| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
For years those who have repeated the simple truth that while there are Muslims who are moderate, there is no moderate Islam, have been vilified as bigots and "Islamophobes," and marginalized in the same way by Beltway analysts and the mainstream media (both liberal and faux-fearless conservative) in favor of those who were determined to "engage moderate Muslims."
And while all and sundry have thought that this analysis manifested admirable mansuetude and sober judgment in light of the huge numbers of Muslims in the world and the necessity of not making all of them our enemies -- a worthy goal indeed -- it immediately entangled American policy (and American coverage of the global jihad) in fantasies that hindered realistic analysis of what we actually face in this conflict. It sent American officials and media talking heads on a fruitless search for moderate voices that led to their giving the likes of the Hamas-linked group CAIR tours of airport security procedures at O'Hare Airport, and gave CAIR and other groups like it access and influence at high levels.
Meanwhile, many of the same pseudo-moderates demonstrated once and for all that they were anything but moderate when they talked American officials into dissembling and obfuscating about the nature of the threat we face, not using the terms "jihad" or "jihadist" for fear of offending this great aggregate of moderate Muslims who supposedly abhor Al-Qaeda but will nonetheless be driven into its arms if we say the wrong word.
Among conservative speakers, writers, and bloggers, there is this same split. They want to defend America, unlike large segments of the Left, but many have bought the Dinesh D'Souza line that to do so we must not speak about the ideology that is at war against us, for to do so will offend our Muslim allies and drive them into the enemy camp. The only problem is that none of these people have ever been able to produce these Muslim allies they're talking about. There are millions of Muslims who are not fighting the jihad and never will be, but can they be counted on to fight on our side? There is no reason whatsoever to think so -- especially since no attempt whatsoever is being made to counter the jihadist appeal to them, which bases itself on Islamic loyalties.
In the media, Muslims in America who are in fact marginal and heterodox, who have been unable to keep even their own mosques from being taken over by "extremists," and who command virtually no following among Muslims here or elsewhere, are the anointed media spokesmen on topics relating to Islamic jihad, both because they present the soothing image of a patriotic, pluralistic American Muslim who has no desire to impose Sharia here now or in the future, and because by featuring a Muslim rather than a non-Muslim analyst the shows (even the ones that preen themselves the most about being "politically incorrect") hedge against charges of "racism" that are sure to come from the mau-mauing Islamic advocacy groups if the programming comes even close to telling it like it is.
And hate speech laws, already in effect in Canada and elsewhere, are closing in on the possibility of talking about the jihad threat at all -- not because to do so is in any real sense "hate speech," but because these same false moderates have skillfully and relentlessly portrayed any and all realistic analysis of the jihad ideology and theology as "hate speech." Ignorant and indifferent Americans are being carried along on the ride: "Hate speech? Why, of course that should be outlawed! Now: what's happening with that McCain dirty word rumor, and what Miley Cyrus's dad say about her photoshoot?"
Seeing all this happening over the last few years, I have grown accustomed -- if not resigned -- to seeing the ground for getting the truth out diminishing. Those who speak the truth about these issues are already "racists" (what race is Islam again?) and "Islamophobes." Maybe fairly soon it will even be illegal to quote the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah on jihad warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers, unless one is doing so approvingly inside a mosque.
But that's why I was all the more surprised to see this article in Foreign Policy. Does the truth, simply by virtue of its being true, have the power to conquer attempts to suppress it? Will the truth out, really, or can it be extinguished forever? I don't know the answers to those questions. I hope the truth will out, and this is a sign of it, but I still think in the larger sense that we are in for some very rough days ahead.
"The Myth of Moderate Islam," by Steven A. Cook in Foreign Policy, June 2008 (thanks to Patrick Poole):
Supporting moderation in all things Islamic may seem like a no-brainer, but woe betide the policymaker who tries to turn a plausible idea into a workable strategy.Of all the cures commonly proposed for the many ailments afflicting the Middle East, there is one tonic nearly everyone seems to agree on: boosting moderate Islam.
