tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27580150304396111722024-02-17T00:49:04.896-08:00Jihad Watch WatchHesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.comBlogger134125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-7077250979785020422008-05-22T12:05:00.000-07:002008-05-22T14:45:54.228-07:00I’m out.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuX5pP_yBz5H9lutn8aemuq6R89JH8LNDEdTpUuYqIN9fY-XebrL94fCPi3dHTyYXtE61dB4yQEi8VnnwxLPSl2TT2oso2CrZc0LgUPyjpTBRB0D0ZvfGwAhY9JB2SW1aV3irYN-Yk3ijk/s1600-h/im+out.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuX5pP_yBz5H9lutn8aemuq6R89JH8LNDEdTpUuYqIN9fY-XebrL94fCPi3dHTyYXtE61dB4yQEi8VnnwxLPSl2TT2oso2CrZc0LgUPyjpTBRB0D0ZvfGwAhY9JB2SW1aV3irYN-Yk3ijk/s400/im+out.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5203297671286198850" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br /><br />Almost one year ago, in June of 2007, I posted an </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2007/06/considering-jihad-watch-watch.html">essay</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> here entertaining the possibility of closing up shop.<br /><br />At that time, I had only written about 30 essays, mostly dealing with what I take to be the insufficient appreciation on the part of Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald of the nature and dimensions of Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism (PC MC). At that time, I noted another problem with Jihad Watch:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">The problem of where Jihad Watch stands with regard to the evil and danger of Islam, and with regard to directly subsidiary questions, such as: Is a reformation of Islam possible?<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I added that I had not yet really touched on this particular problem.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Of course, since that time, I decided to keep on truckin’ and published another hundred or so essays. For many months, those essays continued to focus on the aforementioned misapprehension of PC MC on Jihad Watch. My readers know, however, that in the past month or so, my essays have begun to shift the focus to “the </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">problem of where Jihad Watch stands with regard to the evil and danger of Islam</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">By now, I think I’ve analyzed all the important problems with Jihad Watch as thoroughly as they can be done. I will therefore leave </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Jihad Watch Watch </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">standing, but no longer post new essays. A link to here exists on my other blog, </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The Hesperado</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">, and will remain there, for anyone interested to read analyses that in my opinion will remain timely and important into the future. </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The Hesperado </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">will remain active and will occupy my main blogging attention from now on, with a wider focus on PC MC itself and the Problem of Islam.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I will close by quoting the words of an observer (one “Adela G.”) I have only recently become aware of, whose remarks have been posted in the comments sections of Lawrence Auster’s site, </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">View From the Right</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. There are two comments quoted below, </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010640.html">one</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> to do with the recent Koran-kissing incident, </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010440.html">another</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> to do with Spencer’s unfair treatment of Vlaams Belang and other so-called “white racist” parties in Europe. I quote these comments because of their singularly keen dressing down of Spencer which I could not have put better myself. I hope </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“Adela G.” writes more, not only about Spencer, but about the broader issues of the West and the problem of Islam</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">.<br /><br />The gentleman gives the floor, and the last word, to the lady:<br /></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">_______________________</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">1)</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Robert Spencer writes:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The possibility that Muslims worldwide might be incited to murderous rage because of an incident like this can never be discounted. Major General Hammond and his staff are trying to head that off. That's fine, but it also just plays into the mentality that to riot and kill because of something like this is a perfectly natural and rational reaction to it. At a certain point, someone is going to have to have the guts to stand up and say, "Wait a minute. The incident that set you off may indeed have been offensive, but your reaction is insane. If someone insults you, that is no justification to kill him or anyone else, or to destroy anything." </span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />Spencer understands that what Muslims consider inflammatory might possibly incite them to worldwide murderous rage. Yet he goes on to say that to head off that possibility is to "play into the mentality that to riot and kill because of something like this is a perfectly natural and rational reaction to it." Where the heck did he get the "rational" bit from? I have never read anywhere that the homicidal acting out of Muslims who feel Islam has been insulted touches at any point on rationality. It is, however, perfectly natural within the context of Islam itself.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">And that's precisely what Mr. Spencer does not seem to comprehend, for he goes on to write:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">At a certain point, someone is going to have to have the guts to stand up and say, "Wait a minute. The incident that set you off may indeed have been offensive, but your reaction is insane. If someone insults you, that is no justification to kill him or anyone else, or to destroy anything."</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Such a reaction is insane only to a non-Muslim. To many Muslims, mere insult is indeed justification for killing and destruction. Incredibly, Robert Spencer evidently believes that at some point, the application of reason to a matter of faith will somehow modify or reform the Muslim tendency to respond to insults with violence. Obviously, he expects those members of a non-Western faith and non-Western culture to be receptive to Western notions of civility and reason--why else stand up and proclaim that violence is an "insane" response to insult?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">If he cannot see how "insane" it is for him to expect people acting as their faith dictates to cast it aside and replace it with alien notions of civility, then how can he expect Muslims to see how "insane" it is to respond to insults with violence? Presumably, he's the one with sane notions of reason and rationality on his side. Yet like every other Western liberal, he adheres to liberal tenets that are every bit as faith-based and irrational as Islam itself. Spencer himself shows that modern liberalism and Islam are both irrational ideologies, impervious to reason and resistant to, if not incapable of, change or "reform."</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">2)</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Spencer writes:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Fjordman argues that the indigenous peoples of are being overwhelmed by an elite-driven attempt to render them minorities in their own countries, and that is a point well taken also. But there is cultural defense and then there is a white supremacism that is based on some idea of racial superiority and inferiority, and has via Hitler a historical link to genocide. They are not the same thing, and a distinction needs to be made between the two...</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />They are not only not the same thing, they are polar opposites. The first concerns whites becoming a minority in Europe, the second is basically a description of the Nazi policy of Lebensraum, genocide perpetrated by Germans againist other European whites. No distinction needs to be made between them, they are demonstrably different to anyone who can read.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I have read many of Fjordmann's essays and don't recall his ever advocating anything like the "white supremacism" to which Spencer repeatedly refers. Only a liberal would fear that a discussion of whites becoming a minority in Europe needs to be defended against suspicions of advocating neo-Nazism and genocide perpetrated by white supremacists.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Spencer must live in a very tortuous world, in which to criticize his refusal to draw logical conclusions from his own evidence is to aspire to a kind of world domination ("Austerism over the West"), and to worry about whites becoming the minority on an historically white continent is to veer uncomfortably near to advocating white supremacism and genocide. His assertion that "I am more interested in making common cause even with those with whom I do not agree on anything" is lofty, if nonsensical. I don't see how a person can make a common cause with people with whom he has nothing in common. And it certainly stands in contradiction to his equally lofty and nonsensical statement: "I am pronouncing no anathemas, although I repeat: I completely disavow and repudiate any neo-Nazi or white supremacist individual or group."</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Unfortunately, his inability to speak plainly about the actual nature of the threats to the West limits his effectiveness as an ally in the fight to preserve it. His pussyfooting would be merely risible if anything less crucial were at stake. As it is, his name-calling and preemptive defensiveness are counterproductive and divisive.<br /><br /></span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-67779091483022589672008-05-21T08:05:00.000-07:002008-05-22T11:19:40.127-07:00Strike three. . .<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgXg8zIa8PcCsQMtD-bU7PB-LBSyk-4KYxrPlqTKvqVOlJlKcvRHdSRg9mMhw3mrMJpjlmvPEyNKgWEPHw8WoWkBBKnDdlzbvzsihXK4T9hHcX0Hpid1iJ4BeyTGyoHVtRxcV-w-L_sQ8e/s1600-h/strike3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgXg8zIa8PcCsQMtD-bU7PB-LBSyk-4KYxrPlqTKvqVOlJlKcvRHdSRg9mMhw3mrMJpjlmvPEyNKgWEPHw8WoWkBBKnDdlzbvzsihXK4T9hHcX0Hpid1iJ4BeyTGyoHVtRxcV-w-L_sQ8e/s400/strike3.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5202849039717380818" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">From the same comments field of a Jihad Watch article whence we culled our <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/strike-one-spencer-swings-misses-mark.html">first</a> and <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/strike-two-spencer-swings-misses-mark.html">second </a></span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">strikes</span>” <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">we complete our 3-part series of egregious boners from the figurative pen of Robert Spencer.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />About me (aka </span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">cantor</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">) he </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021062.php#c542596">wrote</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Oh, and by the way, I am told he keeps whining that he is banned here, but he is </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">not </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">banned. If he keeps up this sort of thing, he will gain a reputation for honest dealing to rival that of "An American."</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Now this is what Spencer </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020226.php#c518765">said</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> to me (aka </span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">cantor</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">) a couple of months ago in March of this year in the comments field of a Dhimmi Watch article:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">You are an irritant, a poor thinker, and an unfair judge. I have banned you several times, and probably will soon do it again.</span> <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Cordially</span> <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Robert Spencer </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">At this point, do we need to call the umpire over? For, you see, Spencer is being scrupulously careful to be technically correct. It may therefore be technically true for him to say about me that </span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">he is not banned</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. But this would be to ignore the context of trying to have a mature and intelligent discussion with someone who</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />1) has the power to ban you</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />2) by his own admission has banned you </span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">several times</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> before</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">and<br /><br />3) was, the last time I thought I got banned (as well as previous times when he actually did ban me), threatening to ban me yet again if I didn</span>’<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t </span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">behave</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Is it any wonder that, at that point</span>—<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">with this threat looming over my head, and with the experience of actually being banned by him in the past for similarly prickly, paranoid and irrational reasons</span>—<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">, I felt increasingly nervous and uncomfortable about speaking my mind openly and freely and therefore soon thereafter decided to pack up and leave?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I posted one more comment</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">after that, to which Spencer replied in prickly hostile fashion, again threatening to ban me:</span> <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />. . .are you really interested in truth here, or just in playing prosecutor? If the former, then answer my other questions first. If the latter, then go away, which, if you keep this up, you will be doing soon (again) anyway.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Another poster </span><a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020226.php#c519019">observed</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> a little while later, after I had not responded, reasonably inferring (as I had done):</span> <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />I think Cantor's been banned again.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">To which Spencer replied:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Cantor has not yet been banned again. But apparently, in what is perhaps not a surprising move in light of his his </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[sic] </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">mean-spiritedness and "Gotcha!" mentality, he has withdrawn when called out on what he is doing.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />That would be the mean-spirited and uncharitable way of interpreting why I left. Spencer seemed (and continues to seem) oblivious to the fact that, with his power to ban and his previous actual bannings of me for dubiously rational reasons, makes the atmosphere highly uncomfortable, if not hostile, for me to have a </span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">good-faith discussion</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> with him in a free and open manner. Just because, while I maintained the discussion, I remained forthright and did not back down from my conviction with regard to the issue I was trying to probe, that is no reason to characterize me as </span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">mean-spirited</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. Rather than deal with the actual words and argument presented to him, Spencer immediately jumps the gun.<br /><br />His first words of </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020226.php#c518765">response</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> to me on that thread were:</span> <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />I know from experience that you are a relentless and indefatigable fault-finder. . .</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />What kind of way is that to begin a discussion? Even if he thinks that is true about the past, what does that have to do with the argument I was presenting to him at that present time? Spencer has done this to me many times before, and to other commenters who broach anything hinting at criticism of him, which is tantamount to the way the Muslim apologists treat Spencer about which he rightfully complains: instead of dealing with his arguments and evidence, they engage in irrelevant ad hominems. Compounding this tactic, Spencer also retorts to criticism with mere assertions of how bad and wrong his challengers are, without supplying actual counter-arguments</span>—<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">again, another tactic the Muslim apologists use against him.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Consider how he deals with a mature and intelligent criticism more recently from a reader named </span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anonymous</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> in the <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021062.php#comments">comments field</a> of the article about the Koran-shooting /Koran-kissing incident in Afghanistan (only comments in brackets are mine):</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[first </span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anonymous</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> quotes Spencer:] </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">If he knew what the book was, the soldier was stupid, because even if it is true that the Qur'an contains mandates for violence against unbelievers, and it is true, doing something like this will only turn into enemies some people who might otherwise not be your enemies. </span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />[then writes:]</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Anyone who shows himself as our enemy as a result of someone shooting at the Qur'an is <span style="font-style: italic;">already </span>our enemy, as that person in effect has demanded of us to respect the scriptures of his so-called religion, or else. Our failure to comply merely makes the person reveal himself as our enemy. Thus, the Qur'an shooting should be a good thing, as it will provoke our enemies to reveal themselves. I'm surprised that Spencer considers this Qur'an shooting incident an "unnecessary provocation", since it is no more an "unnecessary provocation" than the Danish Mohammad cartoons were, and Spencer apparently has no problems with posting these on his site.<br /><br />[he quotes Spencer again:]<br /><br />D'Souza in that is asking us to ignore and deny the truth, which is never an effective strategy in wartime or peacetime.<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[then writes:]</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I'm glad to hear that Spencer has now realized that ignoring and denying the truth is never an effective strategy. Since Spencer's repeated challenges to Muslims to work for Islamic reform have in fact been expressions of Spencer himself outwardly ignoring and denying the truth, as they have suggested that Islamic reform is possible when in reality this is not the case (something Spencer himself undoubtedly realizes), his recent epiphany suggests that the nonsensical challenge is now a thing of the past, at least if Spencer will practice what he preaches and not merely continue to ignore and deny the truth against his own better judgement.<br /><br />Posted by: anonymous<br /><br />_____________________________</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[Spencer opens with a snotty salute and an irrelevant ad hominem:]</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Anonymous: Hi! I know who you are, but never mind.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />[Spencer then quotes </span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anonymous</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">:] </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I'm glad to hear that Spencer has now realized that ignoring and denying the truth is never an effective strategy. Since Spencer's repeated challenges to Muslims to work for Islamic reform have in fact been expressions of Spencer himself outwardly ignoring and denying the truth, as they have suggested that Islamic reform is possible when in reality this is not the case (something Spencer himself undoubtedly realizes), his recent epiphany suggests that the nonsensical challenge is now a thing of the past, at least if Spencer will practice what he preaches and not merely continue to ignore and deny the truth against his own better judgement.<br /><br />[then writes:]</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I see you've been reading Lawrence Auster, a man who relentlessly attributes to me positions that I do not hold, and who professes to know what I believe better than I do. That's his business, but in any case, there is no denial of reality by me here at all. This is what is known as calling a bluff. I explained here what I am doing when I call for Islamic reform: http://jihadwatch.org/archives/020749.php </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Cordially </span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />Robert Spencer </span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />_____________________________</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[another reader, “Darcy” wrote:]<br /><br />Yeah, hi, Mohammedan al-"anonymous." RS is all about Truth. You are all about "taqiyya." Bravo Mohammed cartoons! MORE Mohammed cartoons! Because: They tell the Truth about evil Islam. <br /><br />_____________________________</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />[And Spencer replied:]<br /><br />Darcy:<br /><br />"Anonymous" is not a Muslim, but someone who has been misled by some people who appear bent on portraying me, for some reason, as an enemy, and in doing this have not hesitated to stoop to attributing to me beliefs and positions that I do not hold, and hunting for "contradictions" in my positions that do not actually exist. </span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Cordially </span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />Robert Spencer<br /><br />_____________________________</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />[Darcy again:]<br /><br />OK, RS. He's a Muslim Apologist. I get it. Could it be Esposito? Karen Armstrong? Dhimmi D'Souza? Doug Hooper? Whoever it is, can't be too bright. Obviously.<br /><br />_____________________________</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />[Spencer again:]<br /><br />Darcy,<br /><br />No, no one like Esposito or Armstrong either. This person is from the group that believes that because I do not say that all Muslims are evil, I am soft on jihad, and they pretend that I say we should not resist jihadist activity in the U.S., but should rather wait passively for Islamic reform, which is so far from what I actually say as to border on libel.<br /><br />Cordially </span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />Robert Spencer </span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />_____________________________</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />[</span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anonymous</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">then responds to Spencer:]</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Spencer provides me with a link in which he quotes himself saying the following:<br /><br />"Many strange things have happened in history </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">and I would never say that Islamic reform is absolutely impossible"</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> (my emphasis).<br /><br />Here, Spencer explicitly admits that he would never say that Islamic reform is impossible, meaning that he does claim it could be possible, even as he admits that it is not likely. For the record, I don't actually believe that Spencer himself personally has any hopes for Islamic reform to occur - on the contrary, someone with as much knowledge of Islam as Spencer necessarily has to know that Islamic reform is impossible. Which begs the question why Spencer is so reluctant to actually admit that this is true. Instead, rather than stating in unambiguous language that Islamic reform is impossible, and that no matter what they say or do, so-called Islamic reformers will necessarily leave us disappointed since as Spencer undoubtedly know there is no potential for reform in Islam, Spencer first informs us of the unlikelihood of Islamic reform, but then all of a sudden challenges Muslims to work for Islamic reform, thereby suggesting that however unlikely it may be, Islamic reform is possible! Ultimately, the issue is not about whether or not Spencer believes that Islamic reform is possible, but about why Spencer insists on challenging Muslims to work for Islamic reform when the challenge itself implies that Islamic reform is possible or else would be meaningless, and why Spencer persists in doing so even after he has been made aware of these implications.<br /><br />[then quoting “Darcy”:] </span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Hey al-"anonymous." I've bought a little paperback Koran. And I can do ANYTHING I want with it! So, I'm your enemy! Good! COME AND GET ME!<br /><br />[</span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anonymous</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> continues</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">:]</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Darcy seems to have misunderstood my message completely. What I was trying to convey was that I believe that Spencer is wrong when he claims that the Qur'an shooting will "turn into enemies some people who might otherwise not be your enemies". The way I see it, anyone who starts behaving as our enemy as a result of our failure to show respect for the Qur'an was already our enemy, and only revealed himself as an enemy when we faildc to act in accordance with his implicit demands. Bravo Mohammed cartoons! MORE Mohammed cartoons! Because: They tell the Truth about evil Islam. I agree. </span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Posted by: anonymous </span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />_____________________________</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />[Spencer again:]<br /><br />Anonymous:<br /><br />Evidently, you, like your friends, do not know the meaning of the phrase "calling a bluff." Meanwhile, I understand the competition for market share, but I myself have an immense distaste for friendly fire. I do not engage in criticism of those with whom I share a general vision, even if we disagree on some particulars. While I have no hope that you, Auster, or Cantor/Television/Remote etc. etc. etc. will ever get a clue that the jihadists, rather than me, are the ones we should directing our efforts against, I will say that your commenting here -- while you are not and will not be banned -- is not particularly welcome. No one is forcing you to read this site, and I encourage you to go elsewhere.<br /><br />Cordially<br />Robert Spencer </span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />_____________________________</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />[</span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anonymous</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Quoting Spencer:]<br /><br />Evidently, you, like your friends, do not know the meaning of the phrase "calling a bluff." </span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />[</span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anonymous</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">then writes:]</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />And I have tried to explain to Spencer that whatever the intent of his challenges, they have the unfortunate effect of suggesting that Islamic reform is possible. If Spencer does not in fact intend to suggest such a thing, he should consider rephrasing his frequent challenges so that they no longer contain this suggestion. Spencer seems to think that my motivation for posting at this site is to "compete for market share" and points out that I should direct my efforts against the jihadists instead of him, but he seems to have missed the purpose of my presence here in the first place. Generally, I believe that the counterjihad movement should strive for clarity, and whatever Spencer may think of my comments here (and other comments in a similar vein), they do nevertheless suggest that his writings are not always sufficiently clear. Since Spencer is such a prominent and important figure in the counterjihad movement (indeed, he may be the most important of them all), pointing this out is not insignificant and annoying nit-picking, it is an attempt at encouraging (or even provoking) Spencer into striving for clarity in his writings, for the potential benefit of the counterjihad movement. Therefore it is deplorable that Spencer himself has shown himself to be negative towards those trying to convince him, though to be fair I have to give him credit for not doing a Charles Johnson and ban anyone on a whim. Speaking of clarity, if we are to take Spencer at his word that he "would never say that Islamic reform is absolutely impossible", then it would be immensely interesting to hear from Spencer himself exactly what it is about Islam that makes him unwilling to rule out the possibility of Islamic reform altogether. (Since the weekend is over and I don't really have much time to participate in this discussion, I think this'll have to be it for me for now.) </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: anonymous </span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />_____________________________</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />[As Spencer did not respond again, </span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anonymous</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> added a little while later:]<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Although I've withdrawn from this discussion, I'm still watching it as I'm waiting for Spencer to address the following: "Speaking of clarity, if we are to take Spencer at his word that he "would never say that Islamic reform is absolutely impossible", then it would be immensely interesting to hear from Spencer himself exactly what it is about Islam that makes him unwilling to rule out the possibility of Islamic reform altogether." Even if Spencer says that I personally am not "particularly welcome" here, his answer to this question could be of interest to all of his readers (including those who are in fact welcome here). Therefore I hope Spencer could take the time to answer it (or at the very least tell us why he doesn't want to do so if that's the case).<br /><br />Posted by: anonymous </span><o:p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></o:p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />_____________________________</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />[END OF TRANSCRIPT]<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Conclusion:</span><br /><br />That last polite, mature and intelligent request by </span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anonymous</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> was at 4:00 p.m. Pacific time, yesterday, May 20th. Spencer has not responded, over 24 hours later (as of the time I wrote this on May 21st, 4:30 p.m. Pacific time).<br /><br />Seeing how Spencer was quick to respond to all of the previous posts by </span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anonymous</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> (and seeing how Spencer has similarly left a few of my challenges on other comments fields unanswered in the past after having quickly responded to the first few comments I made), we are likely here seeing Spencer doing the same thing he accused me of, which I quoted above and which it is apposite to redirect back at him now:<br /></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Apparently, in what is perhaps not a surprising move in light of his mean-spiritedness and </span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Gotcha!</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> mentality, he has withdrawn when called out on what he is doing.</span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-70116554812943369482008-05-20T13:15:00.000-07:002008-05-21T00:06:06.628-07:00Robert Spencer’s Two Hats: Keep Your Day Job<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9Bt_6kCS7pJ55uaJWzd_8U68lAol6hf27Szs8JIW00meNu5bP55xqdRMyNpZhoU9E8ILuN-m3U6s9myPGvQJ-03VGjrcU2lP3FLs9Yizbcetd_w8SCxFUIDK9-zL4Fb4mOSKxI4SJV3o6/s1600-h/2+hats+5.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5201792512122303138" style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9Bt_6kCS7pJ55uaJWzd_8U68lAol6hf27Szs8JIW00meNu5bP55xqdRMyNpZhoU9E8ILuN-m3U6s9myPGvQJ-03VGjrcU2lP3FLs9Yizbcetd_w8SCxFUIDK9-zL4Fb4mOSKxI4SJV3o6/s400/2+hats+5.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />Robert Spencer wears two hats: the hat of the Reporter, and the hat of the Analyst.</span><br /><br />His Reporter’s hat pertains to his “day job”—amassing the ever-growing mountain of Islamic garbage for all to see (which, of course, includes not only Muslims in the news, but also the religious texts that inspire their garbage).<br /><br />His Analyst’s hat, on the other hand, pertains to his frequent editorial comments with which he frames any given day’s Islamic garbage that he puts out on the sidewalk.<br /><br />Sometimes his editorial comments are merely nice touches of acerbic icing, laced with his characteristic dry wit, with a sprinkle or two of literary allusions or obscure references to pop culture. Other times, however, these comments rise to the level of analytical assertions concerning key features of the problem of Islam, and the closely related problem of the West’s continuing inability to rationally come to grips with the Problem of Islam.<br /><br />When Spencer dons his Reporter’s hat, he is doing a superb and singular job, vital for our ongoing and still impoverished War of Ideas against Islam. When, however, Spencer dons his Analyst’s hat atop his Reporter’s hat (or deftly switches one for the other, and then back again), more often than not he commits crucial errors, which we have examined in several recent essays on this blog.<br /><br />Today, we examine his analysis of the alleged Koran-shooting <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021062.php#comments">incident</a> that led to the grievously inane and abjectly suicidal Koran-kissing apology by American General Hammond in Afghanistan (and later to President Bush adding more insult and injury, by <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021091.php#comments">apologizing</a> “on behalf of the American people” to the Prime Minister of Iraq).<br /><br />Before we get there, let us review Spencer’s general analytical errors:<br /><br />1) his misapprehension of the full nature and dimensions of the sociopolitical process called Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism (PC MC);<br /><br />2) the contradiction between his implicitly ostensible condemnation of Islam, and his refusal to explicitly condemn Islam;<br /><br />3) the contradiction between his ostensible acknowledgment that the practice of taqiyya logically renders all Muslims equally suspect, and his assertion that there exist millions and millions of peaceful Muslims as though that were an actually meaningful and useful fact for the puposes of our self-defense, compounded by his leitmotif of calling on Muslims to join us by reforming Islam;<br /><br />and<br /><br />4) his tendency toward excessively gingerly weaselling—and then compounding this by employing sophistical gymnastics when he’s called on it—when it comes to analyzing certain key events that deal with the menace of Islam and the West’s inept and suicidal irrationality in the face of that menace.<br /><br />Today’s essay deals mostly with #4, though it should be readily apparent to my reader that all four points are intimately—yea, inextricably—dovetailed together.<br /><br />What follows is Spencer’s <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021062.php#comments">analysis</a> of the Koran-kissing incident, interspersed with my comments:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">1. While the President and the military brass are anxious to deny that the War On Terror has anything to do with Islam, many rank-and-file soldiers can't help but notice that the fiercest enemies they encounter are also the most devout in their Islam, and that the jihad terrorists quote the Qur'an copiously to justify their acts of violence.</span><br /><br />So far so good. But then, it’s often this way with a person who contradicts himself, as Spencer does: half of what he says is spot-on. It’s the other half that becomes problematic.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">2. That noticing things like this may have led one soldier to use a Qur'an as target practice is unfortunate.</span><br /><br />Ah, we begin to see a glimpse of some of that there gold of our payload—and so soon into the analysis! Why is it “unfortunate” for one of our soldiers to use the Koran as target practice? Because the Koran is not all bad? Because the Koran has a rich, complex and vetust history and is revered by a wonderfully diverse mosaic of peoples all over the world? None of these reasons would suffice, of course, when we consider the sufficient evil, injustice and menace to the world firmly embedded, and easily read, in the Koran. We have been through essentially this same argument before in previous <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/transcripts-part-2-jihad-watch-readers.html">essays</a> where we reproduced some of the comments of readers of Jihad Watch who raised the Nazi Germany / Islam comparison—with Spencer decidedly asserting that the comparison is invalid; for example:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">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.</span><br /><br />Readers challenged this view:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">. . .there is a difference between him simply presenting the evidence without comment -- a persuasive exercise [what I have called his Reporter’s hat], vs. contradicting any assertions about Islam being dangerous and violent [his Analyst’s hat] -- something that 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.