| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
I recently wrote something of a lengthy exposition regarding ex CIA analyst Michael Scheuer’s continuous characterizations of Osama bin Laden as at once Robin Hood, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Thomas Jefferson—that is, a man fighting oppression and tyranny, that and nothing more. Mr. Scheuer was kind enough to respond here. Now, it is not my custom to engage in back and forth feuds and diatribes, but I bear no ill will towards Mr. Scheuer and believe his response to be sincere. So I write again.
For the record, our main quarrel revolves around the nature of men like bin Laden: are they motivated simply by grievances against U.S. foreign policy, or is it something more, something more abstract—something, dare I say it, more existential, that motivates them? In my original article, I quoted a number of statements made by al-Qaeda that unequivocally demonstrate the latter point—that, all grievances aside, certain theological doctrines held by al-Qaeda oblige it to see the U.S. as an enemy for nothing less than its religious freedom. This is a point Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri—not to mention the thousands of nameless jihadists—have made on numerous occasions.
Conversely, Mr. Scheuer seems to think their animus is wholly predicated on U.S. foreign policy—a point I have never discounted.
If so, why do I rarely spend time discussing Islamists’ grievances against the West, and instead focus on their theological arguments? Is it because, as Mr. Scheuer argues, I am a “neo-con” (whatever that is) and am trying to cover up or at least minimize their complaints in order to further some sort of political agenda? Not at all; I am an apolitical man—despite Aristotle’s contentions.
Still, if I do not dwell on their grievances, I have also never discounted them as false—except on those occasions when al-Qaeda fumes against the U.S. because of its failure to sign the Kyoto Protocol (I explicitly stated this in my book, page 284). The ultimate, reason, however, that disinclines me from factoring the Islamists’ grievances is the fact that, as they plainly declare over and over—when addressing Muslims, that is—political grievances or not, we, the infidels, are de facto enemies. It’s a matter of priority, then: being hated for temporal grievances is secondary to being hated for existential realities. When the latter issues are addressed, then, and only then, will I consider the veracity of the former.
At any rate, in his response to me, Mr. Scheuer continues to ignore al-Qaeda’s straightforward, hate-infidels-for-being-infidels quotes (which, incidentally, are what the debate is all about). Instead, he writes:
In this highly selective collection, Mr. Ibrahim picks and chooses from the enormous corpus of writings, statements, and interviews by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to produce a slim volume which he claims will once and for all prove that al-Qaeda and its allies are bent on imposing a worldwide Caliphate to be governed by what the Necons are pleased to call Islamo-fascism.
To be sure, I never once claimed that my book is a comprehensive compendium of al-Qaeda’s statements (see page 5). However, to state that The Al Qaeda Reader is “highly selective” and that I willfully selected “certain” documents and statements in order to “deliberately mislead an American public that is already lied to about the nature and goals of al-Qaedaism” is demonstrably false. If this were true, would I have included the material that makes up half the book—the “Propaganda” section, which is basically dedicated to making the sort of anti-American policy arguments Mr. Scheuer has been making, sometimes even more skillfully?
Obviously, if I wanted to make Muslims appear as wild jihadists with no grievances, I would have totally excluded such communiqués from my book. In the interest of objectivity, however, and to make the book as holistic as possible, I did include these arguments. More importantly, by including both sets of writings—theological treatises written for Muslim eyes only, and propagandistic speeches for infidel ears, either way, both their words, not my conjectures—the careful reader will see stark contradictions; namely, that no matter what political concessions the West makes to Islam, nothing short of the former’s submission to the latter can ever lead to peace. (See here for more on this issue.)
The only way my book could fairly be accused of being selective, biased, or whatever, is if there exist al-Qaeda writings out there that clearly repudiate the Islamic concepts (that they otherwise support) of offensive jihad, the doctrine of loyalty and enmity, the need for a caliphate and sharia, etc. In other words, nothing short of al-Qaeda writings, directed to Muslims and insisting that the conflict has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic directives to place the world under Islamic authority, can ever demonstrate that my book is “selective.”
