Among the many topics discussed:
1. The Catholic Church is engaged in a “dialogue” with jihadists to reach some agreement. This is a stupid move that will yield no result.
2. Secular states, while I support them, may be ill-equipped to handle jihadism.
3. Whether the Qur’an is peaceful and only the Hadith is violent.
And much more. This was one of the best, most interesting interviews I’ve ever done.
Mural says
Wonderful Interview. Both are brave individuals in a world sinking towards cowardice.
First time I have heard Robert speak. His scholarship and intelligence shines through.
Vipeka says
Mr Spencer is your life not in danger when you discuss publicly on this subject
gravenimage says
Robert Spencer is a brave, brave man.
Clifford Fodor says
He was poisoned one time in Iceland. I bet he has to watch his back all the time.
gravenimage says
Grimly true, Clifford.
Mural says
He is a brave man. For his sake and ours, I hope Trump wins. Else, I expect Biden to shut down sane voices everywhere.
nicholas tesdorf says
This was a truly wonderful Interview from two intelligent minds. The talk highlights a World sinking back into primitive madness. Robert Spencer shows his erudite knowledge yet again in dealing with the topic.
TruthSeeker says
Extremely informative interview that went by so quickly. Always love hearing Robert Spencer speak.
With all due respect the issue of Missionary/conversion activity in India is a rabid form that has taken the form of harassment, inducement/bribing for converting Hindus. The Church pours in millions in the name of NGOs that are used to build churches in remote areas where there are no Xtians.
The Church is involved in Politics and effectively bring about changes in their favor. This is happening in a mass scale in many states in South India. The North East conversion is complete and the 1-2% Hindus living there are in fear of their lives. As hard as it may sound the Xtian and Muslim conversion forces target Hindus. I do not find this version of Xtianity in the West but in India they coopt Hindu customs and traditions to convert people. I have heard Sanskrit prayers being sung in ‘Churches’ (built to look like temples) where the names of Hindu Gods are substituted with Jesus/Mary. Hindu Gods are replaced with statues of Jesus/Mary but dressed like Hindu Gods. They regularly abuse Hindu Gods and call them Satan.
While no one grudges people who would like to propagate their faith, this intrusive and coercive conversion is subversion of the law and all bounds of ethics. This is not written with any hate for anybody but a genuine concern about the Vatican controlled activities in India.
jimjfox says
Your post illustrates admirably how all religions are utterly absurd. How saying, rational people convince themselves to believe any of it is beyond me. And yes, the world would be a far better place without this scourge.
jimjfox says
“How sane”
wpm says
Can you give example of forced conversion to Christianity ?They build statues that represent Mary and Jesus to look like native Indians?They have the people sing in their native language,the horror of horrors.They build churches that look like native built building in the country who would have not rejected the “mind control” of people building these churches guess being friendly and open forces the people to attend these churches.Do the “church leaders” force the natives to attend the church by violent threats , stealing land,Christians raping Hindus women in the name of Christ, ,burning down Hindu homes ,stores or businesses?I am happy you do not “hold grudges ” against people who like to “progagate their faith”?Yes the Vatican controls everything in the world especial in India ,all you lack is proof .
gravenimage says
+1
Raja says
Though you call yourselves truth seeker, you have made statements that cannot be found in the Bible or the teachings of Christ. Not all Christians who claim to be Christians follow Christ.. They are not disciples of Christ. Vast majority of “Christians do not know the bible. They barely study or research, hence their pathetic behavior.,
Satan comes in any or all forms. In this fallen world, Jesus said Satan is the king. The evil powers exists through many ideologies and doctrines as they can be known by the “fruits” they bear.
God is a Spirit. There is nothing like Xian God or a Hindu god. It is all in the minds of man and his culture. What we see in Christ is the attributes of God when he was on earth.
During Christ;s time he had so many evils around him, notable among them was the child sacrifices of the Kings of his time. He was appalled but he didn’t go around making a political point. Jesus made it very plain that His Kingdom was not of this world.
Most christian world does not know this and I can understand your concern.
Raja says
Correction: Jesus said Satan is the King should read KING OF THIS WORLD.
gravenimage says
Where are Hindus in fear of their lives from Christians? Citations, please.
UVG says
Theologically speaking do you believe Hindus are going to be damned because they don’t believe in Christ?
There perhaps is no threat to Hindu life, but there is no hope for Hindus either since Hindus are eternally damned.
The point of.religion was not to form exclusivist clubs. Sadly this is exactly what most religions have done.