It sounds eminently reasonable. If Islamic extremism is the problem, moderate Islam must be the solution. It follows that Western governments should therefore find ways to make the moderates more powerful and encourage the extremists to become more moderate. Allow Islamists to compete and accumulate power, the argument goes, and they will have little incentive to radicalize. Furthermore, assuming the mundane tasks of day-to-day governance will compel even the most extreme groups to focus more on filling potholes than on destroying the Great Satan.
But this belief is dead wrong. Not only is it impossible to agree on a working definition of the word “moderate,” but there is scant evidence that extremists really do moderate once they assume power.
Please be sure to read it all.
Posted by Robert at June 17, 2008 1:05 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
The only moderate Muslim is the one who is an apostate an ex Muslim. Islam has no moderation it is complete as far as Muslims are concerned. There is false perception and assumption that because Muslims in the west are acting with the confines of the western society that they are moderate. This is a deadly and false assumption and premise. The fact of the matter is that because of the Muslims in the west have not reached a critical mass you do not see the mass demands and changes to accommodation made for sharia. Despite this we all know that there is even with a minority of Muslims these demands are being made in western countries and free societies by Muslims. The moderates which are very few very few are ultimately silenced or killed.
Posted by: savsiv![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 17, 2008 1:21 PM
From Pakistan:
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=118852
Moderate does not equal Modernist.
Posted by: skevin at June 17, 2008 1:54 PM
Skevin:
Scroll down. That article is already at JW:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021429.php
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at June 17, 2008 2:02 PM
If we cannot speak the truth about Islam, and "hate speech" laws are enacted by the Demo Congress and probable incoming Demo Prez, we are literally Shot to $___.
I got motivated to wonder and read a little about Islam after going to Europe in '91.
Because I planned a subsequent trip.
And I started reading history of Europe, Byzantium, and the Levant.
And I wondered what happened to all the huge historical places of the past millenie.
And I discovered that Islam had overrun them. And the Islam is still there.
But Islam was stagnant, largely, for the past several hundred years.
Now oil. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Anyway, if anybody doesn't understand the essay "The Myth of Moderate Islam" he or she has an inadequate grasp of what is going on.
The future is Islam's.
It is not good.
If the Demo Congress enacts hate speech laws, we have to speak the truth. Then it will REALLY be speaking truth to power.
Such laws would be not only Constitutional infringements,
but an infringement against freedom defending itself.
If this should happen, we have to speak up until they jail us or kill us.
at June 17, 2008 2:14 PM
I had a couple of encounters at Myspace that forever changed my view of islam. Over the course of several months, I was corresponding with a muslim teen. She comes from a "moderate" muslim family living here in America. She spoke of very stern, strict parents, which in itself is un-extraordinary.
But a few weeks later, I was able to speak with a second muslim teen living in America, and under very similar circumstances.
Without revealing to either of them I was conversing with the other, I began to compare notes.
Both were girls. Both said their parents forbid them from socializing with non-muslims. Both wanted to go to college, but confided that their parents would not allow them to go. Both wanted to be friends with classmates at public schools, but knew they were not allowed non-muslim friends. Both told me that publicly their families condemned islamic terrorism, but privately supported it. Both were fearful of their families, especially the male members.
I was very saddened by conversations. I tried to encourage them as best I could. I told them that their education didn't end as long as they were willing to learn, and that despite the hardships imposed by their families, they were living in America and one day they could make their own decisions.
The conversations taught me a lot. They taught me that there are those imprisoned by the islamic ideology, even here in our backyard. It taught me that there are no such things as "moderate" muslims. No matter how assimilated muslims may *appear* to be, they are *not* "moderate".
We are facing an enemy from within. If we are defeated, it will be by them.
