In a previous post about Spencer being soft on Islam, I published an extended transcript from the comments field of a Jihad Watch article a couple of years ago.
In that transcript, we saw Jihad Watch readers politely yet firmly—and intelligently—taking Spencer to task for his refusal to condemn Islam. As I intimated in that post, there was more to publish.
I now publish additional transcripts, from the comments field of another Jihad Watch article that was published slightly later, thereby forming a sort of Part 2 to the discussion. The comments from Part 2 are even better and juicier than those in Part 1. They definitively undermine the carefully non-positional position of Spencer with regard to his refusal to condemn Islam.
Those of you following along will see that the reader named “neverpayretail” again figures prominently. Another reader named “Pickle” also contributed a fine articulation of the problem (the very first one); as did a reader named “Infidel Pride”, along with another named “Television” (tooting my own horn here). My new remarks will be interspersed—here and there, but not everywhere—in [brackets]. Sentiments and formulations that I particularly like I will put in bold. Please note my Conclusion at the very end.
Transcript:
Robert,
Innovation is forbidden in Islam. It is a sin.
You know this. Esmay knows it as well. And this is why your attempts at honest debate with apologist "scholars" like Esmay will never result in an honest response or a fruitful debate. He wants peace at any cost, and the truth is a very, very, minor price to pay for that in the minds of people like him. The moment Esmay acknowledges the truth of the plain point you are making (and which he continues to dance around)--that every mainstream school of Islamic thought acknowledges that violent jihad is a part of koranic and hadith law--he is acknowledging that this can never be changed by any devout Muslim, and that taking the conflict to its conclusion is the only way things will ever be settled between Muslims and the rest of us kuffār. Their law forbids any other solution except our subjugation. Esmay would rather carry on the lie that Islam is a religion of peace, in the hopes that most Muslims will somehow start believing it if it's repeated often enough. He is a fool.
But I'm not just looking critically at Esmay. As I said, you're certainly as well-aware of this fact as Esmay, and, like him, dancing around it with this stuff about respecting any Muslim who acknowledges that violent oppression of nonbelievers is enmeshed in written Islamic law, and then rejects this violence. Since, again, that sort of innovation is forbidden and considered to be one of the worst sins in Islam, I'm sure you know that no devout Muslim can ever do such a thing.
So let's stop this tapdancing and false moderation and get to the point: the conflict of Islamic and non-Islamic civilizations (if you want to attach that word to the former; I hardly think that's appropriate) can play out in only one way: Muslims waging jihad against the rest of us, again and again, whenever they become sufficiently powerful that they think they might be able to beat us. And this will NEVER end as long as Islam exists. Eternal war is built-in to Islamic law, as is injunction against ever changing this fact.
Posted by: Pickle
____________________________________________________
Pickle,
I am with you. RS seems to have a problem getting to the point.
Posted by: neverpayretail
____________________________________________________
Robert Spencer,
Wow!
"I think you are missing my point, as well as my methodology."
This sounds so familiar, just like an Islamist and their apologists claiming the Koran is being quoted out of context, that translations from Arabic to English are inadequate, etc.
"As I told you before, I have no substantive disgreement [sic] with Hugh Fitzgerald on that issue. Of that I am 100% certain."
Denial! This is a clear refusal to address the evidence and logic so presented.
"If you think you see one, you are misunderstanding either me or him."
Projection! You project the problem onto me! Instead of addressing my logic, you dismiss me in like manner to Islamists and their apologists - it is all just a misunderstanding of the peaceful nature of Islam.
Remarkable! When backed into a corner, prideful human nature is revealed over and over again across the entire spectrum of human activity and all history.
Sir, I respect your scholarship, as much as I respect James Madison (author of the Constitution). However, as you refuse to explicitly declare Islam dangerous and violent, Madison refused to declare slavery inconsistent with the principles of freedom on which this country was founded. He was not alone. For seventy years this country was locked in an endless debate over slavery that only allowed its further entrenchment, to where a horrible war had to be fought to end the damn thing.
The same is happening now concerning the threat of Islam. The threat is manifest in NOW. Today we have the same denial, the same refusal to cross that line, to declare Islam dangerous and violent, and REJECT it. Outwardly. Openly. No apology. No regrets. Otherwise, its entrenchment will march on here as it has in Europe.
There is an out. You can Change Your Mind.
Sincerely, neverpayretail
____________________________________________________
Neverpayretail:
Sir, I know Hugh Fitzgerald. Hugh Fitzgerald is a friend of mine. When I say that Hugh Fitzgerald and I have no substantive disagreement on this issue, I am telling you something that I know to be true. Your logic may be crystalline, but if it leads to a disagreement between Hugh and me on this issue, it has led you astray -- and no amount of comparing me to an Islamist in response can change that.