</span><br /><br />And another reader:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">. . .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!?</span><br /><br />Yet another reader of Jihad Watch from the <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/robert-spencer-pussycat-or-lion-having_21.html">comments field</a> of another Jihad Watch thread:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Islam may be many things, but so was Nazism. Nazism wasn't just about killing Jews and conquering the world. It was also about socialism, correcting economic inequities, building infrastructure, taming inflation, combating crime, the Volkswagen Beetle, exercise and public health awareness, etc. All of those things good. And the autobahn. Got to love the autobahn. Had the Nazis not started a world war they couldn't win, they'd still be in power today. Does this mean that is would be fair to say that "Nazism is not necessarily a violent, dangerous religion because Nazism is many things"? I can't speak for you, Robert, but I am willing to say that islam IS a violent, dangerous religion no matter how many "Things" it is. The Beetle notwithstanding. The only difference between Nazism and islam is that islam has a cover - the status as religion. And in our PC west, that gives it carte blanche to continue without coming under direct government, media, or general social attack. If only the Nazis had it so good.</span><br /><br />Spencer responded thusly to the commenter above (as well as to another commenter who also commented in the other thread which we quoted above) by writing in that same comments field:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Retail and SomethingAboutIslam: Yeah, I'm a liberal. I have fangs too. 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. </span><br /><br />One wonders about that last sentence of Spencer’s: “reckoned with” exactly how? In such a way as to temper our policy with respect to the exigencies of our self-defense? If not, then why even mention it? Would “reckoning with” all those multitudes of peaceful Muslims that exist out there somehow help our self-defense? Exactly how? If not, then why even mention it?<br /><br />Let us continue with Spencer’s analysis of the unofficial Koran-shooting incident that was meant to be assuaged by the official Koran-kissing apology:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">If he knew what the book was, the soldier was stupid, because even if it is true that the Qur'an contains mandates for violence against unbelievers, and it is true, doing something like this will only turn into enemies some people who might otherwise not be your enemies. </span><br /><br />So I guess this time at least it’s not only about the diversity & complexity & historically lengthy nature of Islam (and, by extension, the Koran that helps enormously to make Islam what it is) , but mainly about the imprudent inflammation of apparently harmless Muslims which will turn them into dangerous Muslims.<br /><br />A reader commented about this in the comments field of that thread superbly, and I quote:<br /><br />“Anyone who shows himself as our enemy as a result of someone shooting at the Qur'an is <span style="font-style: italic;">already </span>our enemy, as that person in effect has demanded of us to respect the scriptures of his so-called religion, or else. Our failure to comply merely makes the person <span style="font-style: italic;">reveal himself </span>as our enemy. Thus, the Qur'an shooting should be a good thing, as it will provoke our enemies to reveal themselves.” [emphasis in the original]<br /><br />To which it needs to be added (as many other commenters indeed did more or less attest in that comments field, in de facto oblique criticism of Spencer’s position, whether they realized it or not):<br /><br />1. The Koran is the war manual of our enemy;<br /><br />2. The Koran is an evil, unjust and mortally dangerous book, and the evil, injustice and menace therein is sufficient to render irrelevant any innocuous or seemingly benign contents it might have;<br /><br />3. Any Muslim who reveres the Koran is already our enemy, because he reveres the Koran (see #1 and #2) and because by being a Muslim he enables Islam which is the culture of the Koran (see #1 and #2);<br /><br />4. The diversity and complexity of Islam does not vitiate #1 or #2 or #3;<br /><br />5. The diversity and complexity of the sociology of Muslims is rendered useless because of taqiyya, which acquires additional dangers because of its contextual function in the warp and woof of other Islamic features such as the unique trans-national cohesion of Muslims, the Islamic mentality of dividing the world into superior Muslims and inferior & inimical non-Muslims, and the singular sociological structure of the trans-national Umma as a diverse Army embracing millions of otherwise seemingly passive and harmless Muslims who nevertheless in a variety of ways enable the supremacism of Islam.<br /><br />Spencer goes on to argue that opposing (and one presumes forbidding as much as possible) the shooting of a Koran is:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">. . .avoiding unnecessary provocation that will require you to fight battles that you otherwise would not have to fight.</span><br /><br />Tactically and casuistically—in the context of the politically correct limitations on our ability to rationally engage the war Islam has declared on us—, Spencer might have a point. But in the larger picture, we need to expand our aggressiveness, ruthlessness and rational enmity of our enemy as we did during WW2 when we did not flinch from mocking and hating the Japs and Krauts. Imagine an American soldier during WW2 shooting a copy of Mein Kampf. The only reaction from his commanding officers would either be a yawn, or buying him a beer. There would be no abject apologies to the “German people”, nor would any anti-Nazi analysts be spending one iota of time presenting arguments as to why what that soldier did was “stupid” because it might “provoke” more Germans who might otherwise not fight us, into fighting us. There are tactical and casuistic reasons why the analogy does not quite fit today—but they have nothing to do with the marvelously diverse tapestry and mosaic that is world-wide Islam, and everything to do with our own inept policies guided by politically correct multi-culturalism whose paradigm consistently decouples Islam itself and the vast majority of Muslims from the Enemy.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">3. The reactions of Major General Hammond and his staff were understandable, but excessive. They don't want to alienate people they believe they have won over, or whom they hope to win over, in Baghdad. They had to disavow this soldier's action.</span><br /><br />Again, only in the tactical, casuistic, and comic-tragically limited context we articulated above. It would be nice to see some more soldiers and officers showing some balls for a change. As another reader of Jihad Watch said, actually shooting the Koran without apology would probably induce respect from Muslims for the serious resolve of their enemy. We know from experience (and Spencer knows too, as he writes in this same essay we are quoting) that Muslims treat any signs of apology as signs of military weakness in the “Long War”.<br /><br />Furthermore, Muslims don’t need actual incidents of provocation to set them off in murderous rampages, as the rumors of an accidental spray of urine landing on a Koran in Afghanistan a couple of years ago show, among other similar incidents—let alone incidents that should not provoke anybody of a sane mind (cartoons, etc.).<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Major General Hammond is anxious to show that the U.S. is not at war with Islam. Fine. </span><br /><br />Not fine by me. We have to graduate to the position that demonstrates we are at war with Islam, and put all the burden of proving that wrong on the Muslims by showing us with substantive shows of good faith, in speech and action, how we are wrong.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">4. "Sheikh Hamadi al-Qirtani, in a speech on behalf of all tribal sheiks of Radhwaniya, called the incident 'aggression against the entire Islamic world.'" This is simply hysterical. It was a boorish, stupid act, but it was a boorish, stupid act by one individual soldier. </span><br /><br />We need more boorish, stupid acts from soldiers like this.<br /><br />But I am not necessarily calling for Spencer to proclaim this. If he cannot proclaim this, however, he should keep silent. Because there is no alternative that will not in some way be asymptotic. And asymptotic analysis is counter-productive to our War of Ideas. If an analyst cannot matriculate beyond the asymptotic learning curve, then he best refrain from offering analysis.<br /><br />Spencer, keep your day job.Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-42892291127636960442008-05-19T15:59:00.000-07:002008-05-19T16:32:13.683-07:00Strike two: Spencer swings, misses mark<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg10vDLLEJ6L09-JVp115FMjtHlh1iPfiqG0caVYMSczwRGEB-G_0eiy9D_31pCF85jlas2vda7HZ0plzZC9PiPnmLBFwjFOvvvb3TmwJtlt5llgwZm3ougTG4ENto26myWl9tU9z6huRIm/s1600-h/strike.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg10vDLLEJ6L09-JVp115FMjtHlh1iPfiqG0caVYMSczwRGEB-G_0eiy9D_31pCF85jlas2vda7HZ0plzZC9PiPnmLBFwjFOvvvb3TmwJtlt5llgwZm3ougTG4ENto26myWl9tU9z6huRIm/s400/strike.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5202227738338276034" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Continuing from my previous essay </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/strike-one-spencer-swings-misses-mark.html">Strike one: Spencer swings, misses mark</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">, I note the second mark Robert Spencer misses:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I can’t fathom why someone would spend all his time hunting up contradictions in my work—contradictions which would dissolve quickly in a good-faith discussion, but obviously he is not willing to have that—rather than just doing the job better if he thinks it can be done better.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Although there are strictly speaking a couple of somewhat distinct marks (or swings) in the above quote, I’ll deal with them together as one, as they are packed together so compactly in one sentence and are so closely intertwined.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">First, just because one person “can’t fathom” why a second person is spending their time doing something, this does not suffice to even begin to demonstrate why the product of that second person</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s time is worthless or even counterproductive. (A little further on, he underscores this with “[i]nstead of sniping, I suggest their time would be better spent actually fighting the battles they claim I am not fighting”). An actual counter-argument would have to be mustered to move this beyond the simple and tendentiously supercilious condemnation it is; based, of course, on a careful reading of the second person’s positions. Which brings us to the second swing: Spencer may or may not be right that the contradictions I find in some of his writings would “dissolve quickly” in the context of a “good-faith discussion”; however, my own experience with a few “discussions” I have had with Spencer in comments threads of Jihad Watch along with my observation of his “discussions” with other readers in comments threads of Jihad Watch (which I have reproduced verbatim in two essays here) has not encouraged me that Spencer is interested in a good-faith discussion</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">at least not with the hoi polloi of unwashed readers who have the temerity to find any fault in him. For, in those past “discussions”, he has 1) routinely ignored key points that are important while cherry-picking others; 2) deftly danced like a combination of Fred Astaire and some weaselly lawyer around critical points of contention from his interlocutors; and 3) tended to quickly adopt a prickly defensiveness sometimes bordering on paranoia combined with an arrogant snottiness, leading to a “discussion” in which the atmosphere is crackling with threats of banning unless his interlocutors “behave” even when his interlocutors are manifestly comporting themselves in a mature and intelligent manner and their only fault is pressing the issue because Spencer himself is dancing around and around the crucial points of the debate, </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“refusing to be maneuvered” as he has put it so oddly</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">as though a clearer, calmer, and less defensive articulation of his position that is rationally more attentive</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> to his interlocutor</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’s challenges rather than at every turn bristling with suspicious prickliness</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">would somehow force him into adopting a position he does not hold.</span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-49693495715867977442008-05-19T12:38:00.001-07:002008-05-19T13:04:17.332-07:00Strike one: Spencer swings, misses mark<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjSPla-pthv5F5y1uYZrvJYae7Rd3CfZxa2vocIYAKx7o3-j8wmgWRK6Zj_TsjMkoBW3nPGaj53Y0dmCGggCDnRZlYkIj1XoujE7vlAxHHGb5FR_jr0ofT2WDtkZh8i-uV8eODb691oETO/s1600-h/strike2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjSPla-pthv5F5y1uYZrvJYae7Rd3CfZxa2vocIYAKx7o3-j8wmgWRK6Zj_TsjMkoBW3nPGaj53Y0dmCGggCDnRZlYkIj1XoujE7vlAxHHGb5FR_jr0ofT2WDtkZh8i-uV8eODb691oETO/s400/strike2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5202178427818750642" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br /><br />Today, in a </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021062.php#c542594">comment</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> in the comments field of the Koran-shooting/Koran-kissing article on Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer not so indirectly characterized my objection(s) to his position thusly:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. . .they [i.e., cantor (moi) and Lawrence Auster] buttress their claim with falsehoods such as their claim that I want the West not to resist the jihadists. . .</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">This is patently false, as anyone who has read this blog will know. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">What I do claim with reference to my objections to Spencer, as amply demonstrated in my essays here on this blog, is mainly:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">1) Spencer in some ways (mainly as a Reporter) is doing an excellent job for our War of Ideas against Islam, but in other ways (when he dons his Analyst hat) he is for a variety of reasons being counter-productive;</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">2) Among which are that:<br /><br />a) Spencer needs to widen his resistance from the unduly narrow and asymptotic </span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">jihadists</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> to all of Islam, and to all Muslims who either actively support or to one degree or another passively enable Islam</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—which, because of the unique features of taqiyya and because of the exigencies of our self-defense, perforce embraces all Muslims;</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">b) Spencer needs to clarify his ostensible contradictions between kinda sorta condemning Islam and not condemning Islam, and between kinda sorta acknowledging the logical implications of taqiyya—that it makes all Muslims suspect—and asserting that there are </span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">millions and millions</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> of peaceful Muslims as though that has any actual and pragmatic significance with regard to taqiyya and the exigencies of our self-defense.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">3) Or, Spencer could hang up his Analyst hat and devote all his time to what he does best: Report on the mountain of horrible garbage emanating out of Islam both in the news in our time, as well as in Islamic politico-religious commentaries and writings today and throughout history. <br /><br />This is my opinion. I could be wrong. But I don</span>’<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t think I am, and I have a right to voice it.<br /></span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-36241023141365706422008-05-17T11:43:00.000-07:002008-05-17T14:02:10.553-07:00Contradiction Watch 4<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7OBOXcrWrihC24EZY2Db67VspTnv3t5wmYC0a1ZK1VZ91eflIBo6aWrMzjcWsruE2JZMXO5uvsOCI4L1U5_Apz7Eg1ZKgOVI2Y0J4UXS4ymiqKJczu-L3Z64NzaOD_10r9q58kA8GUEwE/s1600-h/c4.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7OBOXcrWrihC24EZY2Db67VspTnv3t5wmYC0a1ZK1VZ91eflIBo6aWrMzjcWsruE2JZMXO5uvsOCI4L1U5_Apz7Eg1ZKgOVI2Y0J4UXS4ymiqKJczu-L3Z64NzaOD_10r9q58kA8GUEwE/s400/c4.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5201420855717278354" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Two assertions by Robert Spencer:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">1) </span><a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021055.php#comments">. . .<span style="font-style: italic;">Islam really isn’t a peaceful religion. . . it manifestly isn’t, as it is the only religion that contains doctrines and traditions mandating warfare against unbelievers. . .</span></a><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">2) </span><a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011577.php#c221171"><span style="font-style: italic;">To say that Islam is a dangerous, violent religion is simplistic and misleading because Islam is many things.</span><br /></a><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Discussion:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Lest Spencer ever get wind of this essay and see fit to weasel out of the above contradiction (which is yet another permutation of the same contradiction about which we have written twelve previous essays on this blog) by exploiting the slightest opportunity for sophistry which those quoted words offer, let us not forget his Clintonesquely finger-wagging (or Nixonianly jowl-shaking) asseveration:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017114.php">I am not “anti-Islam”</a>.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Another objection to the first quote above is its ellipsis-riddled nature. I did not quote it in full because I wanted to emphasize the impact of its latent crux. The reader will readily see, from the restored quote which I hereby reproduce verbatim, that I have not done any injustice to the meaning:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">And also: if Islam really isn’t a peaceful religion, as it manifestly isn’t, as it is the only religion that contains doctrines and traditions mandating warfare against unbelievers, then what exactly will George W. Bush gain by pretending that it is? Will he convince peaceful Muslims not to support the jihad?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">We could, indeed, direct these same rhetorical questions to Spencer himself (as in fact those readers of Jihad Watch did in a variety of intelligent and detailed ways in the transcripts I provided in at least two earlier essays </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/robert-spencer-pussycat-or-lion-having_21.html">here</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> and </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/transcripts-part-2-jihad-watch-readers.html">here</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">): </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">If Islam really isn</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t a peaceful religion, as it manifestly isn</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t, as Robert Spencer tells us by also pointing out that it is the only religion that contains doctrines and traditions mandating warfare against unbelievers, then what exactly will Robert Spencer gain by otherwise asserting that he is “not anti-Islam” and that “to say that Islam is dangerous, violent religion is simplistic and misleading”? Will he convince peaceful Muslims not to support the jihad?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The dissonance one sees in Bush is magnified and intensified in Spencer, since the former unlike the latter does not have a “day job” of spending years amassing and pointing out the mountain of horrible data about Islamic danger and violence, nor is the former on record making statements that contradict his </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“Islam is a religion of peace” statements</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-16894448308480323012008-05-15T13:12:00.000-07:002008-05-16T16:14:26.401-07:00Contradiction Watch 3<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj56mSgNu6KErV4f6EViFj7HyYzK2upW98KO9QRPyhBqsj2YoER1aq1h7KG3XQcrxrRwVWstCp2mdSJTlMsenm5AvkgyI2pnHnlbzuySuj6XCaBeBm-01bqxXo035Yvz4vnZVQzqFEkdpb-/s1600-h/cw3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj56mSgNu6KErV4f6EViFj7HyYzK2upW98KO9QRPyhBqsj2YoER1aq1h7KG3XQcrxrRwVWstCp2mdSJTlMsenm5AvkgyI2pnHnlbzuySuj6XCaBeBm-01bqxXo035Yvz4vnZVQzqFEkdpb-/s400/cw3.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5200701324141146754" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />An ostensible contradiction can be either of three things:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">1) An actual contradiction—in which case only of its two poles can be true.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">2) An apparent contradiction—in which case its two poles only seem to contradict each other, but really don</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">3) A feigned or an incoherently held contradiction—in which case the person expressing it either really only holds one of its two poles and is deceiving his audience by conveying the impression that he really holds both poles; or he is holding together the contradiction out of stupidity, stubbornness or other psychological reasons (or all of the above).</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">To remind our readers, Robert Spencer’s contradiction is essentially between the following two poles:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Pole #1: There exist moderate Muslims out there in sufficient numbers whose moderateness is of a viability for reform such that we the West can reasonably and pragmatically adjust our behaviors with regard to the Problem of Islam in light of that sufficiently potential viability for reform.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Pole #2: Our ability to tell the difference between dangerous and deceitful Muslims, on the one hand, and Muslims who genuinely belong to category #1 is sufficiently impaired, due mainly to factors intrinsic to Islamic culture, that the pragmatic use of category #1 Muslims for our purposes of self-defense does not rise to the level of reasonably potential viability.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Put more simply:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Pole #1: We should use moderate Muslims to help us solve the Problem of Islam.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Pole #2: We can’t identify and locate enough moderate Muslims to help us with the Problem of Islam, and we never will, mainly because of the Islamic culture of deceit, which essentially renders all Muslims untrustworthy for our purposes of self-defense, even if we know theoretically that many trustworthy Muslims exist.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">If Robert Spencer’s contradiction, about which we have written specifically </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/contradiction-watch.html">here</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> and </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/contradiction-watch-2.html">here</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> (and which we have analyzed at length in eleven previous essays on this blog (including the 4-part series </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/robert-spencer-soft-on-islam.html">Robert Spencer: Soft on Islam?</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">), falls under the type we listed second at the very top of our essay, then Spencer can be let off the hook.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Our previous essays in this Contradiction Watch series (as well as the other eleven essays we mentioned above) lead us to conclude that Spencer’s contradiction is of the #3 variety. Whether his is an incoherently held contradiction, maintained through the sheer tenacity of his prickly obstinacy and egotism, or whether he is selectively stupid (since it is clear he is not stupid about other matters), or whether he is feigning a contradiction dissembled as only an apparent contradiction—only his hairdresser knows for sure. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">One can only conjecture. One reason could be—if Spencer only believes in Pole #2 of the contradiction—that he is using the contradiction as a rhetorical device to force his critics to face the logical consequence of the contradiction to which they themselves contribute: one pole manifested in their hope for Muslim reform and the other pole manifested in the evidence of Islamic danger, injustice and evil which Spencer, in his “day job”, helps to bulldoze into an ever-increasing mountain. We have in the prior essays mentioned above already considered this and tentatively rejected it. Another reason could be—if Spencer only believes in Pole #1 of the contradiction—rooted in his Christian humanism. This, however, would make his “day job” most curious indeed, salvageable perhaps as a kind of massive demonstration of “tough love” for all those millions and millions of Muslims he believes are God’s children who need to be saved from Islam. Or perhaps, at the end of the day, our explanation briefly entertained above is the case—sheer contrarian obstinacy undergirded by egotism—, since his mode of dissemblement rarely rises to the level of the sophistry indicative of a person trying to deceive with regard to such a transparently untenable position; and we know all too well that Spencer is capable of disingenuous sophistry, so it cannot be for lack of ability.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Who knows. The point is, Spencer is presenting a contradiction of one form or another regularly and emphatically. And that’s a problem for the Anti-Islam Movement, since he is such an otherwise influential and worthy leader of it.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Thus, from a recent Jihad Watch </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021022.php">article</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Allegation about Robert Spencer from Muslim apologist Omer Subhani:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[Spencer] says that moderate and peaceful Muslims need to speak out against the elements within their religious doctrine that jihadis use to justify violence and "reform" those elements.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Response from Spencer:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Yep.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Omer Subhani continued:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">But based upon Davis' definition of taqiyya how could a person ever know who a sincerely peaceful Muslim is? How would we know such a person isn't deceiving us into thinking that they are a peaceful Muslim when in reality they are just hiding their true jihadi beliefs?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Response from Spencer:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Good questions!</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">In his second response, Spencer’s snippily cheerful and breezy reply serves to support the rhetorical nature of Subhani</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s questions—i.e., because they are “good questions” then there is no good way to answer them definitively such that we could in fact trust Muslims in sufficient numbers to make a difference for our self-defense.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">And yet, in his first response, Spencer implies that we can in fact hope to trust Muslims in sufficient numbers—else why do supposedly moderate and peaceful Muslims “need” to speak out? There can be no “need” because, according to Spencer’s second response, there is no way to measure the sincere reality of moderate and peaceful Muslims! So which is it, Spencer?<br /><br />Good questions!<br /><br /></span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-44852730873923393732008-05-10T10:15:00.000-07:002008-05-10T12:48:08.841-07:00Weaselling Watch<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8vKTw5dfWWFFMJpksJtNZ9ErN9YuUqLwkW1nSgwRjhUx2CxsqhrJGu8OeANSyhi2kXzTHqQGIHogDeHTxzkqt4MlyZazPdxbavyIN1mV2RbHPBCj2nPzu-1ybMCjEcHKt65f5bcDxXwHk/s1600-h/weasel.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8vKTw5dfWWFFMJpksJtNZ9ErN9YuUqLwkW1nSgwRjhUx2CxsqhrJGu8OeANSyhi2kXzTHqQGIHogDeHTxzkqt4MlyZazPdxbavyIN1mV2RbHPBCj2nPzu-1ybMCjEcHKt65f5bcDxXwHk/s400/weasel.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5198802336338227650" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Like his colleague and President, Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch is not above weaselling out of tight spots he himself has created.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />A reader of Jihad Watch posted the following </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020934.php#c539630">comment</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> in the comments field of a recent Dhimmi Watch article:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I’m also still reeling from Hugh’s suggestion a while back that establish procedures for Muslim expulsion.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Rather than avowing and addressing the central import of this statement, Fitzgerald chose in his </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020934.php#c539937">response</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> to zero in on peripheral imprecisions in locution which he could exploit in order to weasel out of the commenter’s main point:</span> <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Could you kindly produce the evidence on which this assertion rests—that I suggest certain “procedures” be established “for Muslim expulsion”? You have misunderstood, or misconstrued, what I wrote, possibly innocently, possibly deliberately. In any case, one needs to have the textual evidence for such an assertion presented. Please do so, on this very thread.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Notice how Fitzgerald chose to latch onto the commenter’s ill-chosen word for tactical reasons, “procedures”. Okay, so Fitzgerald never stipulated the precisely concrete methods we should use to expel Muslims—planes, trains or automobiles—and he has never actually put the words “Muslim” and “expulsion” side by side in a sentence explicitly affirming the denotation of that pairing; however, he has </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008467.php#c130774">written</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> the following:</span> <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />. . . ideas that have frequently been mentioned, and thought openlly about, right here at JW -- to wit, a Benes Decree that would deal with Muslims as the same kind of security threat that Benes and Masaryk and all Czechs in 1946, and since, regarded the Sudeten Germans, whom they overnight expelled, all 3.5 million of them.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">It can happen. And short of that, all sorts of ways can be thought of to make countries Muslim-hostile rather than Muslim-friendly. Little by little by little, this can be accomplished.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />As well as </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008522.php#c132327">this</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">:</span> <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />. . . Were some of those Sudeten Germans (but only some) innocent? Yes. And so were some of those killed in Allied bombing raids over Tokyo or Berlin or Hiroshima or Nagasaki or Dresden. That is what happens, and has to happen, in modern warfare.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I have dealt more fully with Fitzgerald</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s analogical and anagogical use of the Benes Decree in a previous essay here, </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2007/08/hugh-fitzgerald-finally-goes-official.html">Hugh Fitzgerald finally goes official with the Benes Decree</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—where the weaselling in question revolved around Fitzgerald</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s persistent ambiguity regarding the pivotal issue of expelling <span style="font-style: italic;">citizens</span>, as opposed to limiting the expulsion to non-citizens (since the whole point of the Benes Decree was to expel German </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">citizens</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—and, furthermore, it involved not merely the kinds of recent citizens which America and Europe must accommodate in their Muslim populations, but citizens of German extraction who had laid down in Czechoslovakia </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">centuries </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">of familial descent!). </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Now, Fitzgerald never spells out in clear, straightforward and responsibly bold language the concrete realization that his analogy and anagogy are supposed to indicate—Heaven forfend he or Spencer should ever talk straight about the actual consequences of their words! For those</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">, however,</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> who are not blithering idiots</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—as Fitzgerald apparently takes his readers to be</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">the implicit meaning is there, bereft of a conscientious writer who would explicate it, thereby leaving it up to his readers to do so. And then he scolds them when they thus read what is between his lines.<br /><br />I do not fault Fitzgerald for bringing up the Benetian Analogy—for in fact, I support taking it to its logical conclusion and expelling all Muslims from the West. Rather, I fault him for trying to weasel out of the tough, clear and ruthless stand it intends.</span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-7672825908788482702008-05-09T22:32:00.000-07:002008-05-10T10:12:59.606-07:00Contradiction Watch 2<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAFZz1pNuFlrpUJBzHpH4xR6P-ag0baRJNqtTLegD_bFrpIsg1OfSohOn223H_8f95O2DhCymvJxE5OlXuke1lA9i-8098pxhvdrtvj5qJMzycktIaxHRDQcaokYsEDI5A8clvV0YWgs7N/s1600-h/melting+clock+2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAFZz1pNuFlrpUJBzHpH4xR6P-ag0baRJNqtTLegD_bFrpIsg1OfSohOn223H_8f95O2DhCymvJxE5OlXuke1lA9i-8098pxhvdrtvj5qJMzycktIaxHRDQcaokYsEDI5A8clvV0YWgs7N/s400/melting+clock+2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5198620895444808114" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Update: Sloppy Watch/Weaselly Watch</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">A reader in the comments section below helpfully pointed out one important flaw with the premise of this blog essay</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">to wit, that the crucial Sam Harris quote I used to demonstrate one pole of Robert Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s contradiction was not located in the essay of Harris</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s which Spencer unreservedly praised, but came rather from a separate talk Harris gave.<br /><br />While my reader has noted other statements from the Harris essay that could be used to represent the anti-Islam pole of the contradiction, they are not as stark as the one I provided in #1 below: they permit too much of a fudge factor for master weasels like Spencer. Even if Spencer becomes aware of the stark statement by Harris, what would he do? It is highly likely, given the way Spencer has comported himself in the past in such tight spots of near-contradiction created by his gymnastic sophistry, that he would find a way to weasel out, somehow: he would use masterfully slippery language</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">combined with unnecessary, bristly prickliness spiced with an arrogant wit intended to affect a relaxed nonchalance</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">to simultaneously continue supporting Harris unreservedly and continue standing firmly for his equivocal non-position regarding the condemnation of Islam. Furthermore, it has been four days since a reader of Jihad Watch posted (on May 6) the crucial Sam Harris quote in the comments field of the Dhimmi Watch article; so Spencer has had ample time to weigh in with his response, whether weaselly, or whether cogently (I have noticed his eagle eye spot and respond to comments in numerous different comments fields over the years</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">though here, as in other ways, he could maintain plausible deniability if he chooses). In general principle, then, my post here is still relevant.<br /><br />However, in my haste to put up this post, I have been sloppy: I had not read the Harris essay closely enough. I now see problems with Harris. He is not the unequivocally no-nonsense critic of Islam I took him to be: while he excellently frames many aspects of our Problem of Islam, he also regrettably uses such asymptotic terms as </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Islamist</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">; and one quote particularly is troubling:<br /><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Only our willingness to openly criticize Islam for its all-too-obvious failings can make it safe for Muslim moderates, secularists, apostates</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">and, indeed, women</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">to rise up and reform their faith.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">This quote absurdly calling for Islamic reform could have come straight out from the Spencerian mill. (It also goes a long way toward explaining why his essay managed to be accepted for publication by the notoriously soft-on-Islam venue, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Huffington</span></span><span style="font-style: italic;"> Post</span>, <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">of all places</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—as Spencer put it, tossing a light pebble in his own glass house</span>.)