| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
A Bamiyan Buddha, destroyed by the Taliban
The title of this post is just a facetious take on the title of one of Mr. D'Souza's earlier books, as well as of his next one. It is just a little bit of fun. For Dinesh D'Souza says at his blog, "my disagreements with Spencer remain, even though I hope we can have them in civil and respectful manner." Of course, he entitles this piece "Robert Spencer Has a Fit (His Fourth This Week)," so I guess civility and respect only go so far, but I did think it worthwhile to respond to the substantive points he makes. Now, several people have asked me why I spend so much time replying to D'Souza, since he has demonstrated an ignorance of and apparent indifference to the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah and the history of Islam, as well as, as I showed here, an evident lack of concern for the facts.
There are several reasons why. One is that since he is actually saying that I hold positions that I do not hold, I believe I must respond as a matter of record. Second, he has been a respected figure for many years, and people listen to him. So I think it is important to set out certain facts that he is overlooking and downplaying, so that people of good will can perhaps come to a fuller understanding of contemporary realities.
I didn't know Robert Spencer until recently, but I confess I like him. He's an intelligent, passionate guy. He's also very angry with me, because in my latest book I urged conservatives to stop attacking Islam.
Actually, I'm not angry at all. But if I were, I wouldn't be angry about that. It's a foolish position, as I show below, but it isn't as if the world isn't already full of people who hold foolish positions. Getting angry about them all would lead one to burst a vein fairly quickly. Anyway, in fact the only thing I could possibly be angry with Dinesh D'Souza about is that he has been spreading falsehoods about my positions. But I have corrected them. That's all.
My point was that if you go around denouncing the Koran, the Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim religion, you will alienate traditional Muslims and push them toward the radical camp.
It's interesting that like CAIR, the Pakistani government, and other luminaries, apparently Mr. D'Souza thinks that demonstrating what the Qur'an, Muhammad, and Islamic law actually say amounts to "denouncing the Koran, the Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim religion."
D'Souza here is taking a peculiar position. In the first place, here again he sets up a straw man rather than deal with what I really say. For actually I have never denounced the Qur'an, Muhammad, or the Muslim religion. I have denounced, and will continue to denounce, things that Dinesh D'Souza should also denounce, and that every genuine Muslim reformer should denounce: the denial of freedom of conscience, the institutionalized discrimination against religious minorities, the commodification of women, polygamy, honor killing, female genital mutilation, and other practices that are routinely justified by Muslim authorities by reference to Islamic texts.
By characterizing my speaking about that as "denouncing the Koran, the Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim religion," Mr. D'Souza puts himself in the position of saying that we should not criticize such things -- indeed, we dare not, for in doing so, he says, we will create more jihadists. As I have said before, D'Souza's position here is simply absurd. He is trying to convince us that Muslims who think that jihad violence is a twisting of Islam will decide to twist Islam themselves in reaction to non-Muslims' negative characterizations of Islam.
In reality, no Muslim who genuinely abhors jihad violence will object to an exploration of the Islamic texts that the jihadists use to justify that violence. After all, you can't reform what you won't admit needs reforming.
Since I mentioned book titles like Islam Unveiled, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance and Sword of the Prophet as examples of Islam-bashing, Spencer (who happens to be the author of a couple of these books) took it as a personal attack. He sent me a public invitation to debate him, and began to inform his readers that I was trying to "silence" him. I emailed him to say I wasn't trying to silence him but merely disagreed with him. It's not a difference that Spencer can easily appreciate.
Mr. D'Souza is fond of this point, as he repeats it often. In reality, I am not too concerned about whether or not he called for me (and Serge Trifkovic, author of the other book he mentioned, the excellent Sword of the Prophet) to be silenced or not, since I am not going to be silent anyway. But let's look at the facts. In his book, this is exactly what D'Souza says: "In order to build alliances with traditional Muslims, the right must take three critical steps. First, stop attacking Islam. Conservatives have to cease blaming Islam for the behavior of the radical Muslims. Recently the right has produced a spate of Islamophobic tracts with titles like Islam Unveiled, Sword of the Prophet, and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. There is probably no better way to repel traditional Muslims, and push them into the radical camp, than to attack their religion and their prophet."
You can see that he says, "Stop attacking Islam. Conservatives have to cease blaming Islam for the behavior of the radical Muslims." And who, in his view, is attacking Islam and blaming Islam? Serge and I. So we should stop. That is not just a disagreement; it is a call for us to be silenced, or to be silent. D'Souza seems to want to have it both ways: he wants to make the point, and then deny making it when it is uncomfortable for him to have done so.
I've debated Spencer on a couple of radio shows now, and the first one was quite acrimonious, while the second--just a couple of days ago--was more civil. But now Spencer is on the warpath again. He accuses me of spreading falsehoods about him in my National Review Online answer to critics. You can read that here.
It's interesting that Mr. D'Souza is attempting to claim the moral high ground in our exchanges, since after all I have disagreed with him, but I haven't actually claimed that he holds positions that he doesn't hold. Nor have I ever descended to the level of, for example, his saying at CPAC that he was about to "smack Spencer down," or his contention that my work gave him "a full and repulsive dose of the anti-Muslim hatred masquerading as scholarship." If the Lores Rizkalla Show mp3 is still available [UPDATE: Here it is, thanks to Bobby], I invite anyone to listen to our first debate, the one he characterizes as acrimonious, and tell me what they think. I have in all cases endeavored to stick to the facts. In fact, I would appreciate his dealing honestly with some of the facts that I have raised, rather than ignoring them and mischaracterizing my positions.
What falsehoods? Well, on the first radio show, as well as in our only face-to-face debate on March 1 at CPAC, Spencer disputed my distinction between radical Muslims and traditional Muslims. He scornfully challenged me to name a single traditional Muslim.When I named Ali Gomaa, the grand mufti of Egypt, Spencer retorted that the man is actually opposed to sculpture. Gomaa apparently thinks sculpture is un-Islamic! A strange view, but it doesn't bother me terribly, because I wasn't thinking of hiring Gomaa to give my daughter art lessons. My suggestion was to recruit the help of traditional Muslims like Gomaa to fight the influence of Al Qaeda. Here Gomaa has been very good, and you can read a profile of him here. Spencer contends that Gomaa is a supporter of Hezbollah and should be shunned on that account.
"Spencer contends that Gomaa is a supporter of Hezbollah." Spencer contends that, eh? As if I just made it up. In fact, the New York Times reported in August 2006 that during the Israeli incursion into Lebanon, "Egypt's grand mufti, Sheik Ali Gomaa, the country's highest religious authority, issued a statement supporting Hezbollah." Do I contend on that account that Ali Gomaa should be "shunned"? Well, I'd shake his hand at a party, but I don't think that a man who supports an organization whose head chants "Death to America" and that is sworn to destroy an American ally would make a reliable ally himself.
And that was the point of my question to Mr. D'Souza. When I, in D'Souza's words, "scornfully challenged [him] to name a single traditional Muslim," I was actually asking him -- as anyone who heard the debate can attest -- to name a traditional Muslim with whom he recommended we ally. He still hasn't come up with anyone besides a Hizballah supporter, and has repeatedly claimed that my question revealed that I didn't believe there were any peaceful Muslims. As I explained here, that isn't true.