Your analogy is faulty: James Madison was pro-slavery. I.e., he did nothing to stop slavery. He may have owned slaves; I don't know. Now, if you think that your analogy applies to me, i.e., I am doing nothing to stop the Islamization and dhimmitude of the West, you simply haven't been paying attention. [here, neverpayretail’s analogy would have been better had he put it thusly: “You are like James Madison, if Madison also simultaneously -- in addition to the fact that he refused to condemn slavery -- published a “Slavery Watch” digest in which he presented the mountain of daily the horrible and unjust features of slavery]
I invite you to search the archives here, read the FAQ, read my articles, and read my books. I am not trying to sell you anything. But do that, and then come back and tell me I'm comparable to an Islamist and soft on the spread of Islam in the West and its imminent subjugation. My views are patent and clear.
Anyway, you are under no obligation to read this site if you think I'm pro-jihad. There are plenty of others. Consult the links on the front page.
CordiallyRobert Spencer
____________________________________________________
With Islam's built-in programs of deceit and treachery, how can you possibly know for certain that a "moderate" Muslim is truly moderate? Other than their word, how can you know?
Not to mention: "take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors..." (Quran 5:51)
Posted by: Greg
____________________________________________________
Robert Spencer,
My criticism of your failure to address my argument in no way implies you are pro-jihad. My criticism shows that you use the same avoidance tactics when backed into a corner as the Islamists. Concerning "crystalline" logic leading me astray, if the logic is crystalline, and the evidence clear, it is not I who is in error.
My analogy is not faulty. Madison spoke in such convoluted fashion about slavery that only one thing was obvious - he did not want to talk about it, fearful of the effect on the union he had just worked to establish. Endless debate did ensue in the public sector, with no progress, and slavery did become more entrenched over that time. With Islam we see the same in Europe now.
I do not suggest you are doing nothing to halt the spread of Islam. While you do not speak in convoluted fashion about jihad, you clearly refuse to declare Islam dangerous and violent, and so take the next step - rejection of Islam, as opposed to [remaining] stuck in endless debate about Islam. You have not been paying attention. My views in this exchange are patent and clear.
As such, the basis for your invitation that I search archives, read FAQ, articles, books, as well as reminding me I am under no obligation to read this site, and consult links, is faulty, requiring no further comment.
Sincerely,neverpayretail
____________________________________________________
Retail:
I will not be maneuvered into making a statement that would be simplistic and misleading.
Islam is more multifaceted than Nazism, and involves many beliefs, some good, some bad. You are comparing a huge 1400-year-old tradition over many nations with 12 years of Germany. If you met a Nazi in 1938, you would know what he thinks. But the fact is that when you meet a Muslim today you can have no certainty about what he thinks or knows.
This does not mean that I think there is some sect of Islam that teaches indefinite peaceful coexistence as equals with non-Muslims; there isn't. But Islam has meant many things to many people at different times. There are Muslims that know nothing of what I am saying here. This is a fact that must be reckoned with.
To condemn it outright as such would also be too easily misunderstood in many ways. It would drive away people who would otherwise be our allies -- and I am not in the business of doing that. In this fight we need all the help we can get. It would also be seen as genocidal, and would thus be counterproductive to the anti-jihad effort.
So I will not be maneuvered into doing it. I have been quite specific about core elements of Islam that are evil and must be resisted by every decent human being. I have been quite specific about the circumstances under which Muslims should be allowed into Western countries in a sane society. If that is not enough for you, so be it.
CordiallyRobert Spencer
____________________________________________________
Robert Spencer,
Manuevered? Open, honest debate is not about maneuvering. This is not some game. In my view open, Honest debate is about changing minds with data and logic, exactly as I have brought to this exchange. What happened to miswak and tasawwuf? Now it is about the multiple facets of Islam, and all sorts of Muslims, here, there, and everywhere, over 1400 years? Why didn't you say that in the first place? It is not I doing the maneuvering. Perhaps you did not say this before because it makes you sound just like Esmay & Co. In this exchange, it appears that for You debate is all about maneuvering. Oh, and this phrase "simplistic and misleading" is just more Esmayitis creeping into your discourse when backed up against a wall.
Your own research on Islam drives decent, thinking people to declare Islam violent and dangerous. Yet, you refuse that step. On the "On assertions without evidence" thread you posted this same response, but added, "I have fangs" (some kind of threat?). Figuratively speaking, your refusal makes you a dog on a leash (with fangs), who is very, very good at barking endlessly (and I commend the excellent substance behind the bark) at the likes of Esmay, intellectually speaking, a mere chattery squirrel. People get used to the bark, and know they can walk safely past. You run out to the end of your self-imposed chain, and cannot reach them. They learn to Ignore You.
You reply that condemning Islam "would also be seen as genocidal". Huh? Condemning a system of belief is genocide? This is absolute nonsense. You argue endlessly that Islam supports violent jihad, and you are suddenly worried that rejecting Islam will be viewed as genocide by the very jihadists you already condemn? Ridiculous. They could not hate us any more, and so what if they do? Us rejecting Islam will not get them any more money or weapons or recruits than they already get anyway. You cannot possibly Know different.