Posted by: DJM at June 17, 2008 2:28 PM
So many who post here at JW know full well that the term "moderate Islam" is an oxymoron and that so-called moderate Muslims are unreliable, to say the least. But we're in a race against time, whereby the Islamic world and their non-Muslim enablers (like almost the entire corpus of every Western government) are relentlessly pushing the idea that Islam itself is harmless and it's just a few fanatics here and there who give Islam a bad name, while a growing portion of the population at large of virtually every Western nation realizes that Islam is deeply flawed and inimical to free societies in many ways.
It's the bad guys along with the confused against the good guys who know the real truth of things. This struggle is one that must be won by a grass roots movement, the likes of which has rarely, if ever, been seen in history. It's shaping up as quite a fight. And I'm damn glad that Robert Spencer is the man who he is. His contributions in this fight for truth and the preservation of Western freedoms are almost incalculable. Thank you, sir.
Posted by: Wellington at June 17, 2008 2:40 PM
The answer to this one question is very revealing of the existence of 'Moderate Islam':
Where is the fatwa against Bin Laden?
And against: Hamas?, Hezbo?, the Iranian Nutcases?
Posted by: Sounder at June 17, 2008 2:44 PM
Of all the cures commonly proposed for the many ailments afflicting the Middle East, there is one tonic nearly everyone seems to agree on: boosting moderate Islam."
-- from the Foreign Policy article by Steven Cook
"Everyone seems to agree" that the "tonic" is "boosting moderate Islam"?
Again and again it has been suggested here, by me, that the most effective strategy consists of several steps.
The first is pedagogic. A large number of Infidels -- that "critical mass" -- needs to learn a sufficient amount about the texts and tenets of Islam, and the attitudes and atmospherics to which those texts and tenets naturally give rise, so that they can no longer be fooled, and can help unfool, or immunize against potential foolishness, other Infidels.
These, the well-informed and the well-prepared, should make sure that that knowledge does not remain hidden, but conveyed not only to other Infidels but also to Muslims who will then no longer be able, without arousing suspicion, the kind of taqiyya-and-tu-quoque.
The next step is for Infidels to understand why it is that the many failures of Muslim states and societies -- political failures (that tendency to despotism, that inability, save in kemalist-exceptional Turkey and one or two oth places, to accept democracy, and even then what is in place is not democracy in the advanced Western sense of that word), economic failures (despite ten trillion dollars in unmerited oil revenues since 1973 alone, the Muslim states have failed to create modern economies, are still helplessly dependent on Western and other foreign workers, and save in kemalist-exceptional Turkey and bourguiba-exceptionalist Tunisia, either have that oil money, or where the manna of oilwealth is unavailable, rely in large part on the disguised Jizyah of either foreign aid from Infidels, or the local Muslims rely on exactions of wealth from thei more industrious non-Muslim fellows, as in Malaysia with its Bumiputra system). Tbhe social failures -- the grotesque mistreatment of women and of non-Muslim minorities --- are again less evident in that handful of Muslim countries, such as Kemalist Turkey, where Islam has been systematically constrained, or in one or two of the stans where the anti-religious campaigns of the Soviets, and the very large non-Muslim populations, have helped to reduce the power of Islam. An example of that is Kazakhatan. The intellectual failures of Islam are a result of two things: the severe discouragement of free and skeptical inquiry, that is in the first place prompted by the desire to prevent Islam itself from being questioned, and that in turn leads to a climate in which no questioning can take place. In a world where thos who dare to openly question the faith can be attacked and killed -- by mobs if not by the forces of the govenment -- it is unsurprising that intellectual development, including but hardly limited to the kind of thing measured, in very rough fashion, by Nobel Prizes -- is limited. There has been hardly any development of science under Islam in the past thousand years. Arab literature, according to the poet Adonis, is in a permanent state of crisis; it "does not exist." Indeed, the greatest achievements in literature have been those by Persian poets, such as Firdowsi, Sa'adi, Hafiz, and Omar Khayyam (much higher in the Western consciousness, standing virtually