UVG says
In any event, there is no point getting into a religious debate. As DR Spencer points out this is more a civilizational battle(if it can be called that).
gravenimage says
We should all stand against the threat of Jihad.
wpm says
The “missionary mafia”does not do forced conversion ,they do not demand extortion payments from nonbelievers anywhere in the world.They do not command their followers to enslave non-believers ,or force non-believers to give up their daughters to marriages of Christian men.They to not encourage rape,under age girls to marriages of older Christian men.I believe the Pope should meet the Dalai Lama ,I am angry he does not condemn or hold Muslim leaders responsible for Jihad violence against Christian,Jews ,Hindus and other believers of god or gods or atheist.India got free from England in the 1940s ,the church (Any Christian sect) did not hold India or rule Indians.Muslim killed millions in India ,force conversion of millions of Hindus .If you do not want to form “alliance” with Christians,Jews,Atheist ,against Jihad because you dislike men preaching Jesus is everyone,s savior ,and the fact that they are spending “Christian” money building schools or churches in your country or do peaceful non-force conversion I am sure it would be a smile on a Jihadist face.In the alliance against Jihad we all have skin in this game ,the current Pope is clueless so are a lot of leaders in the Indian government leaders ,Hindu leaders, and Western government Leaders .
Raja says
WPM,
A good analysis. Thanks
UVG says
+1. Although Hindus understand quid pro.quo.
Hindu thinkers will fight jihadists regardless of any external support. Have always done so. Will carry on doing so.
infidel says
I’ve been saying this for long… For too long Islam got away with its unconscionable crimes of Jehaad against non Muslims and got away scot-free by declaring this battle as totally unrelated conflicts. And it took the likes of Spencer and Dr Bill Warner to come out with a common theme in all these bloodcurdling battles of Jehaad, even though we had our own Premchands and Ambedkars and Tagores and even Vivekananda that clearly spelled out the dangers of Jehaad for non Muslims.
Katherine Taylor says
What is premchands, ambedkars, tagores, and vivekananda ??
Raja says
Infidel is probably referring these Indian leaders as anti Jihadis.
Peter Clemerson says
In connection with ridding territory of Islamic domination, during the interview, Robert could think of only India, Spain and Israel where jihad been repulsed. There are several more which I am sure Robert would have thought of, given more time. Assuming in this context that Jihad means invasion and consequent rule, here are some other examples. Islam was expelled from Sicily and Malta by conquest by Christian armies during the middle ages and from Greece Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria by independence wars against the Ottomans or invasion by Christian armies. In all cases of loss of territory by Islam in Europe, it has been by violence, ie, war of some sort, which can be called counter-jihad. Islam has never, to my knowledge, peacefully ceded territory to non-Muslim majorities due to these non-Muslims wanting not to be ruled by Muslims. Such a concession would conflict with the doctrinal veto against ceding territory that is regarded as part of the Dar al Islam
This is the reason why the PLO and Hamas can not sign a peace treaty with Israel, no matter how generous the terms offered.
I disagree with Robert and Napur (what an articulate lady!) that we have to have faith to fight faith although perhaps Napur holds this view more strongly than Robert. I do not know enough about India to comment upon the hold Hinduism has on the Indian people as a whole, but as an ex-Christian of European extraction, I do feel qualified to comment upon why Christianity is losing its grip upon the European population and the implications this has for Islam..
There is a combination of reasons:
(1) the incompatibility of the discoveries of the sciences with the traditional explanations for the nature of the universe and all that is in it. This incompatibility is now implicitly and perhaps sometimes explicitly part of Western school curricula. This incompatibility has taught increasing numbers of people that “sacred” texts written by ignorant men millennia ago, are irrelevant. Because these texts were believed to be true and accurate and held to be so by authoritative religious institutions until quite recently, it has also taught millions of people that these authorities “were making stuff up”.
(2) Cross cultural studies have made it clear that morality, loosely defined, is part of human nature, despite immorality also being part of human nature, and that humanity is perfectly capable of determining and implementing the good despite claims, now seen to be false, that morality derives from invented supernatural entities, of which there are thousands.
(3) Social science research has established that if an economy has been developed to the point where the purchasing power of the ordinary citizen can meet their financial security needs, then recourse to religious belief for psychological support becomes unnecessary and wanes.
(4) In too many religious establishments, where the clergy have set themselves up as moral authorities, they have misbehaved to a scandalous degree.
