I look forward to listening, and appreciate your tireless efforts to bring Islamic awareness to wider spheres of influence.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at March 26, 2007 10:06 AM

Robert,

I also thank you for your efforts.

My entire world view on what matters most to me and my family has changed as a result of the education I have received by way of your books, essays by you, Hugh Fitzgerald and from the books and websites referenced and linked on this wonderful web site. For the longest time I believed my president when he said, years ago, post 9/11, that Islam "is a religion of peace" and was hijacked, etc etc.

I have never before engaged in letter writing campaigns to politicians or the media. That has changed and it seems I am writing at least 1 letter or email per day trying to bring this issue to light.

So I am a little perplexed at your attempts and the deafening silence that follows, other than to read comments of bloggers such as those found on this website and other sites linked to here. I mean, does a Bill Bennett or Brian Lamp just sit there, listen, thank you for your time and show you the door? Or does anyone, really listen, sit up at attention and exclaim "wow, this stuff is really scary and very important" and suggest he/she introduce you to Senator whats his/her name?

Where are our politicians? I would even be glad at this point to hear some politician say " Oh, I read that Spencer guy's materials and he's out on the fringe and deserves no recognition". At least I know that they have at least looked at this issue. They appear totally clueless about this threat and I cannot understand how this can go on.

Posted by: Al E. Baba at March 26, 2007 11:04 AM

As usual, you present your arguments cogently. Thank you for your tireless efforts.

Posted by: Razdan at March 26, 2007 11:16 AM

The Qur'an would need to be re-written. There is no other way.

Christians follow the New Testament, not the Old Testament (Torah) where the quote unquote "war" verses can be found (which by the way were given to only the people of that time). In contrast, the Qur'an does NOT contain the narrative to make it clear that the Qur'an's war verses were only for that time. The Qur'an isn't anything like the New Testament. The Qur'an IS about conquest, war, subjugation by force.

The New Testament was never "reformed." The Catholic Church was eventually reformed because it was incorrectly interpreting the New Testament, it prevented the common people from reading it, and was implementing religion by force. The Islamic texts DO NOT contain the ingredients for successful reform either of the text or the Islamic following thereof.

I do not agree with denying the crude makeup, nature, and ingredients of the Qur'an just for the sake of not offending "moderates." I do not agree with "being nice" just for the sake of not offending "moderates."

Let the burden of proof rest on all who claim to follow Islam and not vice-versa.

Posted by: Report at March 26, 2007 11:39 AM

Robert Spencer and others are probably playing it smart here since strategically it seems easier to convince millions of traditional Muslims to reinterpret the Koran & Hadith’s violent & intolerant parts than to get them to simply junk it all. But I think we should keep in mind that the success in this extremely difficult endeavor is much influenced by what happens in and to the Islamic world. I mean the Koran unequivocally promises victory & all kinds of success in life to the faithful Muslim – it is supposed to be the infidels who are the clear losers. This makes it important, for instance, that the infidel West and Israel are not seen as defeated. On the other hand, if long term political, economic & military defeat comes to militant mid-Eastern Islamic governments & Jihadist leaders while prosperity & victory stays with the West (including Israel) then this only supports the belief that a reinterpretation of the Koran is in line with Allah’s will and not all this counterproductive violence and militancy.

Posted by: FM at March 26, 2007 11:43 AM

Robert

I agree with you that the blogger who characterized your position as optimistic was mis-representing you. However, your position that you share the frustrations of those who've given up on this because of the trend of moderate Muslims to lie about their real agenda - fine as it is - seems to puts the onus of supporting reform within Islam on Infidels. It shouldn't. Infidel policies should be designed independently of any expectations of Muslim reforms, or else, the latter is simply going to be a Trojan horse in our citadel - making miniscule progress in the ummah, while lulling us into a false sense of security. Which is the impression I got from Bennett, when he suggested at the very end that the entire religion shouldn't be given up on.

Also, where do you get your statistical breakdowns from? Sure, 'only' 1% of them may be violent, but what gave you the impression that only 50% of them are the cheerleaders? Given all the categories that Bennett asked for - "egging them all, saying attaboy, saying okay with me, I'm not going to resist it" - seems to me like the rest of the ummah (I'm including in the "I'm not going to resist it" the people who say "I'm too scared to do anything about it".) Has there ever been any survey that suggests that the remaining 50% that you don't allude to are silent opponents of this campaign?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 26, 2007 12:18 PM

Do I think large-scale reform of Islam is likely? Certainly not (...)