Does Mr. Scheuer know of such documents?
Odd, too, that immediately after making his above statement—that I insist “that al-Qaeda and its allies are bent on imposing a worldwide Caliphate”—Mr. Scheuer immediately goes on to agree by saying “the Caliphate is certainly a goal of bin Laden and other Islamists."
If the Islamists are indeed motivated by the creation of a caliphate, and one of the caliphate’s primary functions is to wage jihads against the non-Islamic world, and Mr. Scheuer himself affirms this, what exactly is the logic of making political concessions—even if they are warranted? If you know for a fact that your weaker neighbor has complaints against you, but at the same time, hates you because you do not follow his religion, and, the day he grows sufficiently strong enough, he will undoubtedly attack you because of this theological point, why would you make any concessions to him now, when he is weak—especially considering that these concessions will only empower him that much quicker?
These are the questions Mr. Scheuer needs respond to. His response so far seems to be that, though Islamists are feverishly seeking to resurrect the caliphate, they also “know that it is as unlikely to appear in their or their grandsons’ lifetimes.”
Indeed, this is apparently Mr. Scheuer’s response to all the above, which he even makes clear in his book Imperial Hubris. After acknowledging the concept of offensive jihad to subjugate the world, he wrote, “At this point in history, we need worry little about the threat of an offensive and expansionist jihad meant to conquer new lands for Islam and convert new peoples to the faith” (page 7).
This is where we differ. I do not claim to know when Islamists will be capable of creating a caliphate and wage offensive/expansionist jihads. But I do not think we should passively wait around, or worse, make the sorts of political concessions Mr. Scheuer advocates—abandon support for Israel and other “friends” of America (even if they are autocratic), make land concessions, grant mullahs nuclear power, etc.—all things which would obviously only speed up the creation of a caliphate.
In fact, Mr. Scheuer seems to acknowledge that the U.S. will always be, at least theoretically, an enemy for nothing short of its religious freedom. There we agree. However, he doesn’t seem to think this warrants any attention, since, “at this point in history, we need worry little about the threat of an offensive and expansionist jihad.”
If ever any statement was deserving of the epithet “hubris,” surely this is it.
Posted by Raymond at September 13, 2008 7:06 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Come on, Ray, the little brown people are victims by definition; they can't have any motivation; they can only react to the evil westeners.
Anyone who's been to graduate school knows that.
Posted by: Brett_McS![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 13, 2008 7:46 PM
Ibrahim 1. Scheuer 0. Will await the next round (my money's on the first guy).
Posted by: Wellington at September 13, 2008 7:49 PM
Ibrahim 1. Scheuer 0.
Oh, I don't know, Wellington. I think our team had a bigger inning than that, and Raymond left the bases loaded as well.
Twelve thousand distinct and documented jihad attacks just since 9/11, and “at this point in history, we need worry little about the threat of an offensive and expansionist jihad.”
Please, Mr. Hubris, let us know when it's time to worry.
Posted by: Haid Dasalami at September 13, 2008 8:10 PM
If Osama bin Laden and his pals have grievances, then that demonstrates their frustration, which is good, assuming that one considers them an enemy. Unfortunately, there are lot of very confused and ignorant people out there who don't know enough about the Islamo-fascists to consider them an enemy, and who also don't know enough about their own culture to understand and appreciate it either. They float through life like ghosts, having no real loyalties or attachments. They are the sort of people that eventually get absorbed into systems like Islam, because they don't enough of an identity to resist. They are the Jews and Christians who were conquered by the Muslim armies in the lands of Byzantium, and eventually converted, and whose descendants are the Zarqawis and the Zawahiris. They are the time-servers who take the easy way, and can't uphold civilization.
