Robert

I think that all this communication with this self-publicist is pointless - maybe it would be better to just ignore him rather than give him the oxygen of publicity. He is now firmly in the enemy camp and should be treated as such.
he is obviously playing a big game - his arguments are so ludicrous that this is the only explanation - either that or he is being paid by someone.

Posted by: johnmac at March 7, 2007 8:42 AM

The term "cultural Muslim" is used most often by those who are not believers in Islam, but who have not embraced another religion, are agnostics or, more often, atheists, but who want to signal a kind of filial piety, perhaps fond memories of a pious grandmother in a warm childhood atmosphere, and really mean something like "I'm not a Muslim but for various reasons do not wish to announce this -- filial piety, embarrassment, defensiveness perhaps, and of course fear of the consequences, fear of what it might mean for me with those who might attack me, or family members who would not be able to bear the news that I was an apostate."

One thinks of Kanan Makiya, declaring himself on television to be a non-believer but becoming defensive, and mentioning his grandmother's piety, when he senses that remarks dismissive of Islam are being made.

Some "cultural Muslims" are as little Muslim as you or I. Some like the rituals of individual worship. Some may believe, believe like the immigrant mother saying of her tough-guy son (played by Jimmy Cagney) as he's taken away by the police for some murder that "my boy's a good boy." "My Islam's a good Islam." That's what those who just can't face it, who don't want to face it, who can't draw the link between Islam as a belief-system and the damage that has been done to mental freedom, to skeptical inquiry, to a rich variety of artistic expression, by Islam, Islam, Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at March 7, 2007 9:21 AM

The ignorance and imperception of this Dinesh character is telling.

A wholly undeserved reputation for understanding islam,

Which is evil;

All practicing muslims are complicit unless they confront their ideology. Until then, muslim men are bullies and cowards and muslim women slaves in a slave mentality.

Kinda useless people, but still dangerous to us.

Posted by: dgene at March 7, 2007 9:48 AM

"The term 'cultural Muslim' is used most often by those who are not believers in Islam,..."

Um, if you don't believe in islam, you're not a muslim.

Posted by: Arm A. Geddon at March 7, 2007 11:59 AM

In an email exchange last night, Dinesh D'Souza asked me, "...by 'cultural Muslims' do you mean people who are born Muslim but don't practice Islam. 'The only good Muslim is a non-Muslim.'"

You are too noble, and this may not be what you mean, but I'll say it. After all, why do I think more highly about Ali Sina, Walid Shoebat, Nonie Darwish than I do about Mansoor Ijaz, Stephen Schwarz, Irshad Manji et al? 30 years ago, the wave of Pakistanis who immigrated to the UK were the so called 'cultural Muslims': people to whom prosperity was more important than Islam, and who therefore left the Islamic dungeons of Lahore and Karachi to the greener (and I don't mean in the Islamic sense) pastures of London and Leeds. Fast forward 30 years, and what you have is their kids, who are as viciously anti-British as, say, Abu Hamza.

Cultural Muslims, as opposed to ex Muslims, are incapable of inculcating their children with values that are adapted from their adapted country because they still have the multicultural mindset that has them think of themselves if not as Muslims, as Pakistani/Arab/Turkish/_____ first, and citizen of their country next. And Islam is a strong identification factor in the above cultural identities.

The other idiotic statement from D'Souza above is that if a Muslim does not do his 5 pillar routine, he automatically becomes a non-Muslim? When did that happen? In the West, in a post Christian era, I can understand how it is inaccurate to describe a non practicing Christian as a Christian. But by extending that logic to Muslims, he is - wittingly or unwittingly - condemning non-practicing Muslims as Infidels - just as the Mullahs and Imams might do, even though that has far more severe connotations for such Muslims than it would for their counterpart Christians, Jews, Hindus or Buddhists. And then he has the gall to accuse you of driving traditional Muslims into the arms of Jihadists, when he is marginalizing those who don't take these Islamic tenets as seriously.