<br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />I nevertheless retain my original post, which follows in its entirety. Readers will note that what I have written directly above contradicts my </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Conclusion</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> at the end below</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">but unlike Spencer, I will not try to weasel out of my contradiction: I avow it, and I decidedly choose only one of its positions (that Sam Harris, alas, fails in a couple of key ways to be the kind of anti-Islam analyst we need).</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Here follows my post in its entirety:</span><br /><br />#1 and #2 below will show that Robert Spencer contradicts himself at best</span>—or <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">is engaging in gymnastic sophistry at worst.<br /><br />I cannot think of a third option to explain the incompatibility between #1 and #2:</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">1)</span> <ul style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><li>“<b style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">We are at war with Islam</b><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. It may not serve our immediate foreign policy objectives for our political leaders to openly acknowledge this fact, but it is unambiguously so.</span>”<br /><a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020907.php#comments"><br /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">— Sam Harris, from his essay <a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/losing-our-spines-to-save_b_100132.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >.<br /></span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020907.php#comments"><br /></a></li></ul><ul style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><li>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Sam Harris speaks truth to power</span>. . . <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">All of this essay is excellent.</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">— </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Robert Spencer, from the <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020897.php#comments">Dhimmi Watch article</a> that features an extended excerpt of the Sam Harris essay.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020891.php#comments"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><br /></span><br /></a></li></ul><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">2)</span> <ul style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><li>“<span style="font-weight: bold;">I am not </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">‘anti-</span><b style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">Islam</b><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">.</span><span style="font-weight: bold;">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><br /><a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020907.php#comments"><br /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">— Robert Spencer, from this <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017114.php">Jihad Watch article</a>.</span></li></ul><ul style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><li>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">To say that Islam is a dangerous, violent religion is simplistic and misleading because Islam is many things.</span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">— </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Robert Spencer, from this <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011577.php">Jihad Watch article</a>.</span><a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020891.php#comments"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><br /></span><br /></a></li></ul> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Conclusion:</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Enough is enough. We need our leaders and analysts in the Anti-Islam Movement to cut the bull. Sam Harris does an admirable job in his essay. Spencer is still dancing around the central point. In fact, he can</span>’<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t really be said to be part of the Anti-Islam Movement, can he? For, in his own words, he is not </span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anti-Islam</span>”!<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-41142737949630048412008-05-06T11:36:00.000-07:002008-05-06T18:29:33.973-07:00Contradiction Watch<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcv73Syr_XePrdehUjDzuKr7uYB8A_x9wznTriK1VYX5LNhgO8Gvw-c6O8aZ1WFgAn9CA-L6G1Czt3GhUEnGA2EIDbbD6A1mH1WAPgz74so3_9cU6xi1rBfUqyqBYvAwQvUOIoGjDe6yvm/s1600-h/contradiction+watch.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcv73Syr_XePrdehUjDzuKr7uYB8A_x9wznTriK1VYX5LNhgO8Gvw-c6O8aZ1WFgAn9CA-L6G1Czt3GhUEnGA2EIDbbD6A1mH1WAPgz74so3_9cU6xi1rBfUqyqBYvAwQvUOIoGjDe6yvm/s400/contradiction+watch.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5197336912083445618" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Below, I present two positions held by Robert Spencer.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Each position, listed as #1 and #2, has more than one example adumbrated with bullets. All examples use only direct quotes from Spencer himself.<br /><br />Upshot: #1 and #2 contradict each other.<br /></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">1)</span> <ul style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><li><a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020907.php#comments">a fact that we have pointed out many, many times at Jihad Watch: there is no reliable way to distinguish jihadists from peaceful Muslims<br /></a></li></ul><ul style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><li><a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020891.php#comments">what we have pointed out many times over the years: that there is no reliable way to distinguish between Islamic "extremists" and Islamic "moderates"</a></li></ul><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">2)</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span></span></span></span><ul style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><li><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019990.php#c511094">There are millions upon millions of people who are culturally Muslim but are not interested in advancing the jihad agenda or even necessarily aware of it. . .</a></span><br /></li></ul><ul style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><li><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011577.php">I have been saying that there are moderate Muslims, but no moderate Islam for years. . .</a></span></span></span></span><br /></li></ul><ul style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><li><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011577.php">To say that Islam is a dangerous, violent religion is simplistic and misleading because Islam is many things.</a></span></span></span></span><br /></li></ul><ul style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><li><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017114.php">I am not "anti-Islam."</a></span><br /></li></ul><ul style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><li><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017114.php">any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts.</a></span></li></ul><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Discussion:</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />The question is: How can Spencer</span>’<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s two positions (#1 and #2 above) be harmonized into one coherent position?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">If Spencer’s #1 position is true, then all those “millions and millions” of putatively harmless Muslims from Spencer's #2 position become pragmatically useless for our purposes of self-defense, since according to Spencer’s #1 position, we cannot adequately identify them.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">If Spencer is right about what he claims as quoted under #1 above, how can we ever know whether any given Muslims have really—as opposed to deceitfully or in incoherent schizophrenia that could be “activated” in some indeterminate future—“renounced” violent jihad and dhimmitude?<br /><br />The answer, of course, is that we can’t—unless Spencer has a magic Good Muslim Detector that no one else has been able to come up with. </span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Similarly, Spencer </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019990.php#c511094">wrote</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">To extrapolate from Islamic teachings to the proposition that all Muslims believe in and are advancing the jihadist cause is just as absurd as assuming that because Jesus said to love your enemies, that every last Christian is humble, self-effacing, non-combative, and forgiving. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Here, Spencer is confusing the claim that all Muslims are dangerous, with the more rational claim that we cannot tell the difference between the dangerous Muslims and the harmless Muslims. Why has Spencer been so forcefully digging in his heels about maintaining the “millions and millions” of putatively harmless Muslims out there, when such a putative fact is rendered effectively useless by our inability to sufficiently locate them for pragmatic purposes?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">As I wrote in a recent <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/robert-spencer-pussycat-or-lion-having_21.html">essay</a> about Spencer here:</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />. . . he tries to have his cake of a strictly reportorial just-the-facts-ma</span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">’</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">am diagnostician on the one hand, and pretensions to being a grander, more synthetic analyst on the other hand</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—and only succeeds in vaguely combining both by his adoption of an irresponsibly evasive suspension of judgement and position: his refusal to </span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">be maneuvered</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span>into actually taking a clear, unequivocal stand on Islam and on all Muslims who continue to count themselves members of Islam and who thereby either actively support, or passively enable, the evil injustice and menace of Islam.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Spencer’s </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011589.php#c221645">weaselly way</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> to establish a basis for avoiding condemnation of Muslims:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-style: italic;">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.</span><br /><br />Notice how the last sentence mirrors almost exactly the claims Spencer made which we listed under #1 above, which he used to demonstrate our formidable problem we face with Islamic terrorism, while in the statement we just quoted, the same inability</span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">our lack of </span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">certainty about what [a Muslim] thinks or knows</span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">is couched in terms of the formal abstention from identifying Muslims as potentially as well as actually dangerous. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it too!</span><br /><br /><br /></span></span></span></span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-72715928093830733212008-05-03T17:51:00.000-07:002008-05-04T11:47:34.990-07:00Transcripts Part 2: Jihad Watch readers politely yet firmly take Spencer to task:<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYCGGxwBr21j_6akGSvdLH7HL9eMN51YmOKucG_8Khqo9NxqENRVxNbf2zvyqlZQgn1FP25PA8FBpfEz4yjPmRRvErN1cAebC3JdUBVL4WwqvHd7N3uU_78CeR-WQTKfaOoykOdoZal0ph/s1600-h/trans3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYCGGxwBr21j_6akGSvdLH7HL9eMN51YmOKucG_8Khqo9NxqENRVxNbf2zvyqlZQgn1FP25PA8FBpfEz4yjPmRRvErN1cAebC3JdUBVL4WwqvHd7N3uU_78CeR-WQTKfaOoykOdoZal0ph/s400/trans3.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5196331640628078434" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />In a previous </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/robert-spencer-pussycat-or-lion-having_21.html">post</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> 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.<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">In that transcript, we saw Jihad Watch readers politely yet firmly</span>—<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">and intelligently</span>—<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">taking Spencer to task for his refusal to condemn Islam. As I intimated in that post, there was more to publish.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I now publish additional transcripts, from the comments field of another Jihad Watch </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011589.php">article</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> 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.<br /><br />Those of you following along will see that the reader named </span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">neverpayretail</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">again figures prominently. Another reader named </span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Pickle</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> also contributed a fine articulation of the problem (the very first one); as did a reader named </span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Infidel Pride</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">, along with another named </span>“<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Television</span>”<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> (tooting my own horn here). My new remarks will be interspersed</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—here and there, but not everywhere—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">in [brackets]. Sentiments and formulations that I particularly like I will put in <span style="font-weight: bold;">bold</span>. Please note my Conclusion at the very end.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 102, 255);">Transcript:</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);"> </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Robert,</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Innovation is forbidden in Islam. It is a sin.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">So let's stop this tapdancing and false moderation and get to the point: </span>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.<br /><br />Posted by: Pickle</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br />Pickle,</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I am with you. RS seems to have a problem getting to the point.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: neverpayretail</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Robert Spencer,</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Wow!</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"I think you are missing my point, as well as my methodology."<br /><br />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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"As I told you before, I have no substantive disgreement [sic] with Hugh Fitzgerald on that issue. Of that I am 100% certain."<br /><br />Denial! This is a clear refusal to address the evidence and logic so presented.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"If you think you see one, you are misunderstanding either me or him."<br /><br />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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">There is an out. You can Change Your Mind.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Sincerely, neverpayretail</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Neverpayretail:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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]</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">CordiallyRobert Spencer</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">With Islam's built-in programs of deceit and treachery, how can you possibly know for certain that a "moderate" Muslim is truly moderate? </span>Other than their word, how can you know?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Not to mention: "take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors..." (Quran 5:51)</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: Greg</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Robert Spencer,</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I do not suggest you are doing nothing to halt the spread of Islam. While you do not speak in convoluted fashion about jihad, <span style="font-weight: bold;">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. </span>You have not been paying attention. My views in this exchange are patent and clear.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Sincerely,neverpayretail</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Retail:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I will not be maneuvered into making a statement that would be simplistic and misleading.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">CordiallyRobert Spencer</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Robert Spencer,</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Your own research on Islam drives decent, thinking people to declare Islam violent and dangerous. Yet, you refuse that step. </span>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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Regarding the fight, and allies, in each case Islam is the threat. Refusal to reject Islam only plays into the enemy's hands. <span style="font-weight: bold;">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.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">And no, Weakness is not "good enough" for me.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Sincerely,neverpayretail</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">neverpayretail</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Robert</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: Infidel Pride</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Retail:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">In this as in any subject, there are multiple legitimate conclusions that may be drawn from the same evidence.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Now, enough.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">CordiallyRobert Spencer</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I see three reasons for Robert Spencer to stick to specific cases and avoid the universal generalization that neverpayretail wants Robert to draw:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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;</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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;</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[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]</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: traeh</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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"?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">traeh,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />"By avoiding a universal generalization, which would be a philosophical, not scientific, statement"</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />Why would condemning German Nazism not be a "universal generalization...a philosophical not a scientific statement", while condemning Islam is?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: Television</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br />Neverpayretail,<br /><br />For goodness sake. You've made your point already. At this point you are only nagging the man.<br /><br />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.:<br /><br />"Chapter 1: Muhammad: Prophet of War"<br />"Chapter 2: The Qur'an: Book of War"<br />"Chapter 3: Islam: Religion of War"<br />"Chapter 4: Islam: Religion of Intolerance"<br />"Chapter 5: Islam Oppresses Women"<br />"Chapter 6: Islamic Law: Lie, Steal, Kill."<br />"Chapter 7: How Allah Killed Science"<br />"Chapter 8: The Lure of Islamic Paradise"<br />"Chapter 9: Islam--Spread by the Sword? You Bet."<br /><br />....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.<br /><br />Posted by: Archimedes<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Archimedes,</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Regarding the references you cite, credit is due, and I have not withheld it.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: neverpayretail</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Infidel Pride,</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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".</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: neverpayretail</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Robert Spencer,</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">As in any subject, facts, disciplined logic, and the lessons of history rule out the legitimacy of many conclusions.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Sincerely,Neverpayretail</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Dhimmisoftheworldunite,</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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."</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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. <span style="font-weight: bold;">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!?</span></span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: Television</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Television,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: neverpayretail</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Hi television,</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[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.]</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />[it is mandatory in at least one context: of being on record for standing up for what is right and true] </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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".</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />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."<br /><br />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.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />[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 <span style="font-style: italic;">danger </span>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.]</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[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.]</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Retail, your argument is compelling but there is a dividing line between scholarship and activism.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />[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.]</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">If Robert Spencer officially "condemned" Islam, he would lose all credibility as a legitimate, reputable Islamic scholar.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />[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.]</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: Susanp</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The anti-jihad coalition, to the extent that such a thing even exists, does not agree within itself about "why Islam is evil."</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Here's a basic litmus test (there are others that could be added to this, but this by itself is a sine qua non):</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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". <span style="font-weight: bold;">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.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: Television</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Susan,</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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".</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: Television</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[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]</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">neverpayretail</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Thanks to you, Robert Spencer!</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: dennisw</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Television asked me:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Why would condemning German Nazism not be a "universal generalization...a philosophical not a scientific statement", while condemning Islam is?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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 :</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"Chapter 1: Muhammad: Prophet of War"</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"Chapter 2: The Qur'an: Book of War"</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"Chapter 3: Islam: Religion of War</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">""Chapter 4: Islam: Religion of Intolerance"</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"Chapter 5: Islam Oppresses Women"</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"Chapter 6: Islamic Law: Lie, Steal, Kill."</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"Chapter 7: How Allah Killed Science"</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"Chapter 8: The Lure of Islamic Paradise"</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"Chapter 9: Islam--Spread by the Sword? You Bet."</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">These titles seem like they might amount to universal generalizations.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[Indeed!]</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: traeh</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Dhimmis,</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"Should Evangelicals insist that "embrace of Trinitarian theology" be part of the litmus test?"</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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).</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: Television</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">traeh,</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"It's fine for you to draw the conclusion that across all its variation, Islam remains a unity, and an evil one."</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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 <span style="font-weight: bold;">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. </span>Robert and you seem to be confusing the aesthetic level with the ethical level.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[This is what I meant by Spencer when he puts on his Analyst hat, in distinction to his Reporter hat]<br /><br />And <span style="font-weight: bold;">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.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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? </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[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 <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://glossaryhesperado.blogspot.com/2008/05/transcript-of-television-and-traeh-on.html">here</a>.]</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: Television</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Dennisw,</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Sorry for the late reply. I have been spending some time with friends.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The terms "crafty" and "naïve fool" are mutually exclusive. I do not see how I can be both.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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. <span style="font-weight: bold;">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. </span>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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: neverpayretail</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">To Television:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">You seem to want to add to Robert's reporting of data and of broad patterns, an additional twofold task:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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,</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">2. Robert should condemn non-adherents as evil and encourage others to condemn non-adherents.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[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]</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: traeh</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"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?"</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">To condemn Islam requires no "ranting"; one can do it in a rational, mature, intelligent manner.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[Here, here! I couldn't have said it better myself! :) ]<br /><br />Posted by: Television</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"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?"</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">FWIW, I think <span style="font-weight: bold;">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 </span>- just a rhetorical statement.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: neverpayretail<br /></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">____________________________________________________<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 102, 255);">Conclusion:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">In the last comment above, </span>“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">neverpayretail</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">” 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. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">And that “</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">head</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">that America came to</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">the Civil War</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">was outrageously unacceptable, yet turned out to be an all too tragically inexorable, and horrifically gaping wound in our history.<br /><br />Those who refuse to condemn Islam, and who refuse to condemn all Muslims who enable Islam either passively or actively, are</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">in timorously and fantastically thinking they are avoiding the horrors of collective bigotry whose slippery slope will pull them toward genocide</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">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.<br /><br />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.</span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-75450928985353521992008-05-01T23:06:00.000-07:002008-05-02T13:47:37.796-07:00The mystery is solved!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTbbOofKMZMZTdOeYcyskPw5nVHc4jUJ0NDr70gR6H2IVoDF26OswVO5J3LVc9kTcOrZAOOLzzrUe1IHfCHOQj70vFtaGUo0aEKoGx_b1Wk2gRzF3hyphenhyphen5THsbQ16Hv1Kyw-gAZ9TXxTIlkn/s1600-h/HF.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTbbOofKMZMZTdOeYcyskPw5nVHc4jUJ0NDr70gR6H2IVoDF26OswVO5J3LVc9kTcOrZAOOLzzrUe1IHfCHOQj70vFtaGUo0aEKoGx_b1Wk2gRzF3hyphenhyphen5THsbQ16Hv1Kyw-gAZ9TXxTIlkn/s400/HF.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5195658421684299602" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">With regard to an older <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/spencer-fitzgerald.html">post</a> of mine from November of last year: The Man of Mystery finally comes out into the </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2699279/">limelight</a>!Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-48020264736200793412008-04-30T12:18:00.000-07:002008-05-01T12:27:17.358-07:00Get Smart<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijcFFXIuDjhFk7giv1yG4yGbgf9ZMn4pfFUypcl_tOotoAsAVvol5IsZfF5vrRNob2GefXjtc1LJuC3IIcJ3Q6Pfn3N3qjGhi22T985pVz4goySxOvNjwhBvbvzBoGb2RKzP3A-ooss2JC/s1600-h/get+smart.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijcFFXIuDjhFk7giv1yG4yGbgf9ZMn4pfFUypcl_tOotoAsAVvol5IsZfF5vrRNob2GefXjtc1LJuC3IIcJ3Q6Pfn3N3qjGhi22T985pVz4goySxOvNjwhBvbvzBoGb2RKzP3A-ooss2JC/s400/get+smart.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5195123732615685954" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The other day in the comments field of an </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020836.php#comments">article</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> on Jihad Watch, yet another in a long line of disingenuously innocent-sounding commenters issued a passive-aggressively veiled challenge to Robert Spencer</span>.<br /><br />The latter<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’s radar, </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">of course, constantly attuned to the paranoia setting, moved him to suspect this particular commenter rather immediately of nefarious motives.<br /><br />Spencer is probably right about some of that commenter</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s ulterior motives. Those motives, however, are irrelevant to the challenge he set forth; and, unfortunately, Spencer failed his test.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The commenter in question</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">one </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">maxwell46&2</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">asked Spencer a series of questions marbled in a larger context of that strange type of disjointed grammar and typo-ridden prose characteristic, it seems, of disingenuous trolls</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">rendered even stranger by the juxtaposition of large islands of perfect grammar and typography (note: in the transcripts below, I cleaned up his typos, with one exception). It becomes clear, however, from an overall impression of this maxwell, that he is smarter than he superficially lets on.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Anyway, to get to the substance of his posts: They are sufficiently reproduced by Spencer himself when he quoted maxwell in large chunks and responded to them, so I shall mostly quote Spencer himself. I will put Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s replies in italics. My comments will be interspersed in [brackets]. (After that, we note Hugh Fitzgerald</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s answers to the same questions.)</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Here is the </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020836.php#c537060">transcript</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Does being Muslim necessarily imply you are culturally inferior to Westerners and all other non muslims, not capable of thinking creatively, producing great art or music like the West has since Abbas Ibn Firnas, the Renessaince [sic], being scientifically accomplished and making strides in technology, mathematics, natural sciences and other areas?</span> <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />No.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[Spencer here missed his chance to unequivocally stand for the </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">cultural </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">superiority of the West, in comparison with Islam. What Jihad Watcher in his right mind would deny that the West is culturally superior to Islam!? And yet, lo and behold, not one of Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s supporters saw fit to weigh in on this important point and politely yet firmly correct their Leader (and many of them compounded this silence by positively, yet disingenuously, denying what maxwell also astutely claimed, that most of them would in fact assert the cultural superiority of the West. For most Jihad Watchers, it seems, the virtue of protecting their Leader trumps the candor to stand for what they believe in). The key word here is </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">cultural</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> and our maxwell cleverly, it seems, provided that key term for use in salvaging everything else in his question. Spencer, in firmly answering </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">No</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">, failed to avail himself of that key term, and thereby firmly rejected the notion that being Muslim necessarily implies the types of cultural inferiority described in the question. The other key term slyly provided by maxwell here is </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">being Muslim</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">: what does this mean? This means, of course, following Islam. What else could it mean? And by following Islam, the Muslim in fact guides his thinking and action in certain ways that indeed do, as maxwell notes, result in 1) in inability to think creatively, 2) an inability to produce great or or music like the West, and 3) an inability to be scientifically accomplished and to make strides in technology, mathematics, natural sciences and other areas. I see no reasonable objections to these asseverations</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—nor would most Jihad Watchers, including Hugh Fitzgerald</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. It is only when, and to the degree to which, a Muslim in question is </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">not </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">being Muslim</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”,</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> strictly speaking, that his otherwise universally human abilities</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">should he be, as a human being, gifted in any of areas explicated above</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">will be able to breathe and unfold. And furthermore, even such a </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“lesser </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Muslim</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> will most likely be unable to unfold his potential in a Muslim environment, and will require an amplitude for the mind and soul in an optimally conducive psycho-sociopolitical atmosphere, such as the modern West provides better than any other culture. All this hinges on and revolves around the crucially pivotal role of Islamic culture in deforming and straitjacketing every human who follows it. Spencer, apparently, would disagree with all this. He therefore gets a failing grade for this question. Let us continue.]</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Does it imply your [i.e., the Muslim</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s] moral standards are necessarily corrupt and backwards, that you [i.e., the Muslim] are not capable of feeling empathy for any non muslims?</span> <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />No.