Anyway, D'Souza also says, "Gomaa apparently thinks sculpture is un-Islamic! A strange view, but it doesn't bother me terribly, because I wasn't thinking of hiring Gomaa to give my daughter art lessons." That's cute, but I put the Bamiyan Buddhas at the top of this post to show how dangerously naive it is. He is recommending that we ally with a man who believes that representational art is un-Islamic. Meanwhile, millions of this man's coreligionists have settled in Europe, unhindered by any sane immigration policies, and no doubt many of them believe the same way Ali Gomaa does about this, since it is, after all, the traditional Islamic view. And now D'Souza is calling for a foreclosure on criticism of Islamic practices and beliefs, such that he would apparently not want us to challenge our new friend the Egyptian Mufti when he says this about sculpture. So what will become of Europe's artistic patrimony? What if one of our new allies, one of Dinesh D'Souza's new allies that is, decides that the Mufti is absolutely right, and that the Pieta, or the David, or the Last Supper, or the Mona Lisa, or the Girl with the Pearl Earring, or any number of other masterpieces of the human spirit, must go?
Should we not be concerned about this? Should we toss off concern about it with a quip about a little girl's art lessons? Or should we take Ali Gomaa seriously enough to consider it as a possibility, and discuss what must be done about it? That the Bamiyan Buddhas remained in Muslim Afghanistan for centuries was only a matter of technology. When the Muslims who agreed with Ali Gomaa on this point were in power and able to amass sufficient explosives, that was the end of the Buddhas. Countless other Christian and Hindu artworks, in churches throughout the areas conquered by Islam in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, and in Hindu temples in India, have been destroyed throughout Islamic history by Muslims who agreed with Ali Gomaa. And now Dinesh D'Souza says we should have no qualms about allying with him? No thanks.
Spencer has assured me that he does not think all Muslims are radical, and I believe him.
This is generous of him, but I have done more than assure him of this. I have given evidence from my books going back five years.
He contrasts radical Muslims with what he calls "cultural Muslims." (I noted this in my National Review Online piece but it seems to have been cut out by the editor for reasons of space.)
Reasons of space? Really? In a sprawling, multi-thousand word multipart series?
By the term Spencer seems to mean Muslims who have come to recognize the problems inherent in the Muslim religion. Muslims who reject the traditional tenets of the Koran, Muslims who repudiate what Muhammad taught, Muslims who don't practice Islam the way it has been practiced for centuries--these seem to be Spencer's preferred "cultural Muslims."
Here again Mr. D'Souza says that I mean something that I don't mean. I explained it to him in an email I sent him on March 6, which I reproduced here, and which, as you can see, says nothing about Muslims coming to "recognize the problems inherent in the Muslim religion": "...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 were not part of that practice at that time."
But this comes perilously close to saying that the only good Muslim is a non-Muslim.
When he says things like this, I really start to wonder if, as far as he is concerned, it is worth bothering to explain all this -- since my explanations are routinely ignored. In fact, I was responding to his claim that I thought the only good Muslim was a non-Muslim when I wrote to him the explanation immediately above.
Is this a winning strategy for America to pursue with the Muslim world? Is it even a sensible strategy for conservatives to adopt? Is there any realistic hope of non-Muslims like Spencer and Serge Trifkovic getting Muslims to abandon their religion? We keep hearing of the need for an Islamic Reformation, but even the Reformation was carried out by devout Christian believers, not reformers from other religions or no religion who urged Christians to abandon the central doctrines of their faith. I regard Spencer's attempt to become the Martin Luther of Islam a quixotic escapade, and conservatives who follow along in this path as naive.
What silliness. I have repeatedly called for exactly that: for Muslims to work for Islamic reform. In fact, in that same March 6 email I quoted above, I said, "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." I didn't say, you see, that I had formulated ways to do that. I said that they should. Mr. D'Souza, do you even read these things?
So my disagreements with Spencer remain, even though I hope we can have them in civil and respectful manner.
I'm all for that. And I'm even more for telling the truth about what I have actually said. I hope Mr. D'Souza will someday try that.
Posted by Robert at March 15, 2007 9:04 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
What about denouncing Stalin at the time? Or communists? Denouncing Stalin risked driving moderate socialists into the camp of Gulag running hard communists?
Has D'Souza ever commented on Virgil Goode? Is everyone who criticizes Islam or the Quran or Saudi Arabia, etc. bad, unless they do it the D'Souza way?
Doesn't this sound like the hard communist line in the 1930's to other socialists? Anyone who strayed was excommunicated.
Posted by: Old Atlantic![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 15, 2007 12:17 PM
If one falsifies prior to criticism isn't it error? If X+Y do something or say something, and you pick out X and say its just X, isn't that falsification?
This seems to be a schema for part of Robert's response?
Posted by: Old Atlantic at March 15, 2007 12:19 PM
ie to clarify, Robert is pointing out that D'Souza is criticizing X when both X and Y do or say what he criticizes. Thus D'Souza falsifies the record in regard to Y.
Then D'Souza attacks Robert and others for pointing out its X +Y that do or say certain things.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at March 15, 2007 12:21 PM
Joke, anybody? I didn't think I was a good enough translator, perhaps somebody else can help?
Javier Solana und die Golanhöhen-ein Witz
Betreffend des Besuches des Außenbeauftragten der EU Javier Solana in Syrien und seiner Anbiederungsversuche bezüglich der Rückgabe der Golanhöhen habe ich heute einen guten Witz erzählt bekommen, dieser sei hiermit weitergeleitet.
Treffen sich im Magen von Präsident Bashar Assad eines Tages Libanons Ministerpräsident Fuad Sinora und Javier Solana. Fragt Sinora gelangweilt: Na, hat er Dich auch gefressen? Darauf erwidert Solana: Nein, keineswegs! Ich komm von unten!!!
"die jüdische" / jwd
at March 15, 2007 12:28 PM
when I watch D'Souza "debate", I get the Impression he is just reciting a prepared statement not unlike reciting a poem....he just parrots prepared statements and doesn't really debate much.....
He is but a puppet on a string...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at March 15, 2007 12:28 PM
D'Souza, Blair, Bush, etc have set up a division as follows. Anything violent is radical. Moderate is all the rest in Islam.
Then they say, everything moderate is Islam. Thus the part is the whole. The moderate part is the whole of Islam.
There never was a violent part of Islam. That was an invention by radicals and/or bigots working together.
Then when Spencer and others show that the whole of Islam includes violence, they say Spencer et al are in error. They denounce Spencer as a wrecker of all they are trying to achieve.
Comrade, the latest update of the Soviet Encyclopedia is delivered. Take out Comrade Zinoviev's biography, he is a wrecker and replace it with this article on Zeno's Paradox. There never was a Zinoviev. Destroy this letter and the old entry. There never was an old entry. There never was a letter.
at March 15, 2007 12:33 PM
D'Souza is getting his relevance from riding Mr Spencer's coattails, Its a quagmire.
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at March 15, 2007 12:38 PM
Translation:
Lebanons pm Fuad Sinora and Javier Solana meet, in the stomach of Bashar Assad. Sinora, rather bored, askes Solana: Did he eat you too?
Solana sez: No, I came in from the backside...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 15, 2007 12:38 PM
translation.....