Regarding the fight, and allies, in each case Islam is the threat. Refusal to reject Islam only plays into the enemy's hands. Any democracy that does not reject Islam will come under Islamic pressure with the mere presence of Islam, especially absent rejection. The only sane society is the one that rejects Islam, so as to avoid the big waste of resources to fight it, and the risk of losing to Islam. Any other position is weakness.
Your refusal to reject Islam, an act your own research supports, makes you Weak, which is exactly what the enemy seeks. As long as you are merely a barking dog at the end of a leash, the enemy knows your limits, and so can easily strategize around you.
And no, Weakness is not "good enough" for me.
Sincerely,neverpayretail
____________________________________________________
neverpayretail
I agree with you (and TV on the previous Lawrence Auster thread) on this. Invaluable as Robert and his work has been, there is a difference between him simply presenting the evidence without comment - a persuasive exercise, vs. contradicting any assertions about Islam being dangerous and violent - something that's howls for a contradiction. And the depth of its history, in contrast with Nazism, doesn't justify the halo around it: ask the millions of Copts, Maronites, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists et al persecuted by them whether they agree.
To condemn it outright as such would also be too easily misunderstood in many ways. It would drive away people who would otherwise be our allies -- and I am not in the business of doing that. In this fight we need all the help we can get. It would also be seen as genocidal, and would thus be counterproductive to the anti-jihad effort.
Robert
Like Mishka pointed out above, there may indeed be Muslims who have no idea of what their religion entails. Leaving aside the question of which way they may turn once they do, how does that negate anything that's been proven about Islam?
As for allies, I know that we need all that we can get, but how desperately do we want the "soft" allies i.e. the ones who think Islam is good, and would abandon us the moment we stated otherwise? Also, doesn't it make sense for us to have allies who at least agree with us on this salient point? They may have varying opinions on Iraq the model, intervening in Darfur, jiziya aid to Egypt, etc but on Islam? If you are going to pick up allies who believe in the "ROP" party line, we aren't much better off then when we started.
If you want to avoid saying it to avoid a genocidal tag, fine, but by contradicting those who do say it, you aren't making the anti-Jihad cause any easier. Unless you believe that one can be pro-Islamic but anti-Jihad - something the Whitehouse and a lot of Dhimmi governments worldwide seem to believe.
Posted by: Infidel Pride
____________________________________________________
Retail:
In this as in any subject, there are multiple legitimate conclusions that may be drawn from the same evidence.
I think your analysis of the question at hand is not only wrong, but manifests astoundingly poor judgment, which if followed would drastically weaken the anti-jihad resistance.
Now, enough.
CordiallyRobert Spencer
____________________________________________________
I see three reasons for Robert Spencer to stick to specific cases and avoid the universal generalization that neverpayretail wants Robert to draw:
1. Humanistic reason: Robert's reportorial, specifics-based approach avoids being the rallying point for any gang or thug who might harass or injure innocent Muslims based on an overgeneralization;
2. Strategic reason: Robert's reportorial, specifics-based approach avoids getting too far ahead of the rest of society, since most of society knows little about the huge phenomenon of Islam and is far from ready to adopt a universal generalization about Islam; the mainstream wants particular cases, indubitable specifics, concrete knowledge;
3. Epistemological reason (reason based on the nature of knowledge): By avoiding a universal generalization, which would be a philosophical, not scientific, statement, and by sticking to a reportorial approach focused on specifics, Robert clings closely to a scientific mode, which is where the Western tradition and media and ruling elites mostly are now, in terms of decision making.
The factual basis of the scientific/reportorial approach most readily lends itself to the building of consensus. But neverpayretail wants Robert to leave the scientific mode of specifics and enter the philosophic mode of universal generalization, which latter is notorious for creating multiple schools of thought and century- or millennia-long controversies before reaching consensus, if consensus is ever reached at all.
[not so: the analogy of the problem slavery in the US took not much more than 100 years (insofar as prior to 1750 the proto-USA, the Colonies, were not really a coherently entitative polity which forms part of an analysis of the process under analogy) to come to a head -- indeed, it came to a head, as neverpayretail points out, arguably because the “universal generalization” condemning slavery was continually put off by people insisting on dancing around it]
By sticking to the scientific mode Robert makes it very difficult to dismiss his work out of hand, and if he is careful in reporting the facts, it is impossible to refute him. The same cannot be said for neverpayretail's metaphysical or philosophic approach. Neverpayretail needs to learn to distinguish between universal generalization and extremely broad-based, yet finite patterns. It is his failure to understand that distinction that is largely responsible for his disagreement with Robert.
Posted by: traeh
____________________________________________________
Would it be fruitful to this educational agenda to lead with the conclusion "Islam is Evil and Dangerous?" Perhaps JW and DW should be renamed to "IslamisEvilandDangerous.org"?
