| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Fawaz Gerges, professor and television "analyst," wants to make sure that Infidels are greatly impressed with all the "ferment" and movement toward "reform" that is supposedly visible all over the "world of Islam." It is guff and blague, but useful for a transparent propagandist for Islam, and the peoples and states suffused with Islam, all over Dar al-Islam.
Someone who is apparently impressed with Fawaz Gerges is one Anthony T. Sullivan, founder and main beneficiary of a "consulting firm" known as "Near Eastern Support Services" (think James Akins, think Eugene Bird, think Raymond Close, and you'll know exactly what is going on here). Recently Sullivan managed to hornswoggle the editors of "Modern Age," a publication put out by the Intercollegiate Studies Association (which should put one in mind of Richard Weaver, Friedrich von Hayek, and Josef Pieper, not of Muslim apologetics, and certainly not of Fawaz Gerges), into publishing his piece all about that ferment, that "reform," within Islam that Infidels should do nothing to disrupt.
In this Sullivanesque view, a view that Gerges pushes, some kind of "battle goes on for the soul of Islam." In order to ensure that the Good Muslims triumph over the Bad Muslims, Infidels must be attuned to, solicitous of, Muslim sensibilities. No critical scrutiny of Islam. Acceptance of what self-anointed "moderate Muslims" ("moderate" in what way? to what end? for how long? with what degree of certainty?) tell us to think about Islam, as an inoffensive faith somehow kidnapped or hijacked or captured by Bad Muslims, who haven't a textual leg, apparently, to stand on. And not only must Islam be free from Infidel scrutiny and criticism, but key words must be left out of the Infidel vocabulary altogether. Gordon Brown has apparently told his Cabinet not to use the word "Islamic" near the word "terrorism," lest the British government offend.
And in Washington, a man closely connected to the Saudis, James Guirard -- some say the Saudi Embassy and the Saudi lobby, all-powerful as ever, channel their views right through him -- keeps pushing the view that the word "jihad" should never be used by Infidels, but only the word "hirabah" that the Saudi government favors, a word which lets Islam as a belief-system off the hook, and implies simply an ideological disorder that can in time be cured.
The article by Anthony T. Sullivan in "Modern Age" perfectly encapsulates this line of apologetics. No doubt its appearance will enable Sullivan to hike the fees that his Near East Support Services charges to sky-high levels, when he makes his pitch, or pitches his woo, to members of the Al-Saud or Al-Maktoum or Al-Thani or Al-Sabah families -- but really, we all have to eat, don't we? In this article Sullivan tries to convince us, yet again, that the world of Islam is in a ferment, experiencing a veritable orgy of self-questioning and "reform." And Sullivan quotes, to this deliberately misleading effect, Fawaz Gerges: "We are in the throes of a ...new wave [of democratization]."
About this one can say several things.
1) It is flatly untrue. Those naive hopes about "the opening up of the Mubarak regime" were smashed with the same club that the Egyptian police use to smash political opponents. The truest Egyptian democrat now sits in an Egyptian jail. Ditto with the supposed "opening up" of Saudi Arabia -- purely trivial and cosmetic steps.
2) It ignores the fact that the principles of modern advanced democracy are flatly contradicted by Islam. The will expressed by the people, mere mortals who should be submissive to Allah, does not count. What counts is the will expressed by Allah in the Qur'an, and glossed by the Sunnah. This is something that Bush, Rice, and many others simply don't understand. They don't understand that Islam is a total belief-system, a Total System, doubly totalitarian, claiming to regulate every area of a Believer's life, and laying claim as well to the entire globe.
3) "Democracy" when it is temporarily practiced always leads to more, not less, Islam. This is because the discontent of Muslims, over bad government, will always take on an Islamic cast, and always lead to more Islam, not less. And that is true whether or not the discontent is justified, as it is, certainly, with the corruptions of Abbas and Fatah, or Mubarak and his Family-and-Friends plan, or the Al-Saud, the Al-Maktoum, the Al-Thani, the Al-Sabah, and all the other despots and potentates and beglerbegs and pashas of this world that some insist, absurdly, as seeing as somehow akin to our own world, when it is nothing like it.
I don't know if Gerges has gotten on the gravy train of government and foundation grants to study, or promote, the "reform of Islam" that he and others, eager for the same grant money, keep talking about. Perhaps his television retainer, and other fees, are enough. But in Fawaz Gerges' case, I doubt it. No, I'm sure some "reforming Islam” grant money (Vartan Gregorian's Carnegie Foundation? Or some other innocent, shelling out the dough?) has gone, is going, or will go his, Fawaz Gerges', way.
Surely you don't disagree.
Posted by Hugh at July 9, 2007 8:34 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
(think James Akins, think Eugene Bird, think Raymond Close, and you'll know exactly what is going on here).
Way to make me feel even more deficient.