Javier Solana and Golanhoehen in joke concerning the attendance of the externalassigned of the European Union Javier Solana in Syria and its siding attempts concerning the return of the Golanhoehen I got today a good joke told, this is hereby pass on-meets in the stomach of president Bashar Assad of a daily of Lebanon Prime Minister Fuad Sinora and Javier Solana. Sinora asks bored: Well, he also ate you? Whereupon Solana answers: No, by no means! I come of unten!!!"die Jewish"/jwd
at March 15, 2007 12:39 PM
D'Souza said that "Robert Spencer had a fit".
What a ridiculous statment. Defending against lies is not throwing a fit. It's known as "Setting The Record Straight".
Posted by: champ
at March 15, 2007 1:02 PM
For actually I have never denounced the Qur'an, Muhammad, or the Muslim religion. I have denounced, and will continue to denounce, things that Dinesh D'Souza should also denounce, and that every genuine Muslim reformer should denounce: the denial of freedom of conscience, the institutionalized discrimination against religious minorities, the commodification of women, polygamy, honor killing, female genital mutilation, and other practices that are routinely justified by Muslim authorities by reference to Islamic texts.Robert,
I don't mean to look like I'm agreeing with Dinesh, particularly when I don't, but how exactly do you reconcile denouncing the denial of freedom of conscience, institutionalized discriminations, commodification of women, honor killing, et al, and not denouncing what's at least ostensibly their sources - the Quran and Mohammed? I've heard of hating sins and loving sinners (something I don't completely agree with, since sins don't happen in a vacuum), but given the fact that but for the Quran and Mohammed, Muslims wouldn't be practicing these, doesn't it defy credulity to state that you denounce one, but not the progenitor of that one, which is the other?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 15, 2007 1:16 PM
Crows&Cows
Without either agreeing or disagreeing with you on Indians, one could just as easily take D'Souza, and stereotype his character to be representative of all Catholics, of which Robert is one. That's about as valid as using him as representative of all Indians, when the career he has pursued has been completely different from the trajectory of the average immigrant Indian here in the US. I'd avoid using D'Souza as typical of anything that he's a subset of, given how much of an outlier he is from the general population.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 15, 2007 1:19 PM
Letter posted to Mr. D'Souza to set the record straight in public.
Dear Mr. D'Souza,
Let us set the facts straight here about Robert Spencer and Dinesh D'Souza.
It you who have been having fits as Mr. Spencer is under your skin due to psychopathies of inferiority in the uncomplex mind which you inhabit. Conservatives have more than the facts, but the entire words in your writing in insulting Republicans, the fellows at Hoover Institution and all Conservatives. If this was released the entire media would have a wonderlust fest in bringing you down. Conservatives have been gentle, considerate, kind and attempting to deal with you a self program researched problem child.
Conservatives are logical individuals from a male mindset of gathering facts, living those facts and making conclusions.
You, Mr. D'Souza, are of a female mindset. You decided you wanted to be a Conservative to empower yourself and have laid the reasoning behind it with things you read, emotions of the heart and illogic. That is why your words speak of "anger of Mr. Spencer" when he is nothing of the sort. He has been a complete father figure to you and you have played the ignorant ranting spoiled brat seeking attention.
Your ignorance overflows with every word you type. You conclude since Lewis has told you Islam started at such a date that Islam is set in stone. If you knew anything about the ancient rites, allah, Nimrod, Babel, lord of the flies, immigration patterns, you would know that Islam is old as Ninevah where it's roots formed, built upon lies and was forged upon the heresay of Muhammed of Tanakh and New Covenant teachings.
The harm which you are causing the world with your D'SouzCONservatism is manifold in enabling hatred in Isalm, spreading your own hatred toward others and hating the Conservatives who funded you.
As advice which you will not take as you are too pompous, take this down 500 steps and get off the thrill wagon of poking true intellectual giants and start considering the most important people in this world in your wife and daughter. They deserve a future where they do not have to deal with ridicule over the legacy of stupidity which you are sowing a perpetual harvest of which they will have to endure.
Mr. D'Souza you are in need of Christian psychological counselling to help you deal with your inferiority and thrill seeking. Do this for your family as they deserve better than the spectacle of shame you are acting out in attention addiction.
Respectfully and not wanting your correspondence.
LC
Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 15, 2007 1:34 PM
"Robert Spencer Has a Fit (His Fourth This Week),"
Medical science now has several good medications for this condition. I suggest Mr. D'Souza investigate them, and ask his medical provider for a prescription.
Posted by: Shakey_Premise at March 15, 2007 1:38 PM
Deny D'Excusa: "My point was that if you go around denouncing the Koran, the Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim religion, you will alienate traditional Muslims and push them toward the radical camp."
Why would anyone want to denounce Mad Moe, his pronunciations on the justification for lying, murdering, raping, enslaving, exploiting, genocide, etc. as revealed by Baal-lah in The Quarrel-On? Such pronunciations would be sacreligious justification for more of the same in Baal-lah's name, right, D'Excusa?
Muzzel-ems are simply not equipped to debate the historical truths of Mislam and when confronted with a forthright debate, good Muzzel-ems, like D'Excusa, will simply prevariacate, tell bad jokes about mosquitoes in nudist camps and attempt to distract by exuding an oily charm. They are either purposefully silent on their understanding of The Quarrel-On, or they are truly ignorant about Mislam.
It is more likely that D'Excusa is purposefully silent. He has neither the boldness, nor the intellectual integrity to confront the radical essence of Mislam. The dhim-bulbs who moderate most debates on Mislam, aid, distract or detract from a forthright dissection of Mislam.
Political correctness run amok in The Congress and government seals the lips of politicians and bureaucrats from confronting the very present danger that Mislam represents. Devious politicians who never met a campaign contribution they wouldn't accept to get re-elected, are selling out our national security, the war in Iraq and public policy.
It is up to our religious leaders to divorce Mislam by highlighting its departure from Judaic and Christian foundations, truths and practices. Moemad has about as much relationship to Jesus as Madonna has to Mother Teresa. Either scuttles Mislam's pretensions as a legitimate extension of Judaism and Christianity before its too late, or suffer the consequences.
at March 15, 2007 1:52 PM
I couldn't help being reminded of something I noticed for the first time a short time ago on a weekend trip to London.
While the ethnic makeup of the crowds on the street and the Underground, or tube, was largely mixed, with Anglo Saxons like myself just one of a number of minorities, most of the many women who appeared to be Middle Eastern in appearance were wearing a headscarf or a burkha, signifying their Muslim identity.
And yet in the Tate Britain Gallery and the British Museum, stuffed with representative art and with hordes of visitors from apparently most parts of the world,- not a single headscarf or burkha to be seen. Robert may have a point here. Now how important is it?
As for Dinesh D'Souza, there is none so blind as he who will not see, as the old cliche said, or was it a song?
at March 15, 2007 1:55 PM
Infidel Pride wrote:
Robert,
"I don't mean to look like I'm agreeing with Dinesh, particularly when I don't, but how exactly do you reconcile denouncing the denial of freedom of conscience, institutionalized discriminations, commodification of women, honor killing, et al, and not denouncing what's at least ostensibly their sources - the Quran and Mohammed?"
Robert calls for the condemnation of the aspects of Islam that are intolerant to other faiths and contrary to basic human rights, rights of those who follow Islam and those who don't. He has clearly been crtitcal of the Qur'an, of Muhammad, and of particular Muslims, but will not denounce them in totality.
He will not condemn them as a whole, for he does not believe that all aspects of them are contemptible. He calls for Muslims to seek to reform their own religion, as was done by other faiths, and to embrace the "live and let live" philosophy of all major ideologies, with the noted exception of Islam.
