This article proceeds on the assumption that I am some kind of demagogue and those who support me are racist, redneck yahoos, but Sam Wolfe is at least honest enough to admit that the Stanford fascist community’s disruption and destruction of the event was a disgrace.
“We didn’t descend to Berkeley-level depravity. Not quite.”
You didn’t have to, because Stanford officials were actively colluding to give you what you wanted. Stanford officials after the walkout repeatedly refused to let in people who wanted to attend. One wouldn’t even allow members of the College Republicans into the room after the event, for a photo. I asked him if had always been a fascist or was a recent convert.
“I have talked to students opposed to Spencer’s visit with intelligent, insightful objections to him.”
Really? Then why haven’t they voiced any in the Stanford Daily or Stanford Review?
“As she was leaving, one of the departees quite literally hissed at me and told me I was ‘racist’ for remaining seated while she and her comrades left (see footage below). I laughed and tried in vain to explain that I was a reporter there to cover the event, an explanation that failed to satisfy the protester, who hissed a second time.”
That’s rich. What race is the jihad mass murder of innocent civilians again? I have so much trouble remembering.
“Stanford Students Pretend to Support Free Speech, Stumble at Final Hurdle,” by Sam Wolfe, Stanford Review, November 15, 2017:
By all appearances, Stanford students had done it. We had invited a controversial speaker, published varyingly coherent articles of support and opposition, and had a rational campus debate about free speech. Those who were interested in what Robert Spencer had to say would attend his event and debate him if they so desired, while those who wished to voice their dissent would attend the “Rally Against Islamophobia,” a protest organized by a new activist group named Stanford Against Islamophobia (SIA). After turning our noses up at attempts to shut down free speech at Berkeley, it looked like Stanford was going to do better.
We didn’t descend to Berkeley-level depravity. Not quite. There was no violence when Robert Spencer spoke on campus, no attempt to shout him down. But at 8:40 p.m., 20 minutes after he began his talk, over 150 members of the crowd ostensibly gathered to hear him speak promptly stood up and left, while Arabic music blared from Bluetooth speakers concealed around the hall.
The students, planted by SIA, had arrived at the event early to clog up the venue. As a result, dozens of students, many of whom were presumably interested in starting a genuine dialogue with Spencer about his views and rebuffing him, were turned away. I myself arrived at about 7:20 for an event scheduled to begin an hour later, and was one of the last people admitted.
The early signs were ominous. Music began to play from somewhere in the crowd just a few minutes into Spencer’s speech, though it was quickly silenced. There was palpable tension as Spencer continued. He thanked the College Republicans, “the most marginalized community at Stanford University,” for organizing the event, and grinned wickedly at the guffaws and incredulous murmurs emanating from the crowd. He went on to lament what he described as a “relentless smear campaign” from both the Stanford Daily and this very publication, and questioned the Stanford administration’s decision not to allow live streaming of the event.
“If [Stanford] wanted to expose my hate speech, they could have said ‘film away.’ I don’t deal in any hate speech — I just deal in unwelcome truths,” said Spencer.
Shortly after, the activists in the crowd disgraced themselves.
Instead of attempting to debate Spencer on his arguments, or allowing those who would have to attend the event, over 150 SIA affiliates stood up and departed, chanting and playing music. SIA have since released a statement denying that they had officially sanctioned the playing of music, but this made little difference.
“Hello, fascists!” crowed Spencer, feigning disappointment but clearly relishing the opportunity to riff on modern activism. He opened up his goodie bag of superlative insults and distributed them with glee: the activists were the “children and heirs of the fascists and the Nazis,” “liberal totalitarians,” and “neo-Brownshirts.”
As she was leaving, one of the departees quite literally hissed at me and told me I was “racist” for remaining seated while she and her comrades left (see footage below). I laughed and tried in vain to explain that I was a reporter there to cover the event, an explanation that failed to satisfy the protester, who hissed a second time.
On first glance, this form of protest was not so bad. After all, as mentioned above, the protesters were not explicitly violent. But imagine if they had, instead of occupying the seats and subsequently vacating them, simply blocked others from entering, and left the seats unfilled that way. The result would have been the same, the intention largely the same, and their actions rightly condemned. This was better than violence, yes, better than shouting Spencer down. But the protest was a deliberate attempt to block students from engaging with Spencer in any capacity. If you personally do not wish to engage with the man, fine, power to you. But preventing others from doing so is shameful.