Posted by: jewdog at September 13, 2008 8:19 PM
Micheal Scheuer is another example of Washington confusion; he can identify SOME of the problem, but never even come close to a coherent solution.
Islam is by it's existence is antithetical to any religious doctrine which came before it. By it's teachings, the islamists are required to oppose, and dispose, by specific methods, of any who and all would oppose it, or not be willing to accept it in total.
It is ANTICHRIST. And therein lies Islam's fundamental failure. If we believe Christ, and I do, He will prevail over all things, especially this devils doctrine.
Posted by: n.a. palm at September 13, 2008 8:42 PM
I think this is an interesting and important debate. But even if the score were Ibrahim 25 Scheur 0, Scheur would never concede the win.
This is the person who was in charge of the intelligence community and was in the best position to notice the Al- Queda threat, and then do something about it. For him to concede that it is the jihadist ideology that motivates Al Queda more than policy grievances, is an admission that he got it all wrong, and that it was his own ignorance and misunderstanding of our enemies that contributed to 9/11. The books and talk show invitations would probably end too. He wouldn't allow that.
Posted by: USorThem at September 13, 2008 8:42 PM
"Raymond Ibrahim and Michael Scheuer debate what al-Qaeda wants"
Just a guess, but I'm thinking world domination.........
Posted by: tanstaafl at September 13, 2008 8:43 PM
Haid Dasalami: Point well taken. Score revision: Ibrahim 11,800 something. Scheuer 0.
Posted by: Wellington at September 13, 2008 8:50 PM
Scheuer, you loser...!
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 13, 2008 8:57 PM
Scheur's analysis is exactly wrong. If it's the US AQ has grievances against, then why do they spend the bulk of their warchest, manpower, and planning battling Islamic Governments? Why do they encourage sectarian warfare (one example the civil war in Kurram / Parachinar that has been going on two years,) why are they in Thailand and the Philippines? Why are they in the Sudan? Why are they assisting destabilization in Bangladesh and Malaysia?
good grief, what a fool.
Posted by: Thanos at September 13, 2008 9:00 PM
It would seem Mr. Scheuer learned all there is to know about Islam at the knee of his Middle Eastern adviser on all things Muslim. This is probably the sad truth in every official hall of administration in the west. American/western officials let their Muslim advisers set their Islamic policy. Gordon English said he was lost without Hesham Islam. No one want's to look at how far this form of self inflicted infiltration has gotten.
Posted by: BL@KBIRD at September 13, 2008 9:00 PM
His response so far seems to be that, though Islamists are feverishly seeking to resurrect the caliphate, they also “know that it is as unlikely to appear in their or their grandsons’ lifetimes.”
.....................................
And what might this be--as much as 150 years or so? (perhaps much less, what with child-marriage and all) I do realize that Scheuer was speaking theoretically, but still--is this really the sort of timelime we want to accept for the end of Western civilization?
Now, like Mr. Spencer, I don't necessarily assume, even as a worst case scenario, that we (or our grandchildren) will see a return of a Caliphate, much less the imposition of world-wide Shari'ah. But to assume this means there is no danger is insane.
I've noted this before, but I think it bears repeating--most wild-eyed visions are not completely fullfilled. There never was a Thousand-year Reich, nor was there full International Communism. But it would be foolish to sneer at these visions because they were never fully realized. The eight million or so Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and political prisoners are just as dead, despite the shortcomings of Hitler's dream. The Russians, and Ukranians, and Chinese, and Cambodians, and all the others who died for the hellish vision of global Communism did not suffer the less because the full "Proletarian paradise" failed to find temporal realization.
I'm sure that the Christians and Jews and Hindus of early 7th-century Arabia, and North Africa, Spain, and Persia, and India would have found the idea of conquest and slavery and submission to fanatical desert nomads rather unlikely. Nonetheless, these people would suffer greatly in the coming centuries. That Islam failed to conquer France, and Italy, and China doesn't change this. And, remember, they do not stop--the powerful Byzantine empire was under military campaigns and sieges for *seven centuries*--steadily losing territory and power until they finally fell.