alone, than in the Iranian mental pantheon), all of whom sang of matters -- wine, women, song, and so on, and in Firdowsi's important case of the Shahnameh, of pre-Islamic Iranian history -- that can be said to violate both the spirit and the letter of Islam. As for art, when all sculpture, and almost all painting, and almost all music, is banned, and the only outlets left are Arabic calligraphy and mosque architecture, that does not leave much room for the creativity that, over 1350 years, must have been stifled, in so many, who had they not had the misfortune to be born into Islam, or conquered by the forces of Islam, might have enriched the world's museums, and the common heritage, in the way that, for example, the artists of the West and the Far East have done. Then there are the moral failures, the failure that comes of being raised up in a system that divides the world between Believers and Infidels, and posits a state of permanent war (though not always open warfare) between the two, and that, furthermore, manages to justify many sorts of aggression and cruelty, and elevates deception ("war is deception") as long as that aggression and cruelty, that deception, that violence
The best way to deal with Islam is for Infidels to make that connection, and then to make public their understanding of that connection, and to be sure to convey that understanding to Muslims themselves. That is, force the issue rather than avoid it: force Muslims themselves to begin to see how, in what ways, the failures of their societies are the result of Islam itself, and not of what any Infidels have done. And do not stop there, but appeal to the 80% of the world's Muslims who are not Arab to see how, in what ways, Islam has always been a vehicle for Arab supremacism, that is for cultural and linguistic imperialism (as with the Berbers still), and for economic and political imperialism. Indeed, Arab imperialism, using Islam as that vehicle, has been the most successful imperialism in human history, causing many peoples to ignore their own pre-Islamic pasts or to encourage contempt for any non-Islamic elements in their own societies that mauy continue, despite the pressure of Islam, to exist (for example, the celebration of Nahruz in Iran).
This is the way to proceed.
"Nearly everyone" agrees?
What am I? A potted plant?
Posted by: Hugh at June 17, 2008 2:56 PM
Under Islam, the true believers appear to be potentially the most dangerous. The non-true believers are probably what we call "moderate" but they will likely side with the true believers when the chips are down. This is not so much different from our church goers here except with one really hugh difference. Christian true believers are not dangerous.
Secularists either cannot or don't want to understand this distinction.
Posted by: Spot on at June 17, 2008 3:26 PM
Excellent article and excellent commentary by RS and HF.
Posted by: US_infidel at June 17, 2008 3:34 PM
There is no reason whatsoever to think so -- especially since no attempt whatsoever is being made to counter the jihadist appeal to them, which bases itself on Islamic loyalties.
--Robert--
This is the sad truth. They can try to publicly reject the unfortunate tenets of Islam, but if they choose to remain pious Muslims, they cannot really condemn them, since they are supported and even mandated by Islam.
Posted by: awake at June 17, 2008 4:11 PM
I agree with US_infidel:
Excellent article and excellent commentary by RS and HF.
And to be explicit, those who want to avoid the unpleasant subject by censoring words and open discussion are only delaying the inevitable. By giving into Muslim demands in the hopes that it will appease them, in fact it just emboldens them and rewards their violent and/or threatening behavior, which leads to new demands and new acts of violence.
This is not a problem that can be solved by ignoring it. It cannot be papered over and covered up indefinitely. It, and they, are not going away. Unless we are willing to give into their underlying goal of a mandatory homogenius universal caliphate, they cannot be appeased.
The ummah will never be appeased.
Posted by: special_guest at June 17, 2008 4:40 PM
Maybe it will cheer Spencer to remember that many of those who resist you most are sometimes the ones taking in your message most deeply, as later becomes apparent when they shift. Remember Saul on the road to Damascus. Sometimes surface opposition conceals percolating change in the depths.
Posted by: traeh at June 17, 2008 4:43 PM
I believe that one should consider Muslims as persons that need to be guarished of their illness: Islam. Fighting the illness (islam) goes together with loving the person that as to be cured (every Muslim).