That is markedly different than calling for the outright abolition of the ideology, it's founder and all it's adherents, as D'Souza would have us believe, as Robert's position.
The difference is crystal clear to me. As clear as the fact that D'Souza has proven himself to be completely unqualified to write about or discuss Islam at all.
at March 15, 2007 1:58 PM
BurkasforHitlery --
Good stuff! I especially liked the "exuding an oily charm"....that was wonderful!!
Posted by: champ at March 15, 2007 2:02 PM
It's unbelievably frustrating to watch that twerp D'Souza keep at Robert with the same falsities time and time again. Many of you may know the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over again and again while expecting a different result. Why doesn't he just give up?
Posted by: wrathofasma at March 15, 2007 2:20 PM
In fairness, I think D'Souza is making one--EXACTLY ONE--legitimate point:
We all want to see the Muslim world reform itself. But does criticism of the Muslim world from the outside by "infidels" like us, help or hinder that?
I'll bet that even moderate Muslims who are interested in reform don't enjoy being lectured and criticized by infidels.
Let's remember how we feel about our own domestic laundry. We have vigorous political debates in this country and furiously contested elections. But we absolutely HATE it when we're lectured by Europeans as to how THEY think we should improve OUR society.
Most conservatives will reply to the French or the U.N., "We can solve our own domestic problems without your help, thank you very much."
Is it unreasonable to expect the Muslim world to react the same way to us?
at March 15, 2007 2:38 PM
Steven L.:
Your point would only hold if Americans determined not to anything about our domestic problems, because of that French criticism.
Anyway, let Muslim reformers actually do the job, and I'll shut up. Instead, we get Mike Ghouse carping below about those who really are doing the job.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 15, 2007 2:41 PM
Steven L said:
We all want to see the Muslim world reform itself. But does criticism of the Muslim world from the outside by "infidels" like us, help or hinder that?
==
This takes for granted that Islam is reformable.
And from what I have seen from the Quran, the Hadith collections and Sira - it is exceptionally unlikely to happen.
The obstacles are mammoth.
I rate it as a miracle, it is near impossible.
Given that, containing the Islamic world, thowing out Muslims that happen to be inside Western countries, is the best option.
Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at March 15, 2007 2:45 PM
Steven L wrote:
"We all want to see the Muslim world reform itself. But does criticism of the Muslim world from the outside by "infidels" like us, help or hinder that?"
Please define "we all". Is this the "we all" meaning the infidels of the world alone, or the "we all" of the so-called overwhelming majority of "moderate", "traditional" or "cultural Muslims as well? 1300 plus years and counting now, Steven. They can start that reformation project anytime now...
Steven L also wrote:
"I'll bet that even moderate Muslims who are interested in reform don't enjoy being lectured and criticized by infidels."
I'll do more than bet. I guarantee that those civilians who perished on 9/11 didn't enjoy being killed by having airliners flown into office towers, in the name of Islam, and would have gladly traded up for a good stern lecturing by the Islamists.
1300 plus years and counting now, Steven. Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick.....
Posted by: awake at March 15, 2007 3:07 PM
I'm not sure I agree with Mr Spencer when he says he's not denouncing the Qur'an, Muhammad, and Islam when he criticizes the denial of freedom of conscience, the institutionalized discrimination against religious minorities, the commodification of women, polygamy, etc, all practices which are rooted in Islamic texts - the Qur'an and the Sunnah, which are the traditions of the prophet Muhammad. If these practices are rooted in the commandments of Allah in the Qur'an and the example of Muhammad in the sunnah, then it is impossible to criticize them without denouncing their source. If these were not found in the Qur'an and the sunnah - Muhammad's example - then they would not be going on today. How can we denounce polygamy in Islam without denouncing Muhammad's example, himself having over 20 wives and concubines? How can we denounce the practice of Muslim men beating their wives without denouncing the Qur'an, which says it's acceptable practice? I could go on and on all day.
Let's call a spade a spade. Those of us who've studied religion objectively know that, just as the Inquisition was not necessarily Christian even though the perpetrators were Christians, neither was, say, 9-11 necessarily an Islamic crime, even though all 19 were Muslims. If we can say that the Inquisitions were sqarely against the teachings and examples of Jesus - and I think we can - then it is possible that 9-11 was against Islam. The only way to know is to scrutinize the texts, which, as we all know, justify the crime a thousand times over. Much worse has been committed in the past. If these crimes are justified by the Qur'an and the sunnah, then we cannot say so without vicariously denouncing these texts. I wholeheartedly denounce the Qur'an, Muhammad, and the Islamic faith. I hold out no more hope for finding common ground with 'moderate' Muslims than I do with 'moderate' Nazis are Klansmen. Islam is what it is. Its roots, its history, are unforgivable.
Posted by: Ibn_Iblis at March 15, 2007 3:34 PM
Crows&Cows
You're missing my point. Like I said, I'm neither contesting nor endorsing your assertion that Indians are arrogant: I happen to think it's completely irrelevant to the particular example of Dinesh D'Souza. I'm simply noting that D'Souza's stand on this is completely independent of this, and is no more an Indian trait than it's a Catholic one (even though there are serious dhimmitude issues with both groups).
He isn't your typical ABCD: he had a career trajectory very different from Indians who do settle here and assimilate in US society. As a result, in his particular case, it makes sense to analyze him independently of what Indians are, or aren't, or do, or don't do. It doesn't imply that if a different Indian were to act exactly the way that you assert Indians act, that it wouldn't necessarily be worth stereotyping.
Awake
I'm aware of the differences between the Quran being totally evil vs. being partly evil, and don't want to re-open that can of worms, since it had been hotly debated last year. My only point here is that denouncing repugnant Islamic practices, vs denouncing the source of the prescription of such practices, is really a distinction w/o a difference, and not worth making - even if one was being partly deferential towards ones pro-Islamic critics
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 15, 2007 3:45 PM
I have the following comments:
1) About the Bamiyan Buddha statues -- as I recall there was a delegation of some top Imam(s) from Egypt to argue with the Taliban in an attempt to dissuade the Taliban from blowing up the statues (I recall this from listening to a CBC interview with a Canadian "human rights" woman -- a Sally Armstrong -- who was extremely optimistic that the top Egyptian Imam(s) would do the trick, and stop the Taliban. Needless to say, the intervention of the Egyptian Imam(s) accomplished NOTHING...
2) I suspect that what DD *really* wants to do (and what he appears to be claiming) is running about proclaiming that "Robert Spencer believes all Muslims are Devils!!!" Such a straw man argument, of course, serves DD's purposes. Then, DD can "heroically" rise up in "defense" of his much "maligned" and "innocent" Muslims (this tactic is employed by the likes of the CBC over and over and over again -- but, I think overall it's been a successful strategy -- whether in having newspaper columnists claiming a taxpayer funded, multi-millionaire litigant, tortured by Syrians, as Canada's new-found "hero" or getting more and more Muslim immigrants into Canada and having Canadians cheering this as if it were a wonderfully grand "accomplishment" -- yeah, I guess it's working).