The crowd was severely depleted by the time the activists left. Spencer claimed that he had asked the administration to allow further students into the event if any left and been rebuffed, suggesting that he had caught wind that such a walk-out might take place. Whatever the case, the vast majority of those who remained were enthusiastic Spencerites, and, as such, the conversation predictably narrowed.
“I do hope that the Stanford President and the Provost resign,” bellowed Spencer in response to a question from a Stanford Daily journalist, to vigorous applause from the sparse gathering that remained. He preached to the choir about political correctness paralyzing rational discussions of terrorism, feeding his crowd bone after bone.
The crowd, sensing that they were among allies, amped up their questions. “Is the answer a new Crusade?” asked one questioner, alluding to the Medieval religious wars motivated, among other things, by a desire to extricate the Holy Land from Islamic rule. These conflicts resulted in the deaths of over one million people and also featured some of the most horrific anti-Semitic violence in pre-modern history. One can only hope the questioner was not intimately familiar with such details. Even Spencer appeared perturbed: “No, I don’t think so,” he began, before he was interrupted.
The most insightful discussion of the night came when one brave soul stayed behind to ask Spencer why he painted Islam with such a broad brush and why he wasn’t more specifically critical of extremist groups. Spencer and the questioner had a reasonable dialogue for about five minutes, and while I don’t think either party came away with a radically changed world view, the conversation was constructive.
This was a lone light, though, in what was otherwise a showcase of the failure of contemporary campus discourse. Nobody listens to anyone anymore, everyone thinks everyone else is a fascist, and civil conversation is a thing of the past. I have no idea what the protesters think they achieved last night, but it certainly wasn’t a win in the battle of ideas. “I think it comes from a place of ignorance,” said one woman in the crowd. “I don’t think those students understand what they walked out on.” I don’t agree — I have talked to students opposed to Spencer’s visit with intelligent, insightful objections to him. But with the way students conducted themselves, I can forgive her for thinking otherwise.
Benedict says
“children and heirs of the fascists and the Nazis,” “liberal totalitarians,” and “neo-Brownshirts.” –
These are harsh words from Robert Spencer. One thing is for sure, the behavior of these Stanford Students – possible future abbreviation: SS? – smells of the implementation of a Berufsverbot not worthy the American society.
b.a. freeman says
harsh, perhaps, Benedict, but true nonetheless. among other things they did, the brownshirts disrupted the seminars of professors to whom they were opposed. these people may not call themselves nazis, but they practice *exactly* the same tactics. that makes them true fascists, not just neo-fascists, in my book.
BTW, i love using “SS” for Stanford Student.” very appropriate!
gravenimage says
I actually think Robert Spencer was very measured in his response.
jayell says
The time has to come when Mr. Spencer and others stop delivering the antidote to this disgusting contagion in pristine sherry glasses with kid gloves.
Delphi says
More of the heirs to the soviet gulag and the soviet rightthink.
Honestly, we don’t need a second crusade or anything of the sort. Even Saudi Arabia seems willing to acknowledge their hand in making this mess.
The real deal is that we have a right to regulate who is allowed onto our territory, how they can behave and who can stay. That’s all.
steve says
Only shortsighted U.S. employers would now consider offering Stanford or Berkeley students any job requiring an adult frame of mind.
b.a. freeman says
steve, U forget that those doing the hiring are on average only 10 to 20 years older than these students, and are thus almost as leftist as they are. of course they’ll hire them!
WorkingClassPost says
For someone who worked in IT, Stanford held a special place in the story of modern technology, and I can’t think of any other commercial company named after it’s Alma mater (SUN Microsystems, since sold to Oracle).
But such a grand reputation is surprisingly fragile, and I’m unsure what effect this present crop of ‘students’ will have on the perception of Stanford as a pinnacle of learning, but it has certainly diminished in my eyes.
Anyway, disappointing as the event turned out to be, I was really more concerned that everyone got home safely, which says much about the state of [particularly] Left-wing political activism today, and the inherent threat of violence to those with opposing viewpoints.
RonaldB says
Your post brings up a good point. It seems to be getting to the point where administrators and even businessmen simply don’t care how their political activism affects profits. I canceled my account at Macy’s when they tried to punish Trump financially for his candidacy. Macy’s is going down the tubes, and there’s no introspection concerning the cause. The NFL is doubling down on kowtowing to its black players, in spite of the fact they are losing a significant part of their paying viewership by showing disrespect to the national anthem.
Evergreen college enrollment applications are dramatically down (black students there rioted against a professor and the administration, and the administration ordered the police to not protect the professor) and there have been no resignations.