I like the strategic articles hereabove.
To DJM: just suggest to both poor islamic girls a quarantine as soon as they can live independently from their family ... if they do not ... they shall be enslaved for all their live in the islamic illness.
The difficulty is that the psycho-illness (Islam) is deeply embedded in the identitair parts of the human being.
However, it is not a good idea to say directly the true to a Muslim: "Islam is an illness that destroy even your self." "Muhammad is a dangerous perverse murderer and a seriously dishonnest manipulator." It hurts their (previously wounded) identity.
A good strategy to guarish (and thus love) our Muslims neighbours is to find manners to make themself conscious of the perversity of several aspects of islamic tradition and of the fundator of islam.
1. The idea written by someone on Jihadwatch (I do not know who: I adapt a little bit): making a successfull american movie (your business) with a dangerous sect fundator in another cultural context (the idea I saw on Jihadwatch was about the American Middle West in the mid 19 Century; the end of the 19 Century in the South West of the Russian Empire would be more realistic for the pogrom aspect); that dangerous sect fundator has, except the context, exactly the same behaviour as dangerous sect fundator Muhammad.
It must seem to concern in no way the Islam ... in a first step.
2. A new Narnia movie: "The Horse and is Boy" of C.S. Lewis: there is a good indirect explanation of islamic illness in it ... AND there is a girl that guarishes of it, thanks to God! OK, it is a dangerous idea for the director of the movie, but it is such a good idea. A successfull movie ... and thereafter explanation in the media of the "sources of inspiration" of fantastic C.S. Lewis.
Unfortunately, the director of Narnia movies seems to have choosen other episods.
3. As Hugh said hereabove, Satyagraha, the force of the truth, the way of Gandhi ... Just inform people and Muslims about the ... truth.
at June 17, 2008 4:53 PM
"Covert Sympathizers" ("moderate" Muslims) -- Tony Blankley, author of "The West's Last Chance."
End of story.
Posted by: darcy at June 17, 2008 5:28 PM
Do you all want to find a moderate muslim?!
Then go look for the guy who DOESN'T want to speak about islam because he/she KNOWS that they will be 'dead men/woman walking'.
They won't be found in organizations bent on islamicizing us and spreading deception (taqiyya/kithman), such as CAIR, the MSA, or any other jihadist organization. They won't even be found on the blogs speaking up as if they are oh, so peaceful and benign (yeah - please note the sarcasm!) to us infidels and swaying way too many to think that they are fully truthful about islam.
But, these will also be totally ignorant of their own 'religion' because they are bad muslims. Oh, they might pray - every so often - but they won't know one iota of what the koran and/or hadiths and/or mohammed is all about. Because they won't have read anything about it and only heard stuff, maybe, when they were kids.
Some might even know a bit more about islam but can be swayed by a bribe - but is that a character we want to deal with? Maybe as a mole, but not too much else.
Oh well, I think you get my drift what I think about muslims, our definition such as 'moderate', etc.
I will end this with this quote that I found - and totally agree with: Italian writer Oriana Fallaci, said: “A moderate Islam does not exist. It does not exist because there is no difference between Good Islam and Bad Islam. There is Islam and that it the end of it. Islam is the Koran, and nothing other than the Koran.“
[(Oriana Fallaci”The Force of Reason” post-script page 305 February 2006)]
at June 17, 2008 6:05 PM
"But this belief is dead wrong. Not only is it impossible to agree on a working definition of the word “moderate,” but there is scant evidence that extremists really do moderate once they assume power."
This is the sort of statement that doesn't bare scrutiny.
Hitler
Stalin
Pol Pot
Mugabe
Amin
all moderated by power I think you'll find.
at June 17, 2008 6:32 PM
Would you consider the Indonesians who condemn the jihad supporting 'defenders of the faith' group as 'moderates'. In the Jakarta Post in the opinion column the following appeared...