Sixty years ago there was a significant Jewish population in Egypt--now they have all been driven out. During this same period Christians were a majority in Lebanon--not any more. There was no Shari'ah in Nigeria a few years ago--now they are threatening rape victims with stoning. Just the specter of Muslim violence leads major publishers to stop producing books that may "offend". European politicians, and artists, and authors are under death threats; some have been murdered. Honor killings are more common. Shari'ah law--with some limits so far, it is true--is accepted as law of the land in part of Great Britain. Jihad violence has killed people in India, and Bali, and the Philippeans, and Spain, and England, and the United States, and many other places.
There may never be a Caliphate, ever again. But more and more people are suffering under resurgent Islam. That's enough reason to fight it, in my book.
Posted by: gravenimage at September 13, 2008 9:17 PM
All fascist populist movements ascend to power on a platform of social justice and fighting oppression. Bin Laden and Zawahiri have no problem recruiting the religious zealots, but in order to be accepted into the mainstream and recruit those members who may be ignorant to the core ideology, you need a percieved grievance. Not to mention to soften up your opponent because you cannot stand up to them face to face in direct conflict right away.
Hey Sheuer, 90% of the Banks in 1930's germany were owned by Jews. Did you know that?
Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at September 13, 2008 9:20 PM
It takes a big spirit to admit it's been mistaken.
Maybe Mr Sheuer isn't up to it. Few of us are.
Posted by: jewcat at September 13, 2008 9:24 PM
My first comment Robert(blogging here that is) - a big fan however, I have taken this opportunity to reply because Michael Sheuer passes himself as an authority and he has now come up against well, the authority on Islamo - fascism or fundamentalism as the case may be. Please continue to "educate" Mr. Sheuer who I submit is mistaken on what we are facing. I have your book, "The Truth"... and find you to be many things - insightful, observant but mostly a "researcher" - that is something I respect, and I ask Michael to consider that before he challenges your authority. Having said all of that - stay humble. In solidarity - someone who get it.
Posted by: Islamofauxbic at September 13, 2008 10:47 PM
It is tiresome that Ray and Robert and the other folks here have to repeatedly revisit the same arguments over and over with various talking heads who regard themselves as "experts".
With all due respect to the "ex-CIA analyst" Mr Scheuer, even a cursory reading of this exchange makes it clear that, while Ray pulls out an impressive array of indisputable factual information with nothing but straightforward syllogistic analysis of those facts, Sheuer responds with twisted, pseudo-sociopolitical "analysis" based on ... well, based on what? Assertions supported by nothing more than his own bold declaration, buoyed by the swell of masses of uninformed western leftist commentary that starts from foregone conclusions and works backwards, sweeping dismissals of scholarship, and that old leftist standby, ad hominem.
As for the one accusation that Sheuer can possibly sustain -- that Raymond's text is selective: I am glad it is -- I would rather not read a compendium of everything anyone in Al Qaeda has written. I would like to see that which pertains to the ideology that might lead these guys to blow up my family on a subway, or whip up millions of muslims to try to establish a caliphate in our backyard, and which forms the true "root cause" of the biggest threat the west faces today.
But let's go one step farther, because this "selective text" argument has an obvious flaw. Perhaps Raymond, Greg and Robert have been too sporting thus far to point it out, but I'm not. So here goes...a parable of sorts.
Suppose we know a man who is kind and gentle to children, treats animals with respect, goes to church, teaches sunday school, respects his parents, writes beautiful poetry, gives to the poor and volunteers for Big Brothers and Habitat for Humanity.
But -- one day, for a minor grievance, he beats his wife so badly she is hospitalized for a month, and never fully recovers. Further, behind closed doors he has been abusive and controlling to her for many years. From time to time he leaves the house for a night and walks the street looking for unaccompanied females, whom he subdues and cruelly rapes. He murdered one or two of these, and their mutilated bodies are buried in crude graves in the woods.
A Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde, you might say. But 99% of the time, he is "Dr. Jeckle", and only 1% of the time is he "Mr. Hyde".
Now let an omniscient biographer write this man's story, a tell-all tale to reveal the true nature of the man. One cannot write every moment of his life; what should be included, and what left out?
I think the answer is obvious. "But", let us say for the sake of argument, "it is unfair in the extreme to selectively discuss only these few bad things when so much of his life is so good!"
Is it not clear why the 1% must take center stage? For a serial killer and rapist is still a serial killer and rapist regardless of what he does in the other 99% of his time, and frankly NOBODY CARES about that stuff as much as they care about what went on during the 1%. A biography focusses on what's important, those things upon which the reader's understanding of the man ought to hinge.
Raymond's work focusses on the "1%". Sheuer wants to dismiss it because for the other "99%" Osama can be such a fun-loving, peaceful guy, great father and spiritual leader, when he's not sending planes into towers full of innocent people, blowing up embassies and inspiring others to follow suit. Yeah, perhaps. But WHO GIVES A DAMN?
Posted by: Archimedes2 at September 13, 2008 10:56 PM
Good example, Archimedes, and your point is unassailable, but let's not presume for a moment that Raymond is dealing with anything like one percent in being "selective."
As Maxwell Smart would say, "Would you believe sixty-forty?"
Posted by: Haid Dasalami at September 13, 2008 11:47 PM
Archimedes
Excellent analysis. I have seen Mr Sheuer in several interviews over the years, and some of what he says is right on. A lot, however, is WAY off of the mark. He begins with the desired conclusion and works backwards. I have seen this many times since 9/11/01 with many people in the business, and they look puzzled when names like Richard Reid, Jose Padilla and John Lindh are brought up - they have NO clue who these (people) are. (Ibrahim) Hooper (NOT his real name!!), Nihad Awad and Corey Saylor also draws a BLANK expression...and terminology - forget it (Salifast, sunni, shia, etc, etc). Mr Sheuer's lack of understanding really isn't too hard to believe - his term as an analyst WAS served under a President that cut drastically the intelligence community and military while indulging in...well...a cigar or two.
at September 13, 2008 11:52 PM
Archimedes2: Would that the Scheuers of the world think as clear-headedly as you do. Alas, they don't and what is worse they command more attention.
Posted by: Wellington at September 14, 2008 12:01 AM
Scheuer's assertion that 'they' don't hate us for our freedoms (women in the workplace, etc.) flies in the face of reality.
'They' DO hate us for many of the freedoms we enjoy; those things permitted by OUR legal systems which Allah and Muhammad have prohibited.
And that includes dancing with women and having a beer after work.
Posted by: PRCS
at September 14, 2008 12:30 AM
One says "they hate us for our freedoms" another says, you are full of it, "they hate us for our policies".
Here is something to consider about hatred, those who hate will find something to peg their hate on. One could find just about anything regarding Islamists and how they justify their hate, but it would not matter if policies were changed, if freedoms were curtailed, then they would just adjust the justification for their hate.
at September 14, 2008 12:52 AM
“At this point in history, we need worry little about the threat of an offensive and expansionist jihad meant to conquer new lands for Islam and convert new peoples to the faith” (page 7).
Scheuer's assertion above also flies in the face of reality:
Why bother with the list of 20+ countries that are currently in warfare with imperial islam, or the broader list of countries suffering hostile infiltration or ethnic cleansing? Scheuer should be easily be able to access public documents like the Pentagon's foreign government military training programs to get a quick view of the worldwide nature of our war against expansionist imperial islam. On a more personal level, innocent individuals are being murdered and oppressed daily worldwide. He really needs to read more. My complements there; JihadWatch is a GREAT start.