He is a disgrace to Indians. He is a disgrace to Catholics. He should recite the shehada and join Norquist's club.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 7, 2007 12:05 PM

"That's why I call on peaceful Muslims to confront these aspects of Islam, and formulate new ways to understand these texts, so as to blunt the force of the jihadist recruitment."

From Robert's post

How can this be done without stripping Islam of its essence? Is Brigitte Gabriel wrong when she describes Islam itself as the enemy? She says the news footage of Muslim violence in reaction to political cartoons and their insistence that Islam must dominate the world represent
"a canvas of hate, decorated by different nationalities who share one common ideology of hate, bigotry and intolerance derived from one source. Authentic Islam. An Islam that is awakening from centuries of slumber to re-ignite its wrath against the infidel and dominate the world. An Islam which has declared "Intifada" on the West."

Robert says that for centuries devout Muslims didn't practice jihad. Does that matter? It's part of their faith. For most of that time Muslims (and most non-Muslims) didn't leave the place of their birth. Many were under the rule of empires that didn't respect Islam and suppressed all revolts. Today we span the globe and anyone can travel anywhere and Muslims are free to practice their faith just about anywhere.

Can Muslims take a pair of scissors to the Koran in order to renounce the doctrine of violent jihad and still practice Islam? Must we forever be on our guard against the next Ayatollah Khomeini or Abdul Wahhab to come along and reawaken the doctrine of violent jihad and intifada? What will happen to the next generation of infidels that witnesses a rebirth of ancient Mohammedanism? Will they have the necessary ability to defend themselves or will they have no recourse but surrender?

Posted by: PMK at March 7, 2007 12:07 PM

Very good Mr. Spencer. He is asking questions....still with a snide tone equating General Sherman's comments, but he is at least asking to learn.
Let us hope.....but let us as General Sherman also knew, keep people beyond petting distance until they prove they are genuine as they just might bite.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 7, 2007 12:14 PM

D'Souza has previously claimed that Spencer and Trifkovic don't talk about the peaceful verses in the Koran. That is actually not true; both of them have done so.

The problem as I see it is that when we look at those allegedly peaceful verses closely with a critical eye, and when we look at all those verses that address the concept of peace (some of which are more complete or more detailed than others), a different picture merges. The picture that emerges is that the Meccan phase Muhammad can more accurately be described as biding his time, not seeking a genuine peace. Peace in Islam can only be sought under Islamic rules, under Islamic terms. This passage is from the Meccan phase:

43:88 (Shakir). "Consider his cry: O my Lord! surely they are a people who do not believe. 43:89. So turn away from them and say, Peace*, for they shall soon come to know.”
*Salamun.

Al-Jalalayn, tafsir of 43:89. “God, exalted be He, says: Then disregard them, leave [them] be, and say, 'Peace!', [I will stay away] from you - this was [revealed] before he was commanded to fight them. For they will [soon] come to know (ya'lamūna, may also be read as [second person plural] ta'lamūna, 'you will [come to] know'), [meant] to threaten them.”

Ibn Abbas, tafsir, 43:89. “(Then bear with them (O Muhammad)) it was said to him: turn away from them (and say: Peace) words of truth. (But) this is a threat (they will come to know) what will be done with them on the Day of Badr, Uhud, the Troops. Then, after this, he was commanded to fight them; it is also said that this means: but they will come to know the hunger and smoke that will befall them.’”

Ibn Kathir, tafsir, 43:89. "...Say Salam (peace!) means, 'do not respond to them in the the same evil manner in which they address you; but try to soften their hearts and forgive them in word and deed.'...(But they will come to know.) This is a warning from Allah for them. His punishment, which cannot be warded off, struck them, and His religion and His word was supreme. Subsequently Jihad and striving were prescribed until people entered the religion of Allah in crowds, and Islam spread throughout the east and the west."

