I now think it only realistic to accept that there must be some elements of the system that are good. Even though those good elements serve to further the overall evil ends of the Cuban system, so that even the good elements are in part evil in effect.

Even when something is beyond the pale, and we intend to shut it down, our labels for that thing must reflect the particular and concrete character of that thing -- unless we are intentionally adopting an extreme shorthand for one purpose or another. Nevertheless, I think in the course of this post I have moved a bit closer, though not all the way, to your position. (Since I now am taking into account that the overarching evil purposes of an evil organization partly feed off of any good subsidiary policies that same organization happens to follow or advocate. Yet the good policies are not thus reduced to pure evil. They may still have some good effects.)

Some say there is no moral black and white, only shades of grey. These moral "greyists", without noticing it, set up their own binary moral division: those who think in black and white are supposedly the 'bad guys', and those who see everything in equivocal shades of grey are the 'good guys'. So the 'greyists' unconsciously contradict themselves. But the "black-and-whiters" are not entirely correct either. Fact is, reality has black, it has many greys, and it has white. White is certainly not black and black is not white. Yet there is no absolute break between them, only an infinite number of shades connecting them in a single continuum. But people have great diffculty getting their heads around the fact that the world is radically continuous and yet utterly discontinuous, like a rainbow that has an infinite number of shades flowing into each other in perfect continuity. Nevertheless every single one of those infinite shades is really different from the others and unique. We absolutely can make moral distinctions. Yet at the same time we are all to some degree implicated by each other's actions. So both the relativists and the anti-relativists are right, and both are wrong, as far as I can see. The truth is a synthesis of the opposed viewpoints. Maybe you will think this a digression from our discussion, but it seemed to me somewhat relevant.

Anyway, maybe we are starting to repeat ourselves...but I thank you for a great discussion

Posted by: traeh at May 21, 2006 12:37 AM