That might please some of the JW and DW readers, but it would do little to draw in people who do not already agree that "Islam is evil and dangerous". For those who are not yet decided on the matter, this affirmation may in fact be an obstacle to further understanding. This is particularly true for people who genuinely want to believe that there is a irreducible core of goodness in Islam that could be brought out to mitigate the horrors of its actual practice. These people may be convincible, but need to figure it out for themselves.
Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite
____________________________________________________
traeh,
"By avoiding a universal generalization, which would be a philosophical, not scientific, statement"
Why would condemning German Nazism not be a "universal generalization...a philosophical not a scientific statement", while condemning Islam is?
Posted by: Television
____________________________________________________
Neverpayretail,
For goodness sake. You've made your point already. At this point you are only nagging the man.
As I understand it, Robert is aiming to be as honest and accurate in his statements as possible. No recklessness, no hysteria, no over-generalizing (which is easily refuted by even the most novice of Islamic apologists), just dead-accurate statements that are heavily supported by research. Spencer's _P.I.G. to Islam_ was on the NY Times Best-Seller list for over 15 weeks (as I recall), and that book pulls no punches. Tell me what punches are pulled in these headings, all from the P.I.G.:
"Chapter 1: Muhammad: Prophet of War"
"Chapter 2: The Qur'an: Book of War"
"Chapter 3: Islam: Religion of War"
"Chapter 4: Islam: Religion of Intolerance"
"Chapter 5: Islam Oppresses Women"
"Chapter 6: Islamic Law: Lie, Steal, Kill."
"Chapter 7: How Allah Killed Science"
"Chapter 8: The Lure of Islamic Paradise"
"Chapter 9: Islam--Spread by the Sword? You Bet."
....and so on. Your suggestion about Robert's alleged "weakness" is ridiculous. He has put his life in danger in expressing his criticisms of Islam.
Posted by: Archimedes
____________________________________________________
Archimedes,
The response/reply exercise does not constitute nagging. I had no idea the exchange would result in revealing what it did. As to recklessness, hysteria, and over-generalizing, I suggest you read the June 8, 2005 post at JW entitled "Fitzgerald: Mr. Bush, meet Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina". I think my position is pretty close to that of Mr. Fitzgerald, especially when he speaks of making Islam less attractive and giving ear to defectors from Islam.
Regarding the references you cite, credit is due, and I have not withheld it.
As to my claim of Robert Spencer's weakness, you and I disagree. I have already stated my rationale, and there is no reason for me to restate, hence, no reason for us to have exchange about it.
Posted by: neverpayretail
____________________________________________________
Infidel Pride,
I think it noteworthy that the commenter calling me an idiot said this in Spencer's defense, "Mr. Spencer is hard on Islam via his scholarship that proves his points. Not by proclaiming Islam is a heinous awful cult. He would Never get another book Published." Many pro-slavers in 1790 used similar justifications for the silence when they said (and I paraphrase) "Clearing those hot, humid, disease-infested swamps is awful work. White men won't do it. We Need slavery to get that Work done".
Posted by: neverpayretail
____________________________________________________
Robert Spencer,
As in any subject, facts, disciplined logic, and the lessons of history rule out the legitimacy of many conclusions.
I think your refusal to declare Islam dangerous and violent on the basis of your own research shows astoundingly poor judgment, which serves to strengthen the jihad movement. To give credit where due, much of what you do does damage that movement.
I now know something of you that was before hidden - at least from me. Thank you for the exchange. I had no idea the exchange would play out as it has. Live and learn.
Sincerely,Neverpayretail
____________________________________________________
It may be that people yelling "Nazism is evil and dangerous" in the 1930s may have been less effective than those who documented concrete evils of Nazi policy and theory in the hope of educating the many who thought they saw some good in National Socialism and who hoped that it might be a peaceful neighbor. And perhaps I am mistaken, but the question of how to best alert the somnolent to the present threat of Islam certainly is worth careful consideration.
The unequivocal judgement "Islam is evil and dangerous" is perfectly legitimate for many purposes, but as a practical matter, it is (or at least, it appears to me to be) not highly suitable for persuading people who do not already agree.
Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite
____________________________________________________
Dhimmisoftheworldunite,
I'm not sure what would satisfy "neverpayretail", but as you may know, I've never stated what I want Robert to do in light of my dissatisfaction with his gingerly approach to the question of the condemnation of Islam. For the record, I'm not calling for Robert to emblazon his website with "Islam is evil and should be condemned!" on a daily basis, nor even to write one single article or chapter in a book that argues such a condemnation. What would satisfy me is one statement, anywhere, in response to the question, "Should Islam be condemned?", that would make the simplex case that, "Yes, Islam should be condemned, and here's why: boom-boom-boom."