As the political scientist Bassam Tibi observes

"At its core, Islam is a religious mission to all humanity. Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world. "We have sent you forth to all mankind" (Q. 34:28). If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call (da'wa) can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them. In Islam, peace requires that non-Muslims submit to the call of Islam, either by converting or by accepting the status of a religious minority (dhimmi) and paying the imposed poll tax, jizya. World peace, the final stage of the da'wa, is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam...Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the Qur'anic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of "opening" the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Qur'an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the da'wa, are blamed for this state of war, for the da'wa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it. In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them. Only when Muslim power is weak is "temporary truce" (hudna) allowed (Islamic jurists differ on the definition of "temporary").”

[source: Tibi, Bassam. (1996). War and Peace in Islam, in Terry Nardin (ed.) The Ethics of War and Peace: Religious and Secular Perspectives. (pp. 129-131). Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press].

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at March 7, 2007 12:58 PM

Qaradawi (a Traditional Muslim) on peace in Islam:

"The goal of Islam is the attainment of peace but this peace can only be experienced through that striving in Allah’s Cause (Jihad) and the use of force which begins with the disciplining of ourselves and leads to living in the world in accordance with the dicta of the Shar'ia."

[Source ]

More on "peace" with threat of pending conflict, punishment:

73:10. And be patient (O Muhammad SAW) with what they say, and keep away from them in a good way.
73:11. And leave Me Alone to deal with the beliers (those who deny My Verses, etc.), and those who are in possession of good things of life. And give them respite for a little while. 73:12. Verily, with Us are fetters (to bind them), and a raging Fire.

Al-Jalalayn, 73:11: "And leave Me [to deal] with the deniers (wa'l-mukadhdhibīna is a supplement to the direct object, or [it is] an object of accompaniment; the meaning is: 'I will avail you of them', they being the doughty [leaders] of Quraysh, those enjoying affluence, and respite them a little, while - they were killed soon afterwards at Badr."

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at March 7, 2007 1:07 PM

See my suggestion—

A Proposal for Future Debates with Muslim Apologists and PC Ideologues —

http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2007/03/proposal-for-future-debates-with-muslim.html

Posted by: remote_control at March 7, 2007 1:18 PM

DNFTT

Posted by: Zenster at March 7, 2007 1:35 PM

Kudos to D'Souza for arguing with Robert.

Disagreement is great so long as it is honest, on grounds of reason, and open to new evidence. This snippet suggests D'Souza may be doing this.

Regarding this comment:

"Can Muslims take a pair of scissors to the Koran in order to renounce the doctrine of violent jihad and still practice Islam?"

Perhaps if new principles of interpretation were somehow adopted and somehow made to stick (despite the legacy and the political use to some of the older principles), something like this could theoretically happen.

The questions are, what is the path to this, and whose choice is it whether or not to follow that path.

It seems that the fist step on that path is to admit that there is a problem in how jihad violence is rooted in the texts as they are traditionally interpreted.

The choice to take this path or not is a choice belonging to Muslims. The responsibility of non-Muslims of good will is to be honest about the situation, so that we can plan for our security without major blindspots.

Posted by: mrsmomomoto at March 7, 2007 2:00 PM

"My proposal is simple: Any future debates with Muslim apologists or PC ideologues should integrate a non-negotiable rule" --remote

How about trying it out in several different test-runs, using different topics (in Islam) one at a time? Asserting "any future debates" implies that you are confident that your method will work better than the status quo (whatever that is in this case). We need to see evidence of that. We did see some evidence of that with Trifkovic's persistence (vs D'Souza) on the one issue about the order of the Koran's suras, but he also had a bit of help from the moderator. I think you could run into the same problem as when multiple points are dealt with, some more than others, most of them not adequately. Apologists may simply dance around one point per turn instead of four, five, six, or whatever number points are raised that need to be addressed per turn. That, of course, assumes that you can get apologists to agree to your method. Supposing they do agree to it, why would we expect that apologists would behave differently, and that less time would be wasted, by doing this one issue at a time approach?