The long and short of it is that leftists continue to feel sorry for themselves, claim to be harassed, refuse to confront differences of opinion, but never, never reevaluate their actions, even at the expense of taxpayers and even shareholders.
gravenimage says
I very much take your point, RonaldB.
One small point–it does look as if the NFL–finally–is addressing what is going on, because these demonstrations of hatred of America are hurting their bottom line.
gravenimage says
WorkingClassPost, I think academic standards are still high at Stanford in engineering and the sciences, but philosophy and the humanities have been almost entirely ceded to the hard left, and of course the “studies” classes (women’s studies, African-american studies) were largely about indoctrination from the the beginning.
Blind Druid says
That’s right Graven. I think STEM students are too busy getting their degree than being bothered by this nonsense.
gravenimage says
True–but ceding philosophy and the humanities to these thugs is a problem in itself, I’m afraid.
warren raymond says
“Nobody listens to anyone anymore, everyone thinks everyone else is a fascist, and civil conversation is a thing of the past.”
That just about sums it up. PC kills everything. Islam & dumbing down does the rest.
mgoldberg says
It’s when the administrators hide behind this, feigning innocence but who do believe they are fulflling the ‘will’ of the people by aiding the curtailment of any discussion deemed ‘inapproriate’
Imagine…. they shut the doors on any discussion, not just a real discussion, but any discussion, and then… lied about it.
This, is the the story here. Not the idiot politically correct fascist minded students… it was the out andout
support of that by the administration.
And that should be outed, and outed, and outed…. Hell, I hope Robert gets to present this miserable Univ. distortion on Fox, until the media is dared to allow a frank and forthright discussion as was originally planned; until the miserable administration has no choice but to allow it, and allow all those who wish to attend to do just that, and on TV and filmed.
b.a. freeman says
mgoldberg, the only think i don’t like about your wish, other than that it can’t possibly happen, is that the miserable administration needs to be *fired* rather than forced to do anything. this is a university, supposedly world-class, where students are supposed to be exposed to different ideas. here we have nazi tools (i doubt that these children understand what they are doing) brownshirting a seminar, so rather than listening and *REFUTING* with the *TRUTH*, they shut the entire discussion down, and the administration did all they could to enable that nazi behavior. again i say, these administrators should be *FIRED*.
hitler would be proud, and so would muhammed
PRCS says
They’re not going to be fired so long as THEIR superiors and financial contributors believe as they do.
MFritz says
Rent-a-mob. Keeps incovenient truths out of your face, place & safe space. Just call 1-800-SOROS.
WorkingClassPost says
✔✔✔
gravenimage says
Grimly true.
Diane Harvey says
“Stanford Students Pretend to Support Free Speech, Stumble at Final Hurdle”
Spare us. They didn’t even pretend. As to stumbling at the final hurdle, these cupcakes didn’t even lace up for the race. They never, ever gave Spencer any benefit of any doubt.
When I hear, “I support the First Amendment, but . . .,” I know I’m dealing with a fascist. The FA’s sole purpose is to protect unliked speech. It’s entirely unneeded for recitations of “Mary Had a Little Lamb” or a reading of last night’s baseball box scores, or any other non-controversial topic.
MFritz says
And don’t forget: Students are (considered) the elite! And the future of the country. But where is the country and democracy going with the likes of THEM on top?
RonaldB says
Truthfully, a university degree is now more a vanity item than a real tool for a career or a liberal (in the traditional sense) education.
The main effect of most so-called university majors is to take the students out of the workplace for four years at a critical time in his life. For a while, a university degree served as a proxy for an IQ score that businesses were not allowed to consider. But now, with all the critical studies and identity studies, virtually anyone, no matter how stupid, can obtain a university degree. They just have to be able to sit still for an hour at a time, a requirement which seems to strain the abilities of some of the affirmative-action admissions.
Westman says
Looking at the cost/benefit ratio, a social-oriented degree from a high-cost institution makes little economic sense, and is, as you pointed out a vanity degree for status in disciplines unlikely to make significant progress or actually solve the real problems of society.
Stanford does have some excellent science and engineering offerings and its solar-car team is quite an impressive group of budding engineers.
b.a. freeman says
sieg heil, MFritz; that’s where we’re headed!
MFritz says
No, not the Nazis, the other ideology. The one with the five prayers a day. Because with this kind of elite any criticism will be suppressed and nothing will be done. And guess WHO is going to cash in then.