Of course, once Robert did that, some folks may at some point come out of the woodwork and start making demands that he unpack that simplex case; but I don't think that should be cause for concern that the case unpacked would be a Pandora's box inimical to the anti-jihad cause: I'm perfectly confident in Robert's ability to stay on track and patiently reiterate the simplex case for condemning Islam without ever being "maneuvered" into false slippery slopes like Demonization of Islam --> Genocide against all Muslims --> based on Racism; and so forth.
I therefore think Robert is drawing his patient, reasonable line in the sand a bit short of where the facts warrant: indeed, Islam is worse than German Nazism -- unless Robert thinks the attempted genocide by Muslims against Hindus of over 60 million (just to pick out of a turban one of several examples from the evil history of Islam) was not centrally motivated by Islam. If he does agree that the Hindu genocide (and all the other Muslim atrocities of history and the present) was centrally motivated by Islam, how in the world does the vetust richness and diversity of Islam let it off the hook of condemnation!?
Posted by: Television
____________________________________________________
Television,
Thanks for that last post to Dhimmisoftheworldunite. A Simple statement along the lines of what you suggest makes sense. Such a statement arrives at the Obvious conclusion, would permit Mr. Spencer to reference it when asked, and so, when properly challenged, avoid resorting to nonsense in defense.
Posted by: neverpayretail
____________________________________________________
Hi television,
The JW/DW agenda is not a theological or metaphysical agenda of plumbing ultimate good and evil and assigning to Islam its rightful place on that spectrum.
[here, Dhimmisoftheworldunite is erecting a straw man of my position: I did not, and still do not, call for JW/DW and Spencer to do any such thing: I only expect Spencer to formally state -- with all the weaselly language his heart desires to buffer it (without however logically blunting the core point) -- that Islam is evil & dangerous and that all Muslims enabling Islam whether passively or actively are agents of that evil & danger. It needs to be spelled out that the “evil” under discussion is dangerous, not merely evil. This formal statement can be made by Spencer without interfering with the ongoing mission and performance of JW/DW one iota. And it can be done in an intelligently nuanced way that would force those who would seek to smear Spencer to quote at the very least a very long and complex sentence Spencer could formulate that would be impossible to boil down to a “hysterically Islamophobic” sound bite.]
Its agenda is to alert people to their peril. It is permissible to call Islam "evil and dangerous", but it is not mandatory in every context,
[it is mandatory in at least one context: of being on record for standing up for what is right and true]
Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite
____________________________________________________
Here's an example of why it may not suit the purposes of JW/DW to assert the ultimate theological/metaphysical conclusion that "Islam is evil".
That assertion begs the question "evil by what standard?" and that question can split the anti-jihad movement. For Evangelicals, the answer is simply that "Islam is a false religion that leads people to damnation." For libertarians, the answer might be something along the lines of "Islam is incompatible with the realization of human potential through actualization of the self."
For left-liberals the view might be that "Islam is evil because it infringes on personal autonomy, most clearly in the realm of sexual expression and reproductive freedom." The anti-jihad coalition, to the extent that such a thing even exists, does not agree within itself about "why Islam is evil." And Robert does not wish to have that particular conflict rise above the common concern that Islam threatens to overwhelm us all in this century.
[Thus the word “evil” is not necessary: what is necessary is to condemn Islam. More pertinent would be a condemnation on the basis of its danger to us, and of our needs for self-defense from it. Islam’s danger is part and parcel of its evil, but because entities, organizations and individuals can be “evil” without being dangerous, the danger aspect should be paramount in our condemnation.]
It's a reasonable posture and I think that we should leave the man alone to write his "life of Mohammed and why it matters to us" biography rather than pestering him to conform to our individual standards of ideological purity.
[As I said, Spencer will be “left alone” to pursue his projects perfectly freely after he goes on record condemning Islam. But he deserves to be pestered as long as he continues his gingerly balancing act suspended above the hard choice that has to be made.]
Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite
____________________________________________________
Retail, your argument is compelling but there is a dividing line between scholarship and activism.
[Then Spencer should completely stop making analytical statements. He should rigorously limit himself to being a Reporter, not an Analyst. It is Spencer’s frequent editorial remarks of Analysis with which he salts and peppers his various JW entries that have aroused readers like “neverpayretail” to notice the curious paradox between his Analyses that fall fastidiously short of condemning Islam, and his “day job” of Reporter daily, weekly, monthly, yearly amassing the ever-growing mountain of Islamic horror that would lead any reasonably intelligent person to connect the dots to such a condemnation from which Spencer fastidiously abstains.]
If Robert Spencer officially "condemned" Islam, he would lose all credibility as a legitimate, reputable Islamic scholar.
[No: it would depend on HOW he condemned Islam. I have utmost confidence in Spencer’s skillful ability to use language in brilliantly weaselly articulations of sophistry, such that he could craft a formal Position on the condemnation of Islam in a way that would make it exceedingly difficult for critics to use to smear him -- not counting, of course, those many criticis who would smear him anyway, as they do NOW and have for YEARS already, no matter how gingerly and careful he tries to be.]