It seems to me that if the underlying problem is that apologists dance and dodge substance and evidence, doing one point per turn (and remaining on the point for multiple turns with the hopes that the issue will be settled) will only reveal that they dodge and carry on their antics one point per turn instead of for multiple points per turn.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at March 7, 2007 2:06 PM

… for a variety of reasons the jihad ideology was deemphasized, particularly in Central & Southeast Asia, West Africa, and Eastern Europe for several centuries. Muslims lived devout lives with no emphasis on it. Were they not practicing Islam? Of course they were practicing Islam. But these teachings (Jihad) were not part of that practice at that time. Unfortunately, however, they were never formally rejected, and are being reasserted today by jihad recruiters who quote Qur'an, Sunnah, and fiqh in order to support their positions.

In a nutshell, they were partially practicing Islam, which brings up an important point. Jihad, and other activist elements of Islam, are nested deep within the mental framework you get when the ideology is installed in your brain. For example, Jihad isn’t necessarily activated all the time in your brain, if ever, but it’s always there, at the ready.

There is something about the Islam program that lets its users ignore the direct commands it brings in immutable and unvarnished format. Some kind of mental lubrication — hypocrisy, perhaps — allows practicing Moslems ignore critical elements until they’re turned on.

Some Islamic elements — anti-Semitism, for example — are always turned on, but all elements can always be turned on at any moment.

* 2:61 * 2:64 * 2:96 * 4:41 * 4:47 * 4:55 * 4:160 * 5:13 * 5:41 * 17:7 * 5:59 * 59:2 * 88:1 *

Full Islam is activated across the globe now because of the Internet, TV, satellite, and air transit. True, only a small percentage of Moslems have actually taken action, but the vast majority of, if not 100% of, all Moslems fervidly support Jihad.

The ones living in the West are more circumspect in their support of the current Jihad War, but all Moslems, to quote an Israeli poster in here, carry a portable theocracy in his head.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 7, 2007 3:01 PM

Alarmed Pig Farmer,

You say those in the west are more circumpect in their support of the current Jihad War, but it looks more and more like they are really just biding their time. As long as they are in a relative position of weakness vis a vis other Americans, they will behave.

I look at Dearborn. Once they reached critical mass they tried to enact Sharia.

They've made it impossible to trust them and even the St Petersburg group, as well intentioned as they may be, just don't cut it.

Posted by: PMK at March 7, 2007 4:52 PM

Remote & Khayber

These things ultimately get determined by moderators. If you have a moderator who isn't a total ignoramus, but one who has a reasonably good grasp on the facts (if not as much as Robert), he can make sure that the other side gets probing questions that (s)he has to answer. Lores Rizkilla did a good job, and so does Michael Medved whenever he has Robert on. While debaters are at liberty to go off on a tangent while debating their opponent, they tend to be more controlled when the host/moderator forces them to stick to the topic, or question at hand.

I hope Michael Medved, who's hosted both Robert and Dinesh, has them on some time. Preferably during my lunch hour.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 7, 2007 5:14 PM

You say those in the west are more circumpect in their support of the current Jihad War, but it looks more and more like they are really just biding their time. As long as they are in a relative position of weakness vis a vis other Americans, they will behave.

That’s what circumspect means, PMK. They’re keeping their mouths shut, to an extent, to allow for sufficient breed-time.

But inside his chest, most American Moslem Men is ablaze with Jihad fervor. Those Moslems who have not yet been activated (by events, by Imam, whatever the hell turns them on), can be, and will be, sooner or later.

That’s my point.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 7, 2007 6:35 PM

Khaybar Oasis,

"I think you could run into the same problem as when multiple points are dealt with... Apologists may simply dance around one point per turn instead of four, five, six, or whatever number points are raised that need to be addressed per turn."

It is much harder to maintain dancing when one point is focused on. The ability to expose the dancing is strengthened to a much greater degree. I would wager to say that most of the time, dancing would become impossible, and the obfuscator would be driven to the wall of his cul-de-sac for all to see. That has to be done. This situation we are all in, in this War of Ideas, of never-ending circularity in a web of complexity which only perpetuates the confusion, dilution, and obfuscation for the general public and fosters a bewildering multiplicity of fields and levels where any one point gets lost is only doing us damage. Better to slow down and take things one at a time than to perpetuate this chaotic confusion.