Scheuer has contacted the worst disease for an "analyst"; he wears Belief Blinders. He is incapable of seeing facts that refute his own hypothesis (now beliefs) and therefor remains ignorant of his errors. Sad to see such a display of our Country's ignorance and historic failures. The "ex" is the best part of his story.
at September 14, 2008 1:02 AM
Spot on Raymond. You win.
Posted by: Dsinc at September 14, 2008 1:54 AM
Ahh....the ex-CIA guy who knows nothing of Islam dropped by. He might actually want to check with all the Muslims in the UK who want Sharia law.
You see ex-CIA guy, Muslims want to dominate the world and that includes you. Them wanting to get our troops out the Middle East is just so they can control the entire Middle East.
The bombings that just happened India, was that because of the US troops in the Middle East, or how about the Islamic attacks in China?
As for the number of Muslims invovled, it does not have to be all of them, does it?
You are sir are the only one who is misleading the public and it is time for the West to end all Muslim immgration. Because no matter what we do, it will never be enough. A truth that is clearly lost on you.
Chris
at September 14, 2008 2:20 AM
Mr. Scheuer advocates—abandon support for Israel and other “friends” of America (even if they are autocratic), make land concessions, grant mullahs nuclear power, etc.—
This man is a complete fool and is too naive to see that giving Muslims these concessions will just empower them to ask for more. How a man like Scheuer got so far in the CIA is beyond me.
Posted by: Exposing Islam at September 14, 2008 2:27 AM
Michael Scheuer is very probably an atheist or has minimal religious beliefs. Atheists specialize in denying religious motivations in others because they don't have religious motivations
This can be a fatal mistake with Islamic Jihad
Posted by: dennisw at September 14, 2008 5:13 AM
What is Hoopers real name?
Posted by: Exposing Islam at September 14, 2008 5:36 AM
If Mr. Scheuer's "wise" observations about Islam and its goals are representative of the CIA thought process, then the CIA needs to be pulled out by the roots. Between the CIA and our politicians it is the blind leading the blind. God help us.
Posted by: Spot on at September 14, 2008 5:45 AM
Scheuer you are elite from the DC club. islamists hate the West because they know their squalor is the result of their ROP islam, and so they rather make enemies of us, than reform,change their islam, as to identify their shortcomings is to show weakness.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at September 14, 2008 7:02 AM
From above: Michael Scheuer is very probably an atheist or has minimal religious beliefs. Atheists specialize in denying religious motivations in others because they don't have religious motivations...
That's probably true enough...
Atheists deny too much. You don't have to study or research anything to deny it.
Few atheists study cosmology because they don't think there is one. There is no God, so there in nothing but mechanical movements of matter and electrical discharges.
If they would stick to just denying the existence of a supreme being, I would have no problem, but many of them try to intellectualize and fantasize
beyond that.
My x brother in law, an atheist, now retired, was a nuke scientist of international recognition, he admitted to me that when science runs into blank wall, philosophy takes over.
As C. Jung said, 'Why deny the existence of the gods, when there are forces in the universe that act just like the gods are supposed to act'.
That's a hard one to get around, especially for atheists...
Posted by: duh_swami at September 14, 2008 8:26 AM
I turn the Channel when Scheuer comes on. The Idea that America is to blame for everything is really getting old at this point.
Islam and the rest of the World are like Oil and vinegar. No matter how much you shake the two together, they still separate out. Usually in less time than it takes to eat your Salad.
What ingredient would Mr. Scheuer prefer us to be, the Oil or the Vinegar?
Posted by: flowerknife_us at September 14, 2008 8:37 AM
Certainly all good and decent People support "WORLD PEACE" right? Who could possibly oppose "WORLD PEACE"?
uhhhhh, hello.
at September 14, 2008 9:34 AM
When did the CIA ever get anything right?
Scheuer is the prototype of the mentally lazy, incompetent fools that this useless organization produces.
As 'Blackbird' above correctly pointed out, Gordon English said he was lost without Hesham Islam, and Hesham Islam is the biggest Muhammedan infil-traitor right under his nose.