3) I read an excellent article in today's National Post (by George Jonas, it's an excerpt from his newly published book -- "Reflections on Islam.") The article is titled: "Islam's inconvenient truths". Jonas maintains the distinction between Islam and Islamism (they are not synonymous), but courageously asks: "Is there a connection between Islam and Islamism?" Jonas believes that asking the question (ie, what's the connection between Islam and radical Islam) is not only legitimate, but a necessary requirement for a free society -- intellectuals must be allowed to explore (intellectually examine) the connections between Islam and Islamism. Yet, as Jonas notes, western intellectuals (at least those on the "liberal" left) tend to wish to stifle any debate (sweep any connections under the carpet), and "abdicate to evil." Thus, as Jonas writes: "Liberal societies...accommodate medieval Islamism." And he ends by warning that if we continue to do this, we will not reform the Middle East, we will, instead, come to look just like our worst enemies in the Middle East.
Posted by: J.S. at March 15, 2007 4:04 PM
I’m still stunned with D’Souza’s song-and-dance: don’t upset the “traditionalists” or they’ll become “radicals.” One would hope that they wouldn’t do so because these so-called traditionalists abhorred the values of the radicals. One would hope that they wouldn’t do so because they don’t want to sink into 7th century barbarity.
The silly notion that our insults will prompt them to self-immolation and a descent into savagery suggests that there was never common ground to build this imagined alliance that D'Souza dreams about. “Don’t call my religion violent or I’ll kill you” is generally considered an obvious refutation of their absurd claims to be civilized … except for D’Souza.
I give up! He’s all yours Robert! You’re a better man than I …
Posted by: JasonP at March 15, 2007 4:07 PM
Infidel Pride~
I noticed your comment after I had already made mine. I don't think we should be afraid to say we're denouncing Islam. We denounce Mein Kampf. Denounce the Qur'an. If you know enough about Islamic exegesis, you should be well equipped to defend against Islamophiles who deflect the iniquities of the Qur'an onto the Old Testament. They are not the same, not even remotely similar.
Another topic altogether.
Posted by: Ibn_Iblis at March 15, 2007 4:14 PM
Sorry, Robert, but given the subtitle of your latest book "founder of the world's most intolerant religion", I would agree with D'Souza that you do denounce Mohammad, Islam and (by implication) the Quran itself. Your criticism goes beyond a little nitpicking, it really does amount to a denouncement.
Posted by: Arizona at March 15, 2007 4:16 PM
Arizona,
The subtitle is merely a statement of contemporary reality. If this offends Muslims, they have it within their power to prove it false.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 15, 2007 4:40 PM
As I have watched Mr. D'Souza dodge, dance and distort his way through the criticisms of almost every major conservative thinker in the US, I have come to two conclusions.
First, Mr. D'Souza is not a man of honor. The continual stream of distortions about Mr. Spencer's writings and the reviews of his own book by Mr. Hanson and Mr. Johnson can not be blamed solely on Mr. D'Souza's sloppy thinking. They remind me of the factual contortions used by a teenager when he is caught doing something wrong. Mr. D'Souza takes quotes out of context, changes the interpretation of his own words to fit whatever argument he wants to make, and when those two do not work, he casts aspersions on the emotional and mental well-being of his critics. Mr. D'Souza seeks not truth, but comfort. He will find neither on his current path.
While those are the lies of Mr. D'Souza, there is also plenty of lazy scholarship on his part, not the least of which is praise of and linking to a particular profile of Ali Gomaa. This work was written by a G. Willow Wilson, who in her other writings deconstructs American and British literature through purely leftist and feminist lenses. She is precisely the type of individual Mr. D'Souza writes about in his book Illiberal Education, and yet he seems oblivious to who she is, how reliable a source she is, and what motives she might have in writing such a profile. He also overlooks why a Muslim with ties to the Egyptian government might say one thing about Islamic Radicalism when it is against Americans and another when it is against Israelis.
Second, Mr. D'Souza lacks a fundamental understanding of the United States; its people, its culture and its history. In the struggle against the radical Islamists what Mr. D'Souza urges is for those of us who hold traditional values dear is to reach out not to our fellow Americans, but to those moderate or cultural Muslims who also hold traditional values dear. He says those fellow Americans, members of the cultural left, are already pulling for the Islamists to win and have made a sort of de facto alliance with them already.
Putting aside the tremendous differences between our own traditional values and the traditional values of the Muslim world, Mr. D'Souza completely ignores the lessons of American history in our four previous existential struggles. The American coalitions that won the Revolution, the Civil War, World War II and the Cold War were not monolithic entities. Those coalitions never walked in lock-step; they were marked by bitter infighting and were precarious at best. Look how rapidly they disintegrated after the existential threat was defeated. But they were held together by the transcendent belief in freedom, a value clearly not found in abundance in the Islamic world today. Do not get me wrong I am tired of waiting for the left to realize they have as much, if not more to lose in this struggle. I am just not willing to jetison them yet, as Mr. D'Souza seems to be.
One more thought, Mr. D'Souza has pointed out the US alliance with the Soviet Union in WWII as an example of reaching out to those with whom we have disagreements to defeat a greater evil. What he forgets to mention is how badly that worked out for us. The Soviets got weapons and supplies that helped them survive Hitler and an Eastern European empire after the world. What did we get? Big government and blame for all the world's problems. Maybe this time we ought to rely on ourselves and our English speaking friends.
Posted by: teachingmyown at March 15, 2007 4:50 PM
Infidel Pride wrote:
"My only point here is that denouncing repugnant Islamic practices, vs denouncing the source of the prescription of such practices, is really a distinction w/o a difference, and not worth making - even if one was being partly deferential towards ones pro-Islamic critics"
Disagreed. The distiction is pertinent. Denouncing certain tenets of the Qur'an, personality traits of Muhammad, etc as opposed to the Qur'an and Muhammad in totality is critical to support Robert's position on the reformation of Islam. Without it, Robert's position would shift from reformation to outright abolition.
That is just not feasible or productive in any way.
at March 15, 2007 5:02 PM
Why do you not see middle ground between reformation and abolution?
How about disengagement? Islamic civilization and culture, minus oil, have absolutely no strategic or diversity value to Western civilization. Cut them off from their jihad funding and jizyah payments (oil and bribes to play nice with Israel, etc) and discontinue travel and immigration from Islamic states.
When a man commits a crime, you don't let him out of jail until he A> repays his debt to society; and B> proves he is no longer a threat to society. Why should we give Muslims the benefit of the doubt, after all they've done, and their reasons for it (strict adherence to their faith)? Leave them in a separate sandbox until they prove they can play nice with the other children. Given their history, and their art of deception, that would be a long time. And if it means they throw their religion away because they can't reform it, so be it. That's for them to decide. We should protect ourselves.
Posted by: Ibn_Iblis at March 15, 2007 5:13 PM
awake
According to an analysis I've seen here, this is how the verses of the Quran might be categorized:
33% Hatred against Disbelievers
19% About Believers
18% About Allah
11% Judgement Day
9% Disbelievers
5% About Muhammad
2% Good Verse
2% Biblical Story
1% Philosophical
If you add up the Hatred against disbelievers, disbelievers and judgement day, you have 53% of the Quran which requires alteration. If you add up the non-controversial portions, you get 28%, if that. So given how much of the Quran one would have to either alter or downright ignore/reject to negate 'certain tenets', what you are calling 'reform' involves altering/ignoring more than half of the Quran.
It explains why 'reformers' who try to do their thing within the parameters of Islam are either faking it, or trying to drive a car up a precipice.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 15, 2007 5:25 PM
We can't protect ourselves Ibn_Iblis ,Islam isnt the problem ,it us not being muslims thats the problem.