PRCS says
Always a pleasure to read your posts.
Hope you don’t mind if I plagiarize this one:
“As to stumbling at the final hurdle, these cupcakes didn’t even lace up for the race.”
Norger says
It appears there is at least a sliver of hope at Stanford. At least some students understand that free speech necessarily means the airing of unpopular or controversial views and that the connection (or lack thereof in the view of Spencer’s opponents) between Islamic theology and Islamic terrorism is a worthy subject for discussion and debate.
I was particularly struck by one of the editorials in the Stanford Daily in which the author ended by “proudly” declaring that some ideas were not worthy of debate, without describing exactly what such contemptible ideas are. I wish that she and the Stanford lemmings who disrupted this talk would ask themselves precisely which ideas about Islam and terrorism cannot be debated or discussed,and what evidence they have considered to reach this conclusion. Spencer’s central thesis is that Islamic terrorists use learned, mainstream interpretations of Islamic theology to justify their actions and to win recruits among peaceful Muslims. To many people here, this is hardly controversial—it is a glaringly obvious truth. It is extremely disturbing that cogent, carefully sourced interpretations of Islamic theology (essentially all of which are backed by established Islamic authorities) are summarily dismissed as contemptible falsehoods, to the point where that this subject cannot even be considered an acceptable topic for discussion on our college campuses. It is truly Orwellian.
RonaldB says
You’re approaching the topic from the rational point of view.
Leftists use their emotional center, rather than their logic center, to evaluate any issue. It is totally irrelevant to those who walked out what the real facts were. It’s not that they don’t know; they simply don’t care.
Some conservatives say the leftist feminists will change their tune once they have to put on hijabs. No they won’t. The committed leftist operates outside of the realm of natural consequences. To them, the dogma is more important than the consequences, and the feminists would not change their mind in the least by being forced to wear a burkha.
Norger says
You are clearly right that (based on their own words and actions) these students’ positions appear to be long on emotion and short on facts and reasoning. I am reminded of Linda Sarsour infiltrating the women’s march. The idea that the most virulently misogynistic ideology of the planet is somehow compatible with western feminism is just mind boggling.
I would be interested in hearing more about the “intelligent” and “insightful” objections to Spencer cited by this reporter because I have yet to hear anything compelling out of any these Stanford students. I understand these students all think that Spencer is “rascist” (what race is Islam again?) bigoted and knows nothing about Islam, but if that’s the case shouldn’t one or more of the professors and/orstudents at one of the most prestigious institutions in the US have been able to expose him as such in discussion or debate? He appeared on your home turf and was willing to engage with anyone who chose to speak. This was a disgraceful display of mob mentality.
I would suggest Ayan Hirsi Ali as a speaker, but I guarantee she would be s
Norger says
My post was cut off: Ayan Hirsi Ali would doubtless get a similarly hostile reception.
PRCS says
Re: Islam, given the virtually unchallenged use of “racist/fascist/hater/Islamophobe” by administrators, “educators”, and students at every level since 9/11 at least–and I wouldn’t be surprised if it begins at preschool–what the Stanford crowd did is no longer a harbinger of the future.
Think we’ll ever see those social justice signs directed at mosques?
Witness says
As one of the few Stanford Students fortunate enough not to have been blocked from attending the event, I can say that there were some objections that had some merit.
For example, Mr. Spencer repeatedly claimed that no one had ever died as a result of ‘Islamophobia’ [an artificial disingenous term that nevertheless seems to be the accepted phrase for anti-muslim discrimination] This claim is factually not true. In Myanmar there is a serious internal oppression of the Rohingya Muslim minority, with apartheid like conditions imposed on them and hundreds of thousands of them fleeing the country. There have been reports of religious violence and summary executions of Rohingyas by government forces, totaling at least 2000 fatalities between 2016-2017. The Finsbury Park Attack in Britain this year targeted Muslims and killed 1 man and wounded around 10. If we’re willing to go further back religious violence against Muslims can be found in the collapse of Yugoslavia and the subsequent ethnic cleansing, the and the conflicts in the Lebanese Civil War and the Partition in India, where although there was violence on all sides it should be easy to find deaths and displacements totally motivated by discrimination against Muslims.
Saying that ‘Islamophobic Deaths’ are much rarer in the Western world than Jihadist deaths or attacks is accurate. Saying they never happen is both untenable and unpalatable.