"That, of course, assumes that you can get apologists to agree to your method."

My proposal is that if they don't agree, there will be no debates.

"Supposing they do agree to it, why would we expect that apologists would behave differently, and that less time would be wasted, by doing this one issue at a time approach?"

Again, the focus on one point at a time, and the refusal to move to other points before that one point is exhausted, will more often than not force the apologist either to concede, or show ignorance, or have a temper tantrum. When you force an apologist to narrow the focus to one point and hammer it home for 60 solid minutes, then he can only, at best, stand there and act like an ass 100 times in a row -- in and of itself an education spectacle for the general public in the War of Ideas. And far better than generating a bewildering mass of radiating threads that never get resolved, unless the audience members take the time after the debate to go Googling and researching for hours, days, weeks on end (which most of them won't do, of course).

"It seems to me that if the underlying problem is that apologists dance and dodge substance and evidence, doing one point per turn (and remaining on the point for multiple turns with the hopes that the issue will be settled) will only reveal that they dodge and carry on their antics one point per turn instead of for multiple points per turn."

No. You miss the point (pun intended): having multiple points enables the dancer to hide much, most, or sometimes all, of his dancing in a buzzing and blooming fog of complexity. The relentless focus on one point at a time will, far more often, serve to expose this.

Posted by: remote_control at March 7, 2007 8:19 PM

Remote (R),

The proof is in the pudding. I'm not saying what suggest will not work in some cases, but I am skeptical that it will reliably turn out the way you propose in most cases. The only way to show that what you are proposing will work is to actually do a number of test runs and then assess the outcomes.

R: "My proposal is that if they don't agree, there will be no debates."

What good is that? The main purpose of having these debates, as I'm sure you agree, is to expose Islam and the weaknesses, falsehoods, and illicit tactics of the apologists. If there are no debates, that's more our loss than theirs.

R: "No. You miss the point (pun intended): having multiple points enables the dancer to hide much, most, or sometimes all, of his dancing in a buzzing and blooming fog of complexity. The relentless focus on one point at a time will, far more often, serve to expose this."

I understand your point, but you will actually have to try this out to determine if it works. I do suspect that apologists will tend to use whatever time and space that might have been used for multiple points by simply filling up that time and space with precisely the complexity and diversions to which you object. In other words, you are assuming that this technique is actually going to have some significant control over the methods and contents produced by the person on the other end of the conversation (the apologist). I am not so sure. How much of a difference is this going to make? What is to stop them from dividing what our side deems to be one point into multiple sub-points all pertaining to the same issue? Ultimately, this needs to be tested.

I don't think we have that much control in most circumstances; as IP said, such control requires some kind of third-party moderator. Due to the common circumstance of not having such control, I generally prefer an opportunistic "ambush" approach where

(a) the pro-Islam apologist will be dancing and growing increasingly confident with his/her statements, then

(b) at some points in the performance/expression, he/she will commit some significant blunders that might go otherwise undetected by the audience, and then

(c) the Islam critic--fully prepared--pounces and exposes the errors/myths by demonstrating the facts and/or strong arguments to refute the errors.

I see no problem in addressing multiple points per turn on the internet (written format), where each point is numbered. I do agree, of course, that the number of such points should be limited even in the written format, depending on the kind of material, to no more than about 5-7 points.

I agree that one point per turn is preferable in verbal format discussions; there, a response to even a two- or three-part question can be difficult (for the audience) to process and remember.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at March 8, 2007 2:59 AM

Khaybar Oasis,

R: "My proposal is that if they don't agree, there will be no debates."

"What good is that? The main purpose of having these debates, as I'm sure you agree, is to expose Islam and the weaknesses, falsehoods, and illicit tactics of the apologists. If there are no debates, that's more our loss than theirs."