Scandalous.
But then, we (still) have a POTUS who believes Islam is a 'RoP' and an equally incompetent secretary of state who thinks she can bring 'peace to the middle east' and walks from one trap into the next, while the Arabs are laughing their sorry asses off over such a fool.
Yes, America is to blame. America is to blame for trusting such dumb-asses with enormously important matters and for paying them handsomely for it. They should all be tarred and feathered and run out of town on the Ward Churchill Express.
Now don't accuse me of copying you, Mr. Spencer. But your 'Dan Rather Express' yesterday sort of made me do it....
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 14, 2008 9:45 AM
(Regarding athiests) ...If they would stick to just denying the existence of a supreme being, I would have no problem, but many of them try to intellectualize and fantasize
beyond that...
duh_swami
How true. Well said.
Posted by: Spot on at September 14, 2008 9:49 AM
Certainly all good and decent People support "WORLD PEACE" right? Who could possibly oppose "WORLD PEACE"?
uhhhhh, hello.
at September 14, 2008 9:50 AM
I guess that braniac never heard of asymmetrical warfare, which can be used for offense as well as defense.
Posted by: charlesmartel at September 14, 2008 12:37 PM
If the Islamists are indeed motivated by the creation of a caliphate, and one of the caliphate’s primary functions is to wage jihads against the non-Islamic world, and Mr. Scheuer himself affirms this, what exactly is the logic of making political concessions—even if they are warranted? If you know for a fact that your weaker neighbor has complaints against you, but at the same time, hates you because you do not follow his religion, and, the day he grows sufficiently strong enough, he will undoubtedly attack you because of this theological point, why would you make any concessions to him now, when he is weak—especially considering that these concessions will only empower him that much quicker?
Whatever the "logic" is, I can only hope there is some kind of "cure" for it, because it clearly is self-destructive, although I'm not completely sure that Mr. Scheuer has the capability of seeing the logic through to its conclusions. This "logic" certainly doesn't seem amenable to empirical evidence of its falsity, because if it were, Mr. Scheuer would clearly have no problem with the conclusions drawn by Raymond Ibrahim. Not that I care if Mr. Scheuer wants to self-destruct, but when he is participating in the policy-making function that has the potential to impact my own life, I will draw the line. I (and I have seen others saying the same thing) have thought before that there might need to be a "civil war" within the West before a real confrontation with Islam can take place. "We" need to isolate the ideologues from policy-making roles and put people who have studied the empirical data vis-a-vis Islam and non-Muslim socities in those roles.
Posted by: venividivici at September 14, 2008 12:59 PM
"From above: Michael Scheuer is very probably an atheist or has minimal religious beliefs."
Actually, he regards himself as a Catholic (probably from the antisemitic Pat Buchanon school of thought)
BTW: This is Sheuer's 2nd flip-flop on whether Al Qaida wants to re-create the global caliphate. Just last year on the Glenn Beck show he strongly denies this in a row with Steven Emerson (about 7 minutes and 30 seconds into this video portion):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXJWikW0Gj8
However, in his book "Imperial Hubris" from a few years ago, he acknowledges Al Qaida's intention to re-create the caliphate. I quote him on this in my review of his book for Amazon.com (I gave the book two stars):
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1669&chapter=796&layout=html&Itemid=27
http://www.amazon.com/review/R19U9VN6RKOJRE
at September 14, 2008 1:18 PM
Oops! Along with my review, I accidently posted a page of a famous work by Condorcet. The last paragraph is a bit ambiguous because on one level he suggest that the religion of Mahomet is not so bad, but on another level he says that the Muslim world is barbaric.
Hugh (or any scholar with time), can you make sense of this? Is this an example of a classical liberal criticizing Islam (like Tocqueville, Hume, Montesquie et al.) or defending it?