"The death of reason, the destruction of nation
Al Makin , Heidelberg, Germany | Sat, 06/07/2008 11:24 AM | Opinion
The condemnation coming from across Indonesia, and the world, for the bamboo-stick ambush by the Islam Defenders Front (FPI) on a peaceful rally by the National Alliance for the Freedom of Faith and Religion at the National Monument (Monas) is not enough.
The following real steps must be taken immediately: ban the FPI officially; arrest all of those involved in the attack, including those who were responsible for planning the action and those who executed it; and more importantly clean Indonesia from any mode of radical thinking.... "
read the rest at, http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/06/07/the-death-reason-destruction-nation.html
Posted by: Jalandhar at June 17, 2008 6:33 PM
DJM,
What will happen to those poor girls? I fear they'll go along to get along, marry a "nice" Muslim man picked out by dear old dad and proceed to raise a new generation of jihadists or jihadist-wannabes.
Is there no way those girls can claim child abuse and garner protection from their state child welfare bureaus? They need protection from their parents every bit as much as the child who is smacked around.
at June 17, 2008 7:58 PM
Please take note of the final paragraph, folks.
"A SMARTER DECISION IS TO AVOID THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIONS ALTOGETHER. As with all faiths, there will be heated debates between competing groups within Islam over the proper interpretation of sacred texts and the relationship between religion and politics. Yet because these arguments are so opaque to outsiders, policymakers should resist the urge to jump in. Given that moderation is in the eye of the beholder, Washington should not have an ideological litmus test for whom it wishes to engage. Rather, policymakers should focus on identifying those who can contribute PRAGMATIC SOLUTIONS to the many problems we confront in the region, “moderate” or not."
Overall, this is a good article, and seems to confirm what I have long advocated: leave the philosophizing to theologians, and when we're discussing our foreign policy let's make it about the issues.
Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at June 17, 2008 8:35 PM
Islam is an absolute because Allah is an absolute.
Abdallah means slave to Allah absolutely.
Are there degree's of slavery? All muslims must accept Allah as God, and Mohammad as his messenger.
They accept the Quran as the very 'living' word of Allah, applicable for all time. They accept and even worship Mohammad as the messenger and perfect man.
They agree to pray five times daily, obey Sharia, and pay zakat. And they renounce agreements with Jews. In short they fulfill their slave roles by doing what Allah has told them to do. He has made it very clear in the Quran how he expects muslims to behave, and they have Mohammad as the role model.
'The true black magicians are your fellow man', said the Shaman, if you don't believe that, try and break away from the path they have set for you'.
A muslim who breaks away from the path that Allah has set for him, and jumps ship, is an apostate. The rest are still in the boat. It's a pretty holy boat, it will probably sink on its own, do to terminal seepage...
at June 17, 2008 8:42 PM
From above: Overall, this is a good article, and seems to confirm what I have long advocated: leave the philosophizing to theologians,
Nope sorry. My mother told me that people should not talk about religion or politics. My mother was wrong. I prefer not to go about the world with one eye shut, and one hand tied behind my back.
The two thing that should be discussed intently are religion and politics. They effect every facet of life, and without knowing the weather report, we will be blown around like so many straws in the wind. Lets just clam up and play stupid.
I noticed that the writer of the article was a CFR stooge, which may explain that last paragraph...
at June 17, 2008 8:49 PM
Hugh:
"What am I, a potted plant?"
Maybe not, but your prose needs some pruning....
Seriously: you're a serious and knowledgeable commentator on the Islamic threat. I've read many of your articles. But your message often gets obscured in a forest of clauses, sub-clauses and parentheses.
If you doubt the importance of the *way* the message is delivered, as opposed to the *message* itself, read Orwell on “Politics and the English Language”. This is the classic essay on the importance of simplicity and clarity. And remember what a powerful, pellucid polemicist Orwell was. He would have been on the side of the Jihadwatchers, I’m sure!