My statement was meant rhetorically; it is unlikely that even if all anti-Islamic debaters stood their ground according to my recommendation, all their debate opponents would also stand their ground and refuse to debate. Some debates might get cancelled as a result, but it's unlikely that all would. In my view, the situation as it stands now is not serving our interest sufficiently in the War of Ideas; it is mostly facilitating more obfuscatory complexity which obscures the the clarity we need for isolating the key issues. The key issues are continually lost in a jungle of complexity, and these debates only continue, for the most part, to foster that. What genuine progress they may be facilitating, on the other hand, seems to me to be too piece-meal and slow and only positively affecting a tiny minority of onlookers to begin to move along the learning curve. The situation as it stands now is extraordinarily inefficient, and radical adjustment is needed: hence my proposal.

"I do suspect that apologists will tend to use whatever time and space that might have been used for multiple points by simply filling up that time and space with precisely the complexity and diversions to which you object."

Their opportunity for complexity would be vastly minimized, when one point is focused upon. Most of the complexity would consist of other points -- which the moderator and other debater would remind the Muslim apologist is breaking the rule. I didn't get into specifics on my blog essay, but of course penalties should be exacted for breaking this rule, and a good deal if not most of complexity would be ipso facto breaking the rule. Another wrinkle I didn't explicitly mention in my blog essay is that even a single point may be broken down into several single points.

Thus, for example, if there were a debate that included the point of wife-beating in Koran 4:34, this point itself would best be divided up into distinct points, and each one of those points would have to submit to the rule. Example: Sub-point #1: Does the Arabic word for "beat" in Koran 4:34 mean to physically hit? Sub-point #2: Does that Arabic word not actually have connotations of very harsh physical violence? Sub-point #3: Does Koran 4:34 offer no ameliorating qualifiers for this act of beating? Sub-point #4: Does the Muslim apologist agree or not agree that men hitting their wives is a bad thing? Etc. In a standard debate as we have currently, these kinds of sub-points -- and dozens more -- would be sprayed out indiscriminately like confetti or fireworks by the Muslim apologist, and much dazzling, dizzying obfuscation would follow, and the anti-Islamic debater will be lucky if he can salvage any clarity out of it as he lunges forward, sideways, and backtracks to recover lost ground in valiant attempts to control the chaos.

"What is to stop them from dividing what our side deems to be one point into multiple sub-points all pertaining to the same issue?"

From my above additional recommendation, we would anticipate that by controlling the sub-points and treating each sub-point as a distinct point. Again, any attempt to stray from a sub-point would be breaking the rule.

"Ultimately, this needs to be tested."

For sure.

"I don't think we have that much control in most circumstances; as IP said, such control requires some kind of third-party moderator."

Again, my recommendation is in the spirit of what would be best, which may have little relevance to what is likely given our sociopolitical culture, and also given differences of opinion, etc..

"Due to the common circumstance of not having such control, I generally prefer an opportunistic "ambush" approach where

(a) the pro-Islam apologist will be dancing and growing increasingly confident with his/her statements, then
(b) at some points in the performance/expression, he/she will commit some significant blunders that might go otherwise undetected by the audience, and then
(c) the Islam critic--fully prepared--pounces and exposes the errors/myths by demonstrating the facts and/or strong arguments to refute the errors."

I only think your (c) would be effective -- as a communication/education tool for the audience -- if it is limited to one error/myth, not multiple ones.

Posted by: remote_control at March 8, 2007 3:28 PM

"I only think your (c) would be effective -- as a communication/education tool for the audience -- if it is limited to one error/myth, not multiple ones."

I should have clarified that (a) and (b) are observational phases for the Islam critic, who then pounces in (c). The critic would not be engaged in the discussion during (a) and (b), but would be waiting for any attractive targets [or you would say target, singular] to pop up.

If the critic can't find any worthwhile targets--and the skilled apologists are usually pretty good at concealing/camouflaging theirs--the critic might have to step in and ask questions to try and elicit the (a) and (b) phase material which is likely to contain targets to be dealt with in (c).

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at March 8, 2007 5:50 PM