Posted by: KAOSKTRL![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 9, 2007 9:07 AM
Recently Sullivan managed to hornswoggle the editorsI have no idea what that word means. I hope, at least, that it doesn't require 2 consenting adults.
at July 9, 2007 9:25 AM
Shy Guy:
I have no idea what that word means. I hope, at least, that it doesn't require 2 consenting adults.
Nope. 1 Adult can do it, even a child.
Hornswoggle =
to swindle, cheat, hoodwink, or hoax.
To bamboozle; deceive.
"to cheat," 1829, probably a fanciful formation.
deprive of by deceit; "He swindled me out of my inheritance"; "She defrauded the customers who trusted her"; "the cashier gypped me when he gave me too little change"
So decieve, deceit, sleight-of-hand, a con job are all substitions here.
Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at July 9, 2007 9:33 AM
Any money given to Islam-related organizations is a swindle for the reason that Islam can NOT be 'reformed'!
Most people wold LOVE to see islam made non-violent-- but that would entail not a reformation of Islam, but a transformation' of Islam.
Since the Kuran is held by Muslims to be the final word of al-lah, Islam's alleged maker and master of the universe, ALL verse contained within it are off-limits to tampering, subject to the most literal interpretations possible and as such are non-negotiable. NO changes within the Kuran's teachings are possible (imagine al-lah's wrath and the Muslims' fear of it!). Thus there is no way to excise the inherent (extreme) violence of Islam.
We can't get the violence out of Islam, sorry folks.
Any and all monies given to Muslims for "reforming" Islam should be returned immediately as no reform of Islam is in the cards-- now or ever.
Posted by: pythagoras at July 9, 2007 2:38 PM
As a Protestant Christians, I am quite aware that reformation is bloody and difficult thing. Anyone who thinks that money will do it, is deluded. The Protestant reformation was a long time coming, even before Martin Luther posted his position on the cathedral door.
Reformation requires a community that is willing to become outcasts and suffer significant deaths in order to establish its position in the religion. The history of Protestantism ... and even the pacifist non-conforming Anabaptists (mennonites, amish, huderites, etc.) shows that any reformation must be born out within a community that is extremely committed to the truth as they believe it.
On what foundation would a Reformed Islam build its death defying position on? Liberal Christians and their non-literalist theological positions have none of the courage show by early Protestant reformers. Protestant reformers saw themselves as espousing a more pure interpretation of the Holy Bible. A Liberal Islam is not a move to a more pure interpretation of the Koran, but a selective one. It is a purgation of the literalist and violent aspects of the tradition. The theology may be better, but will it be far more compelling than what is offered by the main Islamic theological traditions. Hardly.
A better approach would be a wholesale and unrelenting critique of Islam and its history with the hopes of undermining the confidence in the false story of Islamic purity and innocence that many Muslims believe. We need a movement similar to the attack on the falsehood of Communist ideals. We must honestly and forthrightly attack the false foundations of the Islamic narrative and at the same time stop propping up Islamic states by giving them aid. We must at the same time bolster support for allied groups opposing the Islamic view of the world and thereby contribute to the internal collapse of Islamic confidence.
This is why I am so very angry at the stupidity of GW Bush. He should have spent the $600 Billion and lives of good soldiers on a more successful Cold War against Islam. Instead, he gave them what Osama Bin Laden wanted ... a desert war. Let the Jihadists rot in their desert countries, while we cut off their support and their confidence. Lastly, had Bush wanted to hurt the terrorists, he would have instituted a war time shift towards American oil independence and also a move away from oil. This also would have shut up the eco-fearmongers and their global warming hype. He could have been an historic figure in American history taking it towards a more powerful moral position in the world. What a waste. I hope we see a much smarter and visionary Republican President in the White House. I'd even take a smarter and visionary Democrat over an ignoramus like GW Bush. Where is Ronald Reagan when we need him! We need a n Anti-Islamic Cold War President who understands Islam and knows how to defeat its rhetoric and confidence. Just like the West did with Communism.
Posted by: James Martel at July 9, 2007 3:32 PM
Do you mean the Intercollegiate Studies INSTITUTE, rather than "Association". Are these two different organizations?
Posted by: atheling at July 9, 2007 3:47 PM
Why is it that when Muslim apologists speak it sounds like "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?". We're supposed to believe that there's this great undercurrent of reform going through Islam, but all we hear is Islamic terrorist plots and whinning over non-existent oppression of Muslims to justify said terrorist plots. And if you dare imply Islam is a violent and intolerant religion, despite the fact that, well, it is a violent and intolerant religion, you are helping to derail the so called reform.
What a load!
Posted by: Proud Infidel at July 9, 2007 3:52 PM
"He [George Bush] should have spent the $600 Billion...."
-- from a posting above
Not "$600 billion." Even excluding macro-economic costs, the past, present, and committed future expenses incurred by the government for the war in Iraq, including the replacement of severely damaged military equipment ($122 billion) and lifetime support for severely wounded soldiers, will amount, at least, to $880 billion. [The economist Joseph Stieglitz estimated, in January 2006, that the figure would amount to between one and two trillion dollars, but because I think the war will come to a halt sooner than he estimated, my total is lower].