<br /></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[Again, Spencer missed his chance</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">here out of his trigger-happy concern to avoid saying anything that might sound remotely </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">bigoted</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. The first part of maxwell</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s question can be answered </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Yes</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> perfectly reasonably. A person who is a Muslim</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">which means he follows Islam</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">is a person whose moral standards are necessarily corrupt and backwards: for Islam</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s moral standards are such. On what possible basis would Spencer dispute this? On the basis of the pioneering dental hygiene which Islamic culture provides? As for the likelihood that there exist </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Muslims</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> out there who do not follow Islam sufficiently to deform their moral compass</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">then they are not really </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Muslims</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. And, furthermore, if they are not really Muslim, and yet they continue to identify themselves as </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Muslims</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">, what does that say about their moral compass? I can sympathize with certain Muslims out there who continue to identify themselves as such out of pure fear from their surrounding communities of Muslims (including their own family members) who would punish them for more frankly leaving Islam. But that exception, rather than serving to buttress Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s point, actually serves to contravene it even more</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">for, a Muslim who is self-defined as such only out of fear is not really a Muslim, but a desperate man continuing to leave his label on, for fear of the consequences that his Islamic culture would inflict upon him were he to act more freely and with the dignity every human individual deserves. Some </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">culture</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> that Spencer refuses to brand as inferior, huh? Shame on Spencer.]</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Does it imply you [i.e., Muslims] cannot be expected to accomplish what other immigrants have in the West?</span> <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />No.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[Here, Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s obtuse hammer falls with a thud well off to the side from where it should more intelligently land. The more intelligent answer is that, to the extent that Muslims follow their Islam, to that extent they will not accomplish what other immigrants have in the West, and vice versa: to the extent they do not follow their Islam, to that extent they will match the performance of other immigrants. And this rule simply mirrors the universal rule about Islam: Muslims do better as human beings the less they follow Islam, and do worse as human beings the more they follow Islam. And a necessary corollary to this rule: Muslims (with rare exceptions that prove the rule) will never be able to enjoy the potential to fully maximize their talents and their participation in the ethical responsibility and personal freedoms of the West, as long as they remain Muslims, no matter how residual is their Islam</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">for any remaining residue of Islam in their hearts and minds will always exert itself, more or less, as an inhibiting and perverting force. Spencer missed his chance to formally express this crucial rule about the problem of Islam -- evidently because he doesn</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t agree with it.]</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Does it imply you owe the world an apology simply for your existence as a muslim even if you eventually leave Islam?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">No.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[Of course it does. A Nazi who has left Nazism and forsworn it would be expected to articulate his regret about his past and to apologize for it, and any Nazi who did not do so would be rightfully deemed with suspicion. Multiply that by a hundred-fold: for Islam is far worse than Nazism. Needless to say, maxwell</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s question does not oblige his respondant to assume a Draconian punishment for any given ex-Muslim abstaining from any such apology: the point is, any given ex-Muslim who does so abstain would rightfully be viewed with suspicion, if not varying shades of contempt.]</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />And does it mean you cannot be considered a full human and must be deemed a sort of demon?<br /><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">No.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />[The correct answer, which Spencer failed to provide would be: Insofar as Islamic culture deforms the humans who follow it and through that deformation so profoundly perverts all the basic indicators of humanity, inducting its members into a darkness that partakes of a demonic darkness, the answer would be </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Yes</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. This affirmation, however, does not speak to ontology: Muslims are not subhuman or demonic ontologically speaking: they become so through psycho-cultural deformation</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">and that deformation is subject to the rule we spoke of earlier: The less a Muslim follows Islam, the less deformed he is; though the corollary to this is that he will never wholly free himself of that deformation until he cuts the cord and apostasizes definitively.]</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I have actually sort been able to determine, analyzing your writing, that you would actually say </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">yes, definitely without a doubt</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> to all the above questions. I guess I have those sort of mind reading/analytic powers that way.</span> <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Your analytical powers are quite poor if you think I hold any of those views. I do not. I ask you to establish any one of your charges with actual quotes from my writings.<br /></span><span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />[Actually, it seems likely that maxwell was baiting Spencer, daring him to say </span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Yes</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">, yet in fact slyly expecting him to say </span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">No</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> as he did. Thus was maxwell smart.]</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Conclusion:</span><br /><br />Later on in the comments field, as we noted above, Hugh Fitzgerald </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020836.php%22%20%5Cl%20%22c537308">answered</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> the same questions</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—in exactly </span><span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">the same way as did Spencer. In his brief conclusion, Fitzgerald noted:<br /><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">That is the short-answer reply. There is a great deal more one could say, in order to flesh out an insufficient answer to questions that are not adequately worded, sometimes because they are loaded, and sometimes because they miss the larger point to which a "no" or a "yes" would be inadequate, and misleading.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Which is to say, Fitzgerald would require a more expansive articulation of weaselly language by which to maintain his <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2008/04/our-asymptotic-analysts.html">asymptotic analysis</a> of the problem of Islam</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">however much more perilously close to breaking free of the asymptote would his analysis be, when compared to that of his colleague, Spencer (another insight of maxwell</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s, by the way, again couched cleverly as a dare</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—which, again, Fitzgerald failed as did Spencer</span><span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">).</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Neither Fitzgerald nor Spencer really got maxwell</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">because, concerning the appropriate analysis of the problem of Islam, they have yet to get smart.</span><br /></span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-73849444662969821192008-04-26T15:58:00.000-07:002012-01-09T07:35:57.612-08:00Warning Labels on Islam: which label would Spencer support?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia6GRTka-HHwVXMRGr7t717FMOo0Py9Di025n9KjU1bA9IVzcmrvEA182rbYK3eNi_UNXoxxgN93vPQaEQbn4DU0Cj69H2cf8Q4167Wi8jTS01LOCN0USCvujgwprhkDX_S_9AhyphenhyphenekAINQ/s1600-h/warninglabel3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia6GRTka-HHwVXMRGr7t717FMOo0Py9Di025n9KjU1bA9IVzcmrvEA182rbYK3eNi_UNXoxxgN93vPQaEQbn4DU0Cj69H2cf8Q4167Wi8jTS01LOCN0USCvujgwprhkDX_S_9AhyphenhyphenekAINQ/s400/warninglabel3.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5193699190747850498" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF3tRbwy6TtwTpjQpPvhAoaGy25cNS9mr3AqFo_33L2qWqaA5_4XsxnZxDPkFjWP6QTq4iTm3HiTPqDvpZLszpICjQQ-jxraJ6eiWuM97mRSA_kxY8L8cRN4vUACySTgRFu1HsckeiIWjA/s1600-h/warninglabel4.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF3tRbwy6TtwTpjQpPvhAoaGy25cNS9mr3AqFo_33L2qWqaA5_4XsxnZxDPkFjWP6QTq4iTm3HiTPqDvpZLszpICjQQ-jxraJ6eiWuM97mRSA_kxY8L8cRN4vUACySTgRFu1HsckeiIWjA/s400/warninglabel4.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5193698933049812722" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Readers of my last nine essays on this blog (or of any one of them) will know what my answer is to this question: obviously, the milder and more lenient warning label above, the latter.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">This makes Spencer an </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2008/04/our-asymptotic-analysts.html">asymptotic analyst</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> of the problem of Islam</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">and that is unacceptable.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">He should stop playing analyst, and keep his day job of reporter.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">For cogent argumentation based on copious evidence, please see my previous nine essays on this blog.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">One reader of my blog recently proposed an interesting analogy, which inspired me to put up this post today. That analogy involved warning labels on foods, and the logic of such labels:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">[It is] useful to add that the allegedly neutral and/or positive aspects of Islam are part of the problem, at least in terms of Westerners' ability to perceive and comprehend the threat. We have discussed this before. An analogy: A package labeled “Cereal” that contains mostly edible bits but also contains some toxic bits is more dangerous than a package containing the exact same mixture that is labeled “Danger! Toxic!”</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Indeed, to all who can read, a package that contains 100% toxic material and is labeled as such is safer, by virtue of the warning label, than a package labeled “Cereal” that contains a lower percentage of the same toxin. (The latter is more likely to cause injury or death).</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">To which I responded:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The force of your analogy is further strengthened by two features of the “cereal” in question, Islam:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">1) The systemically coherent nature of Islam, by which parts cohere unto the whole to a sufficient degree to be systemic. Spencer seems to disagree that there is a systemic whole to a sufficient degree (else why would he bring up the exculpatory “millions of Muslims who are not interested in, or even aware of, the jihadist agenda”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">and more importantly, why did he affirm in no uncertain terms that he is “not anti-Islam”?). Spencer seems to subscribe to the notion that there is no Islam there, only multiple spheres, no one of which is coherent enough to be aggregately condemned: hence, in the Spencerian model, there is no box of cereal per se, and any attempt to apply a warning label to “Islam” is plain wrong (if not immoral in the context of his Christian humanism). That is why I think that not only is he soft on the problem of Islam, his softness is perilously counter-productive</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">for he is massively laying the groundwork, on a theoretical analytical level, for helping to dispose ourselves to avoid applying that warning label. If we fail to apply that warning label appropriately</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">on Islam itself</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">then how would that reluctance translate concretely in terms of our policy with regard to the dangers posed by Muslims inspired by Islam?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">2) With Islam, we cannot tell which spoonfull, or which box, is non-toxic, and which is toxic: in this way too, your analogy is helpful, because it's the same with food products about which there is a general warning. When a few e-coli cases happen, the USDA shuts down all beef production and/or distribution for a time in order to sort out the problem & threat. The vast majority of beef during such shut-downs are “innocent”. What possible concrete relevance, then, does Spencer's protestation have that there are “millions of Muslims who are not interested in, or even aware of, the jihadist agenda”? That would be like a consumer activist who otherwise spends all of his time documenting the dangerously lax standards of the beef industry also, out of the other side of his mouth, saying with reference to a beef shut-down to protect consumers, that there are “millions of beef products that are completely safe”. What's the point in saying that, when there are times and situations when you have to treat ALL beef as a potential threat?<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">And yet, Spencer spends virtually all his time on Islam reporting on the ever-growing mountain of Islamic horrors, a mountain of dangerous filth which would move any reasonably intelligent person (except Spencer, apparently) to connect the dots and with screaminglly rational alacrity apply the appropriate warning label onto Islam itself, and onto all Muslims. Thus the paradox of Spencer.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">A second reader added:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Erich hits the nail right on the head when he points out that whenever there are problems with food items, be it beef, spinach, cauliflower or anything else, either all beef is quarantined, or all spinach from a certain maker is quarantined: nobody makes the argument of how a majority of the food in question is harmless.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">To which I must add this caveat:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Only one problem remains, however. As is well known, “</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">analogiae claudicant</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”—i.e., analogies are all imperfect in some way, if only because they by necessity cannot avoid being different, to one degree or another, from the thing they are illustrating.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The way that Islam differs from the cereal (or the recalled food) in the food warning label analogy is that Islam is sufficiently complex to allow people to exploit fudge factors by which there is no Islam there, per se, to target in a coherently comprehensive way. The exploiters of these fudge factors, therefore, try to particularize the problem into more manageable (i.e., more PC-palatable) bite-sized chunks rather than the Whole Enchilada—Spencer’s “elements of Islam”, for example—and not Islam itself. The more radical of these exploiters won't even settle for bite-sized chunks, of course: their way of exploiting the fudge factors is to atomize the problem virtually out of existence. While Spencer does not do the latter, what he does do—when he puts on his Analyst hat, that is (as opposed to his Reporter hat, which daily documents the grotesquely ghoulish and ever-growing mountain of Islamic horror)—serves to enable those whose goal is to exculpate Islam altogether.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">It is a shame to see that Spencer is decidedly on the side of the particularizers who seek to only target chunks off of Islam, as though Islam were not a coherently systemic entity—at least not sufficiently so to warrant treating it as a whole entity to target with a warning label.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">As that Jihad Watch reader “neverpayretail” indicated, his exchanges with Spencer (documented in my recent post </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/robert-spencer-pussycat-or-lion-having_21.html">Spencer: Pussycat or Lion?</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">) revealed this to him as sort of an epiphany: he had not realized that Spencer was one of those who insist on </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">not</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> condemning Islam; but he learned from their exchange that indeed he is.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">And the reason why “neverpayretail” was surprised by this epiphany of Spencer's real position is the exceedingly odd “day job” of Spencer's by which he spends all day shovelling the staggeringly mountainous shit of Islam into people's faces. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">One would reasonably expect Spencer to answer questions like neverpayretail and others asked him with relatively simple and clear answers—</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“Oh yes, I am against Islam. Yes, I am against all Muslims who either passively enable Islam or who actively support Islam. Well, while I disagree with the bald statement that <span style="font-style: italic;">all Muslims are loyal to Islam</span>, I would nevertheless affirm that because we cannot tell the difference between whatever number of Muslims out there who might be harmless, and those who pose an Islamic danger to us, we must practically speaking act as though indeed, as you say, <span style="font-style: italic;">all Muslims are loyal to Islam</span>.”</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">This is what Spencer should be saying when he is addressing this particular issue. But he is not. In fact, he unfailingly shows himself to be bending over backwards doing </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Cirque du Soleil </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">gymnastics in order to avoid making the tough decision that the very mountain of shit about Islam he reports daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, would compel any reasonably intelligent person to make—at least anyone whose mind has not been clouded by either PC MC, a confused Christian humanism, or a little of both.<br /><br />Spencer should keep his day job, and let the appropriate analysts</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—those who have matriculated beyond the asymptote</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—do theirs.<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com54tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-38165362534548634082008-04-24T13:52:00.001-07:002008-05-09T23:14:24.525-07:00Robert Spencer reacts<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzklhTnm3IwHk7sCfcc_9M18oxjURBIYNzYAXvjOTsP_6du0ubhacYzOESHHQzCkmvgt58_5t5SqUm5ByOoIrtA24gMmTN3UaBxhe5Cb5bHkk2EYpuGePj3-iqt7cMkjvo8FlRYLeeij63/s1600-h/catscratch.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzklhTnm3IwHk7sCfcc_9M18oxjURBIYNzYAXvjOTsP_6du0ubhacYzOESHHQzCkmvgt58_5t5SqUm5ByOoIrtA24gMmTN3UaBxhe5Cb5bHkk2EYpuGePj3-iqt7cMkjvo8FlRYLeeij63/s400/catscratch.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5193280036299499186" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The other day on Jihad Watch, Spencer <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020749.php#comments">responded</a> to a rather truncated critique which Lawrence Auster had put up on his site.<br /><br />What Auster decided to publish represents only a small portion of my rather exhaustive analysis, and failed to represent the salient points. This in turn enabled Spencer with </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">his impeccable yet irresponsible sophistry</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> to exploit this delimitation of the analysis.<br /><br />Anyway, I shall now dissect Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s response. As the entire thing is relatively brief, I will here reproduce it all (with only a couple of typographical alterations at the beginning for visual clarity). Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s words are all in <span style="font-style: italic;">italics</span>, mine are un-italicized.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">It has been brought to my attention (thanks, James) that several people are claiming a contradiction between these two statements I have made recently. . .</span> <span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br />1)</span> <span style="font-style: italic;"><br />Many strange things have happened in history and I would never say that Islamic reform is absolutely impossible, but Westerners are extraordinarily foolish when they harbor any hopes of it actually happening on a large scale. We need instead to focus on efforts to defend ourselves both militarily and culturally from the jihadist challenge, and to continue to call the bluffs of pseudo-reformers who intend ultimately only to deceive Western non-Muslims--many of whom are quite anxious to be deceived.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><br />2)</span> <span style="font-style: italic;"><br />Here again an increase of interest in and commitment to Islam apparently coincides with involvement with jihadist activity. The implications are many, and American and British Muslim groups that profess moderation ought to be the first to be examining them. But of course, instead they are still engaged in denying that any such correlation exists, despite a superabundance of evidence to the contrary.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The claim is being made that by saying that "American and British Muslim groups that profess moderation ought to be the first to be examining" the fact that "an increase of interest in and commitment to Islam apparently coincides with involvement with jihadist activity" I am contradicting my statement that "Westerners are extraordinarily foolish when they harbor any hopes of [Islamic reform] actually happening on a large scale." In other words, if I really believed that Islamic reform were virtually impossible, I wouldn't be asking American Muslim groups to face the facts about the connection between devoutness and attachment to jihadism.</span><br /><br />For one thing, this is a curious way of paraphrasing the objection raised by the nameless people (me and Auster, among others) Spencer is answering. Neither I nor Auster nor anyone I have read has framed this issue as merely involving the </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">connection between devoutness and attachment to jihadism</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. And more pertinently, while I have read, umpteen times, over God knows how many months, Spencer asking Muslims to do what they should do to mollify us, I don</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t recall him ever asking them to </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">face the facts about the connection between devoutness and attachment to jihadism</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. Usually, his challenge of expectation involves asking Muslims to<br /><br />a) acknowledge the bad elements of Islam<br /><br />b) acknowledge that these bad elements are in fact being put into practice by too many of their fellow Muslims around the world<br /><br />c) condemn those fellow Muslims among them who are putting those bad elements into practice<br /><br />d) offer Islamic counter-arguments of the putatively good elements of Islam against those fellow Muslims, using Islamic texts and traditions<br /><br />and finally<br /><br />e) to begin instituting a broader sociocultural education process throughout mosques, Islamic schools, and organizations in order to more effectively counter the widespread and growing problem of (b) above.<br /><br />Now, Spencer has never adumbrated his expectation of Muslims in quite so succinct and clear a fashion</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">one has had to piece it together and massage it into clarity from innumerable little parenthetically editorial remarks with which he salts and peppers his daily Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch articles; but this is in essence what his expectation consists of.<br /><br />To pick one example out of a turban, by which to illustrate (e) above, consider what he <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020470.php">wrote </a>recently:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Update on the Toronto Jihad Plot. Oh, and by the way, gotten around </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">has the Muslim community in Canada </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">to instituting transparent, inspectable programs in every school and mosque teaching against the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism? No? So then how can we be sure there won</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">’</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t be other such plots?</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I had quoted this in Part 2 of my 4-part series, <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/robert-spencer-soft-on-islam.html">Robert Spencer: Soft on Islam?</a><br /><br />As I observed there:<br /><br />The screamingly obvious first problem with Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s wording here that jumps out at the reader is: Even if the Muslim community in Canada </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">gets around to</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> doing those things Spencer outlines, this will </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">still </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">not make us </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">sure</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">” </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">there won</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t be other such plots. So why does Spencer imply that it would make us </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">sure</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">?</span><br /><br />Of course, one does not have to be terribly astute to detect the sarcasm in Spencer<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span>s tone in the quote above. However, the sarcasm does not let him off the hook of calling for such actions on the part of Muslims when he otherwise seems to agree that it is exceedingly unlikely that such actions will ever be forthcoming.<br /><br />When, for example, he responded to an interviewer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s question about whether he, like his heroine Oriana Fallaci, considers Islam to be a problem, Spencer <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020395.php">replied</a>:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Elements of Islam are the problem. Muslims who reject them sincerely and work against those elements are not the problem. </span><br /><br />First, instead of saying, </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I agree with Ms. Fallaci. Islam is a problem</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">he had to weasel out of it with the dispiritingly sophistical </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">elements of Islam are the problem</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. Secondly, note the utter absence of sarcasm in his expectation and exoneration of Muslims who would sincerely work against those </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">elements</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> of their Islam. If he sincerely believes his own words, and if his own words are not trivial and meaningless, then they must form the basis of a position that would concretely affect our disposition and policies with regard to the problem of Islam. How would this disposition be concretized? And how would the concretization jeopardize the grim and ruthless choices we have to take to ensure our optimum self-defense in the increasingly perilous situation we are in, with a nebulous diaspora all over the globe and deep within our own West of innumerable, indeterminate Muslims fanatically determined to mass-murder as many of us as possible?<br /><br />Of course, the whole point of Spencer<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span>s reaction we are dissecting today is that he is claiming no real contradiction here. We shall address this more directly as our dissection continues to parse his words. For now, we call the reader<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span>s attention to the following points:<br /><br />Spencer is permitting himself weaselly wiggle room by such phrases as </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">very unlikely</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> when the point of decision</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">where the rubber meets the road in terms of analysis leading directly to policy</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">has to choose between<br /><br />1) a high unlikeliness of Muslim reform that nevertheless continues to contain a <span style="font-style: italic;">viable possibility</span> of reform (Does Spencer believe in this viable possibility, and does he support actions or non-actions on our part in reference to this viable possibility, or not? Because of his weaselly wiggling, we may never know);<br /><br />or<br /><br />2) the grim resolve to consider Muslim reform in fact an <span style="font-style: italic;">effective impossibility </span>(which is not the same theoretically, for the weaselly analyst, as an <span style="font-style: italic;">absolute impossibility</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">but is the same, practically speaking).<br /><br />Because of Spencer<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span>s slippery posture with regard to #1, his weaselly wiggle room effectively provides him the plausible deniability by which in scrupulously quibbling terms, he is correct: there is no contradiction. (Or, more accurately, he manages just barely to squeak out of the contradiction by which his own words and his actions</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">namely, of reporting daily on the ever-growing horrible mountain of Islamic evil filth</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">threaten to box him in.) But the lack of contradiction does not emanate from any forthright stand of clarity and strength; the lack of contradiction is simply something salvaged sophistically in order to safeguard his gingerly timidity with regard to the stand he should take: #2.<br /><br />Or, if he wishes to take a forthright stand of clarity and strength on #1, his prodigious labor in amassing the ever-mounting mountain of damning data against Islam is a most queer way to go about doing it</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">for, to any reasonable and intelligent person, that horrible mountain amounts to #2: a condemnation of Islam and of all Muslims whether they passively enable, or whether they actively support, Islam.<br /><br />Secondly, notice how Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s reaction delimits this to </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">American Muslim groups</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. On the contrary, his challenge of expectation has involved Muslims all over the world</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">either specifically by region, or at least as often in general terms that could mean Muslims anywhere. And often he has not specified </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">groups</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">, but simply left it open to Muslims in general without specification. But of course we would not expect Spencer to remember and responsibly consider the wider context of his own words, when he has the opportunity </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">to exploit the delimited focus </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">provided by the shortsightedness of his challenger (in this case, Lawrence Auster, who failed to post the much more comprehensive articulation of Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s paradox in the links to my essays which I gave him).<br /></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-style: italic;">Of course, if people want to find difficulties, inconsistencies, contradictions, they will find them no matter what, but there is not actually anything of the kind here. </span><br /><br />There is in fact </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">something </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">of the kind</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> here: namely, a near-contradiction saved from being an outright contradiction by his refusal to take a firm stand to one or the other side of the only two choices that matter, which we repeat:<br /><br />1) a high unlikeliness of Muslim reform that nevertheless continues to contain a <span style="font-style: italic;">viable possibility</span> of reform</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">which would be trivial and meaningless were it not potentially tied to some features of concrete policy on our part;<br /><br />or<br /><br />2) the grim resolve to consider Muslim reform in fact an <span style="font-style: italic;">effective </span><span style="font-style: italic;">impossibility</span>.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">I spoke in the first statement above about calling the bluffs of pseudo-reformers, and in the second I was doing just that, by pointing out that the self-proclaimed moderate Muslim groups were doing nothing to deal with the connection between the seriousness of one's Islamic commitment and involvement in jihad activity. </span><br /><br />Here, Spencer is craftily delimiting the issue to tendentiously pre-defined </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">pseudo-reformers</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. We have already shown, in his answer to the interviewer on Oriana Fallaci, how his expectation of Muslims is general and not delimited to the tendentiously defined </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">pseudo-reformers</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> (what idiot would expect reform from an already prejudiciously labelled </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">pseudo-reformer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">!?). His general expectation of reform from Muslims is also buttressed, as we have argued <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/robert-spencer-soft-on-islam-part-2.html">elsewhere</a> (and below), by his sincere <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019990.php#c511094">belief</a> in the pragmatically viable existence of </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">millions and millions</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> of benign Muslims. Again, we are not disputing the sheer existence of those </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">millions and millions</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">what we are disputing is their <span style="font-style: italic;">pragmatically viable </span>existence</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">i.e., how their mere existence has practical use and effect. One non-negotiable necessity to establish that pragmatically viable existence would be our ability to sufficiently distinguish the harmless Muslims from the dangerous ones. Since we cannot do that</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">unless Spencer has a magic decoder ring to enable us to do so</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">then reason requires us to abandon the usefulness of those </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">millions and millions</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> of benign Muslims.<br /><br />Thus, there is an equation larger than the delimited one Spencer exploited in his all too easy cheap shots against the Auster piece. That larger equation, we repeat, is revealed when Spencer is on record as taking the following stands:<br /><br />a) he has <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020226.php">balked</a> at the term <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anti-Muslim</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">” and has implied in no uncertain terms that it is not a term he would like to be associated with<br /><br />b) he has <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017114.php">stated</a> categorically that he eschews the term </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anti-Islam</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”<br /><br />and, last but not least,<br /><br />c) he has <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019990.php#c511094">rejected</a> the notion that all Muslims are dangerously bad (i.e., </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“advancing the jihadist cause</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”) </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">by making the following grand pronouncement:<br /><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">That is an impossible generalization. There are millions upon millions of people who are culturally Muslim but are not interested in advancing the jihad agenda or even necessarily aware of it. This is true just as it is also true that there are millions of people who call themselves Christians but who pay little or no attention to the effort of conforming their lives to Christian teachings. In every belief-system there is a spectrum of belief, knowledge, and fervor, and Islam is no different. To extrapolate from Islamic teachings to the proposition that all Muslims believe in and are advancing the jihadist cause is just as absurd as assuming that because Jesus said to love your enemies, that every last Christian is humble, self-effacing, non-combative, and forgiving. That's why Wilders' distinction between Muslims and Islam is not illogical, not false, and in fact is quite useful and important. </span><br /><br />(An interesting and revealing aside: the actual wording of the <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“impossible generalization</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">” which Spencer rejected in the quote above was written by a Jihad Watch reader in a comments field of a Jihad Watch article</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">A Muslim is loyal only to Islam.