(5) In the era of equal rights for women, the largest sects are seen as foot-draggers and resistant to the acceptance of this equality.
There are probably others also.
My casual observations of Jewish and Indian friends and acquaintances suggests that the same factors are affecting Judaism and Hinduism also, but I emphasise that these observations are only anecdotal. So how might all the above apply to Islam in Western societies? All the arguments apply in principle to Islam although we know that resistance to the teaching of the sciences is substantial. However, exposure to the discoveries of the sciences and consequent technological marvels via popular culture is unavoidable. They permeate films, TV, newspapers and magazines. Western freedoms of speech and dress are inculcated merely by what is seen and heard on the media everyday. Sure, there is resistance but the long view strongly suggests to me that the backwoodsman face the same irresistible cultural currents as their Christian equivalents. It might take longer but there is evidence that it is working. A Norwegian study recently reported that Muslim women are having fewer babies than they used to, just as the indigenous Norwegian women are. The Muslim women still had a fecundity rate a little higher than the non-Muslim ones, but where birth control facilities are available, they appear to be taking advantage of this availability in the same way as the others. Muslim birth rates are coming down.
And then, there are the ex-Muslims. They are not all on the extreme left, and they can hardly be called authoritarian. And there seem to me to be more and more of them, knowledgeable and articulate and carrying an authenticity which indigenous Europeans lack. They have absorbed the lessons of the sciences even if they are not scientists themselves. And they have examined more than the faithful what is in the Qur’an and found it nonsensical and immoral.
The biggest problem the West faces is one that Robert identified yonks ago – the western media and politicians will not allow open criticism of Islam for fear of the consequences;
the violence
the name calling
the loss of votes
the loss of revenue
So yes, critics of Islam do have an uphill battle on their hands, but the more the Muslims in western countries try to impose Sharia, the more the unacceptable elements of their belief system become visible. The more people are emboldened to be open in their criticism, the more the politicians react both to the fear of the loss of the votes of non-Muslims and the actual losses. Note both the loss of votes to anti-Islam parties in elections in Europe in recent years and the subsequent and consequent measures taken to curb immigration – bribes to Turkey and Libya..
So although critics of Islam have to operate in an atmosphere suffused with the cowardice of the press and politicians and the hostility and threats of some Muslims, I believe that the battle is winnable. But that’s largely because I’ve witnessed what has happened and is happening to other un-evidenced faiths.
UVG says
Very detailed post.
On the issue of faith vs faith. I largely agree with you. However in Indias context and perhaps Europes as well I wonder if a civilizational ethos might reinvigour state machinery to fight Jihadi extremism.
I realize huntington has been repudiated for several reasons. But I dont think it is wrong to chatectarize Jihad as a civilizational narrative which will ultimately end when all societies submit to Islam.
Europe like India has witnessed both good and bad things in history. The real strength of all great Civilization is the ability to look inward, reflect and change. This is to the credit of Europe.
In recent years I have witnessed changing narratives in my counrty. Though this has been an uneasy time I believe it has led to alot of good. Some important lessons in this regard which need to be hilighted:
a)Narrative is important. Right is right, wrong is wrong, it is important to come clean and to hilight positives as well as negatives. (the limited but none the less pivotal role thr church played in the advent of Science )
b) Often skinheads and other loopy supremacists usurp the narrative and use it for their own ends.
c) I think anti Jihadists must be humanists first and foremost. And this must be exemplified in practice.
d) The real problem in India(and in many european countries too) is that progressives in academia have always been left leaning. They need to be told and shown they exist in a vacuous bubble rampant with incestuous censure/nepotism which often make or break academic careers.
In India, for decades, if you were in academia and had conservative views(unless you were a Islamic or Christian conservative) you would literally be destroyed by the state(higher education largely public here).
People like Dr. Spencer are not fools. Ask then why he isn’t heard more? if there is a rational explanation for rejecting his views then reject them rationally! Debate is important.
Most people are neither brave nor smart enough to lead these conversations. Support them!
e)In India obscurantist rituals and practices like the caste system are a blot on our civilization. Just like.slavery is in the West.
It is true conservatives lose plenty of ground to the left on issues pertaining to the ‘caste system’, superstition and other regressive practices.
The funny thing is these ideas are not encompassed in mainstream doctrine. Often (as is the case in India with Caste) people who led reform were conservative.
both the Prime Minister and President of the country belong to the lowest castes as do many other leaders and beaurocrats etc. Despite knowing this leftists concoct victim based narratives and malign anti jihad narratives.