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at March 15, 2007 5:31 PM
Mr. Spencer:
Have you seen the latest D'Souza lie? Since you are handing out Torahs, can I get one too?
http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/03/15/the-silence-of-the-traditional-muslims/
First you're Martin Luther; now you're Rabbi Spencer!
at March 15, 2007 6:06 PM
KAOS~
As you know I share your cynicism at times. It is obvious there are too many people who don't think Western civilization is worth defending and preserving. Leftist self-loathing is a very powerful ally of jihad. But the articulate anti-jihad voices like R.S. and Trifkovic adeptly make the Islamophiles look stupid, and as long as this goes on objective people who want their offspring to prosper will listen. Maybe I'm not paying attention, but I haven't seen or heard anything about D'Souza's book that is positive. Whether it's his complete ignorance of Islam or his ridiculous assertion that the Left is to blame for 9-11, he's been under constant attack.
Infidel Pride~
Reformers, if they are honest, are jihad's useful idiots. They portray an image of benign Islam that simply does not exist. If even one verse of the Qur'an is fallible then they all are, and Islam crumbles from its foundation. How can a book authored by the Creator Himself be flawed in ANY way?
It's complete nonsense and I reject any movement to reform Islam. Perhaps 1400 years in the future Nazis and Klansmen will be whining about how racists and white supremacists represent a tiny minority of "extremists" among them. The doctrines and histories that are associated with them can never be erased. So it should be with Islam.
Posted by: Ibn_Iblis at March 15, 2007 6:06 PM
In a post above someone wondered if making a distinction between condemning certain practices vs condemning the scriptural source -- was this a distinction without a difference?
George Jonas asked: "..is there something about Islam that is conducive to the formation of extremist sects and radical movements? Is Islam a Petri dish in which a culture of fundamentalism thrives?" (from the article, "Islam's inconvenient truths", National Post, March 15, 2007).
Personally, I find that image of the Petri dish intriguing. You can use different mediums to cultivate different forms of organisms. If you use an agar medium, put it out for a few days, not every single organism that takes up residence in the petri dish will be toxic...but, a certain number will be toxic. I do believe Islam, currently, is much more conduicive to the growth of violent extremists than the other two monotheistic faiths.
Denying this reality is not helpful..nor is it helpful to have people such as DD attempting to silence the Robert Spencers who simply point out the violent passages in the Koran, etc., those very passages which are used by the toxic practioners of Islamism to advance their agenda. The source is to be found in the Koran, Hadith, etc. Yet this is not quite the same as suggesting that the whole thing (the petri dish) is so vile or toxic that it needs to be tossed out/thrown out. (toxic aspects need to be recognized and corrected)
Posted by: J.S. at March 15, 2007 6:35 PM
Infidel Pride,
I am not questioning your beliefs on the matter of Islam, for they are nearly identical to my own. I also think the task of a meaningful reformation, which for all intents and purposes, results in the abrogation of the intolerant, vile tenets of the Qur'an, the majority of the text itself, is an onerous task at best. If you have read any of my recent posts, you will see that I also do not believe in the "moderate" Muslim, at least to any degree, by their lack of words and actions, that they possess any real value.
The fact of the matter is that a number somewhere in between 1 and 1.4 billion Muslims do not strictly adhere to the mandate of jihad, as found in the Qur'an. It isd also a fact that Robert has challenged D'Souza on more than one occasion to name one "traditional" Muslim that the cultural right should align with. Currently, there are none and the pool is almost completely limited to apostates only. So be it.
If you look at the top left side border of this site, Robert states his intentions quite clearly. It certainly does not include an all encompassing, blanket condemnation of Islam, Muhammad or all Muslims. Robert is here to educate us about the Islam we NEVER hear about in the media. He is here to reveal that Islamic jihad isn't the actions of a "tiny minority of extremists", those who have "hijacked the religion of peace", but rather to reveal that an unknown number of Muslims act in the name of Islam, mandated directly from the currently immutable texts...period.
The reformation of Islam is not Robert's concern, nor should it be. He reveals the dire need for reformation, if the West is to co-exist with Islam. That undertaking is owned by Muslims and Muslims alone, if it actually ever happens.
Robert can denounce things about Islam without denouncing Islam as a whole just because he can, and also, because he must. Failure to allow for an acceptable solution to the far too numerous problems posed by Islam, as revealed quite diligently on this site, would undermine everything Jihad Watch is trying to accomplish, rendering this site a useless, baseless, hate-blog. If Robert's position was reduced to the forced apostasy of 1.4 billion people, with the absolute destruction of the second largest religious ideology in the world, would anyone of value actually listen to him? Would that reality ever be introduced into the mainstream? I think not.
Supposed "moderate" Muslims agree that the reformation of Islam is necessary. So Robert says, "good, have at it then." Until that time however, Robert plugs along, business as usual, educating the West to the abject threat that Islam currently poses to it. I do not know if Robert actually believes that the necessary reformation of Islam will ever happen, but I think it is irrelevant to what he is doing, and irrelevant to the position he must maintain.
If it does, then great. If not, then never let it be said that we weren't warned.
Posted by: awake at March 15, 2007 7:07 PM
There is a peculiar madness in the worldview of this Dsouza, a madness that is more acute in people from the Indian subcontinent. (apologies, no generalization)
But anyone who ever read the salvo's of eloquent idiocy by Arundati Roy begins to understand what I mean. These people are unable to reason rationally. Other things, (what might they be?) come into play.
Perhaps Hugh could give us an analysis.
I believe we should not give them a forum for their nonsense. The same goes for Chomsky, Pilger etc.
Perhaps its better to pretend they don't exist...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 15, 2007 7:12 PM
Sigh. Dinesh D'Souza said
We keep hearing of the need for an Islamic Reformation, but even the Reformation was carried out by devout Christian believers, not reformers from other religions or no religion who urged Christians to abandon the central doctrines of their faith. I regard Spencer's attempt to become the Martin Luther of Islam a quixotic escapade, and conservatives who follow along in this path as naive.
Does D'Souza think Islam needs a Reformation, or not? His writings seem of both minds, simultaneously. And if so, does he think it possible, or not?
Regardless, there are many people, including top (and I mean top) politicians, media personalities, pundits, and even well-meaning posters to JW/DW who believe that it is our (the infidels') responsibility to either peacefully help Islam to reform to something less violent and oppressive, or to use force to make it happen. I actually agree with D'Souza on that point, that it is not possible for infidels to reform Islam, and have used the Quixote analogy in the past. I don't even think Muslims can reform Islam.
But Robert is not one of that group. He has never attempted a Reformation of Islam. He has only educated non-Muslims about what traditional Islamic texts say, and about how traditional Muslims interpret those texts. D'Souza is again making up facts out of whole cloth. It is beyond strawman argument, where you distort your opponent's position, he is just making it up. Comparing Robert, a devout Catholic, to Martin Luther, seems a particularly offensive attempted dig.
Posted by: special_guest at March 15, 2007 7:15 PM
I have to laugh...about DD calling Robert Spencer a "Martin Luther"... Such idiocy of DDs.
Spencer, in the article above writes: "I have repeatedly called for exactly that: for Muslims to work for Islamic reform."