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span> At that revealing moment, Spencer tacitly assumed that being <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">loyal only to Islam</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">” must be a bad thing (else why so forcefully repudiate the </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“impossible generalization</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">” in terms that indicate that millions of Muslims are not </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“advancing the jihadist cause</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">?)</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">even though, as we show above (and more copiously in our previous essay <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/robert-spencer-pussycat-or-lion-having_21.html">Robert Spencer: Pussycat or lion? Having his cake and eating it too?</a>), that Spencer is on record refusing to condemn Islam.)</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span>So where are we thus far? We have Spencer innumerable times couching his challenge of expectation of reform to Muslims in general, as well as to vaguely denoted <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“Muslim groups</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”, in addition to specific </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“pseudo-reformers</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">and not <span style="font-style: italic;">only </span>to the latter as he implied in his recent reaction. We also have Spencer on record claiming that there are millions of harmless Muslims out there</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">a claim that is worthless if we cannot sufficiently identify those Muslims so as to expect reform, not to mention current rejection of, and resistance to, the bad Muslims in their midst. A claim, that is to say, that is worthless if those millions do not present a pool of viable reform. But Spencer must not consider it worthless, else why did he proclaim it?<br /><br />Here we see the same type of weaselly language, whereby Spencer can simultaneously claim two contradictory things, and can accurately say he is not embracing a contradiction</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">but only because of the weaselly sophistry he has woven that permits him to squeak by that contradiction and to remain suspended above the hard choice that contradiction presents. A better, more honorable and more potent way of avoiding this important contradiction is to take a bold and clear stand on one side or the other.<br /><br />We shall conclude today</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s essay with a final quote from Spencer</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s reaction:<br /><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;">And that is supposed to be evidence that I actually do believe, contrary to what I've said all along as well as in the first statement above, that Islamic reform is likely and that Western non-Muslims should count on it happening . . .</span><br /><br />Again, here Spencer is relying on the weaselly term </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">likely</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">whose opposite is not of course </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">impossible</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">, but simply </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">very, very, very unlikely</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">.<br /><br />What we want to see</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">and what Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s own </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">day job</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> of amassing the horrible mountain of Islamic garbage demands of any reasonably intelligent person capable of connecting dots</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">is Spencer boldly and responsibly taking the stand that Islamic reform by Muslims is, in fact, <span style="font-style: italic;">impossible</span>. It is not impossible in the absolute sense, of course (a logical proposition that </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Spencer would likely exploit in order to expose a supposed flaw in our argument). However, </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">it </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">is </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">impossible in terms of the exigencies and demands of our reasonable expectations and of the needs of our self-defense which </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">unreasonable </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">expectations can jeopardize. Because it is impossible in this important sense, then, it is therefore utterly irrelevant to our analyses that base our actions of proactive self-defense in the present and in the decades to come.</span><br /><br /></span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-54959035273885725252008-04-23T17:41:00.000-07:002008-04-23T18:35:40.572-07:00Spencer's Paradox: Another instance of thousands that can be plucked out of a hat<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-e_4oTuxUXwadwRyBxfWmY9wDvtTe_P2wbuD6NbuJpiKR7UueRYgW-SHNz4gieIZyJ3qXoo8Cw6vTqxKP__pRY3-7lp1sT7C1uMozgJ4i2s-qqumUx9lMgr4y41KPS_6Fd9yP9I2vjlAM/s1600-h/para.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-e_4oTuxUXwadwRyBxfWmY9wDvtTe_P2wbuD6NbuJpiKR7UueRYgW-SHNz4gieIZyJ3qXoo8Cw6vTqxKP__pRY3-7lp1sT7C1uMozgJ4i2s-qqumUx9lMgr4y41KPS_6Fd9yP9I2vjlAM/s400/para.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5192615299916129938" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br /><br />Spencer is an excellent reporter, but an incoherent analyst, of the Problem of Islam.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Today on <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020769.php#comments">Jihad Watch</a>, Spencer the Excellent Reporter reports about an outbreak of Muslim rioting in Nigeria:</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;"><br /><br />Hundreds of Muslims took to the streets of this northern Nigerian city on Sunday (April 20), attacking Christians and their shops and setting vehicles on fire on claims that a Christian had blasphemed Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. Thousands of Christians were trapped in churches until police dispersed rioters. Fearing that Muslims may attack again, many Christians have relocated to army and police barracks in the city.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">As I discussed in part 2 of my 4-part analysis </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/robert-spencer-soft-on-islam-part-2.html">Robert Spencer: Soft on Islam?</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">, Spencer the Incoherent Analyst is on record affirming that:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">There are millions upon millions of people who are culturally Muslim but are not interested in advancing the jihad agenda or even necessarily aware of it.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Granted that this is very likely to be true. The problem is, we cannot sufficiently tell the difference between Muslims who are apparently harmless, and the ones who are now either deceitfully masking their dangerousness, or who may be relatively harmless now but who will at some indeterminable point in the future become dangerous, </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">or who may just be taking a superficial break from the darkness of Islam and thereby merely seem to be okay from our limited perspective</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">This problem is furthermore complicated by the singularly effective sociopolitico-cultural phenomenon in Islamic culture whereby Muslims in a variety of ways can enable the dangerousness and closely related supremacism inherent to Islam through various degrees of passivity and therefore various degrees of apparent harmlessness.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Now, our question of the day is: before these hundreds of Muslim Nigerians rioted in Nigeria and started attacking the lives and properties of Christian Nigerians, how many of them could easily have been counted as among Spencer’s “millions upon millions of people who are culturally Muslim but are not interested in advancing the jihad agenda or even necessarily aware of it. . .”? This rhetorical question highlights the fact that Spencer, in truth, has no way of knowing, and that furthermore, it is extremely likely that among those hundreds of rioters, many of them would have appeared to Spencer’s eyes to be among those “millions and millions” he refuses to condemn and whom moreover he insists on exonerating (if only, that is, he could actually pinpoint who they are).</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">That is the problem. The only way to meaningfully and concretely get around that problem is to face the grim fact that, because we cannot sufficiently tell the difference between Muslims who are apparently harmless and those who are potentially or covertly dangerous, we must rationally assume all Muslims are dangerous, and act accordingly.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">With a nebulous diaspora all over the globe of innumerable, indeterminable Muslims fanatically bent on mass-murdering as many of us as possible and of wreaking untold damage to our infrastructure in the pursuit of their deranged eschatology, and with untold numbers of further Muslims either passively enabling those fanatics, or more or less actively supporting them, the risks are simply too high to do otherwise.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">So, on which side will Spencer resolve his paradox? Will he join his hero Oriana Fallaci in saying in no uncertain terms that “Islam is indeed a problem”? It seems not. It seems that Spencer the Incoherent Analyst will continue to try to evade the stark decision that his paradox, mounting more and more under the pressure of the mountain of horrific data which Spencer the Excellent Reporter presents daily and incessantly, demands</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">just as he danced nimbly around </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">the aforementioned question </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2008/03/020395print.html">thusly</a> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">through his typical weaselly sophistry by answering:<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“Elements of Islam are the problem. Muslims who reject them sincerely and work against those elements are not the problem.”</span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-90640136716800671302008-04-21T10:29:00.001-07:002009-05-25T17:42:16.581-07:00Robert Spencer: Pussycat or Lion? Having his cake and eating his cake too?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmag8Pkdrcq9ZvVFq-yQoA6K75hRDaHx2gDDo45nwChXDbVod-u1xzi82GI96ztw3q8733KqRHMtr7mV-Ww_1yXegFDILx7tt7sM1sxtnVJNr1CtPb-_6iTxhteIqRL7j765lHbIkRFMXS/s1600-h/cake.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmag8Pkdrcq9ZvVFq-yQoA6K75hRDaHx2gDDo45nwChXDbVod-u1xzi82GI96ztw3q8733KqRHMtr7mV-Ww_1yXegFDILx7tt7sM1sxtnVJNr1CtPb-_6iTxhteIqRL7j765lHbIkRFMXS/s400/cake.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5192483676348376706" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgL0Y-P_26QQGm5URTjqIcMP-BpS_3rTiFd2vTw1xXFhLSDd5-uXlD-K3r0gRiH5ZPtgogiXXeywcc3e4taKrxtvceqy45iioBt28FzwbSgH2Hmi6vlbEiXSowyTlEK3VSMW8k5HH_Df4lf/s1600-h/cake+2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgL0Y-P_26QQGm5URTjqIcMP-BpS_3rTiFd2vTw1xXFhLSDd5-uXlD-K3r0gRiH5ZPtgogiXXeywcc3e4taKrxtvceqy45iioBt28FzwbSgH2Hmi6vlbEiXSowyTlEK3VSMW8k5HH_Df4lf/s400/cake+2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5192483577564128882" border="0" /></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />This article pertains to </span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">old transcripts of lengthy back-and-forth comments from the comments fields of three different Jihad Watch articles going back to 2006.<br /><br />I want to thank one of my readers, </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">nobody</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">, who recently gave me links to these old discussions. Although I myself had taken part in those old discussions, I had largely forgotten about them until now. Re-acquainting myself with them brought back old memories</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">the saltiest of them being the reinvigoration of my distaste for Robert Spencer's personality and analytical methodology.<br /><br />For one thing, by his own words, he refuses to </span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">be maneuvered</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> (whatever the goldarned heck that means) into affirming that he is anti-Islam</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">so strike one from the get-go for his qualifications of being a leader of the Anti-Islam Movement!<br /><br />For another. . . well, I will let the transcripts speak for themselves.<br /><br /></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Where Spencer excels is in his capacity as reporter of the facts about Islam</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">in its texts, history and in the news. </span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">In that capacity, he is in fact extraordinary; a cut above his peers. Where he errs is in his constant expectation that there could be, amid that mountain of filthy, noxious, eco-hazardous garbage, things to be salvaged and recycled</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span></span>and that error is directly related to his unwarranted assumption of the role of analyst. In that capacity, he is found grievously wanting.<br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />As I wrote in an exchange with Spencer in the comments field of a Jihad Watch <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019940.php#c509492">article</a> in February of this year on the problem of Edward Said</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s undue influence on American universities (in which, as usual, I took Spencer to task for his delimited focus on Said as a bogeyman, directly related to his, Spencer</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s, </span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">underestimation of the depth and breadth of Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism):<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Focusing unduly on Said is like using metereology in dealing with problems of climate or plate tectonics, where climatology or geology would be more appropriate. There are contexts where the weather, and therefore weathermen, are important; then there are broader and deeper contexts</span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-style: italic;">and problems arising from them</span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-style: italic;">where weather reports are no longer sufficient.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">So, as a plodding weatherman who tells us of cloudy skies today and possible precipitation and icy roads tomorrow, or as a dutifully efficient garbageman for the burgeoning mountain of filth that is Islam, Spencer is excellent</span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">but for the deeper and broader analyses upon which we must build our proactive self-defense against an Islam Redivivus, he has some serious deficiencies, as the transcripts below bear out (which the reader should supplement with several other related essays on this blog).<br /><br />The problem, of course, is that both he and his votaries (and most of his critics!) confuse these two roles in him. Indeed, he tries to have his cake of a strictly reportorial just-the-facts-ma</span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span>am diagnostician on the one hand, and pretensions to being a grander, more synthetic analyst on the other hand<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—and only succeeds in vaguely combining both by his adoption of an irresponsibly evasive suspension of judgement and position: his refusal to </span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">be maneuvered</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span>into actually taking a clear, unequivocal stand on Islam and on all Muslims who actively and/or passively continue to count themselves members of Islam and who thereby either actively support, or passively enable, the evil injustice and menace of Islam.</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />Today</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s transcript consists of at least two Jihad Watch readers</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">i.e., nobodies whose time is obviously not worth as much as Spencer</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s, but to whom Spencer nevertheless deigned, perhaps out of some legalistic anxiety, to lower himself from on high to deliver his thunderously vacuous answers; answers that, by being largely arrogantly unresponsive, did not accord those readers the respect they showed him when they presented detailed, intelligent and mature arguments for their points and for their questions to him.<br /><br />The two Jihad Watch readers in question were named </span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">neverpayretail</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> and </span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">somethingaboutislam</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">the former of particular interest here, the latter only contributing one or two apposite posts. This transcript is from the comments field of one particular Jihad Watch article from May of 2006, <span style="font-style: italic;"><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011577.php">On assertions without evidence</a>.</span><br /><br />It is clear from this transcript that the two Jihad Watch readers had the upper hand at every moment, and Robert Spencer failed abysmally to answer responsively to their intelligent and mature questions.<br /><br />Judge for yourself.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(153, 153, 255);">Transcript:</span><br /><br />Robert Spencer, I make the following observation:<br /><br />Esmay claimed that you think "Islam is a dangerous, violent religion". You responded that "nor have I ever said flatly that "Islam is a dangerous, violent religion." That would be simplistic and in many ways misleading."<br /><br />This is from your post on JW entitled "Esmay's dismay, and his response". In that thread I posted two comments. The first comment asked you a question, "how much longer must this [the debate over the nature of Islam and its reformability] go on before YOU are convinced, how much more evidence is needed, how many more must be enslaved or killed, etc, before you realize that there comes a time for judgment to be made, make it, and state it without apology to anyone?" You never answered. My second comment in that thread stated specific rationale for making judgment NOW, not later. I now make another observation":<br /><br />In this post, "On assertions without evidence", dated May 27, 2006, you state<br /><br />"Accordingly, Ibn Warraq is correct when he says that there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam.", and then you make a point of repeating this statement. This constitutes passing judgment on Islam, and I agree with both you and Ibn Warraq. So, if saying "Islam is a dangerous, violent religion" is "simplistic and in many ways misleading", what is it about Islam that makes it not moderate? Have you changed your mind to now say that Islam is a violent and deceptive threat to our freedom? That is my position, one for which I make no apology, and need nobody's approval for. I am looking for you to clarify your judgment. Thanks.<br /><br />Posted by: neverpayretail<br /><br />_____________________________________________<br /><br />Neverpayretail:<br /><br />I have been saying that there are moderate Muslims, but no moderate Islam for years. This is no change. To say that Islam is a dangerous, violent religion is simplistic and misleading because Islam is many things. There are many practices it encourages that have nothing to do with violence, ranging from the use of the miswak to many practices involved in tasawwuf. However, it is likewise true that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach violent jihad, which means that there is no "moderate Islam" as most people understand the term. But since violent jihad is not the focus of a great deal of Islamic practice, I do not like to characterize Islam as such as a dangerous, violent religion. For one thing, the focus of Islam is not violence as such, but the establishment of the Islamic social order. When it is established, the violence largely ceases, although it is not a social order that accords with Western human rights norms. And the fact that violence is not an end, but a means, within Islam does not mean that violent jihad is not there, or that there is some sect of Islam that teaches indefinite peaceful coexistence with unbelievers.<br /><br />Cordially<br />Robert Spencer<br /><br /></span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">_____________________________________________<br /><br /></span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Hi neverpayretail, If I remember rightly, Robert's somewhat equivocal-sounding response to Esmay's charge was in the context of painting all Muslims as violent radicals, which Robert does not do. And that is the point of his affirmation of the (present) moderation of many Muslims and the immoderation of Islam itself. Islam is dangerous because in its pristine original form, it was and is violent and dangerous. But that is not what Islam is everywhere and in every heart today though it could become that in any heart, and it does seem to be trending in that direction in Muslim-majority nations that are not already thoroughly radicalized. One can affirm this without being an apologist for Islam. That how I interpret it, and I don't see a problem here.<br /><br /></span></span></span></span><span class="comments-post"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite</span><br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">_____________________________________________<br /><br /></span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Islam may be many things, but so was Nazism. Nazism wasn't just about killing Jews and conquering the world. It was also about socialism, correcting economic inequities, building infrastructure, taming inflation, combating crime, the Volkswagen Beetle, exercise and public health awareness, etc. All of those things good. And the autobahn. Got to love the autobahn. Had the Nazis not started a world war they couldn't win, they'd still be in power today. Does this mean that is would be fair to say that "Nazism is not necessarily a violent, dangerous religion because Nazism is many things"? I can't speak for you, Robert, but I am willing to say that islam IS a violent, dangerous religion no matter how many "Things" it is. The Beetle notwithstanding. The only difference between Nazism and islam is that islam has a cover - the status as religion. And in our PC west, that gives it carte blanche to continue without coming under direct government, media, or general social attack. If only the Nazis had it so good.<br /><br />Posted by: somethingaboutislam<br /><br /></span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">_____________________________________________<br /><br /></span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I think the point the Neverpayretail is making is that when do you stop debating and when do you start "doing" something about a religion (or a cult such as the Nazis) whose overall purpose is to subjugate or annihilate the non believers of its dogma? Do I have to be a scholar of the Koran or Islamic law to realize where these monsters are coming from? A little reading of the Koran (that's all I can take), the speeches of its leaders and the actions of its zombies of death convinces me that something must be done. That's why I again implore the readers of JW to read Ali Sina's article "Defeating Islam." Is that not where we are at?<br /><br />Posted by: Briars<br /><br /></span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">_____________________________________________<br /><br /></span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Neverpayretail: I stand by my statements. It also may interest you to know that Hugh Fitzgerald and I don't have a substantive disagreement on this point.<br /><br />Cordially<br />Robert Spencer<br /><br /></span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">_____________________________________________<br /><br /></span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Robert Spencer,<br /><br /></span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Thank you for being so cordial. Exercise in logic -<br /><br />Hugh Fitzgerald's statement describes two extremes.<br /><br />First extreme: One has a right to make decisions about Islam based on evidence for the trampling of individual freedoms by Islam given the trampling of individual freedoms by Islam.<br />Second extreme: One has no right to make decisions about Islam based on soothing words and assurances of some nice Muslims given the trampling of individual freedoms by Islam.<br /><br />It is a very tiny step to restate the second extreme as follows:<br /><br />Restatement: One has no right to make decisions about Islam based on nice Muslim practices given the trampling of individual freedoms by Islam. The statement you stand by, a refusal to characterize Islam as a dangerous and violent religion because violence is not the focus of "a great deal of Islamic practice", such as dental hygiene, is exactly what the above restatement claims is invalid. This is substantive disagreement. I have done exactly what you challenge the likes of Kusanagi and Esmay do. I have developed a rational argument on actual statements by you and Fitzgerald (=evidence) to arrive at a specific conclusion. The conclusion is not exactly favorable to you. The purpose of debate in these comment threads is to Change Minds! The challenge is this; is your mind yet changed? Or are you so emotionally cordial to nice Muslim practices just as Kusanagi and Esmay seem so emotionally attached to nice Muslims that your mind will not be changed, no matter the logic, no matter the evidence? Do you suffer the same stubbornness they do? Now there's a fight for you. Debating Kusanagi and Esmay is cake, as well as Endless. And remember, it is not weakness, but strength to change one's mind when it is the logical thing to do, all the more so when done in public, and addressing some scruffy no-name like me.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />neverpayretail<br /><br /></span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">_____________________________________________<br /><br /></span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Neverpayretail: Let me repeat myself: I have no substantive disagreements on this issue with Hugh Fitzgerald. Of this I am 100% certain. If you think you see one, you are misunderstanding either me or Hugh.<br /><br />Cordially<br />Robert Spencer<br /><br /></span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">_____________________________________________<br /><br /></span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Retail and SomethingAboutIslam: Yeah, I'm a liberal. I have fangs too. 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.<br /><br />Cordially<br />Robert Spencer<br /><br /></span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">_____________________________________________<br /><br /></span></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Okay, so you refuse to label islam violent and dangerous because: 1. you don't want to alienate allies 2. you don't want to sound like a "genocidal" bigot 3. you think Islam has enough good in it, to make such a sweeping statement dishonest. Fair enough. However... 1. unnecessary but logical 2. unwarranted but logical 3. there's that inner conflict - sentimental Two out of three will get you a pass on jihadwatch. Maybe a nuke in NY might help you go three for three. Once that happens, 1 and 2 won't be a concern anymore.<br /><br />Posted by: somethingaboutislam <a><br /><br /></a></span></span></span></span><a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">_____________________________________________<br /><br /></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><a>Spencer sez: "... 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..." What does that mean? Ignorance of the texts? Hardly. Or is it because 70 % of Mohammedans around the world are illiterate, indoctrinated-stupid, (because of Islam) and live in abject poverty? Doesn't comfort me: Even if they are illiterate and poor, they can be whipped into violent rages at the drop of a Koran, regardless of what their level of understanding of Islam is, they will eagerly run amok and cut your head off if their imams tells them that the time is right for jihad. No Sir: The large scale of Mohammedans in the lands of the infidels makes the life's of those infidels very unpleasant, dangerous expensive, etc. etc. You know the rest....<br /><br />Posted by: sheik yer'mami<br /><br /></a></span></span></span></span><a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">_____________________________________________<br /><br /></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><a>I'd like to touch on the Islam-Nazism comparison again, briefly. Robert writes: "Islam is more multifaceted than Nazism, and involves many beliefs, some good, some bad." Yes, but as you point out a few words later, Nazism was just getting started. Was Islam so multifaceted in its early years of banditry and assassination?<br /><br />"You are comparing a huge 1400-year-old tradition over many nations with 12 years of Germany"<br /><br />True, 1400 years of history makes for a more complicated study, but there's something terribly uncomplicated about Islam too; the fanaticism, the expansionism, the intolerance, the brutality. These are the main lines of analogy.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />I don't know, Nazis weren't all predictable cartoon figures. Cultured, aristocratic men like Albert Speer and Richard Strauss also fell under the spell to varying degrees and gave of their talent and prestige. Surely Nazism would have sprouted many branches and gained in complexity over time had it survived its violent birth like Islam did. Perhaps the real secret to the success of both Islam and Nazism is/was the price paid by those who attempt(ed) to oppose them. I have no interest in trying to push Robert to equate Islam and Nazism, or to at least acknowledge some eerie similarities. Nor to psychoanalyze him for why he won't do it. Robert has excellent reasons for what he thinks, and why he will or won't say or write something. I am in complete agreement on the importance of cultivating allies, even inside Islam if possible (though that's another big argument), and for erecting the biggest tent possible to gather under in order to resist the violent Jihad that is a black plague on the world today.<br /><br />Posted by: alexon<br /><br /></a></span></span></span></span><a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">_____________________________________________<br /><br /></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><a>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. You 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.<br /><br />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 on the end of a leash, the enemy know your limits, and so can easily strategize around you. And no, Weakness is not "good enough" for me.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />neverpayretail<br /><br /></a></span></span></span></span><a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">_____________________________________________<br /><br /></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><a>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.<br /><br />Now, enough.<br /><br />Cordially<br />Robert Spencer<br /><br /></a></span></span></span></span><a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">_____________________________________________<br /><br /></span></span></span></span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><a>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.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Neverpayretail<br /><br /></a></span></span></span></span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-27193658207990586922008-04-20T11:22:00.000-07:002008-04-20T12:42:03.896-07:00Cute kittens born every day on Jihad Watch<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh93NSBPp2k5qmoWEMRpkKEo7PbDykv0e1qH4fB-DmFSUqKNL5Yyf31rSAlsuYBVFixGE0F-6MeUDVvZYXvX1hPJ6Fwqh-H45QNE7I5nD0Qz1CIg7G9W5vIBomQknAsTJe3wuWH8eTgr6X6/s1600-h/kittens.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh93NSBPp2k5qmoWEMRpkKEo7PbDykv0e1qH4fB-DmFSUqKNL5Yyf31rSAlsuYBVFixGE0F-6MeUDVvZYXvX1hPJ6Fwqh-H45QNE7I5nD0Qz1CIg7G9W5vIBomQknAsTJe3wuWH8eTgr6X6/s400/kittens.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5191411178815403026" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Yet again, Spencer on Jihad Watch couches his </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020731.php#comments">editorial remarks</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> in the framework of expectation: the expectation, that is, that Muslims anywhere should</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">and therefore can</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">step up to the plate and begin the process of a reform relevant to our self-defense needs.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Another kitten to add to the litter of years on Jihad Watch:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">With regard to a recent news story out of the UK about a Muslim convert who embarked upon a militantly jihadist career, Spencer observes (emphasis in bold mine):</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Here again an increase of interest in and commitment to Islam apparently coincides with involvement with jihadist activity. The implications are many, and </span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">American and British Muslim groups that profess moderation ought to be the first to be examining them. </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">But of course, instead they are still engaged in denying that any such correlation exists, despite a superabundance of evidence to the contrary.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Now, the reflexive defender of Spencer might wish to object that the “But of course” clause that immediately follows the bolded sentence sufficiently qualifies it and renders its explicit expectation innocuous</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">if not, indeed, turning it around to make it rhetorically undermine such an expectation.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Such an objection, however, would ignore at least three facts:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">1) Spencer is on </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017114.php">record</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> establishing that he is firmly not anti-Islam </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020226.php">and</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> not anti-Muslim</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">2) Spencer is on </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019990.php#c511094">record</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> firmly convinced of the putative fact that millions of Muslims are harmless and that therefore on that basis one cannot and should not make the blanket statement that “Muslims are only loyal to Islam” (never mind that Spencer, when he objected strenuously to this blanket statement by a Jihad Watch reader, implicitly, and ultimately incoherently, conceded the implicit claim of that reader</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s uniform condemnation of Islam as a bad thing to which loyalty imputes a bad thing</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">a condemnation which Spencer then felt obliged to reject, evidently forgetting that according to him, Islam is not necessarily a bad thing to be loyal to!)</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">3) #1 and #2 would be irrelevant and meaningless if Spencer really believed that we cannot sufficiently tell the difference between harmless Muslims and dangerous Muslims: He must therefore think it is possible to tell that difference, sufficiently</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">no matter how “unlikely” he likes to put it in his weaselly and gingerly terms that ultimately serve no purpose but to keep him suspended in his untenable position of refusing to take a stand</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">and that such a possibility puts a sufficient number of Muslims rising to the challenge of his repeated expectation also in the realm of viable possibility.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">(For a fuller treatment of this problem, see my recent 4-part series, </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/robert-spencer-soft-on-islam.html">Robert Spencer: Soft on Islam?</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">)<br /><br /></span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I now believe this equivocal stance of Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s is not only misguided; it positively serves to perpetuate a climate that will help to hinder the rational ruthlessness we need to cultivate for our exigent pro-active self-defense.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">We need to wrap our minds around the fact that any sufficiently viable Islamic reform is impossible, and we need to mobilize our actions accordingly.<br /><br />I will be damned if I wait until <span style="font-style: italic;">after </span>one of our cities is nuked, before I expect this baseline epiphany of our influential analysts.</span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-9061539795508281632008-04-19T19:36:00.000-07:002008-04-20T11:19:34.238-07:00Robert Spencer: Toss out your Great Expectations.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEis0RtcVIEiR-p35QwEBPPX6XhfojO6iDWB2Jwpf-8SoEn96USXg02ZvSR7o9R7xMABbVOqhGUCY-IGvzUszfwwo4GD-wNjNZv2vrKxiz5aTTdsgNsyz7jz27zXSFwPbsaN2dPRnnPNZMsJ/s1600-h/GE.