Posted by: Susanp
____________________________________________________
The anti-jihad coalition, to the extent that such a thing even exists, does not agree within itself about "why Islam is evil."
Here's a basic litmus test (there are others that could be added to this, but this by itself is a sine qua non):
If any member of the anti-jihad coalition does not support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they should be summarily excluded from the coalition. Islam is intrinsically, endemically, traditionally, zealously, ideologically, actively, and presently opposed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This isn't rocket science. This isn't a matter of "theology" or "metaphysics". Individuals, and groups, can be rightfully and rationally condemned, no matter whether they happen to also sell girl scout cookies and help little old ladies across the street, along with the other absurdly mitigating factors (Islam is older, Islam is more varied, Islam has many more people that seem nice) by which Robert in gingerly fashion distinguishes German Nazism from Islam.
Posted by: Television
____________________________________________________
Susan,
Robert is already unjustly beleaguered and vilified by the majority: I doubt that if he simply stated that Islam is condemnable as it stands (and has stood since the time of Mohammed) it would make much significant difference to his calumniators -- they already think he condemns Islam anyway and all the other related things you listed in your post. I haven't seen anyone from the vast and dominant mainstream publicly support Robert and invite him to speak or write in their venues on the basis that "Robert does not condemn Islam".
Posted by: Television
____________________________________________________
I think that your talk of "litmus tests" is counter to the spirit of what JW/DW is trying to accomplish, which is to alert people to the peril to their liberty that is posed by Islam.
There are many things that Islam is unequivocally opposed to. One that I suspect is even more vehemently rejected by Islamists than the UNDHR is "Trinitarian theology", which is regarded by Muslims as a form of polytheism and a very grave crime. Should Evangelicals insist that "embrace of Trinitarian theology" be part of the litmus test?
[No, because refusal to embrace Trinitarian theology, and even theological condemnation (devoid of laws and politics and hatred) of Trinitarian theology, does not pose a danger. It is not Islam’s rejection of Trinitarian theology that makes it dangerous, it is the reasons why it rejects Trinitarian theology, and the psychosocial apparatus it has developed to “cleanse” the world of Trinitarian theology that makes it dangerous]
Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite
____________________________________________________
neverpayretail
You owe Mr Spencer an apology. Your criticisms are immature. Spencer is fighting the Jihad in many effective ways. Your dumb suggestions would kill Mr Spencer's effectiveness. Seen in the worst light you are an agent provocateur who is craftily tying to draw Mr Spencer into saying things he will be slammed and denigrated for. My own estimate is you are simply a a naive fool
You have a childish concept of what silence in the face of Jihadist Islam is. Robert Spencer most certainly is not silent. His website is very active. He updates it every day. I know of no other website like it that has the latest Jihad news every day. That has many good to excellent commentators with Hugh being the foremost. This takes time and effort for Robert to do. He reaches many others via his books. These books are a labor of love, no one is becoming rich off of them. He has the guts to write an upcoming biography of Muhammad which can really raise danger to his personal safety. Who else has the brass balls to write such a book these days?
Thanks to you, Robert Spencer!
Posted by: dennisw
____________________________________________________
Television asked me:
Why would condemning German Nazism not be a "universal generalization...a philosophical not a scientific statement", while condemning Islam is?
Television, my point is not that you cannot try to universally generalize about Islam, and perhaps even be successful. My point is that it is hard to do convincingly, much harder than to universally generalize about Nazism. If the caliphate existed and controlled all Muslims worldwide and were on the march with numerous divisions of tanks and brigades of soldiers and hundreds of airplanes dropping bombs in Europe, it would be a lot easier. Nazism existed for only 12 years. Islam is a far more complex phenomenon that has existed far longer, and that has no single center of political power, certainly not in the way the Nazis had Berlin. A rather different kind of Muslim lives in Indonesia than lives in Saudi Arabia. It's fine for you to draw the conclusion that across all its variation, Islam remains a unity, and an evil one. But to generate consensus around that point is much harder, given all the differing circumstances, than to build consensus around the idea that Nazism is evil. So arguably Robert is smart to just sidestep that Sisyphean task and stick to the abundant concrete specifics that no one can refute, and allow people to draw their own general conclusions if they wish.
Still, I have to confess to some uncertainty on what Robert's position is on all this. My uncertainty is enhanced by the chapter titles from Spencer's Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades :
"Chapter 1: Muhammad: Prophet of War"
"Chapter 2: The Qur'an: Book of War"
"Chapter 3: Islam: Religion of War
""Chapter 4: Islam: Religion of Intolerance"
"Chapter 5: Islam Oppresses Women"
"Chapter 6: Islamic Law: Lie, Steal, Kill."
