| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Jonah Goldberg has posted this at NRO's The Corner from Alykhan Velshi, whom he identifies as an "occasional NRO contributor."
Mr Goldberg, You're right on one thing: the Pope hit a nerve. When Benedict quotes - approvingly, I might add - a Byzantine emperor from the 15th century who said, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman", he's not giving moderate Muslims any wiggle room in which to offer an internal-Islamic critique of the bin Ladenists.Look - I suppose I'm what one would call a moderate Muslim, though for reasons I won't get into I dislike the term (I also dislike being called a "compassionate conservative", the adjective being redundant and somewhat offensive). I support the Bush doctrine, have a favorable disposition towards Israel, and supported the right to publish the Danish cartoons. Yet I cringed when reading Benedict's speech, and not jut because of its laughable recounting of 15th century Christianity's embrace of reason and tolerance.
The problem with Benedict's speech, and it's illustrated perfectly by the quotation I cited above, is that it gives moderate Muslims no option other than to renounce our faith. When Benedict approvingly cites a source who says that Islam is "evil and inhuman", he's not offering a bold challenge to moderate Muslims, he's alienating them. There is a profound difference between, on the one hand, endorsing what Benedict said, and on the other, calling the enemy "militant Islamists", "Islamofascists", "Islamobolsheviks" (my personal favorite), or whatever. It's the difference, I suppose, between Robert Spencer and National Review, JihadWatch and AEI.
Just because the Muslim street is, in all its hypersensitivity, reacting like a woman who's just been told her pants make her look fat doesn't mean that Benedict was correct to say what he said, certainly not from the perspective of history and theology, nor I believe from that of the best way to win the GWOT.
But, then again, it looks like Juan Cole agrees with me - which could mean I'm ipso facto wrong.
Yes it does, but not only because of Juan Cole.
Velshi contends that by quoting the words "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman," Pope Benedict is "not giving moderate Muslims any wiggle room in which to offer an internal-Islamic critique of the bin Ladenists." Velshi adds that he doesn't even like the term "moderate Muslim," suggesting that the adjective is "redundant and somewhat offensive" -- in other words, to be a Muslim is to be moderate. But evidently Pope Benedict, Jihad Watch and I, as opposed to National Review and the AEI, do not offer "a bold challenge to moderate Muslims," but instead we are "alienating them."
Of course, Velshi has me wrong. The Jihad Watch FAQ has always spoken plainly about this: "Any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts." Tashbih Sayyed, editor in chief of Muslim World Today, who speaks forthrightly about the need for Muslims to reject the elements of the Qur'an and Muhammad's example that give rise to jihad violence and the Sharia imperative, has recently become a member of the Jihad Watch Board of Directors.
What I have asked again and again of Muslims who identify themselves as moderate is this: that they acknowledge to exist, and renounce definitively, the elements of Islamic theology that jihadists are using to wage war against non-Muslims around the world. Instead, most of those who are known as moderates simply deny that these elements of Islam exist at all. I'm sorry, but that is not reform. That is deception. In the 16th century, the Protestant Reformers didn't say, "The Church has never taught Transubstantiation and anyone who says otherwise is a hatemonger." They said, "The Church teaches Transubstantiation and it should stop doing so." Why is something like that, mutatis mutandis, too much to ask from Muslim reformers today? Why is it too much to ask that they say, "Jihad violence and the subjugation of unbelievers has been a continuing part of Islam, and we now reject it," instead of denying, in the teeth of the evidence, that these things are true at all?
Velshi's contention that "Muslim" need not be modified by "moderate" because it is redundant amounts to an assertion that Islam itself is moderate, i.e., peaceful and tolerant. It is interesting to note that Mahathir Mohamad, the "Jews-control-the-world" former Prime Minister of Malaysia, has just made essentially the same assertion: "There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim," he said. "We are fundamentalists in Malaysia. We follow the true teachings of the religion and the true teachings do not teach us to bomb and kill people without reason."
I am so glad to hear that, but the fact remains, as I have pointed out ad infinitum here, that jihad terrorists worldwide are committing violence on a daily basis and justifying it on the basis of Islamic teachings that are rooted in the Qur'an, the example of Muhammad, and the schools of Islamic law. The fact remains that all those schools of law teach violent jihad and the subjugation of unbelievers -- all of them, without exception. The existence of such laws make the phrase of another Jihad Watch Board member, Ibn Warraq, continually relevant: there are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. "Moderate Muslims" in this usage refers to those who bear the name of Muslim but simply want to go about their business and live ordinary lives, without waging jihad against the kuffar. Obviously such people need also to acknowledge and reject the elements of Islam that give rise to fanaticism and violence, or their children or even they themselves will be susceptible to the jihadist appeal, based as it is on the plain words of the Qur'an and Sunnah.