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEis0RtcVIEiR-p35QwEBPPX6XhfojO6iDWB2Jwpf-8SoEn96USXg02ZvSR7o9R7xMABbVOqhGUCY-IGvzUszfwwo4GD-wNjNZv2vrKxiz5aTTdsgNsyz7jz27zXSFwPbsaN2dPRnnPNZMsJ/s400/GE.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5191160176631657474" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. . . Ali Eteraz. . . is the Muslim reformist with whom I have had several exchanges in the past -- during which he several times manifested a disheartening disingenuousness rather than the honesty we have a right to expect from reformist Muslims.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">So wrote Spencer introducing a Jihad Watch </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020721.php#more">piece</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> on Eteraz</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s criticism of Geert Wilders</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’s</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> film </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Fitna</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">a bogus criticism that Spencer ably shreds to pieces.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Spencer concludes the piece by writing:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. . .it isn't just Eteraz, of course. I wish it were just one guy. But constantly, day after day, month after month, year after year, we have seen Muslim spokesmen denying that the Qur'an contains any violent verses, and charging that those who claim otherwise are "Islamophobic" -- while the jihadists continue to use those verses to make inroads within the larger Muslim community. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">If this is the case</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">and Spencer has been showing this to be the case incessantly and copiously over the years</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">then why have any </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">expectations</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> at all for Muslims to be </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">honest reformers</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">A sincere reformer will, as a basic and obvious first step, acknowledge that there are elements of Islam that need reforming, not charge with "hate" those who point out those elements. But as we have seen, such sincere reformers are exceedingly thin on the ground.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">By Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s own experience which he has documented mountainously on Jihad Watch, the </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">sincere reformers</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> are not merely </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">thin on the ground</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">they are virtually, effectively non-existent. So why continue to structure the whole issue in the terms of this “expectation”? What is the pragmatic point? Is it merely rhetorical? Does Spencer know that there are no honest, sincere reformers, but merely continues to issue his challenge in a slyly ingenious and clever fashion to highlight that dearth?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">As I have argued in my preceding 4-part series on Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s “soft” stance on Islam, his own statements, in addition to the persistent leitmotif of that </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“expectation”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">, indicate otherwise. Spencer is on record refusing to condemn Islam, and refusing to be “anti-Muslim”. What pragmatic effects would such refusals have upon the necessary measures we need to take in our proactive self-defense as the stakes of our safety continue to escalate, with innumerable Muslims dispersed all over the globe fanatically determined to mass-murder as many of us as they can?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Such Great Expectations and the refusal to condemn that seems to underpin them will more likely than not hamper our self-defense needs, not help them. That</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s the bottom line.<br /><br />We should stop expecting Muslims to do anything reasonable or sincere with regard to our self-defense needs.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Spencer needs to stop framing this aspect of the issue as an expectation. This does not mean he cannot continue to do his otherwise admirable work: All that is being asked of him is to stop nauseating us with the rhetorical device of a challenge to Muslims based upon a viable possibility that we in fact know will never happen, and which we need therefore to abandon utterly.<br /><br />Thus, Spencer could easily have editorialized his piece today which we linked above by saying the following:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. . . Ali Eteraz. . . is the Muslim reformist with whom I have had several exchanges in the past -- during which he several times manifested a disheartening disingenuousness that seems to be the universal norm among putative reformists and moderates who are Muslims or pro-Islamic apologists. While of course we have a right to expect honesty -- not to mention concrete proposals for sincere and viable reform -- from so-called Muslim reformers, it has become clear by now that it is only a theoretical principle, not a realistic expectation. We should in fact stop expecting it, and devote 100% of our time to educating our own Infidels to the menace of Islam so that we may optimally maximize our proactive self-defense. Should Muslims in sufficiently large numbers pleasantly flabbergast us with a viably growing movement of actual reform, we may be able to turn the dreadful ship of our rational self-defense around. The sooner they pleasantly surprise us, the more likely it will have a favorable outcome for all concerned. But again, this should be framed entirely as their problem, not ours. Our main and only problem is how best to defend ourselves.<br /></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">This is the kind of leitmotif I would like to see Spencer repeat in the little editorial remarks with which he salts and peppers his various posts over the years</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">not the one of Great Expectations that has come to nauseate the more it has been lathered on.<br /><br />And it is not merely the mountain of evidence Spencer himself provides that makes his Great Expectations odd and annoying</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> (</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">not to mention helping to hinder our self-defense)</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">the oddity is compounded when Spencer himself writes <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020710.php#more">things</a> that seem to contradict those Great Expectations:<br /><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020710.php#more"></a><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Many strange things have happened in history and I would never say that Islamic reform is absolutely impossible, but Westerners are extraordinarily foolish when they harbor any hopes of it actually happening on a large scale. We need instead to focus on efforts to defend ourselves both militarily and culturally from the jihadist challenge, and to continue to call the bluffs of pseudo-reformers who intend ultimately only to deceive Western non-Muslims – many of whom are quite anxious to be deceived.</span><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;"></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">If this is so, why does Spencer keep framing the issue, over and over and over again, as a challenge to </span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">honest</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> and </span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">sincere</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> Muslims to produce a viable and effective reform? The line separating </span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I would never say that Islamic reform is absolutely impossible</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">” from </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“look, folks, it ain</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t gonna happen</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">” is exceedingly fine. That line, nevertheless, is significant, and it needs to be crossed. To continue to maintain that slender line as Spencer does, and stand hypercautiously on the wrong side of it, in fact crosses another line</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">the one separating the subtle analyst from the weaselly lawyer. </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Spencer needs to stop talking out of both sides of his hat and take a stand for crying out loud.<br /><br />Another Jihad Watch reader put it superbly in the comments field of a Jihad Watch <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011466.php%22%20%5Cl%20%22c217685">article</a> a couple of years ago in his response to one of Spencer</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s adulators who wrote gushingly of his idol:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Robert’s refusal to universalize is such a deeply integrated part of his argumentative technique and strategy. It is part of how he almost never loses an argument. </span><br /><br />And the reader</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s superb response:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Of course, if you never take an absolute stand, then you never have to defend one either. Kind of like a politician. Hard to lose an argument if all one does is make observations or cite quotations. Good strategy for getting elected, or appearing in public.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">We cannot afford to err on the side of a gingerly disinclination to condemn, or of a sentimentalist hope that Islamic reform is possible, or of some fastidiously subtle tactic of rhetorics worthy of a weaselly lawyer or politician. We need to wrap our minds around the fact that Islamic reform is impossible, and proceed accordingly. The stakes are too high to do otherwise. I will be damned if I wait until </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">after </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">one of our cities gets nuked, before I expect this of our influential, supposedly anti-Islam analysts. That is <span style="font-style: italic;">my </span>Great Expectation.<br /><br /></span></span></span></span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-12540154595228579812008-04-12T16:54:00.000-07:002008-05-09T23:16:42.681-07:00Robert Spencer: Soft on Islam? Part 4<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJbSvN70EnKgYyK89WnQUJePfFwhNrOG4zGe-n-v2DW2bSYVhMkU3Kyk7RLjTyohmgn9xlMhZ0b0ZQW2cWcicR3_kRlrLu-LdJ7mPaNE1FTcAd21MIMbSCdyngf_TdBDjR3oTVs9Pfaogx/s1600-h/kitty+3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJbSvN70EnKgYyK89WnQUJePfFwhNrOG4zGe-n-v2DW2bSYVhMkU3Kyk7RLjTyohmgn9xlMhZ0b0ZQW2cWcicR3_kRlrLu-LdJ7mPaNE1FTcAd21MIMbSCdyngf_TdBDjR3oTVs9Pfaogx/s400/kitty+3.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5188582955888616674" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgg9007GZZOXZV4mUxPmvabUpAw8MvxZcmVRaGKOdzRhHUkymMq_RScrsKFLl3EQs-8IwI_6PboYMOx3fqwcPJmIQ4zROHDtNFBAus4xlhyphenhyphenk0lRRBiHmFSEfSo4QddumE4AVLdyrEd9VJ0/s1600-h/spencer+4.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgg9007GZZOXZV4mUxPmvabUpAw8MvxZcmVRaGKOdzRhHUkymMq_RScrsKFLl3EQs-8IwI_6PboYMOx3fqwcPJmIQ4zROHDtNFBAus4xlhyphenhyphenk0lRRBiHmFSEfSo4QddumE4AVLdyrEd9VJ0/s400/spencer+4.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5188582792679859410" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br /><br /><br />Basically, Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s softness boils down to two overall positions:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">1) A refusal to condemn Islam itself</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Islam, the whole Islam, and nothing but Islam</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">concomitant with a refusal to regard as irrelevant whatever good or neutral component parts may be contained in Islam (since any such good or neutral parts, seen in the properly wider perspective, necessarily support the systemic evil of the organic whole of which they are consituents).</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">2) A refusal to regard all Muslims as our enemy, regardless of the apparent harmlessness of a certain number of them.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">With these two points in mind, we shall present some rather disparate material on Spencer that more or less revolves pertinently around them, which shall hopefully wrap up all the threads of our series.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">I.</span> As part of his editorial remarks introducing a </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020226.php">piece</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> on Geert Wilders last month, Spencer objects to the <span style="font-style: italic;">Washington Times</span> labelling the then upcoming film, <span style="font-style: italic;">Fitna</span>, by Wilders as </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anti-Muslim</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"anti-Muslim"? If Muslims commit violence and justify it by reference to the Qur'an, as they do on a more or less daily basis, why is it "anti-Muslim" to call attention to this? . . . But in fact, reality is not pro- or anti- anything. It just is what it is.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">To which I rejoined with a scintillatingly apposite remark, if I don</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t say so myself:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">From the American Heritage dictionary: "anti-" means "opposing, against".</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">’</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">m against beheading. Aren</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">’</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t you?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Once again, as we saw in Part 3, this triggered Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s quibblingly contrarian pique, and we were off on a roll again:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I know from experience that you are a relentless and indefatigable fault-finder, but does even basic reading comprehension ever enter in? Let's try again. Read slowly, now. This is what I said: "But in fact, reality is not pro- or anti- anything. It just is what it is." To which you responded:<br /><br />"From the American Heritage dictionary: "anti-" means "opposing, against". I'm against beheading. Aren't you?"<br /><br />Now, any fair-minded person would understand that my statement above is not, as you took it, an abdication of all moral judgments. Here again, you seem to think, as you have in the past, that I would lightly and casually contradict the import of all my work for years now. It might be more likely, and more charitable, for you to consider that maybe what I meant was that reality has a certain character, that A is A, that existence exists. If the Qur'an teaches violence against unbelievers, it is not an act of hatred for Muslims [sic: Spencer must have meant "non-Muslims"] to point that out. It is simply a matter of fact. Now once that is established, one may evaluate that fact in different ways. One may think that fact is a good thing, like Osama bin Laden. Or one may think that fact is a bad thing, like me. But these judgments do not inhere in the fact itself. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Spencer here is completely ignoring the context of his own previous statement</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">the context being his objection to the term </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anti-Muslim</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">, which was, of course the main point of my remark which, apparently, was too trenchantly terse for his basic comprehension skills. He is here unduly isolating and extremely restricting his argument to bare semantics devoid of the context in which he was originally editorializing. In that context, he was using his </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">reality is not 'anti' anything</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> statement to buttress his opinion that the term </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anti-Muslim</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> is not a term he wants to embrace, and similarly not a term that fairly describes critics of Islam like Wilders. That is the wider, more pertinent point that Spencer in his quibble to me is completely ignoring.<br /><br />The point is, what</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s wrong with being </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anti-Muslim</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">? The reader will know, from reading my previous Parts 1, 2 and 3, that for Spencer, apparently what militates against the term </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anti-Muslim</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> is his conviction that the vast majority of Muslims are </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">cultural Muslims</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> who have </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">no interest in pursuing the jihad agenda and even no awareness of it</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">.<br /><br />Why does Spencer keep an arm</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s length away from such a term as </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anti-Muslim</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">? </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">What is he afraid of? </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Would it be that he essentially agrees with the PC MC paradigm? Namely, that to profess an </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anti-Muslim</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> sentiment (let alone a concrete plan to act upon that sentiment in the interest of our proactive self-defense) would entail tarring all those millions of harmless Muslims (whose inner minds he knows, apparently, for he knows what </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">interests</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> them and what they are </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">aware</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> of) with a bigoted brush and worse still, the all too easily realizable potential for sweeping most or all of Muslims up in a terribly unjust (and of course un-Constitutional) dragnet that would then precipitously lead us Westerners to the edge of that abyss our Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism has been dreading for the past 50 years: racism, lynch-mobs, deportation and/or (shudder!) internment of masses of innocent Brown People (i.e., the most fashionable Brown People today, Muslims)</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">all, of course, inexorably linked to the inevitable genocide of them that would soon follow?<br /><br />This would be the only logical basis for such a gingerly squeamishness to boldly use the term </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anti-Muslim</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">logical, that is, but not rational.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Spencer concluded his pointless response with this prickly omen:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">You are an irritant, a poor thinker, and an unfair judge. I have banned you several times, and probably will soon do it again. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Intrepidly ignoring his petulant threat, I then forged ahead with my unvarnished though still intelligent and mature response, first quoting him, then commenting:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"If the Qur'an teaches violence against unbelievers, it is not an act of hatred for Muslims [I neglected to correct what must have been a typo in Spencer's comment for "non-Muslims"] to point that out. It is simply a matter of fact."<br /><br />How many Muslims follow the Qur'an? A minority or a majority? Is it not rational to hate them for doing so? Rather than tilting against an abstraction, Islam, it is more concrete to condemn those human agents who actually concretize that abstraction</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">the hundreds of millions of Muslims who are either implementing the evil proscriptions and prescriptions of the Koran (not to mention the Sunnah), or those others who are either actively or passively enabling that evil.<br /><br />I think Geert Wilders is "anti-" the Muslims who follow Islam</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></em><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">for he is "anti-" Islam. How could he not be against the Muslims who follow Islam then? [Actually, I was incorrect about a certain detail here: Wilders has gone on record assuring interviewers that he is not "against Muslims"</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">but nevertheless, that is peripheral to my main point, which stands] And how can we tell which Muslims among the 1.2 billion do not follow Islam? Should we even try to discern the difference? Is it our problem? What does your distinction mean, if it is not trivial?<br /></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">After two or three Jihad Watch readers weighed in with criticisms of my position (pretty much agreeing with Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s basic position), Spencer responded again:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">That's not what I asked. You are shifting the argument. You took issue with my statement about the character of facts, and suggested that I have no moral problem with the evils of Sharia. I called you out on it, and instead of answering, you brought up a separate question: whether the distinction between Muslims and Islam is legitimate. Worth asking, and worth discussing. But are you really interested in truth here, or just in playing prosecutor? If the former, then answer my other questions first. If the latter, then go away, which, if you keep this up, you will be doing soon (again) anyway. You have consistently portrayed me as saying things I don't say and then pilloried me for saying them, and I am not of a mind to continue allowing you to do it on my nickel. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Unfortunately, I never bothered to check that thread again, and so never read this last response of Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">honestly, because his prickly hypersensitivity and kneejerk tendency to issue veiled threats to ban me made me exceedingly uncomfortable.<br /><br />At any rate, for what it</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s worth, Spencer begins by accusing me of primarily </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">suggesting</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> that he has </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">no moral problem with the evils of Sharia</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. This, to put it bluntly, is a staggeringly sophomoric reading of my obviously sarcastic initial comment. Obviously, when I wrote initially</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I'm against beheading. Aren't you?</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I was not suggesting that Spencer might support beheadings, for Crissakes! God, that guy is dense sometimes! I was in fact, through elliptical irony, putting the spotlight on the exact opposite: Knowing that Spencer obviously condemns beheadings, I then suggest he put his money where his mouth is and condemn Muslims for either overtly or tacitly, actively or passively, supporting beheadings and the Sharia Law that enables beheadings (along with other similarly barbaric and unjust rulings), by the very fact that they, as mature and responsible human beings, continue to remain members of Islam. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">My statement</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">apparently not simplistically and legalistically literal enough for Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s rigidly square box of a mind</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">was meant as a challenge: What is wrong with being </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anti-Muslim</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">, if to be </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Muslim</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> necessarily entails a support</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">either overt or tacit, active or passive</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">for beheadings which are part of the classical tradition of the Islam which all Muslims, through at the very least their mere fact of being Muslim, are ethically responsible for supporting?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">As I read further down that thread now, I see that it basically petered out from that point, with more Jihad Watch readers contributing their asymptotic approach</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">i.e., let</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s fight Islam, and </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">let</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">condemn and fight lots of Muslims, by Gum, but Heaven forbid we go all the way and say that all Muslims are our enemy! In addition, there were hints that I cease and desist, as though Spencer enjoys a distinction other humans don</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">that hallowed distinction, that is, of being above criticism.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">To sum up this section, I could not put it more eloquently than a certain Jihad Watch reader (</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Jaynie59</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">) put it in this </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019368.php%22%20%5Cl%20%22c489995">comment</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I should be banned now, then, if saying that all Muslims are a threat is not allowed on this site. I believe all of them are a threat. You cannot call yourself a Muslim and not believe in basic Islam and what Islam is on a basic level. The analogy of Germans vs Nazi's is not valid because not all Germans were Nazi's. A Muslim is not a member of any race, nationality, or political persuasion. A Muslim is a believer in Islam. And if they are a believer in Islam, they are a threat not only to unbelievers, but to other Muslims who don't believe and act as they do.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">There is ample proof of this and I am sick and tired of it being denied. Islam will win in the end because even people like Mr. Spenser care too much what others say about them than what is the truth that needs to be spoken. But I guess that's how politics works. And that is very depressing.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I would only modify one word of the above quote, to reduce the hyperbolic pressure that at a certain point had understandably built up in the writer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s emotions: I would substitute </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">may</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> for </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">will</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> in the third to last sentence. And I would append that even if an Islamic victory </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">in the end</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> never comes to pass, untold numbers of our innocents will still likely be slaughtered and maimed because, in no small part, of the brakes on our rational ruthlessness which Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s needlessly gingerly yet highly influential rhetoric is helping to apply.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">II.</span> I would like now to quote other Jihad Watch readers who basically come down on my side of the equation (even if they never specifically supported me):</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">One of them, </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Infidel Pride</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">, posted the following <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019990.php#c511167">comment</a> on the same thread discussed above, wisely apropos, even if it does repeat themes we have already established in our series:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. . . ideologies do not slaughter 200m people, inflict horrific abuses and espouse any supremacy. Their subscribers do! One could come out with the most vile ideology in the history of the world, but if such a following does not gather any support, its potential is worthless. Which is why this business of loving a sinner but hating the sin has always rung hollow: sins do not exist in a vacuum, and don't happen unless and until a sinner commits them.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Yep, there are any number of Muslims who have no idea about what Islam is all about, or who may be driven by either filial piety or by denial towards not distancing themselves from Islam. Fair enough. However, fact remains that all the excesses of Islam perpetrated over the millenia . . . would not have happened had there not been Muslims to perpetrate those excesses in the first place. One doesn't have people and governments worldwide sweat over the antics of various cults simply because they don't have the following they do. If Islam didn't have all its members from 632AD until this day, it could not have (let alone would not have) mass-murdered over 200 million people, or inflicted horrific abuses</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">no matter how much it would have wanted. Let's say for the sake of argument that the Hutus of Rwanda came out with a blueprint for world supremacy. Anybody out there thinks that such a threat would deserve to be taken seriously, given the number of Hutus worldwide?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">On the question of choice of words, don't like the term 'hate'? Fine, replace it with abhor, dispise, loathe</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">any of these terms which don't hit one so directly in a negative way.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Bottom line: it's fine to cast the blame on Islam, but remember: Islam, no matter what it advocates, would be powerless to execute on any of that</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">without Muslims!</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Another Jihad Watch reader, </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">FLLegal</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">, after quoting one of Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s characteristically gingerly and fastidiously careful editorial <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017114.php">pronouncements</a></span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"Anti-Islam folks" like me. Now, this is simply false. I am not "anti-Islam." I am against supremacism and subjugation, I am against the denial of human rights to women and religious minorities. As I say here, any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts.</span><br /><br /><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">then contributed this lancinatingly accurate observation:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Well I AM "anti-Islam" for the very nature of Islam is supremiscist [sic] and preaches subjugation. I've read the Quran and excerpts from the Hadith. If you are to believe the text of the very foundation of Islam, i.e. Islamic writings, then you have to be "anti-Islam". </span>. .<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Islam by its VERY NATURE and to its core is evil. Any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude does so contrary to Islamic writings, i.e. the Quran & Hadith, and is not a "good Muslim". They are in fact apostates of the sword weilding prophet Mohammad and take a position contrary to the vile & violent Quran/Hadith writings. The BIG LIE is that "Islam is a Religion of Peace" for it is not.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Notice two things about </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s editorial statement quoted above:<br /><br />1) He reiterates his challenge to Muslims, as though a sufficient number of Muslims would be capable of turning the ghastly ship of Islam around. (We have already examined in the preceding parts of this series the question of whether this incessantly repeated challenge by Spencer to moderate Muslims</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> is a rhetorical ploy or is sincere, and we concluded in Part 3 that it is likely not merely a disingenuously clever rhetorical ploy, but is sincere. We also, however, concluded that it does not matter which it is, since either maneuver will have roughly the same effect of unduly softening our ruthlessness in the face of this unprecedented enemy.)<br /><br />2) More interestingly, we see Spencer on record objecting not only to the term </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anti-Muslim</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">but also expressing his explicit aversion to the term </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">anti-Islam</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> as well! My, my. Just what, one wonders, is Spencer decidedly anti</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">without having to pad his antipathy with weaselly semantics that so blunt the force of his objections? Oh yes, he</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s anti those detachable parts of Islam called </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">the jihad agenda</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> and </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">sharia</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">as though there would be anything viable left over after those parts have been detached. Right.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Yet another Jihad Watch reader</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">shiekyermami</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">added his two cents that cut like a refreshingly lucid knife through Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s needlessly diplomatic bullshit:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Are we anti-Islam? Of course we are. We cannot coexist. To deny it is mere wordplay. Mr. Spencer's disclaimer above is wordplay, I can't see it any other way. The Muhammedans certainly see it my way because 'resisting Islam' is a heinous crime and since the Koran is the 'immutable word of Allah' the Muslim is our mortal enemy.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Sorry, but I have no illusions. There cannot and will not be 'reform' or a major overhaul of this mad cult, the only choice we have is to dig our heels in, to oppose and ridicule it and finally destroy it before it destroys us.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Following on the heels of this was a nicely put zinger to Spencer by </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Infidel Pride</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> (whom we quoted above as well). Again, he begins by quoting Spencer:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"Anti-Islam folks" like me. Now, this is simply false. I am not "anti-Islam." I am against supremacism and subjugation, I am against the denial of human rights to women and religious minorities."</span><br /><br />And comments superbly:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">You may not be 'anti-Islam'. You may be against supremacy and subjugation of Infidels, and against denigration of women. I honestly am at a loss to see how you or anyone else can simultaneously be both.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">It's like claiming 'I'm not anti-Nazi, but I oppose the holocaust' or 'I'm not anti-Communist, but I oppose the gulag and the purges'. Anybody who supports equality before the law in an Islamic setting is in fact anti-Islam. Without necessarily knowing it!</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">III.</span> Continuing in this vein, we again examine </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">refusal to condemn Islam itself: Spencer has stated the </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017126.php#comments%22%3Ehttp://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017126.php#comments">following</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> in multiply thematic ways:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">As I have said many times, there is no "true Islam." But jihadists make recruits by presenting their Islam as the true Islam, and by pointing out chapter and verse of the Qur'an, as well as the example of Muhammad and the rulings of the schools of Islamic jurisprudence. For peaceful Muslims to stop this from being a successful appeal, they have to confront it.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">No </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">true Islam</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">? What has been massacring over 250 million people and cruelly subjugating millions more over the past 1400 years while brutally conquering lands from the south Philippines to Spain in the name of a pathological, deranged, supremacist eschatology? A </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">false Islam</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">? A </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">second Islam</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">? Are there multiple </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Islam</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">? </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Let us stop the diplomatically oily and needlessly complicating semantics and instead concentrate on the Enemy as it has concretely attacked us for the past 1400 years, and as it reawakens from its relatively quiescent recent slumber to resume its attacks on us again, shall we?<br /><br />As </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">own Vice-President, Hugh Fitzgerald, </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">recently in a <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020579.php#comments">comments field</a> on Jihad Watch </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">put the problem most eloquently, finally showing a sign of </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">abandoning the security blanket of his Asymptotic Cigar in order to edge </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">his toes perilously close to the inevitable Whole Enchilada:<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">Islam, Islam, Islam.