Posted by: Pavlov's dog at September 14, 2008 1:32 PM
Here I am, last as usual! But I read every post and suggest you all do something about the blankety blank problem!
What? go figure!
at September 14, 2008 8:25 PM
"What is Hoopers real name?
Exposing Islam,
Ibrahim's real first name is Doug (Douglas?).
Posted by: Abscedere at September 14, 2008 9:48 PM
^^^^Thanks for responding.
Posted by: Exposing Islam at September 14, 2008 10:15 PM
Welcome to the fold Scheuer, people aren't born knowing all of this stuff. Great thanks to Raymond Ibrahim in his victory!
Posted by: gymnast_2 at September 14, 2008 10:37 PM
In the excerpt from Condorcet you offer, there is a mixture of ignorance and knowledge about Islam, of admiration for some things (which things include the purely imaginary, such as the supposed "tolerance" of Islam) and contempt for others.
Consider that mixture in the last two paragraphs:
"To the account of the labours of the Arabs, I shall suggest the outlines of the sudden rise and precipitate fall of that nation, which, after reigning from the borders of the Atlantic ocean to the banks of the Indus, driven by the barbarians from the greater part of its conquests, retaining the rest only to exhibit therein the shocking spectacle of a people degenerated to the lowest state of servitude, corruption and wretchedness, still occupies its ancient country, where it has preserved its manners, its spirit and its character, and learned to regain and defend its former independence.
I shall add that the religion of Mahomet, the most simple in its dogmas, the least absurd in its practices, above all others tolerant in its principles, seems to have condemned to an eternal slavery, to an incurable stupidity, all that vast portion of the earth in which it has extended its empire; while we are about to see the genius of science and liberty blaze forth anew under superstitions more absurd, and in the midst of the most barbarous intolerance. China exhibits a similar phenomenon, though the effects of this stupefying poison have there been less fatal."
at September 15, 2008 12:22 AM
A rather simple question I would like to pose to Mr. Scheurer.
If Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden are acting against American imperialism, I was wondering what Islamic country the US was occupying specifically just prior to, and that directly lead to Al Qaeda's response pn 9/11?
I guess we should be grateful that Mr. Scheurer is reading JW, although it is apparent that he needs to read quite a bit more.
You cannot expect him to embrace this viewpoint as it directly contradicts his own, thus adversely affecting his ability to publish additional books from his current position position.
He is indicative of the CIA we know now, grossly uneducated, but well indoctrinated. What else can be expected from him, a product of an administration that started this global war against "terror" to rid the world of the "tiny minority of extremists" who have clearly hijacked "the religion of peace"?
Scheurer's self-delusion, coupled with his influence, is nothing less than treasonous in my opinion.
Posted by: awake at September 15, 2008 1:48 PM
Wow thanks Hugh!
Condorcet did not mince his words in noting the wretched state of the Islamic world, but your analysis confirms my fear that he did not come to understand the root cause.
According to Lee Harris (The Suicide of Reason) Condorcet's biggest blind spot was his inability to understand the extent of fanatical indoctrination people recieved in some parts of the world (Condorcet believed people from any culture could be persuaded to accept democracy.).
Harris points out that the "shaming codes" with which we grow up make many of our core values seem like second nature. This makes it next to impossible for someone growing up with a tribal shaming code accept liberal democracy.
Today, Condorcet might be a neo-con. Then again, someone with his intelligence may have been able to see the error of his ways in the age of the internet!
Posted by: Pavlov's dog at September 15, 2008 1:58 PM
To every one who hate Islam and listen to people as Raymond Ibrahim, why his own employer U.S. congress library against what he say? George Town Professor Samer Shehata find out from Raymond Ibrahims supervisor Dr. Mary Deeb that they condem what he write and do and he have no qualification as PHd and they try to make him stop and he touble maker. he is not expert. Mr. Schruer is cia expert and he now more.
Ali123
Posted by: GuHasan at September 17, 2008 2:32 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)