And that makes it all the more crucial for people like Velshi to come to grips with these aspects of Islam that are evil and inhuman, yes, as the world saw when pious Qur'an-quoting Muslims brought down the Towers, and beheaded Nick Berg, and have committed thousands upon thousands of acts of violence around the world, justifying them all by Islam. These acts are evil and inhuman, and their perpetrators justify them by the Qur'an and Islam. I didn't originate that fact. And Muslims like Velshi only do their own cause a disservice by criticizing those who dare to point it out.
The Pope is not giving, and I'm not giving, peaceful Muslims a chance to fight the "bin Ladenists" because we point out that that is happening? Just the opposite, Velshi. The Pope is showing the way, and since you mention me also I'll say that in my small way I am also trying to show the way, to the only truly viable path to genuine Islamic reform. But only showing the way: of course, that reform can be accomplished only by Muslims, if it can be done at all. Do I think that reform is likely? I don't, and for two reasons: 1. Because the texts to which I refer do actually exist, and jihadists can and do use them to paint any Muslim reformer as a heretic or apostate -- thus putting his life in danger. And 2. Because of denial from moderates, such as I have been discussing: If you won't even admit there is a problem, Velshi, you will never, ever, be able to fix it.
Posted by Robert at September 15, 2006 5:16 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
"Just because the Muslim street is, in all its hypersensitivity, reacting like a woman who's just been told her pants make her look fat.."
-- from the article above, quoting Alykhan Velshi
Do women told that their pants make them look fat out of their wounded vanity start burning bonfires, and threatening "consequences" including violence, or even death, to those who may have made such a remark, hoping that they will wear more flattering pants in the future, as the Pope perhaps hopes that Muslims will realize they cannot prevent non-Muslims from studying and analyzing Islam, and taking into account the observable behavior of Muslims in time and space, and especially right now, and that, therefore,they might actually begin to locate the source of their problems in their inability to admit that something about Islam requires fixing -- a whole lot of fixing, far more fixing than the lady who changes her clothes to hide a certain pointed-out embonpoint.
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 15, 2006 6:30 PM
'Prime Minister of Malaysia, has just made essentially the same assertion: "There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim," he said. "We are fundamentalists in Malaysia. We follow the true teachings of the religion and the true teachings do not teach us to bomb and kill people without reason."'
It's that "without reason" that gets you every time.
Posted by: ryoga at September 15, 2006 6:38 PM
This Muslim points out how the Pope condemns Islam, in general, instead of just condemning the Islamists. What the Pope said was right and has needed to be said. I am not Catholic, but Protestant, and I am saying this.
As a Christian, this is Christian doctrine. By any Christian doctrine, Islam is a heresy, a cult. We have no obligation, as Christians, to speak of it otherwise. It is not Buddhism or Hinduism in that it is purely pagan. It is a pseudo-Christian cult which takes from the truth and uses that knowledge to create evil. This is further proven by Islam's claims to Biblical Scripture, God, and Jesus Christ, himself.
We do not call Buddhism or Hinduism, for instance, a heresy. Because heresies imply "pulling away from" the good doctrine. Heresies imply anti-Christian doctrine, taken from those who had our doctrines and left us. Buddhism and Hinduism are entirely separate from Christianity.
But, Islam came out from us.
We have every right to condemn it. We have every right to judge Muslims. In fact, Christians have a conscience mandate to judge Muslims.
Muslims lie about our religion and they lie about Jesus Christ. They claim to be the true followers of Christ and God. Therefore, we have every mandate to judge them.
(As do the Jews.)
There is something else at issue here. "Moderate" Muslims - those Muslims in name only, those who are not religious - have not used the ample "wiggle room" we have been giving them.
I will not give the same condemnation to all Muslims I give to Islamists, but it is Islam which is the problem, Islam is the poison, and Muhommad was the deliverer of these demonic doctrines.
Moderate Muslims... if they are as they claim to be, they need to stand up and condemn not us, but the extreme Islamists.
If they have anything to say to us at all... it is that they apologize for the rotten behavior, the savage behavior, of these people... and they understand why we perceive them as we do.
Truth be told I often find myself explaining to people... that the problem is not racial. It is not Arabs. It is Islam. Arabs are fine. Indonesians, Arab mixed North Africans, Pakistanis (Arab mixed Indians) -- these people are fine. The problem is Islam which kills people, whatever their race.
Muslims are not out there doing this themselves... and I believe this is because Islam teaches them to be racist and intolerant in so many diverse ways.
Further, these moderate Muslims may actually believe that the Free World can't hurt these savages who love to act like animals in public and engage in blasphemy and make a religion out of murder and suicide... so they may feel they are just waiting for all of us to die.
It isn't happening. Islamists are only setting up their own destruction.