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">”</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />Later, in an <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020395.php">interview</a> about Oriana Fallaci whom Spencer has praised many times and whom he highlights on his site with a permanent tribute, he answered this question from the interviewer:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Interviewer: </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Do you agree with her that the Islam is indeed a problem (in the US and Europe)?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Spencer: </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Elements of Islam are the problem. Muslims who reject them sincerely and work against those elements are not the problem. But the imperative to subjugate non-Muslims under the rule of Islamic law, and many elements of that law itself, are indeed the problem, as they are directly incompatible with the dignity of the human person and the equality of rights of all people.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Notice that Spencer did not contradict the interviewer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s characterization of Fallaci</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s position, that Islam is indeed a problem. Instead, he answered that </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">elements of Islam are the problem</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. How mealy-mouthed can one get? He sounds like a smarmy defense attorney here trying to weasel out of a direct assertion. I don</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t know about you, reader, but in 2008, after all the grotesque atrocities committed in Islam</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s name by Muslims and nothing substantial from Muslims protesting against this, we need a far meatier, robuster formula. We need straight talk from our Anti-Islam representatives.<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Ummm. . . how about </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Islam is the problem</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. . .? Would that do? Why can</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t Spencer simply say </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Islam is the problem</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> and </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Muslims are the problem</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">? His slapdash, parenthetical and intermittent answers on these most pressing questions are found grievously wanting. And frankly, they are getting tiresome.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">For Christ</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">sake, it</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s bad enough that our entire culture all around us refuses to name the problem and name the enemy</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">but to have the Director of Jihad Watch himself squirrel around on this most pivotal point of the whole issue is just too much!</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Let us read on with the interview about Oriana Fallaci</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">that lady who knew better than Careful Mr. Spencer how to condemn Islam and Muslims:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Interviewer: </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Is the Quran the “most stupid and dangerous book in the world” (The Force of Reason, p. 63)?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Spencer: </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I haven’t read all the books in the world. But certainly the Qur’an’s program for violence and Islamic supremacism is dangerous for non-Muslims, and should be rejected by all free people, including Muslims themselves, who if they continue to hold to the uniqueness of the book should at least reject literalism in those particulars and some others.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Notice that Spencer studiously side-steps answering the question directly. The interviewer is asking him if he agrees with Fallaci, whose quote he cites with source and specific page number. The reader must conclude by Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s tap-dancing answer that Spencer disagrees with Fallaci, or finds her salty Mediterranean hyperbole unpalatable to his gingerly taste. A far better answer from Spencer would have been something like: </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I love that quote from Fallaci. While there are many highly stupid and dangerous books that have been written in the world, it would be difficult to argue that the Qur</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">an does not qualify as the prize-winner par excellence.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">” Even that, on second thought, would not have been quite up to snuff. For, if we consider the inspirational effects</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">both amorphously psycho-cultural and specifically textual</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">of the </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Qur</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">an throughout history and the mountain of misery and mayhem it has caused, it is clear that Spencer should have simply answered </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Yes, Fallaci is correct.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">” But </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">no. Spencer had to finesse his answer like a weaselly lawyer and by implication make Fallaci seem like a flake.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Shame on him.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Yet another Jihad Watch reader wrote in a </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016804.php">comments field</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> what needs to be written:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">God bless Robert Spencer, but I think he is too generous in not stating that Islamic is inherently violent. On this point, I disagree with him. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">And another Jihad Watch reader quotes Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s thematic </span><a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016804.php#comments">challenge</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> to Muslims to clean up their act</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">So I post this as it may be instructive, and to call upon all self-proclaimed moderates like A. M. to stop their denial and to work for positive change within Islam, first by acknowledging that change is needed. For the culture that produced Najib Bellari will produce many more like him, unless the assumptions that led to his act are confronted and combatted within the Islamic community. </span><br /><br /><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">and he makes this screamingly obvious retort that Spencer has no excuse for obtusely and repeatedly ignoring:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I don't think this can really be done. If you acknowledge that Islam is inherently violent and so forth, how can [Muslims] continue to believe in it? If [they] don't make this acknowledgement, then reform is not really possible.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">IV.</span> Finally, I offer the following observation. First, I quote Spencer yet again in one of his </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020578.php#comments">editorial remarks</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> on a news story:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">This [Muslim] guy is upset about the film Fitna because it shows Muslims committing acts of violence in the name of Islam. And no doubt he believes, or wants us to believe, that Islam is a religion of peace. So in service of that he goes to protest the film at the Dutch embassy, carrying a flag from Hizballah.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Isn't it ironic that someone would protest against linking Islam with violence by carrying a Hizballah flag?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">And here is my reply:<br /><br />No, it’s not ironic. Spencer persists in framing the posture of such Muslims in terms of cognitive dissonance</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">which implies a potential for such Muslims to mollify their inimically bellicose posture. After the 1,000th time of reading Spencer framing the posture of such Muslims this way, it starts to wear thin. To the extent that people of the Anti-Islamic Movement think according to this Spencerian model, we have to modify it radically: We have to wrap our heads around the grimly brute fact that there is no potential for such Muslims to mollify their inimically bellicose posture.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />In plain English: <span>There is no hope for reform by Muslims of Islam.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Closely related to this, we have to wrap our heads around the equally sobering fact that we cannot reasonably distinguish putatively harmless Muslims from the dangerous Muslims to the degree that would be sufficient to adjust our need to be ruthlessly pro-active in our self-defense. </span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />In plain English: <span>We must consider all Muslims to be our enemy.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The Spencerian model by analogy would be as though one would observe a wave of conquering barbarians pillaging and massacring, and continue to pose the question</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“If the Barbarians might sincerely desire peace, why are they not protesting against their waves of marauding armies who are pillaging and massacring people?”</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Of course, translating the Spencerian model to the framework of this analogy exposes an absurdity, and the reader might object and say, “Well, it’s not the same situation; in the case of the Barbarians, there is simply the conquering army pillaging and massacring in its invasion, but in the case of Muslims, we have many Muslims not doing any harm and we also have quite a few Muslims protesting and arguing that Islam does not mean us harm.”</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Well, this objection vividly highlights the whole problem with the softness of the Spencerian model: he persists in framing the issue as though our predicament in the face of an Islam Redivivus might be different from that of the invading Barbarians of the analogy.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">My point is that we must stop thinking as though there is a difference.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">We must, rather, put the whole issue in starkly no-nonsense terms:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">1) Islam is evil, cruel, unjust, and exceedingly dangerous.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">2) Islam is, through the agency of multitudes of Muslims, trying to conquer the world.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">3) While there likely exist many Muslims who, for various complex socio-psychological reasons, are harmless, our inability to identify them and distinguish them from dangerous Muslims is sufficiently infirm to lead us to the pragmatic conclusion, in the interest of our own proactive self-defense against the likelihood of horrific attacks on us, that we must treat all Muslims <span style="font-style: italic;">en bloc</span> as the Enemy.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">This is the stark expression of the Problem of Islam that Spencer seems to resist.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">It is becoming increasingly clear from the ever-growing mountain of evidence</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">both now and through the history of Islam as we learn it more and more</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">that any arguments Spencer might supply to justify a significant attenuation of this stark expression are faulty and, in their faultiness, would hinder our ability to proactively defend ourselves.<br /><br /></span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-794316708009912202008-04-12T10:45:00.000-07:002008-04-13T12:23:31.987-07:00Robert Spencer: Soft on Islam? Part 3<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVuZHKIevVcT-o7vHNI4eIYbkJruwmmzIo9x8RpS-uD8vWs8-7zJ9gS601Po8r40acc6ul04BuzRFemRYAfz0PmStTBanWjBg6dxUPplREEfIdjiCnuxRBF8b8uOEYJglp0v6Ld148hJhB/s1600-h/kitty2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVuZHKIevVcT-o7vHNI4eIYbkJruwmmzIo9x8RpS-uD8vWs8-7zJ9gS601Po8r40acc6ul04BuzRFemRYAfz0PmStTBanWjBg6dxUPplREEfIdjiCnuxRBF8b8uOEYJglp0v6Ld148hJhB/s400/kitty2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5188420360160215314" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeEfvqaiQ6AUXRIpr64raTs9QQijoYzEOMemzAPNx8285neNvLb0rW_EDR6EEixII5wOGSJXH71_gM8r7d4aqtpPy8Y-1_sP2WPekkmNHHvKZoAG2vjkFmLpqOVpfLdn4A8bOfTL46qS7_/s1600-h/spencer3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeEfvqaiQ6AUXRIpr64raTs9QQijoYzEOMemzAPNx8285neNvLb0rW_EDR6EEixII5wOGSJXH71_gM8r7d4aqtpPy8Y-1_sP2WPekkmNHHvKZoAG2vjkFmLpqOVpfLdn4A8bOfTL46qS7_/s400/spencer3.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5188420222721261826" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">In Part 2, I quoted Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s claim that Islam, in its </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">spectrum</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> of diversity</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">by which he also posited the existence of millions of </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">cultural Muslims</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> who are </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">not interested in advancing the jihad agenda or even necessarily aware of it</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">, is </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">no different</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> from any other religion, including Christianity.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I noted the extraordinary simple-mindedness of such a claim that utterly ignores the sociological singularity of Islam. Spencer also seems to have a resistance to noticing the sociological dimension pertaining to the phenomenon of Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism (an odd lacuna in his perspicacity which I have documented and analyzed here on this blog until I am blue in the face; but that is another, albeit closely related, story).</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">At the time he made that claim about Islam in the comments field of a Dhimmi Watch </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019990.php">article </a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">back in February, I had responded thusly:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Islam may be "no different" if one takes Spencer's description with a scrupulously meticulous and legalistic exactitude (thereby pinching one's eyes so as to screen out the larger picture). But Islam is profoundly different from other religions</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">particularly when contrasted with Judaism and Christianity, and even more acutely when contrasted with the West as a whole (which is what we should be contrasting Islam with</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">that Self-Contained Counter-Culture that tries to fuse not only Religion and State but everything else under the Sun into one Self-Sufficient Civilization). Judaism and Christianity have become profoundly affected by (and have richly contributed to) the development of modern Secularism, which in turn has become the wider context we call "the West"</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">a wider civilizational context that has so profoundly changed the sociological, the cultural, the political, the legal, the psychological attitudes and structures of people and institutions not only in the West, but throughout the world, as to make any such equivalency strange</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">particularly when emanating from the Director of Jihad Watch.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I added:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Islam is different from other religions, particularly Judaism and Christianity, by being sufficiently more resistant than other religions are to modern secularism, making it</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Islam</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">in our time the uniquely hairy problem and danger it is. And this resistance to modern secularism makes the existence of nominal or lax Muslims</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">as well as actively secularist Muslims</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">a far less significant factor than pertains among Jews and Christians throughout the West and the world. (Ditto for Buddhists and Hindus, who seem to be able to secularize with significantly fewer problems than do Muslims.)</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Spencer then replied to me:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Once again, whether out of ignorance or malice I do not know, you misunderstand me. I was talking about the distinction between Muslims and Islam. For you to take this to mean that I do not perceive the profound differences between Islam and other religions, after the several books and mountains of articles and JW posts I have written on that subject, is bizarre, at very least.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">To which I then responded:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Robert wrote: "Once again, whether out of ignorance or malice I do not know, you misunderstand me." And: "I was talking about the distinction between Muslims and Islam."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Here is what Robert wrote, and I quote this for the second time on this thread (the first time to Robert in the very post he responded to): </span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"This is true just as it is also true that there are millions of people who call themselves Christians but who pay little or no attention to the effort of conforming their lives to Christian teachings. In every belief-system there is a spectrum of belief, knowledge, and fervor, and Islam is no different."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Clearly, there is evoked here a comparison between the "millions of people who call themselves Christians" and Muslims, both of whom furthermore are embraced within "every belief-system" in which, as [Spencer] wrote, "there is a spectrum of belief, knowledge, and fervor, and Islam is no different."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Robert insists he was only talking about a distinction between Islam and Muslims? Why the mention of Christians? Why the mention of "every belief system"? Why the mention that Islam is "no different"? No different than what?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">We are not quite done yet with this interchange. Spencer then dug himself deeper in his hole by responding yet again:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I really don't think my statement is unclear, except, of course, to a mean-spirited prosecutorial type who dislikes me intensely and is trying to catch me out. Not that that would be you, of course! Anyway, my friend, Islam is no different from Christianity or any other belief system IN THIS ONE PARTICULAR: there is a spectrum of belief, knowledge, and fervor among its adherents, such that one would be unwise, and incorrect, to assume that "all Muslims" think the same way about anything in particular. In saying that, does that mean that I think that Islam is, like Christianity, a religion of peace, or that it doesn't sanction violence and warfare? I suppose if you think that in a relatively offhand remark I would contradict literally hundreds of statements I have made to the contrary in books and articles and appearances on radio, television, and before numerous live audiences, statements that I have made at great personal cost to my reputation and personal safety but which I have continued to make because I believe them to be true</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">if you really think I would blandly contradict all that in a comments field, then you must think I am an idiot, or someone who will trim what he says to suit his audience, or both. However, as far as I can see, that statement does not contradict the many others I have made, as it is not on the same topic, and only</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">once again</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">someone hunting for rope to hang me with would see it otherwise. Which brings me to something I've been meaning to ask you for some time: why does it all depend on me in your mind? If you think what I am doing is so wrongheaded and ill-advised and misdirected, why not just do it properly yourself, instead of spending all your time skulking around sniping at my efforts?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I then responded to Spencer, particularly with regard to his weaselly </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">one particular</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">:</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />"Anyway, my friend, Islam is no different from Christianity or any other belief system IN THIS ONE PARTICULAR: there is a spectrum of belief, knowledge, and fervor among its adherents. . ."<br /><br />Yes, each has a spectrum as you say, of belief, knowledge, and fervor among their respective adherents. But are the two spectrums the same? And if not, why are they different? I maintain that the two spectrums are vastly different, because of complex cultural processes</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">most especially secularism, which is itself a Western organic growth out of Christendom and has little if anything to do with the growth of anything internal to Islam.<br /><br />So yes: both are the same in that they both share the same class of spectrum. But they are so importantly different in the manifestation, concretization and development</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">quantitatively and qualitatively</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">of that class of spectrum, that to leave the differences unmentioned, and to stress the absence of differences in the framework of an abstract "particular", seems extremely odd in the context of JW (but of course not odd at all out in the mainstream).<br /></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Why Spencer could not see this—that the </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">spectrum</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> of Islam is significantly and singularly different from the </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">spectrum</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> of other cultures—is baffling. He evidently has a serious deficiency in the understanding of sociology, and it seriously impairs the way he frames the Problem of Islam—and that, in turn, results in his incessantly repeated adumbration of an overall framework that tends, in my view, to soften our view of Islam and, by extension, to soften both our ruthlessness in the face of this enemy, and the concrete actions we would take on the basis of that ruthlessness.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Incidentally, Spencer never responded after my last response above. I suppose he thought his irrelevant ad hominems, rising from irrational pique to hover close to outright paranoia about me, sufficed to counter my arguments. Or perhaps he grew tired of mustering elaborate quibbles rather than face those arguments head-on, which might have necessitated—God forbid—actually changing his mind, or at least conceding a point or two.<br /><br />Continue reading <a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/robert-spencer-soft-on-islam-part-4.html">Part 4</a>.<br /></span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-90682907700043890552008-04-09T10:15:00.000-07:002008-04-20T12:08:58.371-07:00Robert Spencer: Soft on Islam? Part 2<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifsvHAShQqAcrBn3GYzUnr00ofL0j8cCv6UFwdmrVxRRLKOUmSGIwTmKpTfDXQsOgEwvwykzl7zvpwe5J2wpIcvrLQ_HhVoWhLbFdTIac4_MOCdsXmCeNgycEDuV5VhvPZhgLul1xjoVjk/s1600-h/kitty.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifsvHAShQqAcrBn3GYzUnr00ofL0j8cCv6UFwdmrVxRRLKOUmSGIwTmKpTfDXQsOgEwvwykzl7zvpwe5J2wpIcvrLQ_HhVoWhLbFdTIac4_MOCdsXmCeNgycEDuV5VhvPZhgLul1xjoVjk/s400/kitty.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5187297423780806834" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE34kgYJAF4KEb0wkFKN1b7rXNAVyjF4BshaYAqituE_fQJcLhq-vwWEi27E4vFKfjaU2ypING2yS209FfanRtA42pTV-irDVFwufWYzfF8B3iVhGkRWfga0A0HaUKyMD5gPmz-jewpXBO/s1600-h/spencer+2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE34kgYJAF4KEb0wkFKN1b7rXNAVyjF4BshaYAqituE_fQJcLhq-vwWEi27E4vFKfjaU2ypING2yS209FfanRtA42pTV-irDVFwufWYzfF8B3iVhGkRWfga0A0HaUKyMD5gPmz-jewpXBO/s400/spencer+2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5187296118110748754" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">In our previous essay, we presented the argument that Spencer is too soft on Islam. This doesn</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t mean he is not harder on Islam than many other people; it just means that as hard as he is, it is not hard enough for the type of danger we face from Muslims.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Just yesterday on Jihad Watch, there was posted this </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020613.php#comments">news story</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Al-Qaeda</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">’</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s nuclear attack against the US is in planning stages, top American intelligence officials have said.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">In light of this horrific and imminent threat, and in light of the psychosociopolitico-cultural dispersal and fungibility of Al-Qaeda among Muslims throughout the globe in the Islamic diaspora, we are forced, rationally, to treat Islam itself, and all Muslims, as our mortal and immediate enemy. We do not have the sufficient means or methods to distinguish any given seemingly harmless Muslim from Muslims who are, in one form or another, to one degree or another, in collusion with the goals of Al-Qaeda.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Furthermore, Al-Qaeda is not the only Islamic threat to the West: there exists all over the globe an amorphously disparate taxonomy of Islamic terrorist groups, more or less affiliated with Al-Qaeda. And this is complicated and augmented by the ability and predisposition we have seen time and time again of individual Muslims or rag-tag groupings of Muslims to improvise paramilitary behavior with little or no central command or hierarchical organization. In addition, there is the remarkable, nay unique, degree of psychosociological cohesion among Muslims throughout international Islam</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">despite the wonderfully diverse tapestry that Islamic culture presents</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">which is conducive to nourishing a vast and complex support system even from the millions of more or less passive Muslims who, through their mere existence as Muslims coupled with their passive enablement of classical fanaticism and supremacism, effectively stand on the side of our Enemy. Finally, we Infidels cannot sufficiently identify harmless Muslims</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">even if they exist in great numbers</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">and distinguish them </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">from dangerous Muslims.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Given our fundamental ignorance on this most important aspect, it would certainly be perilous if not suicidal to base any of our policies concerning the Problem of Islam on the mere assumption that harmless Muslims exist.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">In light of the above factors, the stakes are too high for us to continue to be laying the groundwork of any expectation whatsoever of discussion, dialogue or debate with Muslims</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">any Muslims, no matter how </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">moderate</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> they might seem to some.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Thus, consider Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span>s<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2008/03/020500print.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline; color: rgb(51, 102, 255);">challenge</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> to Ali Eteraz, the Muslim counter-critic of anti-Islam critics:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Eteraz then might more effectively discredit [Geert] Wilders by directing his efforts</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">within the Islamic community, against the jihadists and jihadism, rather than against those who hear the jihadists say repeatedly that they represent pure Islam, and don't see any large-scale significant countermovement opposing them among Muslims.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">This call for apparently moderate Muslims such as Eteraz to direct their energies inward to Islam and to counter jihadism is an incessant refrain from Spencer. As we argued in our last essay, this refrain could be merely rhetorical: Spencer may believe that actually it is useless to expect any such redirection of critical energies from any Muslims, but he persists in framing his project this way as a way of putting the burden of the problem upon the putative moderate Muslims themselves.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">However, as we also argued, the rhetorical function of this refrain could easily be accomplished by Spencer coming clean and being transparent. There is no need to pretend here. Good God, we are all grown-ups. Spencer can continue to put the burden upon the putative moderate Muslims, but he doesn</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t have to couch it in terms that imply any realistic expectation at all. Spencer can, in fact, couch it in terms of our utter abandonment of all hope in any Muslim, and put the entire burden upon Muslims</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">any Muslims</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">to pleasantly flabbergast us with a widespread musterment of real reformist change. And until such time as we are pleasantly flabbergasted, we have the right to remain utterly inimical to Islam and to all Muslims, and to act accordingly. It then would be entirely up to Muslims to do what needs to be done to turn the dreadfully unidirectional course of our ship around: only in this way will the urgent gravity of the situation be impressed upon Muslims, and only in this way can we optimally prepare for the measures which our proactive self-defense requires.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Indeed, certain things Spencer has written indicate that in fact he does not seem to be issuing his refrain merely rhetorically:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Recently, he <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019990.php#c511094">responded</a> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">to a reader in the comments section of Dhimmi Watch, who wrote:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">A Muslim is loyal only to Islam.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s response:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">That is an impossible generalization. There are millions upon millions of people who are culturally Muslim but are not interested in advancing the jihad agenda or even necessarily aware of it. This is true just as it is also true that there are millions of people who call themselves Christians but who pay little or no attention to the effort of conforming their lives to Christian teachings. In every belief-system there is a spectrum of belief, knowledge, and fervor, and Islam is no different. To extrapolate from Islamic teachings to the proposition that all Muslims believe in and are advancing the jihadist cause is just as absurd as assuming that because Jesus said to love your enemies, that every last Christian is humble, self-effacing, non-combative, and forgiving. That's why Wilders' distinction between Muslims and Islam is not illogical, not false, and in fact is quite useful and important. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Here, Spencer demonstrates a remarkably simple-minded grasp of the complex, singularly cohesive and uniquely trans-national sociological dimension of Islamic culture.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Secondly, he is indulging in a bit of ET</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Equivalency Theory</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">to which his simple-minded grasp </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">of the sociological factor </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">all to easily lends itself.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Thirdly and most importantly, he is assuming knowledge of the minds of millions of Muslims. How does Spencer know what millions of Muslims are </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">interested in</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> or what they are </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">aware of</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">? The answer is, of course, that he cannot know what he professes here to know. The best we can know about those hundreds of millions of Muslims who are not currently exploding, beheading, shooting or stabbing people (or plotting to do same, or aiding those who are plotting to do same) is that they are </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2008/01/time-to-throw-away-term-moderate-muslim.html">apparently harmless</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s failure to see this elementary <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/pointlessly-persistent-moderate-muslim.html">distinction</a>, and to articulate it clearly for the pedagogy of the growing Anti-Islam Movement over which he has considerable influence, demonstrates serious irresponsibility on his part.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">While Spencer elsewhere, and quite regularly, seems to show a glimmer of understanding about this demographic/sociological problem of Islam vis-a-vis our unavoidable ignorance of Muslim minds and motives, that glimmer proves to be only an approximation to the position we argue is essential</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2006/06/case-of-asymptotic-cigar-jihad-watch.html">the Case of the Asymptotic Cigar</a><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">but not its adequate comprehension.<br /><br />For example, he will write things like the following, in introducing a story about Umar Islam, yet another Muslim terrorist who takes Islam to heart (note Spencer is writing with </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">sarcasm mode</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> on):</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">There is no indication that any Muslim today takes Qur</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">’</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">an 9:111 as some sort of justification to. . . kill and be killed. What's that? It seems as if Umar Islam sees it in just that way? Well, all right, possibly, but he is just one of a Tiny Minority of Extremists. The Vast Majority of Peaceful Muslims regard 9:111 as, at best, a relic of the past, not applicable to our own day, or else as a poorly translated and even more poorly understood exhortation to hug and be hugged. What</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">’</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s that? What is the Vast Majority doing to convince Muslims like Umar Islam that they</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">’</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">re Misunderstanding Islam, and to instruct them in its true, peaceful teachings? </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">How do we square the apparent recognition, in this quote, of the problem of the vast majority of Muslims, with the previous statement we quoted above, where he is basically categorizing that same vast majority of Muslims as people who are not </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">interested in</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> the jihad agenda, or even </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">aware of</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> it? The only way to reconcile these two statements is through Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s challenge to Muslims, which has become a leitmotif repeated nearly every day on Jihad Watch in one form or another. We see it in the last sentence above (as we also saw it with the quote about Ali Eteraz above): </span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">What is the Vast Majority doing to convince Muslims like Umar Islam that they</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">’</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">re Misunderstanding Islam, and to instruct them in its true, peaceful teachings?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">As we argued, this is likely not a rhetorical device predicated upon a disingenuous white lie. Spencer really thinks this is a viable option</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">however much he might layer it with realistic padding along the lines of </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">it is probably not very likely. . .