Furthermore there were some concerns as to whether the US stating that Jihadist philosophy was grounded in mainstream Islam made sense as a geopolitical strategy considering it could alienate potential allies and push more people into the arms of our enemies, as well as some resentment by Muslims who don’t share the theology Spencer is decrying who feel they are being unfairly lumped in with terrorists, and some felt that Spencer had been excessive in his public condemnation of individual students. You can argue rationally against these positions, but I don’t think they’re completely baseless or beyond the pale and are some of the ‘intelligent’ and ‘insightful’ critiques previous mentioned.
Finally, Spencer is by nature somewhat polemic and combative, and that inevitably rubs some people the wrong way. Saying that his style is unhelpful and derails discussion is a more subjective argument as it varies person to person, but it’s also a justifiable objection.
However, Spencer’s argument on the text of the Koran and Hadith and their interpretation by mainstream scholars and jurisprudence is factually very well grounded and difficult to object to. While perhaps some minutiae could be challenged by an expert in the field the main thrust of his argument is sound and this fact is largely ignored by large segments of the campus’s population. Muhammed was a warlord who executed and enslaved thousands of people and by most accounts engaged in pedophilia. He is seen in mainstream Islam as the ideal man whom all should emulate, his more violent passages came chronologically later than the more peaceful ones and by most principles of abrogation supersede them. Islam is historically and theologically tied to politics in a way that is very difficult to separate and large parts of the Islamic world hold beliefs about the treatment of women, gays and religious minorities that most Westerners would be appalled at.
These are just facts, and even if they weren’t, even if it were just nonsense, he would still have a right to say it, anyone on campus who wanted to hear it should be allowed to hear it, and people who disagree should refute it point by point if they decide its worth their time to engage. The walkout and the way the event was handled were atrocious and a disgrace to free and open dialogue.
Robert Spencer says
It is highly questionable that the deaths of Rohingyas in Myanmar are a result of “Islamophobia.” There is considerable evidence that many widely-publicized atrocities actually depend upon photos from other countries and other times. Also, the Rohingyas have been waging jihad against the Myanmar government, and precipitated the current crisis by murdering 71 police officers. This doesn’t justify measures taken in response if they have been overly harsh, but to claim that the Rohingyas are being killed simply because they are Muslim is the sort of thing that is likely taught in Stanford, but has no basis in fact.
At Finsbury Park, the lone casualty collapsed of a heart attack just before the attack happened. That’s tragic, but the attacker did not kill him. This is not to justify that attack in any way.
Other killings ascribed to “Islamophobia,” such as the ones by the madman in Chapel Hill, actually have no connection to it. The Chapel Hill killer was a pro-Islam, anti-Christian Leftist.
gravenimage says
There is a violent Jihad going on in Myanmar, which Witness may be unaware of.
Claiming that what happened in Lebanon as discrimination against Muslims is also mistaken; the civil war there was sparked by a Jihad by the influx of “Palestinian” Muslims.
Witness wrote:
Furthermore there were some concerns as to whether the US stating that Jihadist philosophy was grounded in mainstream Islam made sense as a geopolitical strategy considering it could alienate potential allies and push more people into the arms of our enemies, as well as some resentment by Muslims who don’t share the theology Spencer is decrying who feel they are being unfairly lumped in with terrorists…
…………………………………
Is this the claim–we have seen this before–that if anyone dares to say that Islam is violent, that it will cause moderate Muslims to likewise become violent, and it will be our fault?
Perhaps such Muslims were not really all that “moderate” to begin with, and adhere to the violent diktats of Islam?
More:
However, Spencer’s argument on the text of the Koran and Hadith and their interpretation by mainstream scholars and jurisprudence is factually very well grounded and difficult to object to. While perhaps some minutiae could be challenged by an expert in the field the main thrust of his argument is sound and this fact is largely ignored by large segments of the campus’s population. Muhammed was a warlord who executed and enslaved thousands of people and by most accounts engaged in pedophilia. He is seen in mainstream Islam as the ideal man whom all should emulate, his more violent passages came chronologically later than the more peaceful ones and by most principles of abrogation supersede them. Islam is historically and theologically tied to politics in a way that is very difficult to separate and large parts of the Islamic world hold beliefs about the treatment of women, gays and religious minorities that most Westerners would be appalled at.
…………………………………
Kudos for recognizing this, Witness. This is important–far more important then whether someone personally likes Robert Spencer’s oratory style or not.
And thanks for standing up for freedom of speech–something, grimly, all too rare today.
marc says
@Witness and this is exactly the discussion that should have been happening in the stanford paper before Robert came to talk, and he could have addressed those points both at the time here, and even at the talk.