Posted by: NovaRocket at September 15, 2006 6:47 PM
I don't, and for two reasons: 1. Because the texts to which I refer do actually exist, and jihadists can and do use them to paint any Muslim reformer as a heretic or apostate -- thus putting his life in danger. And 2. Because of denial from moderates, such as I have been discussing: If you won't even admit there is a problem, Velshi, you will never, ever, be able to fix it Sad but true....Mohammad is the problem with Islam.
Posted by: storagemanager at September 15, 2006 6:53 PM
You passed over a chance to point at one of the very real problems here. Here's the quote wit hthe missed chance.
"Velshi's contention that "Muslim" need not be modified by "moderate" because it is redundant amounts to an assertion that Islam itself is moderate, i.e., peaceful and tolerant. It is interesting to note that Mahathir Mohamad, the "Jews-control-the-world" former Prime Minister of Malaysia, has just made essentially the same assertion: "There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim," he said. "We are fundamentalists in Malaysia. We follow the true teachings of the religion and the true teachings do not teach us to bomb and kill people without reason."
The last two words in that disertation give lie to the so called religion of peace. If you are not Muslim, or if you refuse to allow Islam to rule you, or if you say something they don't like, that gives them the reason they need to justify your killing. Whenever Muslims make these statements and add these types of qualifiers, they should be asked to explain in detail so we can see the differences.
Posted by: SamFicher at September 15, 2006 7:06 PM
And I am sure all of these fellows are going to renounce Jihad via the Sword as well and pursue a kind of spirtual Jihad/yoga. This from our great ally Pakistan, the same day we hear from our leader we are not going after any of the Jihadists there because it is a sovereign country:
http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/09/pakistan_releases_ov.php
Posted by: amana39 at September 15, 2006 7:13 PM
the islamists with their usual superiority are saying the pope didn't choose the right words, the right emperor, basically that he has not prepared his speech enough in depth.
The more we go on the more I realize that this speech has been GENIUS! All their un-coherence is coming out.
Posted by: FedUp at September 15, 2006 7:14 PM
"If you won't even admit there is a problem, Velshi, you will never, ever, be able to fix it."
This is simply the truth. The denial of the facts of violence by Muslims against unbelievers simply because they are unbelievers is bizarre. Islam is begining to look like a mental illness in the jihad determination to make unbelievers accept Muslim beliefs.
Beliefs are not facts. People have the right to say, "No thanks" to Islam without having to suffer dhimmitude or anything else because they do not believe "there is no God but Allah and that Mohammad is his prophet". Folks don't have to believe that. What don't Muslims understand about that?
Islam is the only major religion that has a well developed theology that mandates violence against unbelievers and that is the basis of Jihad. People get it and they are fed-up with Muslim denials re that.
at September 15, 2006 7:15 PM
'Moderate' Muslim insults fat women!
Comparing the flaming genocide ranting frenzies by Global Muslims with the anger of a woman told she's fat is patently ridiculous, and not funny...
Futher, it is also ridiculous to say: "The problem with Benedict's speech, and it's illustrated perfectly by the quotation I cited above, is that it gives moderate Muslims no option other than to renounce our faith."
This is revoltingly stupid logic.
Here's an idea: How 'bout fighting those supposed distorters of your religion, Velshi? What about that?
Extrapolating his logic, what's left unsaid is the implication that our words and actions are somehow forcing Muslims to choose between extremism and leaving Islam.
Sorry, Charlie -- I think those extreme options are Islam's fault, and hardly anything you can blame on US -- yet once again we see a so-called 'moderate' Muslim figuring out a way to blame us for Islam's heinousness -- urging us to change our opinions about Islam as if that will change the way Muslims themselves think about Islam -- and suggesting that the moderates can't succeed because of comments made by non-Muslims -- never admitting that their pipe-dream promises are DOA because of the centrality of hatred and violence within Islam itself, not because of any statement or omission on our part.
I'm sick of all of this subterfuge. This man may not be animated by hatred of the West -- he may truly believe in his unique view of his religion -- he may not. Either way -- if he can't prove his ideas are effective at combatting the 'extremists' (and I notice this is completely missing from his missive) or spends all of his time trying to convince us (we who are persuadable, after all) rather than his unpersuadable Muslims brethren - then why are we wasting one second of our precious time listening to what he has to say? Why are we allowing his this 'moderate' dialogue to distract us from the heavy work that lies ahead if we are to survive their insurgency?
at September 15, 2006 7:37 PM
Folks, I am very happy that my Pope has at last hit it on the nail. It is time for the Muslims worldwide to come "clean" on this whole issue of Islam and violence and to stop playing the game of deniel. Deniel is not a river in the middle of Eygpt.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 15, 2006 7:59 PM
The onus is on the mythical mods to prove they can be trusted by admitting whats wrong with islam and rejecting it , Seems they can find no fault and mearly wish to cloud the issue with feeble aoplogetics.I have l;ong ago lost interest in muslims rage fury or what ever,I say bring it.