$880 billion is, in fact, larger than the total cost, in present dollars, of all the wars, save World War I, that the United States has fought -- the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War (on both sides), the Spanish-American War, World War I, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. And we have gotten nothing, have improved our security not one whit, and will only get a return on our investment if we withdraw from Iraq, allow those sectarian and ethnic fissures to divide and demoralize and therefore weaken the Camp of Islam.
Bush cannot understand -- he can't even begin to allow himself to understand. It doesn't fit his sentimentality, his innocence and his ignorance and his stupidity. Nor the sentimentality, innocence, ignorance, and stupidity, in different proportions no doubt, of his advisers and loyalists. They apparently find it illegitimae to identify Islam as the enemy, and to want the Camp of Islam to be weakened, and apparently find immoral the idea of allowing the pre-existing fissures to result in a so-called "catastrophe" (for whom?) following upon American withdrawal from Iraq. They are waging war against an unnamed enemy, an enemy whom they dare not offend. And Admiral Sir Alan West dare not offend. And the E.U. dare not offend. And no one, anywhere, in the corridors of plower dares to offend -- for that wouldn't be right. That would "drive all Muslims everywhere into the arms of the extremists."
And here we are. If you seek a monument to this policy, circumspice.
at July 9, 2007 4:44 PM
Sounds like the birth of a new "industry". Like the war on drugs. As long as Islam is violent there will always be money to be made off it somehow. And islam will always be violent. The powers that be have not yet learned that pouring money into a corrupt problem serves nothing more than perpetuate and facilitate the problem in which the money was originally spent. But it sounds good and it makes everyone feel better like, "See, we are good Dhimmis since we give you all this money. Now could you please stop your suicide bombs? Pretty please?"
We should be turning our backs and allow them to kill each other. We should be finding new energy sources so that we are not at the mercy of the Gulf States. We should be annialating every nuclear facility in its infantcy before some islamic kook can push the doomsday button. And the West should close the borders so that there is nowhere for them to run to and invade by out populating the West. As long as people have no where to run they will be forced to solve their own problems and have their own enlightenment. It happened to the West, and that is why the West is so great. Don't know if it could happen to the Muslims, but I don't want to find out via loosing my culture to them.
Posted by: never_submit at July 9, 2007 5:51 PM
Don't lose all hope.
We seem to be making progress, one step at the time:
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at July 9, 2007 8:18 PM
It's actually amusing what Gerges proposes. It's a variation on the theme of "infinitely divisible." thus, any time one encounters a "bad Muslim" well, rest assured, there will be a "good Muslim."
Thus, if ya got Hamas (read, "bad Muslim"), not to worry, Gerges proposes that there's a "good hamas" just lurking around the corner. hey, the "good" Hamas only wants to murder some of the Jews some of time...as opposed to the "bad" Muslims who want to murder all the Jews all of the time and all it takes to get 'em there (to the "good" Muslim status) is a little loot. ...think jizya...ya allright, every "bad Muslim" can eventually be converted to a 'good' Muslim given sufficient aid monies from the EU, UN, etc. just keep the cash flowing, and "no problem"...and the Gerges' supporters (who probably get a cut of the loot) will laugh all the way to the bank.
Posted by: J.S. at July 9, 2007 9:35 PM
"Tiny minority" revisionism @ Berkeley;
Islam’s True Nature Lost in Interpretation (by Suhail Khan)... More than one billion Muslims in the world, including Muslim Americans, live peaceably with their non-Muslim friends and neighbors. They take to heart God’s assurance in the Quran, the Muslim scripture, “be they Muslims, Jews, Christians ... those who believe in God and the Last Day and who do good have their reward with their Lord. They have nothing to fear, and they will not sorrow.” --- The vast majority of Muslim organizations and religious leaders have unequivocally condemned terrorism and violence time and time again. In the days after Sept. 11, thousands of Muslims in the United States, the Muslim world and even in Iran, marched in the streets, held vigils and interfaith prayers in solidarity with Americans. However, the media has largely ignored these repeated condemnations and gestures in support of freedom. --- Instead of making every effort to bring together all freedom-loving people, some seek to divide us, cynically questioning the ability of millions to embrace peace based solely on their faith. They seek to brand Islam as a religion of hate and violence, and do a great disservice to the true understanding of the Islamic faith and Muslims but also to the aberrant nature of the murderous enemy we currently face as Americans.Recall Muslim post-9/11 "solidarity".
The author is infamous for bringing Sami al-Arian into the White House (among other things).
Daily Berkeley invites your comments here.
Posted by: Terp Mole at July 9, 2007 10:51 PM
I watched Gerges on CNN trying to promote and excuse Hamas with his sweet talking ways. Obviously this guy is an Iranian pawn. This so-called “moderate” appears to be nothing but a propagandist for the radicals.
Posted by: ofcourse at July 10, 2007 4:35 PM
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.)