Thank you so much for popping by, I hope you will share more of your thoughts.
Suspect peer pressure will keep you anonymous here, can’t be stepping out of line i guess.
Norger says
@Witness
Thank you attending Spencer’s talk with an open mind. Thank you as well for posting here.
I won’t deny that anti-Muslim bigotry exists, as does the potential for anti/Muslim violence. No one here, least of all Robert Spencer, would ever condone religiously motivated (or racially motivated) violence against Muslims or any other group. I will say that religiously motivated violence against Muslims is thankfully quite rare in the west.
Is Robert Spencer somewhat “edgy” at times. Sure. Personally I enjoy his style. I think I would probably adopt a more “combative” personal style if my I were unfairly vilified (and blackballed) over a period of years for the crime of being an extremely knowledgeable and highly effective critic of Islam.
I’ve never bought the argument that Spencer’s rhetoric (or similar rhetoric from others) will drive “moderate” Muslims into the “extremist” camp. I am sympathetic to the plight of those Muslims who are born into their faith (who cannot leave it on penalty of death). If listening to Robert Spencer causes someone to go full jihadi, that person was never “moderate” to begin with.
In any event, thanks for posting. I hope you will return.
St. Manuel II Palaiologos says
You’re correct. Leftists substitute their political religion for traditional religion. In so doing, they make every issue an issue of good vs. evil, and an issue of dogmatic adherence to whatever position they hold, whether it’s true or not.
PRCS says
Thank you for your post, Witness.
Let me know if I’m mistaken, but I think you’ve misunderstood Spencer’s reference to zero deaths as the result of Islamophobia. As i understand it, having made clear that word was concocted to shut down speech–and being otherwise meaningless–deaths cannot be attributed to it.
Hatred yes, but Islamophobia?
But you are correct, and what you’ stated next identifies the real problem with its use:
“[an artificial disingenous term that nevertheless seems to be the accepted phrase for anti-muslim discrimination]”
Like those who left the Stanford event, it is obvious that many people–too many–are confusing analysis and criticism of Islam (the ideology) with discrimination against the flock (Muslims).
Add in the name calling that people foolishly think accurate (fascist, racist, xenophobia, etc.) and…..
Norger says
Well said.
utis says
The Young Republicans who sponsored Robert’s talk did not read or pay attention to my comment on this site about having loud music to counter disruption. The disrupters appear to have read it, or I may just be part of an unconscious meme.
And that cute little protestor, smiling and whispering, “racist.” Keep it up honey, the more you misuse the word, the sooner it will lose it’s power. It’s just too easy to think of her screaming, “witch” or “heretic” or “off with their heads!” Since Churchill is verboten in the MSM, may I suggest that victims of the “r” word answer with a paraphrase like, “I’m a racist, but you’re an idiot. I could wake up tomorrow not a racist, but you’ll still be an idiot.”
Kay says
It does seem like some from Stanford are looking at this site for the present. Maybe someone could answer (even if again or pointedly) the question the reporter left unanswered:
“one brave soul stayed behind to ask Spencer why he painted Islam with such a broad brush and why he wasn’t more specifically critical of extremist groups.“
RonaldB says
“why he wasn’t more specifically critical of extremist groups…”
There’s actually an answer to that. This is my opinion and not Spencer’s of course.
The kernel of the reason is contained in this extemporaneous presentation:
https://gatesofvienna.net/2017/11/aldo-sterone-a-short-course-on-islamic-sexuality/
A Muslim country does not necessarily imply you can’t be safe as a non-Muslim, a Christian, or a Jew. Surprisingly, Iranian Jews are prosperous, protected, safe and patriotic. A Jew in skullcap and tefillin is far safer walking the streets of Teheran than Paris or Malmos.
The reason is that Muslim rulers understand Islam, understand that the Koran mandates both moderation and radicalism, depending on which verse you read. Muslims are not free to practice Islam as they see it in Muslim countries. The police attend the prayer sessions, monitor what the imams say, and immediately arrest any imam who cites the wrong verse of the Koran, arrest the imam in the middle of the service. No obeisance to religious sensibilities there.
So, any religious Islamic observance can switch to violence and terror on a dime. A Muslim society where there is freedom is a society plagued by terrorism.
In the West, we assume a common civility, where people simply do not randomly kill other people, for political or religious reasons. Up to now, this has generally not needed to be enforced, as it was a strong societal norm.