BTW: I cut/pasted your comment above, and ran it through the “bullfighter” (www.fightthebull.com) and here’s what it said: “Teetering on the edge of unclear. The overall meaning is discernable, but it is possible to lose oneself in corollary thoughts, which may be worth exploration, but which detract from the core point in the article.” My thoughts exactly. (your sentence length was rated “poor”).
Sorry to be so direct, Hugh. But if even I, a dedicated Jihadwatcher, have to wade through the article, then think of others; they may just give up.
I make this comment in the hope that you may take a brush-cutter to your future essays, cut them by 50% as a rule of thumb: to make them even more powerful tools in the battle for the freedom of ideas!
at June 17, 2008 11:46 PM
Duh swami: I have no problem talking about religion. I also have no problem talking about politics. But in the United States and elsewhere in the "free world", it is customary not to mix these two discussions into one big geopolitico-theological rant. This custom has arisen not because we've become "softies" all the sudden. It's because before around 1648, the general rule was exactly the opposite, and it made things quite unpleasant to all. The initial colonies of the United States of America, which is the largest of the Western Powers, were initially founded by those fleeing this unpleasantness.
I actually don't think Robert is fond of "stooges", but in fact likes to highlight people with interesting and rational arguments. But that's just me.
Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at June 18, 2008 12:38 AM
The term 'moderate' is merely a distraction, a way to numb the disturbing truth about the evil behind Islam. If we can put up mental barriers to this truth by screening it with the notion that moderates might exist, then we are simply fooling ourselves by believing in the possibility of a LIE.
Posted by: champ at June 18, 2008 1:33 AM
There seems to be a parallel to the "hate speech" of the 40s and 50s, where communist infiltrators were ID'd, and it was those who saw this infiltration that were vilified by the left, and today's impetus of "hate speech laws", again pushed by the elitist know all leftists.
The collusion of the left with the communists back then reaped nuclear proliferation, still hanging over our heads.
The collusion of the left, with the "hate laws", or attempts to downgrade security measures such as FISA, castigating the US military for interrogation techniques, and the like, might reap the demise of freedom by allowing the adversary to be completing masqued.
Posted by: confused
at June 18, 2008 1:48 AM
Hugh:
"What am I, a potted plant?"
Maybe not, but your prose needs some pruning....
Seriously: you're a serious and knowledgeable commentator on the Islamic threat. I've read many of your articles. But your message often gets obscured in a forest of clauses, sub-clauses and parentheses.
Posted by: Meeker
Aye Meeker,
A' Have noted some of the same meself, in slogging thru Sir Hugh’s posts.
But ye kin sooner change the weather, then ye can the windy torrent, that blows from the Fitzgerald.
So take what ye can and let the rest fly – ye’ll be the wiser for it.
Posted by: Davegreybeard at June 18, 2008 3:16 AM
To a poster or two above, critical of my posting prose:
The original posts come hot off the mental press and I never look back as I type. I am familiar with the Orwell essay; I used to assign it to students, in the same spirit as I might assign Strunk and White, or Fowler. That essay is not, as you suggest it is, about the virtues of positing, and then pleasing, a reader who always needs his sentences strunk-and-whitely plain, but about something else: how political mendacity and verbal mendacity reinforce one another. Orwell offers the Nazis, the Communists as his examples. One might add, by way of update, the prose of varioius bureaucracies -- the E.U. Bureaucracy, the government-as-social-work bureaucracy, and all those in corporate or other bureaucracies who wish to teach us all to get with the program and mindlessly thrill when we hear such words as "diversity."
Orwell, though himself the author of publicistic fiction, did not insist on a lexicon, and a syntax, that even cats and dogs can understand. When my posts are being prepared for their close-up as articles, they do undergo a certain simplication; the gussying-up consists largely in making sure that the underbrush has been cleared.
Parataxis can be a suitable form of mental transportation, as long as the driver is both experienced, and amiable. I've had my hack license for quite some time. No accidents -- accidenti! -- yet. I have a famously sweet disposiition. I am usually well-tipped.