"Chapter 7: How Allah Killed Science"
"Chapter 8: The Lure of Islamic Paradise"
"Chapter 9: Islam--Spread by the Sword? You Bet."
These titles seem like they might amount to universal generalizations.
[Indeed!]
Posted by: traeh
Dhimmis,
"Should Evangelicals insist that "embrace of Trinitarian theology" be part of the litmus test?"
It already is part of the UNDHR, insofar as the UNDHR ensures freedom and equality of religious practice. Also, you may not have picked up on a subtlety of my litmus test: it's a negative litmus test, not a positive one: i.e., anyone who opposes the UNDHR is out (but that doesn't mean the UNDHR is the sole criterion of membership in the anti-jihad movement).
Think about it: anyone who opposes the UNDHR is out: that means that an evangelical group that demanded that Trinitarian worship be part of the litmus test would be, ipso facto, failing the litmus test.
Posted by: Television
____________________________________________________
traeh,
"It's fine for you to draw the conclusion that across all its variation, Islam remains a unity, and an evil one."
What do we mean when we use the term "Islam"? Do we mean simply the sum total of Muslims? Do we mean a motivating ideology that unites them, despite their differences? Or do we mean a messy constellation of ideas that highlights their differences and reveals there is no real unity?
Behind some answers to these questions are many attempts at having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too (HYCAEIT): i.e., many "moderate" Muslims will claim Islam is too variegated to make generalizations about it, but at the same time will posit certain unifying features of Islam that make all the world's Muslims (or most Muslims, as a detachable "Islam" from the "small minority of extremist hijackers of Islam who-are-not-true-Muslims") so peachy keen and hunky dory and so un-terrorist-like. Robert's HYCAEIT seems to be that there is an "Islam" that is evil and dangerous, but that because it is only a central, crucial, gigantic chunk of a larger "Islam" that is ethically and culturally variegated, then he can't condemn "Islam", because he doesn't want to condemn the latter, larger Islam when he condemns the former Islam: therefore he avoids the word "Islam" when he is condemning-by-implication. The pivotal problem with Robert's approach here is that the smaller Islam that Robert condemns, by screaming implication, on a daily basis is avowed by him to be not some peripheral, detachable part of the larger Islam, but its very heart -- central, crucial and vital. In my book, a central, crucial, vital heart of something is that something, and the rest, no matter how many-splendored its "tapestry" seems, is, ethically speaking, window-dressing: and if that heart is evil and dangerous, then the whole body is a Frankenstein monster -- made more dangerous for its distracting camouflage that would obfuscate the condemnation. Robert and you seem to be confusing the aesthetic level with the ethical level.
You make much of "Robert's reportorial, specifics-based approach", but no one, not even the AP wire, is or can be wholly and merely data: there is a guiding interpretive ideology behind Robert's choice of data, presentation of data, explanation of data, day in and day out. He may be exercizing more restraint than others in this regard, and I agree that is a good thing; but he is not avoiding making general, "philosophical" claims about what all the data mean.
[This is what I meant by Spencer when he puts on his Analyst hat, in distinction to his Reporter hat]
And he chooses to avoid condemning Islam because that would in his mind necessarily entail condemning every last couscous stand, every last carpet fiber, every last sandal strap, every last friendly Muslim, every last piece of hygienic advice now and for the last fourteen centuries.
Again, this is not rocket science: when an organization has a central tenet enjoining its members to feed live little girls through wood chippers every Friday, and when our reportorial, specifics-based approach shows that many members of this organization have been, as good members, dutifully following this central tenet for centuries and continue to do so now, then it doesn't matter if that organization has all the many-splendored variety of Islam and all the venerable centuries of Islam, and all the smiling faces of Islam: that organization must be condemned: Robert himself would condemn it. What would you think of someone who refused to condemn such an organization?
[This post where Television (i.e., moi) counter-argued the poster “traeh” triggered a long series of verbose exchanges between the two of them, which I will not include in this transcript, as I think the Television post immediately above definitively established the point that needs establishing here. For those who want to continue reading the sub-thread of this particular exchange, click here.]
Posted by: Television
____________________________________________________
Dennisw,
Sorry for the late reply. I have been spending some time with friends.
Disagreements and criticisms do not require apology. I think Mr. Spencer understands that. On several occasions, going clear back to May 17 (my first two comments on JW), I explicitly gave him credit for his work, and expressed my gratitude.
The terms "crafty" and "naïve fool" are mutually exclusive. I do not see how I can be both.
I believe Mr. Spencer's effectiveness would be unaffected or even enhanced if he were to follow my suggestion. To carry one's own research to the obvious conclusion adds weight to the research itself. Failure to take that step only gives fuel to those who are already slamming and denigrating him. In their eyes, if he won't take the step, why should they? In their eyes, he does not trust his own research, so why should they? What they see is a guy asking the same question over and over again, which to the naïve listener may give the appearance of self-doubt. This is not to say that I doubt his research, nor even that he does. It just gives detractors another excuse to doubt him, over and over again.