Peter Clemerson says
Thank you for your considered reply. I would like to respond to one of your points
“c) I think anti Jihadists must be humanists first and foremost. And this must be exemplified in practice”.
While I completely agree with this point in principle, when considering immigration of Muslims into Europe and non-Muslim countries elsewhere, the issue becomes how to do this when confronted with two arguments that conflict with each other.
.
On the one hand, many but not all of these aspiring migrants can be regarded as people fleeing the oppressive regimes in countries where they were born, eg Syria, and the inclination to help is strong..
On the other hand, the records now show that many of them and the children of past migrants now work to displace the pluralism of their host countries and replace it with the intolerant Islam of the source countries.
A Humanist who wants to act humanely both to the would-be migrants and to the indigenous populations of the host countries by maintaining their freedoms is torn between conflicting inclinations: to assist the migrants into host countries and to keep them our to protect the indigenous populations.
I have been wrestling with this problem for many years and have been unable to resolve it. The same issue actually faces religious non-Muslims also. The same humane tendencies are to be found in most religions. Islam is alone in reserving such tendencies for only its own adherents.
UVG says
Thanks for your reply.
Immigration from war zones is a complicated issue.
My humble thoughts on this issue are as follows:
1. I am sure Europe can come up with good solutions to these problems but first and foremost the problem needs to be defined.
2. One stark observation I have made is that the debate over how best to deal with this issue has led to all or nothing commitments i.e. “Christianity is referenced as a motivation to save the identity of Europe – either by advocating or by attacking humanitarian policies of open borders. ”
This to me is an incorrect portrayal of an extremely complex problem.
3. The reason why immigrants often undermine the pluralism of host nations is because of the culture shock.
Europe in particular is more individualistic, the language is alien, life isn’t some sort of kumbaya dream as immigrants expect it to be, gender roles are often reversed and families tend to break up.
Jihadis exploit vulnerable populations and mosques often become centers for social activity.
I would argue immigrants from war torn nations are totally ill-equipped to navigate through life and negotiate culturally in Europe. This needs to be addressed quite directly.
4. I would also argue there are no blanket solutions. And no such thing as immediate relief.
Syrian Christians for example live in a different reality as compared to Iraqi Kurds or Muslims. All cases need to be treated differently. For example supportive labor and trade policy could be a viable solution to the large Syrian Muslim population in Turkey. (however since there is good reason to assume funds will be misused direct payments should be made to all recipients).
5. That being said, over 80 percent of all refugees are already in developing or underdeveloped nations. So I dont think Europe can get away with entertaining refugees.
However Europeans can monitor who gets in, how they resettle and how they engage with the larger population as well as the Muslim/Jihadi diaspora byenlarge.
Muslim clerics and organizations and left organizations need to be monitored or replaced where possible. Because they do a substandard job addressing the integration problem. They blame society at large for their failures by calling them Islamophobes.
Middle Eastern funding to these organizations needs to be stopped.
If the middle east is interested in providing for Muslims they should do so through host nations, not mosques.
6. India as you probably know has prioritized granting citizenship to persecuted minorities in South Asia, whereas it has not excluded Muslim migration at all. This is sort of solution suits the Indian context.
This is not the case with policies observed in other countries like Slovakia, Hungary, Poland etc. which have rejected Muslim migration outright(perhaps for good reason). Here lies the all or nothing approach which clearly leads to divisive politics.
7. Perhaps refugees should undergo an integration program to help them navigate through life in Europe in a much better way.
8. Perhaps policy should be aimed at rehabilitating and sending back citizens to their own countries in the future.
9. Finally and most importantly, European values need to be defined much better, and Europeans should not shy away from coming to terms with their Christian heritage and civilizational past, while placing modernity, science, democracy as well as Jihad within it. This will no doubt give people more confidence to deal with the migration and Jihad issue, which all rational minded people need to contend with.
9. In sum, reiterating pt.2 I dont think Europeans would mind immigration if their way of life and thinking wasnt threatened(not in the 21st cent. anyway). This is afterall an ideological war and it takes no prisoners. So in any event challenging irrational mullas and Jihadists isnt inhuman at all. Infact turning a blind eye is inhuman.
UVG says
*…..I dont think Europe can get away with not entertaining refugees.
gravenimage says
Europe has every right to determine who gains entrance to their countries. Real refugees can become good citizens–ravening Muslims intent on violently imposing brutal Shari’ah law, not so much…