And the ride provided is likely to prove most satisfactory for those passengers who, being well-prepared through previous reading, are most capable of appreciating the scenery and ignoring the occasional speed bump.
Posted by: Hugh at June 18, 2008 6:23 AM
PMK - I don't know what happened to them. One abrupt stopped corresponding and the other was lost in the shuffle when Myspace deleted my profile.
I offered them encouragement rather than direct action because I feared suggesting such would have caused them harm. I did not condemn their faith, but I did ask them to learn more. I gave them links to sites that might offer hope, sites like Faithfreedom.org.
I would have loved to have sent them to a shelter that could address their needs, but are there even any? Are the any shelters at all in America specifically suited to protect women and children from radical islamic men? If even one person working the shelter or law enforcement is a muslim, it would be their religious duty to return the victims back to the abusive family.
I can only hope these girls will be able to find their own lives beyond the control of their families and cult.
Posted by: DJM at June 18, 2008 6:44 AM
Meeker:
Thanks for the Bullfighter address. I think I'm going to try it out on some of my own stuff.
Posted by: Abscedere at June 18, 2008 12:33 PM
I like the contrast between Spencer's and Hugh's prose styles. Clear spring water and good red wine are equally pleasing, each in their own way.
If one has the time, the best way to enjoy a 'Hugh' posting is to read it slowly, aloud, paying due attention to the punctuation.
I think my personal favourite 'Hugh Special' was the splendid 'I Deplore' (Twenty-Seven Theses Against Islam) which demanded to be read aloud with passion, in the middle of a university quadrangle. 'Douce France' was another.
Hugh isn't just confronting the Jihad. He's trying to rekindle our love for our own civilisation and all its high arts, including the art of writing and speaking.
Perhaps Hugh's style doesn't faze me, because I studied Shakespeare, and have read some of Donne's sermons, and because once my husband and I read aloud to each other, a chapter an evening, the novels of Jane Austen.
We are too used to the 'soundbite', nowadays.
at June 18, 2008 11:28 PM
“To a poster or two above, critical of my posting prose: “
Posted by: Hugh
I hope I was not one of the “two” that you are referring to – it was not my intention to be critical, just factual.
I admit to finding your writing style somewhat aggravating at first, as it is the antithesis of what I have been taught, for 30 years, in industry (Corporate “big oil”).
The style of “The Corporation” emphasizes brevity and clarity. This is so that the essential points can be fully grasped by many people (of different mindsets) in as short a time as possible. This is best achieved, as a team effort, as follows:
1.Write your message as clearly and briefly as
you can.
2.Read what you have written several times to
ensure all points are included and adequately
explained.
3.Read what you have written again, looking for
ways to shorten and clarify your message.
4.Seek out the most fanatical “nit picker” you
know and ask him if what you have written is
clear to him.
5.Repeat steps 1-3 based on knowledge gained from
the “nit-picker”
6.Repeat step 4 if another “nit-picker” is
available.
7.Publish what you have written, to the “world”
and hope that you have created more light than
confusion and opportunities for your ridicule.
This writing style has its uses, particularly when attempting to reach as large an audience as possible. It is possibly this style, or something similar, that “Meeker “ was wishing that you would adopt – I am not of that camp.
As I have gotten used to your writing style, I now find it somewhat liberating – I mean if you can make an excellent point by beginning, then wandering off through the woods, pausing to reflect on the exquisite shade of the sunset and the beautiful wild flowers (listed by name) that bloom in the spring in some very remote part of the world that I have never been to (or hardly even heard of) then come back ‘ round to your point and hammer it home with breathtaking insight clarity – well then maybe I can use just a hint of that style also, when the occasion calls for it.
As you know I DO disagree with you on a couple of issues – your writing style and Islam are not among them.
Posted by: Davegreybeard at June 19, 2008 3:22 AM
(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.)