Obviously, no non-Muslim can reform Islam. I find it equally amusing though that DD (as a non-Muslim) comes out as the "defender of the faith" of Islam. And, I've noted this over and over and over again in the MSM -- the biggest proponents of Islamism and making apologies for Osama and the terrorists, etc., are non-Muslims (typically Leftists -- the Karen and Sally Armstrongs -- how many times have I heard a CBC media person allege "it's because they're desperate -- desperate I tell you!!" or the poverty b.s., or the lack of education, or the colonization, or or or...it's always something other than their religion, something other than their culture. Suggesting that there's something problematic either with the religion of Islam or a particular culture (say, the "Palestinian" death cult) is a taboo topic. It must be denied at all costs; and the media must tell us (as yet another car bomb murders 60 innocents in the Name of Islam): "Islam means PEACE!!" even when this becomes a sick joke (even to the most obtuse).
Posted by: J.S. at March 15, 2007 7:48 PM
awake
Point taken. Since this has been trashed out before, I'm trying to avoid quibbling over any exact language about a denunciation of the total manifesto, vs denunciation of repugnant portions of that manifesto. However, like Ibn pointed out above, I'm having real trouble figuring out how one denounces certain practices, and yet avoids denouncing a manifesto advocating those very practices. Particularly when the practitioners more likely than not would not indulge in those practices had they not been explicitly endorsed by the manifesto in question.
That's the debate here - we aren't arguing on whether or not moderates exist. So let's ignore our points of agreement, and focus on where we apparently disagree.
The fact of the matter is that a number somewhere in between 1 and 1.4 billion Muslims do not strictly adhere to the mandate of jihad, as found in the Qur'an.Pleeeaaase - let's avoid pulling numbers out of thin air. You have no evidence to prove this, and I have no evidence to prove otherwise. In the absence of any indication of where the average Muslim sympathies lie, it's a self destructive exercise to speculate where their sympathies lie.
Besides, a number of opinion polls both amongst the ummah in the West, as well as in dar ul Islam, show that a huge number of them agree with the goals of shariah, and spreading it around worldwide. The fact that they may be wanting to do it under due process shouldn't be any consolation.
If you look at the top left side border of this site, Robert states his intentions quite clearly. It certainly does not include an all encompassing, blanket condemnation of Islam, Muhammad or all Muslims.Since I can't speak for Robert, and only copy and paste what he himself has written (emphasis mine):
Q: Are you deliberately ignoring more liberal schools of thought in Islam?The way I read the above, he doesn't condemn Muslims, but at the same time, he doesn't explicitly exonerate Islam/Quran/Sunnah the way he might be willing to give Muslims the benefit of the doubt. Of course, he, or other JW staff, are welcome to correct me, but that's how I read the above. It's consistent with Warraq's "There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate". That seems to me to be more accurate than stating that one doesn't denounce the Quran that contains the objectionable practices mentioned above.
RS: Certainly not. I encourage any Muslim individual or group who is willing to work publicly for the reform of the Islamic doctrines, theological tenets and laws that Islamic jihadists use to justify violence. But this must be done honestly and thoroughly, confronting the texts of the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira that are used to justify violence against unbelievers, and decisively rejecting Qur'anic literalism. Not all self-proclaimed moderates are truly moderate: many deny that these elements of Islam exist at all — hardly a promising platform for reform. It is important to make proper distinctions and speak honestly about the roots of the terrorist threat.
The reformation of Islam is not Robert's concern, nor should it be. He reveals the dire need for reformation, if the West is to co-exist with Islam. That undertaking is owned by Muslims and Muslims alone, if it actually ever happens.Oh, I fully agree with this. And since that's the case, what anybody from JW says about reform in Islam should be irrelevant for those in the forefront who would ostensibly try and reform it.
Robert can denounce things about Islam without denouncing Islam as a whole just because he can, and also, because he must. Failure to allow for an acceptable solution to the far too numerous problems posed by Islam, as revealed quite diligently on this site, would undermine everything Jihad Watch is trying to accomplish, rendering this site a useless, baseless, hate-blog. If Robert's position was reduced to the forced apostasy of 1.4 billion people, with the absolute destruction of the second largest religious ideology in the world, would anyone of value actually listen to him? Would that reality ever be introduced into the mainstream? I think not.This is really an exercise in semantics. Define Islam. It's the religion/cult/ideology (take your pick) as defined by the Quran and Sunnah, and laid down by Abul Qasim Mohammed ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al Muttalib ibn Hashim. So let's not pretend that there's a difference between condemning Islam vs the Quran vs Mohammed vs the Sunnah. Yes, it is different from condemning Muslims as a whole.
As for the 1.2b Muslims in the world, that's not so much a problem for JW or Robert, as much as it is for the countries that house them. For the Islamic countries that hold the bulk of them, they should be quarantined, until such time that they are in sync with the rest of the world. As for Infidel countries that are unfortunate enough to have them, they should enforce modern laws that preclude Muslims from practicing the above aspects of Islam, since it runs counter to their laws. It's too important and too disruptive to be left to Muslims alone.
For the rest of your suggestions as to what we Infidels should continue to do, I couldn't agree more.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 15, 2007 8:00 PM
Sheikh Yermani
Arundhati Roy is a Left wing wacko. Dinesh D'Souza is a Right wing wacko. The only similarity between them, other than both being Indians, is both being pimps for the Allah/Mohammed LLC.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 15, 2007 8:02 PM
Infidel, I wouldn't know how to make that distinction, they both sound equally wacko to me.
Perhaps I should rephrase:
There is a peculiar madness in the worldview of this Dsouza, a madness that seems to afflict certain people from the Indian subcontinent who are wrongly held in esteem as 'intellectuals'-
Roy, as far as I know, never had anything to offer but slander. She does nothing but mudslinging and her whole scribble is a poisonous cocktail of anarcho-fantasies. I don't believe anybody should give her a forum.
at March 15, 2007 10:02 PM
Robert,
The subtitle has no implied "now" or "contemporary" qualification. It is arguable that over their histories Christianity has been far more intolerant than has been Islam. (Certainly it was better to be a Jew under the latter than under the former during the roughly thousand years from 1000 to 2000.)
I'm not a Muslim, but I can understand how a Muslim would find it offensive while having no power to "prove it false". If a gentle, nonviolent Muslim "reads" his religion completely differently to how you and the jihadis read it then he is entitled to that reading and should not need to apologise or prove anything to anyone.
I admire the work you do and wish you well in it but I also advise you to listen to those who (rightly, in my view) fear that you have yourself moved into a mode of criticism that encourages religious intolerance.
Cordially,
Arizona
at March 15, 2007 10:18 PM
As far as determining the numbers of jihadists among the practitioners of Islam, it becomes even more difficult when one considers the indisputable fact that jihad does not per se involve violence or taking up arms to conquer. Much of Europe's indiginous population is being overrun by Muslim birthrates. This is jihad. Every mosque, madrass, or other Muslim institution erected on Western soil represents jihad. Every 'moderate' Muslim who smiles to our faces but cuts a check to HAMAS, like CAIR, is a jihadist. Picture Sami Al Arian, in his suit and tie standing in front of an American flag, every bit the jihadist as Osama bin Laden, in his filthy stinking robes sitting in some cave in the asshole of the world. How do we know who's the jihadist and who isn't, especially given the Muslim art of dissimulation (taqiyya)?
at March 15, 2007 10:18 PM
Arizona,
Re the historical record, on this we differ. I will explain more fully in my forthcoming book, but your 1000 to 2000 assertion is far too broad. There is a reason why there were many more Jews in Europe than in the Islamic world at the dawn of the 20th century.