Concerning "silence", I distinguish between saying something has badness in it, and saying that something Is bad because of all the badness in it. The abolitionists not only talked of the badness of slavery (beatings, lynching, chains, humans as property, etc), but they also said outright that slavery is evil, and did not look to the slaver owners for approval of that judgment. From 1790 forward Congress put up tremendous resistance to Any discussion of slavery, and was mostly successful. That refusal allowed it to become more and more entrenched. I think the entrenchment is dangerous. There needs to be a clearly, simply stated reason, backed up by facts, to resist such entrenchment. Continually asking "show me a mainstream Islam that is not jihadist" does not function as reason to resist the entrenchment. To resist such declaration on the grounds that it is "simplistic and misleading", and then explaining that stand as he finally did (once we got past dental hygiene) only adds confusion. Reasons for action are not effective stated as questions. For the larger populace to support resistance Simple rather than Subtle is Most effective for motivation. This is the world we live in as driven by unchanging fundamental human nature. And if this risks upsetting "PC world" academics and media people, well, preserving our freedom is worth that risk, and besides, I think they will get over it.
Posted by: neverpayretail
____________________________________________________
To Television:
You seem to want to add to Robert's reporting of data and of broad patterns, an additional twofold task:
1. That he adopt as an explicit program that everyone and every organization should be tested as to whether they adhere to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and if they don't,
2. Robert should condemn non-adherents as evil and encourage others to condemn non-adherents.
[again another straw man -- I did not propose Spencer “adopt a program” (is that like “Adopt an African Child?”); all I suggested was that he make a formal pronouncement to that effect -- once -- to which he can refer back with a link anytime the subject comes up again]
Posted by: traeh
____________________________________________________
"Spenser could alienate those who just do not know enough about Islam by ranting, just like Esmay (whom we’ve already discounted as part of the brains-fell-out sect). So, since we’ve all agreed Esmay is just a ranter…why do we expect Spenser to do exactly the same just because he’s on “our” side?"
To condemn Islam requires no "ranting"; one can do it in a rational, mature, intelligent manner.
[Here, here! I couldn't have said it better myself! :) ]
Posted by: Television
____________________________________________________
"Spenser could alienate those who just do not know enough about Islam by ranting, just like Esmay (whom we’ve already discounted as part of the brains-fell-out sect). So, since we’ve all agreed Esmay is just a ranter…why do we expect Spenser to do exactly the same just because he’s on “our” side?"
Once he clarified his position (which he seemed reluctant to do), I disagreed with that position, perhaps a bit too strongly, and pursued the matter no more with him. He clearly wanted no more discussion.
I have been appreciating the subsequent discussion, detecting no ranting from anyone who has taken the time to follow it. It seems to me that once the truth is established, mankind is served by Action based on that truth.
Action might be a little ahead of the game, but with the growing readership of Spencer's books, the desire for action will gain steam. As I see it, the discussion between Television and Traeh serves the call to action.
There appears to be agreement that condemnation is appropriate. The struggle is how to do it in a pragmatic way that won't "backfire". The term pragmatic seems to include force of law, systematic, practical, and opinions. Also, there might be an issue as to degree of backfire that is acceptable. However, countering any movement is going to experience pushback, and I believe Speculating about it does not form sound basis for not condemning and resisting Islam.
FWIW, I think all this exact same stuff was part of the abolitionist struggle, and the lesson is that delay allows entrenchment which only increases the degree of backfire when things finally come to a head - just a rhetorical statement.
Posted by: neverpayretail
____________________________________________________
Conclusion:
In the last comment above, “neverpayretail” mentions how the refusal to come to a definitive conclusion about condemning slavery only caused the issue to become further entrenched, and to fester and become more and more infected, until it had to come to a head, like a boil.
And that “head” that America came to—the Civil War—was outrageously unacceptable, yet turned out to be an all too tragically inexorable, and horrifically gaping wound in our history.
Those who refuse to condemn Islam, and who refuse to condemn all Muslims who enable Islam either passively or actively, are—in timorously and fantastically thinking they are avoiding the horrors of collective bigotry whose slippery slope will pull them toward genocide—in fact helping those sociopolitical forces that are, by continually putting off the hard choice that has to be made, further entrenching the unresolved problem, causing it to fester in the darkness of fear and censorship, rather than raising it up to the sunlight of public discussion, rational analysis, and courageous resolve.
As with the refusal to condemn slavery, and the horrible devolution which that refusal, more and more entrenched, finally caused when it broke out in the inflammation of the Civil War, the increasing entrenchment of our collective refusal to condemn Islam is only pulling us to a far messier, and bloodier, denuouement than the one we could more effectively manage by coming sooner, rather than too late, to the conclusion of a total condemnation. And Spencer, on this particular, yet crucial, aspect of the larger problem, is helping the wrong side.
No comments:
Post a Comment