I hope Robert Spencer forgives me for nit-picking, but he says that he doesn't think that large-scale reform is likely. In other words, he talks about the scope and probability of Islamic reform. This raises two obvious questions.

First, does Spencer think that a small-scale Islamic reform is likely, or at the very least possible?

Second, does Spencer think that it's at least theoretically possible (even though he may not consider it likely) for Islam to be reformed at all ? If so, how does Spencer think this would be possible? If not, why does he present the issue of Islamic reform as an issue of probability (Islamic reform is unlikely) rather than as an issue of possibility (Islamic reform is impossible)?

Posted by: anonymous at March 26, 2007 12:43 PM

Infidel Pride:

It is always hazardous to go on these things, as complicated points have to be made swiftly, and that can give rise to misunderstanding. In fact, as I have made abundantly clear here many times, I do not believe the other 50% opposes the jihad. I was speaking of active support, albeit not military.

Anonymous:

No. I was opposing the prospect of large-scale reform to the actions of a few individuals. I would ask you to read what I have actually said on this and related matters, rather than rely on adversarial and inaccurate reports on what I think -- reports generated by implacably hostile bloggers who are more interested in playing "Gotcha!" games and indulging in personal attacks than having a mutually respectful discussion of pertinent issues.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at March 26, 2007 1:05 PM

keep up the good work robert spencer.

Posted by: callmeinfidel at March 26, 2007 2:49 PM

I don't want to go all academic here, but this business about formulating reinterpretations of the Koran has me puzzled. Is the idea supposed to be that the Koran doesn't really have a meaning in itself, so the moderates can just say of the violent passages, "Okay, now we're going to decide that they mean something different, something nonviolent"? Isn't that a little weird? I wouldn't do that with _any_ book. Either the Koran does or doesn't have a violent meaning. If it does, then I guess they _should_ find themselves another holy book, and Dinesh D'Souza should just deal with the fact that that's what we have to tell them. If these passages don't have a violent meaning, then why does it look so much like they mean exactly what they say?

My point here is just that to me it's like asking Muslims to be dishonest to ask them to pretend that the Koran doesn't mean various objectionable things and to *make up* out of whole cloth some new interpretation and just "dub" that the "new meaning of the Koran." And after all, when people do say that jihad just means "inner struggle" and so forth, we say (quite rightly) that they're trying to deceive us. So should they try to deceive themselves instead? Or should they just take a sort of post-modern view of the Koran as having whatever meaning they want to put into it?

Posted by: Lydia at March 26, 2007 4:09 PM

It's interesting to compare the slightly different approaches of Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes. A few weeks ago I listened to a speech held by Mr. Pipes at The Free Press Society in Copenhagen, at which he was invited to receive an award for his work. Where Robert to my knowledge never uses the term islamist, Pipes does, leaving, as far as this layman can tell (not having read his books), a door open for an essentially benign non-supremacist version of this belief system.

Nevertheless, I swear the doom and gloom was palpable as his speech progressed, leading a leading Danish feminist and writer for Jyllands-Posten to request just a glimmer of hope for us to leave the meeting on. Sadly, all that Mr. Pipes could offer was an analogy with the fate of Nazi Germany which nobody in 1940 could imagine would be gone just five years later. I'm sure everybody here would wish for something more substantial to hang their hope on, but by not offering any unfounded optimistic scenarios, Pipes and Spencer are ultimately conveying the same outlook.

Posted by: anti-uffe at March 26, 2007 6:17 PM

Robert your interview on the show you sounded very optimistic about Muslims being able to reform, or at least the few who truly recognize the need for reform. What l have read on sites, and especially from Hugh is the exact opposite of any reform especially in Iraq, as well you pointed out in some other posts that reform for Democracy in Iraq by the US forces is not feasible. Is there a hint of hope, l had more hope a few years ago, but l think it is wearing thin with all the islamist appologists circling the wagons around the koran, and islam as the religion of peace. Your others point at the very end as usual was too short, and too bad was not able to expand on it as time was running short. I really likee your interview with Bill Bennett, he is truly a gentlement and great historian.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 26, 2007 8:44 PM