But, allowing in Muslims changes the nature of security entirely. We can have security, but at the expense of freedom, assuming our leaders wish security at all. So, distinguishing between moderate and radical Muslims, and tolerating more Muslim presence, necessitates a close monitoring of religious observance and a security apparatus not so concerned with individual rights. This is the price of trying to distinguish moderate from radical Islam groups.
gravenimage says
We will never be safe so long as we allow hordes of ravening Muslims to invade our countries.
ac says
If anybody claims that “Islam” is humane but only “extremist groups” aren’t, he should check what the state of human rights in Muslim-majority countries. It isn’t accidental, as these countries also made their own “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam” where they explicitly, time and again, allow “Sharia compliant” punishments and handling, which of course include decapitation, cutting of of extremities, and even killing those who leave the religion or motivate others to do so.
Robert tries to spread the message that such position is not an accident but is grounded in the “official” traditional religious books and religious laws (Sharia) of that specific religion.
It can’t be “broad” if most (all?) of the countries with that religion officially stand behind it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_Islamic_Cooperation
It also provably isn’t a “culture” or an “ethnicity.”
Those who learn about or live under Sharia know all that, but a significant part of Western world doesn’t want or is maybe afraid to know: even historically, Islam didn’t spread peacefully, but with a sword. Muhammad was unsuccessful as peaceful, but controlled Arabia as a warlord. His followers know that, including the horror stories of him organizing decapitation of people who surrendered to him or torturing the captives.
Turkey was an example of the land with the “moderate” Muslims, but it was only because the strong secularism was enforced there since Ataturk, and not because Islam as a teaching grew up to be explicitly humane. Now the pro-Islamist rules there too, and we have there officially published comics for kids which promote dying fighting for Allah’s cause, which is in Islam tradition and practice surprisingly for us called “martyrdom”.
Those are all facts, and speaking about them can’t be a “broad brush.”
But also note this
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/11/raymond-ibrahim-luther-islam-and-the-lies-that-cripple
“Today Islam is being enabled and empowered entirely thanks to a number of warped Western philosophies and “isms” that have metastasized among and crippled the populace from effectively responding to the suicidal road their civilization is speeding on.
As such, a little introspection is needed.
Plainly put, those who insist Islam is intolerant and violent — while equally insisting that nothing associated with them or theirs can ever be implicated in the equation — should consider if they are consigning themselves to a permanent state of limbo, forever taking one step forward followed by another step back in their struggle against jihad.”
ac says
Now there’s the whole even on Youtube, the highlight of your question is answered by Robert here:
https://youtu.be/FTB_dOM-VWM?t=1h3m44s
gravenimage says
Good posts, ac.
Michael Copeland says
“with such a broad brush…..”
It is not a brush.
It is a book.
eduardo odraude says
If one is paying attention (not to the comments section here, but to what Robert Spencer himself writes) he does not paint “Islam” with a broad brush. This site is not “Islam Watch”, it’s “Jihad Watch.” Spencer has been scrupulously consistent in refusing to generalize about “Islam.” At most he says that jihadists are strongly backed by the core texts, whereas the moderates don’t have a leg to stand on in the core texts. But he refuses to say “Islam” = x. To him, that appears to be a philosophical or metaphysical question into which he does not care to enter. He functions, rather, as a reporter of specific facts. Most of the time he merely points to specific cases of how specific jihadists and supporters of Islamic law point to the texts and teachings of Islam to justify jihad and sharia.
As to why he is not specifically critical of extremist groups, the answer is that he adheres entirely to specifics. All he does is report specifics.
Kay says
“But imagine if they had, instead of occupying the seats and subsequently vacating them, simply blocked others from entering, and left the seats unfilled that way. The result would have been the same, the intention largely the same, and their actions rightly condemned.”
————-
Yes. This is logical and true.
The apparent collusion of administration or other authorities in this is the worst part. Seems like freedom only if you are on the side of the powerful and blind to others’ humanity.
What is SIA?
Michael Copeland says
“Stanford Against Islamophobia (SIA)” in article above.
Infidel says
The cream of the leftist garbage are now the products of the toxic poison ivies..
thomas says
Stanford costs more than $69,000/year to attend.
https://financialaid.stanford.edu/undergrad/budget/index.html
If I were a student who was prevented from attending the event because others were stealing my seat I would be outraged!
RonaldB says
University degrees are now more vanity items than useful tools.
