Some time ago I wrote this about yet another disingenuous piece by a Muslim moderate that was being enthusiastically endorsed by another well-meaning non-Muslim.
Of course, the reactions were fairly predictable: there was the knee-jerk avalanche of voices saying, “We need to support Muslim moderates, not attack them” — ignoring, of course, the fact that what the guy said about Muhammad and the Qur’an was inaccurate, and thus unlikely to convince mujahedin that they were misunderstanding Islam and should lay down their arms. After all, it’s very comforting for Western non-Muslims to discover that Islam really is peaceful, but it doesn’t do a thing to lessen the strength of the global jihad. For that, the moderates would need to convince the jihadists, and to do that, their arguments have to hold up on Islamic grounds. But if I can see through them, the jihadists can too.
Anyway, Jihad Watch reader Anna has alerted me to a response from Dean Esmay to that post. I don’t know who Dean Esmay is, to tell you the truth, but I understand he is a prominent blogger, and I was asked by several people to answer one of his posts not long ago — I did so here. But when I wrote that, I didn’t know that Esmay had written this:
That Jihadwatch piece is absolutely ridiculous by the way. Islam isn’t “the religion of peace.” It is a religion that emphasizes justice, and embraces love and peace whenever possible. As I already stated, clearly, the Koran says war is forbidden unless you’re attacked and treaties with you are broken, then, you can open up the can of whoop-ass and spill all the blood you want. Jihadwatch then takes that and twists it around into an embrace of radicalists like Osama Bin Laden, and incoherently suggests that if we listen to moderate and reasonable muslims who say their religion doesn’t preach violence, we won’t be able to convince the violent radicals to change their minds. What a sick joke.
And when he says there’s no movement within the muslim world against the radicals, he’s either lying or he’s too ignorant to take seriously.
He is referring to me, of course. So I wrote him this response:
Hi Dean.
This comment from you was just shown to me:
“That Jihadwatch piece is absolutely ridiculous by the way. Islam isn’t ‘the religion of peace.’ It is a religion that emphasizes justice, and embraces love and peace whenever possible. As I already stated, clearly, the Koran says war is forbidden unless you’re attacked and treaties with you are broken, then, you can open up the can of whoop-ass and spill all the blood you want. Jihadwatch then takes that and twists it around into an embrace of radicalists like Osama Bin Laden, and incoherently suggests that if we listen to moderate and reasonable muslims who say their religion doesn’t preach violence, we won’t be able to convince the violent radicals to change their minds. What a sick joke.
“And when he says there’s no movement within the muslim world against the radicals, he’s either lying or he’s too ignorant to take seriously.”
A few points:
1. Many Muslim clerics and traditional rulings of various madhahib refute your contention that only defensive war is sanctioned by the Qur’an. References available on request. Please provide an Islamic refutation of them sufficient to convince violent jihadists today to lay down their arms
2. Please quote exactly where I ever said anything like “if we listen to moderate and reasonable muslims who say their religion doesn’t preach violence, we won’t be able to convince the violent radicals to change their minds.” I have never said or written that, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
I am all for moderate and reasonable Muslims. I am not for deceivers. I can provide you many examples of the latter. All I ask is that the moderates’ presentation of non-violent Islam be adequate enough on Islamic grounds to convince or at least to provide competition for the jihadists’ use of Islamic texts to justify violence. Most self-proclaimed moderate presentations, like Ali’s, ignore or gloss over the uncomfortable material, instead of providing useful ways for Muslims to deal with it. That is simply not adequate.
3. What I have said many times is that there is no large-scale organized movement within the Muslim world against the radicals. Certainly there are many individual voices. OK, prove me ignorant: give me the names of such movement, and the size of each.
I invite you to a friendly debate/discussion on the role of the Qur’an, Sunnah, and fiqh in inciting to violence. We can conduct it by email and post it at our respective sites.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Director, Jihad Watch
But wait, it gets worse. In the course of writing the above email I looked around a bit, and found this:
The fact–the undeniable fact–is that American troops are fighting side by side with Muslims to fight terrorism all over the world. If you don’t know that then SHAME ON YOU. And shame on those guys at Jihad Watch, who (traitors that they are) say nothing in defense of our Muslim allies and instead merely give us one unending shriek about the evils of Islam. It would be like reading something called “Jew Watch” that was dedicated to showing nothing but bad things done by Israel. Peh.
Why Esmay thinks that “Jihad” rather than “Muslim” is analogous to “Jew,” I don’t know, but I don’t mind telling you that that “traitor” reference irked me. So I sent another message to Esmay:
I just read further, where you called me a traitor.
All right.
Now’s your chance.
Prove me wrong. Mop the floor with me, show the world that I know nothing of Islam, and rid the nation of my baneful influence.
Come on. I dare you. Take my challenge to debate.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Most likely, like Omid Safi, Ahmed Afzaal, Stephen Schwartz, and all the rest, he won’t — but will continue to sling his slanders, patriotic American that he is.