Google’s censorship has been circumvented: you can find my October 26 Dartmouth speech here and here.
I had an exchange with a commenter in this thread about the speech that I thought was worth reproducing as a post in its own right, since it sums up what I think are very common attitudes toward my work, and misunderstandings of it.
Here are the questions to me and observations from the commenter “Shlomo Michael”:
Mr Spencer,
Thanks for engaging me on this. I watched your entire speech, and have some concerns I hope you will comment on.
I acknowledge that you repeatedly distinguish between peace-loving Moslems and radical Jihadis. While this is certainly positive, it does not diminish the overall effects of your speech. Rather, I fear that your distinction between radicals and moderates is simply an attempt to cover your rhetorical bases.
You claim that the term “Islamo-Fascism” should be no more offensive than “Italian Fascism”. But no one claimed that fascism was inborn to Italians, or was in some way the true embodyment of the Italian spirit. You are implying both of these regarding Islam and “Islamo-Fascism”.
Repeatedly, you link violent Jihadism to Mohamed’s actions, to “traditional and classic categories” of Islam, and to Salafist “revivalism”. It is easy to see why my Moslem friends would be offended by this. They practice Islam faithfully, and consider it a part of who they are. I am sure that they do not consider blowing up buildings or beheading women a “revival” of Islam (you) or “sanctioned by Sharia” (Horowitz).
They would also object to your claims that the Moslem Brotherhood was the “first Islamo-Fascist group”, given that most MSA’s are derived from the Moslem Brotherhood. In essence, your claim is stating that these Moslems belong to an “Islamo-Fascist” group.
Perhaps most offensive was your venture into comparative religion toward the end of your speech. You said that Judaism and Christianity have had centuries of reinterpretations of holy texts, so as to prevent followers of the religion from becoming violent. Then you said that in Islam, this has “never been done”. This even as my Moslem friends are doing what has “never been done” before my eyes, and as millions more worldwide do the same. Yet you claim it has “never been done”. Throughout your speech, you emphasize the radical elements of Islam and minimize the moderate elements. One is the “essence of Islam”, the other has “never been done”. And then, after you have demeaned their efforts, you expect the moderates to join you? That doesn’t make sense to me.
Best,
Shlomo
And my response:
Shlomo:
I acknowledge that you repeatedly distinguish between peace-loving Moslems and radical Jihadis. While this is certainly positive, it does not diminish the overall effects of your speech. Rather, I fear that your distinction between radicals and moderates is simply an attempt to cover your rhetorical bases.
False. It’s simply a statement of fact.
You claim that the term “Islamo-Fascism” should be no more offensive than “Italian Fascism”. But no one claimed that fascism was inborn to Italians, or was in some way the true embodyment of the Italian spirit. You are implying both of these regarding Islam and “Islamo-Fascism”.
Nothing is “inborn” to Muslims or anyone else, and I have never implied otherwise. Nor have I ever stated or implied that jihadism was the true Islam — in fact, I’ve said repeatedly that no one can rightly claim that anything is true Islam, least of all me.
Repeatedly, you link violent Jihadism to Mohamed’s actions, to “traditional and classic categories” of Islam, and to Salafist “revivalism”. It is easy to see why my Moslem friends would be offended by this. They practice Islam faithfully, and consider it a part of who they are. I am sure that they do not consider blowing up buildings or beheading women a “revival” of Islam (you) or “sanctioned by Sharia” (Horowitz).
Then they need to explain why. In my books and articles and at this site I’ve repeatedly pointed out the use that the Salafists make of Islamic texts and teachings. For example (and there are 100s of examples), Zarqawi invoked Muhammad’s beheadings after the Battle of Badr to justify his killing of Nick Berg.
So if I point that out, and point out that Zarqawi wasn’t lying, but that the Islamic sources do indeed depict Muhammad as beheading his enemies after Badr, why should that offend Muslims?
Peaceful Muslims should be anything but offended — they should be energized to work for reform, to formulate a vision of Islam that neutralizes the potential of such texts to be used to incite to violence.
They would also object to your claims that the Moslem Brotherhood was the “first Islamo-Fascist group”, given that most MSA’s are derived from the Moslem Brotherhood. In essence, your claim is stating that these Moslems belong to an “Islamo-Fascist” group.
Here again, these are statements of fact. Was and is the Brotherhood an Islamic supremacist group, committed to the imposition of Sharia all over the world? Read Al-Banna and the statements of their modern leaders. If your Muslim friends don’t like this, they need to face reality, rather than blaming me for pointing it out.
Perhaps most offensive was your venture into comparative religion toward the end of your speech. You said that Judaism and Christianity have had centuries of reinterpretations of holy texts, so as to prevent followers of the religion from becoming violent. Then you said that in Islam, this has “never been done”. This even as my Moslem friends are doing what has “never been done” before my eyes, and as millions more worldwide do the same. Yet you claim it has “never been done”. Throughout your speech, you emphasize the radical elements of Islam and minimize the moderate elements. One is the “essence of Islam”, the other has “never been done”. And then, after you have demeaned their efforts, you expect the moderates to join you? That doesn’t make sense to me.
Please give me examples of where it is being done, and by whom. I see plenty of denial by Muslim spokesmen — flat statements that the Qur’an teaches peace, or that the jihadists are misusing it. I don’t see attempts by peaceful Muslims to engage their theology, except to haggle over whether jihad can be called without a state authority. So please send over examples of where you see this being done.
Meanwhile, watch your quotation marks, please. That “essence of Islam” phrase is one I did not use in the Dartmouth talk, and never use, except perhaps when pointing out that that is what the jihadists claim to represent. And they do — there again, it’s a statement of fact, not something I made up. I’m sorry if their claim is an…inconvenient truth.
Cordially
Robert Spencer