You say: "If a gentle, nonviolent Muslim 'reads' his religion completely differently to how you and the jihadis read it then he is entitled to that reading and should not need to apologise or prove anything to anyone."
In fact, the jihadis will challenge this gentle one, and are doing so, all over the world. That is why I ask the gentle ones to deal with the elements of Islam that the jihadis are using to make the challenge, so as to neutralize that challenge. And I will not be intimidated away from doing so by you or anyone else lumping me in with the jihadis.
To claim that I encourage religious intolerance is, at very least, overstated. When I, for example, point out that Zarqawi invoked Muhammad to defend his beheading of Nick Berg, and suggest that peaceful Muslims consequently need to reexamine how they follow Muhammad so as to forestall the development of more Zarqawis, people say I am "intolerant" or "Islamophobic." But they do not explain what they propose to do about Zarqawi and his invocation of Muhammad to justify a far more heinous act of religious intolerance than any of which I could possibly be justly accused.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 15, 2007 10:51 PM
Robert,
Re the historical record, my point was merely that the tolerance issue is arguable. It isn't settled or final. Your subtitle sounds like it is.
On the Jewish question, I am influenced by Leon Poliakov (History of Anti-Semitism) who wrote:
... the gentle precepts of Christ presided at the birth of the most combative, the most intransigent civilization that human history has ever known, while the warlike teachings of Mohammed gave rise to a more open and more conciliatory society. For it is true, once again, that where too much is demanded of man, he is subjected to astonishing temptations, and that he who tries too hard to play the angel plays the beast.
You're free, as any writer is, to ask anything of anyone but the gentle Muslim is not thereby obliged to respond. He has no moral responsibility to "deal with the elements of Islam" that are warlike. He has no responsibility to neutralize the challenge of the jihadis. He need only stick to his way of understanding things. That is all that God asks of him and God is the only one he must answer to.
You seem to imply that I am lumping you in with the jihadis. Your use of similar material has a different intent so that is an oversimplification. However, both you and the jihadis are characterizing Islam in a singular manner. A huge body of sublime Sufi literature characterizes it otherwise. True Sufis don't matter in the political scheme of things because they have no interest in worldly power. In my view, however, in their way, they do slowly and steadily influence how our communal lives are evolving, simply by being themselves and not by trying to prove anything, deal with anything or challenge anyone back.
True Sufis are most eloquent in their silence, if you will but listen a while.
The Zarqawis of this world need to be dealt with like any other criminals. The ignorant educators that create Zarqawis need to be exposed for the intolerant and intransigent fools that they are. This is part of the work that you do and this is good work. As a writer, you are also an educator and you have a responsibility to listen to those who see elements of intolerance and intransigence in your own writings. Yes, those elements (and their immediate consequences) are minuscule compared to the far more severe elements that you attack, but this does not exonerate you from your obligation to listen.
Cordially,
Arizona
at March 16, 2007 12:16 AM
Arizona
The Sufi argument is an overplayed one. Tamerlane - the Turkic conqueror who massacred over a million people during his conquests - was a Sufi. The Chechen rebels in Russia, who carried out massacres in Moscow and Beslan - are Sufis. The Kashmir Jihadis who have been waging a relentless bloody campaign against India since 1989 - murdering and displacing thousands of Kashmiri Hindus - are Sufis. There's plenty of Sufi intolerance as well to go around.
No Muslim - gentle or otherwise - needs to respond to anything. Similarly, no Infidel should be expected to assume that Muslims are innocent co-existing citizens unless and until proven otherwise - it's way too risky for Infidel lives and well being, which is the only thing we should be concerned with. In the absense of an aggressive campaign within the ummah to silence the Jihadis, as well as those who would impose Shariah on both Muslims and non-Muslims, Infidel governments have a right, indeed a duty, to see to it that the number of Muslims in the West is minimized, and that contacts between Muslims and Infidels are reduced to a minimum.
That's the least they can do. While Muslims figure out what sort of societies they want to exist in.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 16, 2007 1:08 AM
Arizona wrote:
"True Sufis are most eloquent in their silence, if you will but listen a while."
Arizona quips that the imposition of Islam is solved if Robert, "will but listen a while."
The follow-up is truly impressive:
"You're free, as any writer is, to ask anything of anyone but the gentle Muslim is not thereby obliged to respond."
I'm glad to see the introduction of the term, "gentle Muslim". It sheds a whole new light on the topic of Islam, for sure.
Once again, Robert's position is clear. He is here to alert us infidels to the overt danger of Islam, the Islam as applied today, taken directly from the immutable texts...period.
With the mountain of empirical and historical evidence directly supporting Robert's position, it is odd to see a dissenting voice to this obvious reality, Sufi'ism and all aside.
Robert and his position need not change one iota. Contrary to Arizona's claim otherwise, Robert is ALWAYS listening. A monumental change of heart is indeed, essential. This is not a change to anything Robert says or does, but rather it is a change to the ideology of Islam, simply pointed out by Robert, that needs to happen. If not, then maybe Robert's work will compel the "gentle Muslim" to respond, at a bare minimum. Anything is an improvement at this point.
Attempting to associate Robert with religious-bigotry, specifically "Islamophobia", and the ridiculous leftist group mindthink that successfully created that term itself, is fallacious at best.
Any credence given to D'Souza's rantings, is illogical. Those who persist are not long for this particular virtual world, a world primarily inhabited by the sane.
But there is of course, always an exception or two.
at March 16, 2007 1:25 AM
I think I understand where Dinesh Desouza(DD) is coming from. He is coming from a society(assuming he had his basic education in India)where Marxist drivel disguised as scholarship is taught as education primarily denying Muslim atrocities and the theology supporting it across time(hundreds of years) and space(all over India/world). This is internalized by most of the educated Indians. This also is the answer for a couple of posters asking what is peculiar in the 'intellectuals' coming out of India displaying this trait...simply put only those displaying it are considered'intellectuals' in India. Am sure DD will be feted, celebrated and triumphantly showcased all over india if he sticks to his line of traditional/radical Muslims etc etc. There are hundreds/thousands all over Indian Universities in India and politicians who are articulate and supposedly intellectuals(an example see 'Amartya Sen--Nobel prize...no less, for his thesis on multiple identities et al) who toe a similar line and are considered as the wise men/women.
My only quibble here is that most of the observers do not consider the context...with only 50+ years of exposure if an America can produce/celebrate people like Edward Said/John Espitso and Karen Armstrong, is it anything peculiar that after a thousand years of being assaulted upon/ruled an India produces people like DD/Roy..
But it is also true there have been true intellectuals(see Ram Swarup/Sita Ram Goel etc)who broke through these shackles and saw what is clearly to be seen in the backwardness, intolerance and triumphalism of Islam and its practitioners and described to the world what they saw.
I think the operative theme that one should look into what people like DD present is to hear the word 'strategy'. Also he and his ilk repeating that we should say something which a large number of people(1.2/1.3/1.5 billion--take whatever you like) deem to be true as if truth depends on how many people believe it. And I would rather prefer to go with a Sita Ram Goel who says something like 'when I hear the word strategy I reach for the stick'.
RT
Posted by: RT at March 16, 2007 4:15 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)