Sunday, August 12, 2007

Addendum: Spencer, give us your suggested solutions please.

This Addendum should be read after my immediately previous essay.

I notice a day later, in the Comments field of the Jihad Watch article which was the subject of my above-linked essay, a regular reader (“The Texican”) of Jihad Watch adverted directly to the eminently reasonable question (addressed to Robert Spencer) from another long-time regular reader (“Infidel Pride”) of Jihad Watch which I discussed in my above-linked essay.

The Texican quoted Infidel Pride’s eminently reasonable question, then proceeded to amplify it in terms that anyone with a lick of common sense would recognize as pertinent and elementary, and then asked Robert Spencer the question that was obviously implied by Infidel Pride’s question, but which Spencer arrogantly and preposterously ignored.

I quote The Texican’s comment in full (all the following in italics):

6. Neither Hugh nor I wish the conflict between the West and the Islamic world to continue, expand, or be enflamed.

Why not, if one may ask?

Posted by: Infidel Pride [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 11, 2007 5:16 PM


Infidel Pride:

Quite obviously, because we want it to be over, with Islamic jihadists posing no threat to the West.

Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 11, 2007 6:17 PM


Robert Spencer:

Just how do you think that the spread of the violent islam will be stopped?

Diplomatic means? When the mosques across the world spew out hatred against the West and the great Satan America and demand the destruction and conquering of both.

History has shown the only way to stop the spread of violent islam is by greater and deadlier force.

This is not the first time that islam has endeavored to spread it filth across the world. Every previous time, a country has arose to defeat the violent spread of islam.

So, Robert, how do you think the violent spread of islam will be stopped?

The Texican.
Live Free and Die Free.
God Family America Freedom the only choice at an cost.

Posted by: Texican [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 11, 2007 2:22 PM

Back to me now:

I.e., The Texican is asking Spencer to explain his unacceptably terse response to Infidel Pride of the day before. Spencer essentially responded to Infidel Pride’s question (Why should we not wish for the conflict with Islam to expand?) with the preposterous non-answer of: “Because we wish to see the problem of Islam vanish without anyone getting hurt”—and Spencer has the gall over the years to repeatedly chide and mock the historical appeasers of Hitler!? News flash, Spencer: It is extremely unlikely that the problem of Islam is going to vanish without people—a tragically high number of people—getting hurt.

The Texican’s question, while too polite for my taste given the arrogant preposterousness of Spencer, is pertinently focused and impervious to further weaseling from Spencer—that is, if Spencer deigns to respond to it. I predict he will simply ignore the question as that thread gathers dust in the Jihad Watch archives.


Nobody said...

So, Robert, how do you think the violent spread of islam will be stopped?
The Texican misses the non-violent spread of Islam that is currently ongoing, although if Robert supposedly had his way, neither the violent nor the non-violent spread of Islam would be checked. Yet, there he was, today, talking to Michele Malkin, about the need to take not just the Jihad, but the spread of Shariah seriously.

The big problem here is that Robert seems to buy into Ibn Warraq's school that 'there is a place for Islam as a personal faith, but not as a political ideology.' Yet, as Walid Shoebat points out in 'Islam: What the West needs to know', Islam is a political ideology and a system of governance first, and then a personal faith afterwards. The failure to recognize that this cannot be de-coupled is why JihadWatch goes through so much grief with CAIR, instead of simply saying, "Yes, we do ______. And so?!"

In fact, one of the things Ibrahim Hooper stated in his Paula Zahn interview was that RS wants to make the life of Islam in the US so difficult that Muslims themselves would want to leave. Like Traeh pointed out, what would be wrong with that? Not providing foot-washes for Muslims makes their life difficult. Denouncing the Quran and Islam makes their life difficult. So what's the problem? Just state what JW is for, and explain why. Why's that so tough?

Erich said...


I agree with 90% of what you wrote above, and I find it well put.

The one thing I disagree with is something Hugh also says a lot:

"The Texican misses the non-violent spread of Islam that is currently ongoing"

While of course there is a non-violent spread of Islam going on (Dawa + Demographics), the point that is lost is that this non-violent spread would have little or no traction were there not two other factors helping it along immensely:

1) terrorist violence and threats of same + fascist thuggery tactics (beating up people, threatening to kill apostates or critics, etc.)

2) the West's own PC Multiculturalism, which decouples Islamic violence from Islamic non-violent culture, and whitewashes the latter.

Without #1, the spread of non-violent Islam would have no element of fear and anxiety that causes some people to cave in to demands.

And without #2, the spread of non-violent Islam would be easily recognized as anti-liberal and hostile to modern human rights & progress.

Nobody said...


Let's do a thought experiment and assume 2 things:

1. There was no terrorist activity in the West, and that Muslims were, as Naseem suggests, simply doing peaceful dawa, and overbreeding, (while careful to convert Western women while banning Muslimahs from marrying and converting);

2. There was no PC mentality in the West, and that people weren't afraid to call Islam for what it was;

In such a scenario, do you think that in the absence of any violence, including supremacist activities like footbasins, Mecca facing tombstones and Mecca avoiding commodes, Islamization wouldn't be a threat? Let's say that 100% of the Infidel media was the same sort of opinion that one sees on JW, LGF, Debbie Schlussel and Hotair. Not an iota of PC.

Now, let's say this educated group sees that Muslims are overbreeding and proselytizing. So they speak up and all Infidels stop converting, and Muslim immigration is halted to zero. However, you still have the problem of Muslims outbreeding Infidels. Then what does this conscious public do about the following:

- Do they have a China like policy restricting everybody to x kids?

- What do they do about American citizens who converted (like Hooper)?

- Even if support existed, can they ban Muslims alone from having > 2 kids?

In other words, even if everybody was as enlightened about PC as we'd like them to be, the non-violent spread of Islam would still be a threat, although the fact that it would be recognizable would make it somewhat containable, but only with some very controversial proposals that would call into question principles such as equal protection before the law (e.g. conversion to Islam would have to be legally banned). Granted - the Muslim population of 2.3m - in such a scenario - if breeding at the rate of 4:1 to Infidels - would take a while before they have the numbers, thereby buying time, but that still has the effect of dampening, rather than eliminating the non-violent threats.