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at September 15, 2006 8:01 PM
"he's not giving moderate Muslims any wiggle room in which to offer an internal-Islamic critique of the bin Ladenists."
The Pope isn't giving you wiggle room? How about the Terrorists? It has been five years since the 9/11 attack on American civilians, there were attacks before that on Americans abroad, and bombings in Madrid, London and Bombay since. How long do you need to articulate your new Islam?
at September 15, 2006 8:19 PM
Where is that Flying Mod Squad, suddenly appearing just when you least expect them to prove to all Doubting-Thomas-Infidels that We Moderate Muslims, the "Mods," Are Here, and We're Mad As Hell, and We're Not Going To Take It Anymore, and We're Going to Take Back Islam from the tiny minority of extremists and their eensy-weensy handful of helpers?
Posted by: Hugh at September 15, 2006 8:38 PM
"Yet I cringed when reading Benedict's speech, and not jut because of its laughable recounting of 15th century Christianity's embrace of reason and tolerance."
It was the 14th century Muslim historian ibn Khaldun who argued that Islam was superior to other religions because they only waged war in self defence whereas Muslims fought aggressive wars in order to spread their religion. I find a Mohammedan talking about 15th century Christianity being regarded as laughable in any way rather offensive personally. At least it had the seeds within itself to sort out the problem of religious violence eventually, which is more than 15th century Islam had.
at September 15, 2006 8:39 PM
"I find a Mohammedan talking about 15th century Christianity being regarded as laughable in any way rather offensive personally."
GREAT point! The only thing that makes it laughable to the Muslims is the fact that the 15th Century is 800 years after the advent of worldly perfection as manifested by Muhammad -- nothing after that matters much, unless it can be handily used to slaughter and maim infidels... Cell phones, airplanes, modern enlightenment openness and human rights -- all of it tools to use by Islam to subjugate and perpetuate the seventh century pyschopathic rantings of a filth stained delusional desert brigand.
Posted by: jsla at September 15, 2006 9:22 PM
Hugh
I'm really glad that Tashbih Sayyed has been appointed to the Board at JW, and that you obviously have accepted and welcomed him on board. My unfair criticism of you in the past that attempt to disparage all genuine Muslim reformers is obviously incorrect.
I think he will make an extremely valuable contribution to your work.
Yours sincerely
Thomas Haidon
at September 15, 2006 11:04 PM
Well, I'm sorry Mr. Velshi is generally excluded on this issue. Genuine reformers are rare. But what can we do? The problem, really, looks to be the core more than anything. This isn't to say that a novel interpretation - a really novel one, a Reformation-style reformation - couldn't work. But from where we stand, there doesn't look like much hope of it; how is Mr. Velshi going to convince 1 billion people they're wrong? How? Reasoned dialogue?
"Hello, Mr. Rushdie. Nice place you have here."
Prophet Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at September 16, 2006 12:37 AM
"Without reason".
So if we go back to 13th May, 1969 in Malaysia, was this the reason? Lose the election, declare jihad, civil disruption ensues, mostly focused on Chinese community. And then move on and forget the "incident" because there was a "reason".
Imagine.
Posted by: Carol Ann Lynch at September 16, 2006 8:33 AM
Perhaps it would be more helpful for the Pope to talk about the Reformation more; why it happened, what it accomplished, and how the Vatican reacted to it.
Posted by: Colin Kingsbury at September 16, 2006 9:25 AM
This is what the pontif must do. He MUST abase himself and grovel. Will he do it? Given recent history, yes. I sincerely hope I am wrong.
"Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood said the Vatican statement saying the Pope was sorry did not go far enough.
"We want a personal apology [from the Pope]. We feel that he has committed a grave error against us and that this mistake will only be removed through a personal apology," Muslim Brotherhood Deputy Leader Mohammed Habib told Reuters.
"Has he presented a personal apology for statements by which he clearly is convinced? No," he said.
Posted by: monk at September 16, 2006 6:14 PM
WHERE IS BUSH?
Posted by: monk at September 16, 2006 7:50 PM
What strikes me, jarringly, in Mr. Velshi's note to Mr. Goldberg of NRO the Corner, is: "It's the difference, I suppose, between Robert Spencer and National Review, JihadWatch and AEI."
Bringing up Robert Spencer's name, out-of-the-blue, was odd. The novelty of Mr Velshi's note seems an attempt to discredit Mr. Spencer and Jihadwatch, in the minds of NRO readers, as much as a criticism of Pope Benedict.
I notice that Mr. Velshi is a contributing editor at New English Review and contributor to The Iconoclast blog. Perhaps a NER person might have a better sense of the motivations of Mr. Velshi?
Posted by: del at September 16, 2006 9:04 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)