To the extent that one’s career is based on merit rather than connections, college becomes increasingly irrelevant. The good news is that parents increasingly have a good excuse to not bankrupt themselves to send their children to a “good” school.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Thank you, reporter Sam Wolfe, for presenting information I have not seen before.
I never knew before of the existence of this new activist group called Stanford Against Islamophobia, which you refer to four times as “SIA”. In adopting its abbreviation, did the SIA receive the advice of Stanford Against Dyslexia (SDA)? Sounds like a good topic for a follow-up report.
You write, “We [Stanford students] had invited a controversial speaker, published varyingly coherent articles of support and opposition, and had a rational campus debate about free speech.” This is the first I have heard of “articles of support” for Spencer published by Stanford students. In the Internet age, such references should be accompanied by links; I’d like to read a few of these articles of support and judge for myself their degree of variability in coherence.
You write, “Arabic music blared from Bluetooth speakers concealed around the hall.” This too is information I have not seen before, but is tantalizingly incomplete. How did you determine the manufacturer (“Bluetooth”) of the speakers, how many were there, and how were they concealed? And more to the point, what were the titles of these anasheed? Maybe these chants included some of my favorites.
I notice that you do not claim to be an objective journalist but are an opinion journalist. Good for you. This gives you the opportunity to use colorful “colored” characterizations, such as “grin” instead of “smile” or “smirk” (I always have trouble distinguishing between these facial expressions), and “bellowed” instead of “said”.
But at one point, your penchant for descriptive language gets away from you. The accompanying video clip (at 0:15) shows that what you describe as a “hiss” is actually just a whisper; a hiss is more salivary than a whisper.
And our Islamic friends will get the subtle reference when you say “[Spencer] preached to the choir about political correctness paralyzing rational discussions of terrorism, feeding his crowd bone after bone.” Haha, “bone after bone”! This wording compares these “Spencerites” to dogs, probably najis black dogs.
RonaldB says
For Mark Spahn
1) “Bluetooth” is a technology, rather than a manufacturer. It means that the speakers can play music or voices from a nearby phone without wires.
2) I think you’re being a bit hypercritical of the student journalist. What you really want in a report is a presentation of relevant facts. I watched the “whisper” on the video several times. Note that the reporter stated she repeated the “whisper” another time, which was not on the video. We don’t know what the second “whisper” was like, but the likelihood that the repetition was more strident, plus the natural guttural quality of a whisper makes it somewhat difficult to distinguish from a hiss. So, you have a possibly slanted coverage, but a coverage that contains all the relevant material, pro and con. Hence, slanted but not distorted or censored, a HUGE difference.
I tend to fall asleep reading long articles that attempt to expunge any point of view at all. But, I stop reading immediately if I sense that the reporter has left out contrary facts or misrepresented any factual aspect. They are welcome to refer to anti-Jihadists as “running dogs” as long as they give me the raw material to make my own judgments.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Yes, RonaldB, you make a good point that even a biased reporter who reports all the relevant facts is preferable to a bland reporter who omits information that is uncongenial to his own viewpoint.
Tim says
Concerning the students who were not allowed in by school officials. I hope they made a connection with what it is to be controlled and not having the right to free speech.
scherado says
//“I do hope that the Stanford President and the Provost resign,” bellowed Spencer in response to a question from a Stanford Daily journalist, to vigorous applause from the sparse gathering that remained. He preached to the choir about political correctness paralyzing rational discussions of terrorism, feeding his crowd bone after bone.//
How idiotic; Everyone should be concerned when a President and Provost give their imprimatur
.
.
//The crowd, sensing that they were among allies, amped up their questions. “Is the answer a new Crusade?”//
I doubt the author knows the nature of the questions, much less the answer to the question.
C T says
Foolish little girl. You probably think you’re a feminist. Read this and consider what you’re about:
Quran 4:34:
“Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.”
PRCS says
Doubtful that foolish little girl knows either that or that a great many of the world”s Muslims are neither brown nor black–but white.
gravenimage says
Of course, the idea that Robert Spencer somehow relishes being smeared and having his views caricatured is absurd.
rich says
Robert Spencer was eloquent, truthful, and fearless, as ever. The Stanford administration has disgraced itself by failing to provide a true space for freedom of expression. Instead, they acted like Nazi Brownshirts, trying to bully Mr. Spencer (good luck with that, btw).
And of course, the Stanford Snowflakes (SS?) all melted before our very eyes. Couldn’t answer Mr. Spencer with rational argumentation, so they resorted to thuggish tactics and insolence. They too disgraced themselves. All in all: Spencer 1, Stanford 0.