</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> etc. And again, my point is that we must fling any such notion of hope and possibility decisively and utterly out the window, because:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">1) The stakes are too high;<br /><br />2) To hold out such hope, and to predicate it upon a viable notion of millions of harmless </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“cultural Muslims</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">” as Spencer does, is effectively to lay the ground for a weakening of our ruthlessness and of the specific concretizations of that ruthlessness that we will have to be ready to do in the interest of our proactive self-defense;</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">and<br /><br />3) Muslims are not equivalent to other sociological groups</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em>in fact <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">they are unique in the following ways, and these examples of the uniqueness of their culture intensifies the danger they pose:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">a) they are formed psycho-socially by a trans-national sense of exclusivist belonging;</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">b) their founding texts, traditions and current teachings are saturated with evil supremacism, pathological eschatology, and fanatical puritanism;</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">c) their culture inculcates the reception of those texts and traditions with far more literalness and obsessive seriousness than other religions, particularly Judaism and Christianity, do</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">and let us not forget the modern West is more than merely Judaism and Christianity: it is a vast, sophisticated and substantive system of Secularism, a system wholly foreign to Islamic culture and only affecting Islamic culture extraneously as a foreign, and imperialistically perceived, import;</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">d) aside from accidental variations due to extraneous factors, their culture is essentially and ideally a holistic system that includes all spheres of life</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Military, Laws, Society, Family Life, Hygiene</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">a grandiose totalitarianism that exacerbates the intolerance of their supremacism, tending to motivate them to reject other Systems of life for the one they have;</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">e) because of all of the above, too many Muslims are prone to passively enable their fellow fanatics at best, and actively support them at worst;</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">f) and finally, even if there exist a certain number of Muslims here or there who are actually harmless and will remain so, we cannot sufficiently identify them and distinguish them from the Muslims who are potentially dangerous</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">and because of #1 above, this forces us, rationally, to treat all Muslims equally under the same degree of utmost suspicion.<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Continue reading <a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/robert-spencer-soft-on-islam-part-3.html">Part 3</a>.</span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-86067935102293640132008-04-06T18:13:00.000-07:002008-04-13T12:02:55.879-07:00Robert Spencer: Soft on Islam?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKgf0cV4lJ3eSPHhxiBifPI3PGIzf3LIDadgQfUm8-ObDCqvDwzlU-0D3Gfkg6-GnlLgPHZUp0mEVyPCLTCIZWfCo8v5pqo6hYLMfsekypSIBd9OGBFoL8WCXjSnVu889IC7A1XHQYnUk7/s1600-h/Soft+2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKgf0cV4lJ3eSPHhxiBifPI3PGIzf3LIDadgQfUm8-ObDCqvDwzlU-0D3Gfkg6-GnlLgPHZUp0mEVyPCLTCIZWfCo8v5pqo6hYLMfsekypSIBd9OGBFoL8WCXjSnVu889IC7A1XHQYnUk7/s400/Soft+2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5188253002464559346" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgR7Nnc9ogNSeAn0U-8o-I28np7AcDCIGB5hsqbW3p_TcjWyJu-VWo8nQVnymCkFBYHRSDEnA_hUKuzLtpPaofRCc5g8eMA7zwsEuOMoZTPkQAlRk7D7Q9fJAUWQl3c0kByNOvZClnUDpkq/s1600-h/spencer.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgR7Nnc9ogNSeAn0U-8o-I28np7AcDCIGB5hsqbW3p_TcjWyJu-VWo8nQVnymCkFBYHRSDEnA_hUKuzLtpPaofRCc5g8eMA7zwsEuOMoZTPkQAlRk7D7Q9fJAUWQl3c0kByNOvZClnUDpkq/s400/spencer.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5188252654572208338" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Today</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s critique Jihad Watch may be the subtlest of my variety of complaints I have articulated on this blog.<br /><br />Obviously, Robert Spencer has been, for a few years now, remarkably prolific and effective (within the severe limitations of the surrounding culture of PC MC) as a critic of Islamic jihad and neo-dhimmitude. For the most part, I have no problem with his </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">hardness</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">with respect to those aspects of Islam. There remains, however, an important dimension to the overall issue on which he seems a little too soft.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">This dimension has several features:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">1) Overall (and despite what many of his pro-Islam critics claim), Spencer refuses to condemn Islam itself.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">He remains fixed at a position where he only condemns the jihad doctrine of Islam and the Sharia law that is central to Islamic tradition and culture, and which many Muslims try to concretize wherever they have the power to do so, whether by hook (military conquest, violent intimidation and terror) or by crook (subtler methods of what Spencer calls </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">stealth jihad</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">).</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">This seems to be a fine distinction, for the dedicated reader of Jihad Watch and its sister site Dhimmi Watch over the years (as I am) will become profoundly inculcated in the impression, based on the ever-growing mountain of evidence presented on those sites, that the menace of jihad and its raison d</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">etre</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">the concretization of Sharia law wherever possible, ideally over the whole planet</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">pertain to the very heart, brain, marrow, blood, tissues and nerves of Islam. I.e., only by a process of tenuous abstraction could one extract those central parts of Islam for the purposes of condemnation, but then consider the remainder, apart from those central parts, to be viable as potentially okay for non-Muslims.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">His Vice-President at Jihad Watch, Hugh Fitzgerald, has over the past year or so begun to harden his language here and there and comes closer than does Spencer to actually condemning Islam itself. His language, unfortunately, continues to suffer from the curious phenomenon of </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">close but no cigar</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> asymptotization, whereby the analyst cannot seem to firmly, unequivocably, vividly and simply state that Islam is the Problem and that therefore all Muslims</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">not just some of them</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">are the concrete agents of that Problem. We may return to Fitzgerald in subsequent essays on this blog that stem directly from this one.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">This brings us to the second feature of Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s problematic approach to the Problem of Islam:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">2) He repeatedly frames his condemnations of those putatively detachable parts of Islam in terms of a challenge to the Islam Apologists he debates, as well as to Muslims at large who seem</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">in their relative passivity, ambivalence or downright disingenuousness</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">to be more or less enabling the bad parts of Islam.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">And that challenge is, in a nutshell:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">a) Denounce the bad aspects of Islam</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">b) Make your denunciation formal, explicit, comprehensive and utterly absent of the disingenuous loopholes which characterize all previous denunciations of terrorism by Muslims</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">c) Begin instituting education programs directed at fellow Muslims throughout mosques, Islamic organizations and Islamic media against the bad aspects of Islam.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Now, there are a couple of problems with Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s challenge:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">1) The first problem we already dealt with in #1 above: it implies that the menace of Islam pertains only to a part, or parts, of Islam, which can apparently be detached from a good (or at least harmless) part (or parts) of Islam, and that the menace of Islam therefore does not permeate all of Islam (and by extension does not render all Muslims colluders in that menace</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">not merely those Muslims who continue to support and/or enable Islam either actively or passively, but all Muslims insofar as we cannot sufficiently identify the truly harmless Muslims and effectively discriminate a sufficient number of them from the other Muslims we agree to acknowledge as colluders in the menace of Islam). Note: the preceding parenthetical comment will become important later in our analysis.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">2) Secondly, Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s challenge implies the realistic capability for a sufficient number of Muslims to rise to the challenge to the degree necessary</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">i.e., to the degree that would effectively annul the menace of Islam. Spencer himself has many times (albeit in parenthetical caveats) expressed the unlikely prospect of this capability on the part of a sufficient number of Muslims. What then is the point of repeatedly issuing the challenge? And what is the point of making this challenge a fundamental aspect of the structure of his overall critique of the bad parts of Islam? Spencer has never clarified answers to these questions, much less has he even adverted to them at all. Only two conclusions can be drawn, it seems:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">a) Spencer is being disingenuously rhetorical: he reasonably assumes that a sufficient number of Muslims will not rise to his challenge, but he does not candidly admit this. Instead, he persists in his unrealistic challenge</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">which he himself agrees is unrealistic but which he frames sincerely as though he really does believe it is realistic</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">only to highlight the significant, and ongoing, absence of Muslims in fact rising to that challenge.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">b) Or, Spencer really does believe in the possibility of Muslims rising to the challenge, and though he admits it is unlikely, he holds out the hope they will and frames his whole mission around that hope</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">likely informed by his Christian faith in the essential goodness of man (including Muslims) and the ever-present possibility each man will turn to God (i.e., turn away from the bad aspects of Islam).</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Now, (a) has certain advantages: It puts the onus of the problem squarely back onto the Islam Apologists to demonstrate that they sincerely desire reform and modernization, which rhetorically is superior. However, this rhetorical superiority requires for maximum effect the following factors:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">i) a conducive and mainstream sociopolitical atmosphere surrounding the challenger</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">ii) a realistically widespread reformist base among the Muslims</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">iii) closely related to (i) and (ii), an irrefutable position revolving around the central points of the challenge</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">to wit: the whole complex issue of modern Western superiority and the inferiority of at least those large chunks of Islam which Spencer is asking Muslims to foreswear. While this superiority is of course clear to the tiny minority of Jihad Watchers, it still requires immense labor to adumbrate and articulate. Why? Because the factors of (i) and (ii) are not only lacking</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">what are in their place are massively hostile to Spencer's challenge: For (i), we have the mainstream dominance of PC MC, and for (ii), we have Muslims who at best remain confused by their mental disarray and cannot participate in a rational manner in any constructive dialogue, or who at worst are evidently practicing elaborate taqiyya to forestall any meaningful dialogue and fair compromise in the first place.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">One disadvantage of (a) is that Spencer would have to maintain a major lie for years</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">not a comfortable thing to do for a Christian, no matter how much such a lie is spun and finessed with weaselly language (e.g., </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">While I maintain this challenge to Muslims, it is probably not very likely that sufficient Muslims will in fact rise to the challenge. . .</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">). Personally, I </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">wouldn</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">mind lying in order to proactively defend ourselves from the menace of Islam; but somehow, I doubt Spencer would make the same admission so blandly. More importantly, the other disadvantages of (a) are that it is superfluous at best, and counter-productive at worst. It is superfluous because Spencer need not convey the impression that he sincerely expects his challenge to be met: he can easily establish his conviction</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">framed as his own personal opinion</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">that the likelihood of his challenge being met is exceedingly unrealistic and that all our attention, energies and policies should be geared to that grim reality; while at the same time he can leave the challenge on the table.<br /><br />The amended posture, then, would be:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Dear Muslims -- ALL Muslims, not merely some prefixed, suffixed or qualified truncation detached from Islam:<br /><br />Okay, Muslims, here</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">’</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s what you need to do. Let us be honest right from the start: We don</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">’</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t think you are going to do it and we believe in taking every precaution on the basis of our realistic cynicism. But if perchance you wish to pleasantly surprise us and actually set the gears in motion of a genuine dialogue for peace and mutual cooperation for a workable future with the West according to the tenets of our challenge, we will turn our cynical ship around and meet you halfway</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">as long as we are convinced you really mean it. Don</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">’</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t wait too long, however, Dear Muslims, there may well be a time in the not-too-distant future when it will be too late for us to turn our ship around! Oh, and in case you didn't get the gist of this message to you: we are not putting our self-defense on hold while we wait for you to meet our challenge. We are proceeding as though you will NOT meet our challenge. So either pleasantly surprise us</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">soon!</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">or cower in fear at our coming wrath. Capice?<br /></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Of course, this amended posture suffers just as much as Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s current posture from a woeful lack of support from our surrounding sociopolitical culture. Nevertheless, it is more honest and</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">down the line, should our surrounding sociopolitical culture actually begin to warm up to our views</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">it errs better on the side of cautious cynicism and rational realism. I.e., our #1 priority should be our pro-active self-defense. We should not be pursuing that self-defense with any hope in Muslims at all. We should assume the worst: we should base our policies on the presumption that Muslims are a menace</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">whether overtly or covertly. Should Muslims pleasantly surprise us in a timely manner with massively convincing evidence, we will re-orient our position. But not one second sooner.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">This would be the hard stance, in contradistinction to Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s ostensibly soft stance.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">As Emanuel Tanay, a German victim of the murderous mass pathology of Nazism has written in his lucidly cogent public e-mail in which he argues that just as it did not matter during the rise of Hitler that </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">most Germans were peaceful</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> so it does not matter whether or not </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">most Muslims are peaceful</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> (even if we could in fact determine this, let alone actually distinguish the harmless Muslims from the dangerous ones), for he concludes:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. . .for those of us who watch it unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Of course, Spencer does </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">pay attention</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> to the fanatics</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">massively</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">through his site Jihad Watch. But I do not interpret Dr. Tanay</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">pay attention</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> to be restricted to documenting the metastasis of fanaticism among Muslims and occasionally analyzing its underpinnings. I think what Dr. Tanay is getting at here is that we must focus all our energies, intelligence and activities on the </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">fanatics</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">and this necessarily entails ignoring, as pragmatically irrelevant, the supposed </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">majority</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> of </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">peaceful Muslims</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. Again, from everything Spencer says about this particular pivot in the Problem of Islam, it does not seem he would agree, or</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">if he is being rhetorically clever but insincere about his true position on the matter</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">then he has nevertheless been solidly, for years now, laying the foundation for a posture that does indeed </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">pay attention</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> to a putatively sufficient number of Muslims assumed to be, at least potentially, effectively reformist.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Meanwhile, the disadvantage of (b) compounds the problem of (a): For, if Spencer is being sincere about his challenge and the hope (however "unlikely" he would put it) that guides this challenge, and if this sincerity is grounded in a Christian optimism about the potential for humans to be </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">touched</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> by God, then we have a framework where our requisitely ruthless self-defense might well be compromised. This would be to </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">pay</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> too much </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">attention</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> to that sector of Islam of peaceful Muslims who should not be significant to our proactive self-defense</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">just as the </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">peaceful</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> German and Japanese citizens proved to be entirely insignificant to the tragically necessary measures we had to take against their regimes</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">and therefore against them too</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">during World War II.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I have in a <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/papal-sword.html">couple</a> of <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2007/08/possible-reason-why-spencer-demures.html">essays</a> touched on this apparent Christian bias in Spencer. I would also add this quote that was part of an article approvingly featured on </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020455.php#comments">Jihad Watch</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> last month. Its writer is Raymond Ibrahim, a critic of Islam, about a Coptic priest named Zakaria Botros, who has engaged in many arguments with Muslims over the years and has, according to Ibrahim, shown their attempts at counter-argument to be specious and shoddy:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Botros</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">’</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s motive is not to incite the West against Islam, promote "Israeli interests," or "demonize" Muslims, but to draw Muslims away from the dead legalism of sharia to the spirituality of Christianity. . .</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> the ultimate reason for Botros</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">’</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s success is that</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">unlike his Western counterparts who criticize Islam from a political standpoint</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">his primary interest is the salvation of souls. . .<br /><br />To that end, he doesn't just expose troubling aspects of Islam. Before concluding every program, he quotes pertinent biblical verses and invites his readers to come to Christ. . .</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. . . Many Western critics fail to appreciate that, to disempower radical Islam, something theocentric and spiritually satisfying</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">not secularism, democracy, capitalism, materialism, feminism, etc.</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">must be offered in its place. The truths of one religion can only be supplanted by the truths of another.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">To which Spencer appended his seal of approval: </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Excellent. Read it all.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Of course, Spencer does not engage in the rhetoric or stylistics of Botros. But that doesn</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t mean he doesn</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t share his underlying belief in the overarching framework of our epochal entanglement with Islam. This is not the place to get embroiled in the complex issue of Western Secularism, the progress of Modernity, and Judaeo-Christianity. Suffice it to say that, although I respect Judaeo-Christianity as one major source of modern Western Secularism, I fear I rather tend to a position at odds with Spencer and other conservative Christians on this matter, insofar as I see modern Western Secularism as not only a beneficent unfolding of Judaeo-Christianity, but also as its irrevocable mutation. Both Spencerian Christians and, ironically enough, Leftist secularists, share a perception of some essential distinction between Secularism and Judaeo-Christianity, and therefore frame issues relating to these in terms separate sociocultural spheres, if not a fundamental antagonism on certain levels.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I, on the other hand, see Secularism as the latest stage in the ongoing evolution of the Western genius that existed previously, for some 1,500 years, as </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Christendom</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. For all the faults of Secularism, I admire and support this latest phase of Western development as an amazing and spectacularly progressive moment in the history of Mankind. It is our collective and intelligent support for the modern West along with the sociopolitico-cultural matrix of Secularism it has developed that will be our strength against Islam. And this support of modern Western secularism is not a repudiation of the Western heritage of Judaeo-Christianity by any means. Both must work together in the hearts and minds of Westerners to give us the strength and cohesion and intellect to withstand the menace of Islam: it would be unrealistic to expect the West to split into two halves and choose only one half by which to forge our self-identity in order to resist and overcome and Islam Redivivus. While there is a tension between Judaeo-Christianity and Secularism, there is no reason to exacerbate that tension into an internecine fission. The tension only reflects the internal organic dynamism and epochal birth pains of the </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">West</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">ongoing adventure into the future. In many ways, Secularism has refined Judaeo-Christianity for the better; and conversely, in many ways, Secularism requires the values of its Judaeo-Christian heritage to keep it on the right course as it unfolds into the uncertain future.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The one fly in the ointment here</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">and it is a major problem</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">is PC MC, which is, like it or not, an intrinsic part of the organism of modern Western Secularism. We should not, however, throw the baby (Secularism) out with the dirty noxious bathwater (PC MC).</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">It it true, Spencer did come down decidedly on the right side of at least one angle of this issue when he debated Dinesh D</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Souza. D</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Souza argued, among other silly points, that radicalized Muslims hate us mainly (if not solely) because of our Secularism</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">which he agrees with the Muslims is an immoral and decadent culture that needs to be changed</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">while more </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">moderate</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">” </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Muslims he claims are reasonably repulsed by Secularism (even if they don</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t kill people to express their revulsion). Spencer rightfully pointed out two important facts to vitiate D</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Souza</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s argument:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Firstly, expansionist supremacist military jihad pre-dates Western Secularism. Indeed, Muslims were waging such jihad on the West for centuries while the West was as Christian as could be (approximately one millennium of jihad attacks on the West, from the 7th century to the 17th century, markedly petering out after that but by no means abandoned);</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">And secondly, Islamic societies are riddled with most, if not all, of the same immoralities they accuse the West of having (Spencer might have added, but didn</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’t as far as I know, that these same immoralities in Muslim societies are further compounded by the Puritanically schizophrenic pathology of Islamic culture which exacerbates the hypocrisy involved)</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">So far, Spencer is right on the money. However, while he rightly repudiates the D</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Souza view in its superficially simple-minded form, I am not so sure Spencer repudiates the deeper, more intelligent version of basically the same argument which, by the way, has been a theme of Pope Benedict XVI: to wit, that the modern West has lost too much of its Judaeo-Christian moral center, that this is evidenced in a multitude of ways in social pathologies ultimately rooted in an amorphously widespread agnosticism-cum-atheism, and that the way to rectify this is to pursue some form of Judaeo-Christian revival that will influence if not transform Secularism.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">There are various ways of pursuing that form of Judaeo-Christian revival, of course; and Spencer, from everything I</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">ve read of his writings, does not seem to be the type to pursue it in any way that would resuscitate theocracy. Nor, as we intimated above, does he agree with dimwitted D</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Souza that if we just rein in our </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">offensive</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> pop culture, then Muslims will be mollified enough to stop terrorism. I think Spencer simply generally believes that the more Western people recover Judaeo-Christian values</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">freely and not through governmental or legal coercion</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">, the stronger we will become in our self-identity and moral fiber, and thus more capable of standing up for our civilization in the face of forces that seek to undermine and ultimately overthrow it. This is fine, though it leaves our solution to the Problem of Islam rather up in the air and to the winds of the free wills of millions of Westerners (or to the listing of divine grace. . . ?).<br /><br />More troubling than this, though, is the implicit latitude this would propose in the interest of a Christian mercy toward Muslims, of keeping the door ever open to accomodate the possibility their conversion to Christianity</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">a thematic latitude, as we noted above, of the present Pope, who could not have exemplified it more dramatically or significantly than when he chose to baptize, on Eastern Sunday no less, as a new convert out of Islam a rather well-known Italian Muslim, Magdi Allam; or when he will shortly pray, at Ground Zero on his first trip to the U.S.A. as Pope no less, for the conversion of the 911 terrorists</span>!<br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />And the problem of this latitude is clear, as we have explored above: if it is to be more than merely an empty rhetorical expression of some virtue otherwise unrealized in any meaningfully concrete manner, then it will perforce have the effect of softening and therefore hindering, in one way or another, the necessarily ruthless measures we need to take for our proactive self-defense.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">3) The third problem with the Spencerian rhetorical challenge to Muslims is that it assumes such measures which Muslims would take</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">even if there were a sufficient number of them rising to the challenge</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">would actually work. Here is one </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020470.php#comments">example</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> of that Spencerian challenge, culled from a typically parenthetical editorial remark made by Spencer introducing some news story about dangerous Muslims, one of hundreds which could be found in the Jihad Watch archives:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Update on the Toronto Jihad Plot. Oh, and by the way, has the Muslim community in Canada gotten around to instituting transparent, inspectable programs in every school and mosque teaching against the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism? No? So then how can we be sure there won</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">’</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t be other such plots?</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The screamingly obvious first problem with Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s wording here that jumps out at the reader is: Even if the Muslim community in Canada </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">gets around to</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> doing those things Spencer outlines, this will </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">still </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">not make us </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">sure</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">” </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">there won</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t be other such plots. So why does Spencer imply that it would make us </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">sure</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">?<br /><br />The second problem we have already gone into at length above: it is, of course, an extremely unlikely prospect that any Muslim </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">community</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> will do what Spencer expects them to do. So why even propose they do it at all, when we know they won</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">t? As I said above, we need to move beyond harboring any reasonable expectations at all from Muslims, to a more grimly realistic appreciation of the essentially and inveterately hostile intractability of Islam. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The third, somewhat subtler problem with Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s phrasing in the quote we have also explored above: namely, he is truncating the Problem of Islam into </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">jihad ideology and supremacism</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">, implying there is another large and viable part of Islam outside this isolated truncation which could (or even which already does) realistically exist, operate and flourish without that truncation. This too is an unrealistic expectation and one which we need to move beyond.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Conclusion:</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">1) Islam is the Problem: Islam, the whole Islam, and nothing but Islam.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">2) The Problem in question is the menace Islam poses on the West, and on the Rest of the World.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">3) All Muslims</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">not just some of them</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">are the concrete agents of that Problem</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">whether actively or passively.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">4) It should not be our problem to go through the extraordinary labor involved in weeding out the dangerous Muslims from the harmless Muslims:<br /><br />a) All the onus of solving this problem should be squarely on the shoulders of Muslims themselves;<br /><br />b) and we should not hold our breath waiting for them to do it: we should proceed on the assumption that they will not reform.<br /></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">5) All four points above need to be the central points of our guiding paradigm with respect to how we analyze and act upon the Problem of Islam.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Because Spencer</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">, for whatever reasons, would not accept #5, I conclude he is too soft on Islam.<br /><br />Continue reading <a style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/robert-spencer-soft-on-islam-part-2.html">Part 2</a>.<br /></span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-18495449263294476642008-04-05T11:20:00.000-07:002008-04-06T01:58:24.823-07:00It isn’t rocket science—but it should be down to a science.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEii_dnCZyygb0-cjiwgRmu_F0fXJTjpm82OP3xJJ_Hu0OFYqfpI2IE7l0NRdIbUlK-fOkuHw1viN8USsIbEKwUJhDN5BUBgmVPdZy5oh18Mhp0t0dWscY5LgMejq0tFliXeOdta5iAWjeBy/s1600-h/rocket+5.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEii_dnCZyygb0-cjiwgRmu_F0fXJTjpm82OP3xJJ_Hu0OFYqfpI2IE7l0NRdIbUlK-fOkuHw1viN8USsIbEKwUJhDN5BUBgmVPdZy5oh18Mhp0t0dWscY5LgMejq0tFliXeOdta5iAWjeBy/s400/rocket+5.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5185981969644994690" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Today on <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020582.php#comments">Jihad Watch</a>, Robert Spencer highlights an e-mail he received from a law student at the University of Cincinnati, who reported a recent “success story”.<br /><br />This law student and others, inspired and informed by having been readers of Jihad Watch, challenged a visiting Muslim speaker to their University who was trying to soft-sell Sharia Law.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />While I applaud the students who took this initiative, I must point out a glaring lacuna in the law student’s report: He claims that “[h]eading into the event, the vast majority of students in the audience were sympathetic and welcoming to the speaker and his ideas. By the end of the event, they were all rightly horrified.” And later on in his report, he reiterates this claim: “. . .by this point [after the law student and his fellows presented their cogent challenge to the Muslim speaker], he had lost the vast majority of the audience.”</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />How does the law student know, about the audience of students listening to the Muslim and the Q&A afterwards, that the students “were all rightly horrified”? He doesn’t say how he ascertained this. How does he know that by the end of the session, the Muslim “had lost the vast majority of the audience”? He fails to back up these important claims with evidence. The entire point of this whole thing is the effectiveness of the law student</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">s tactics that supposedly turned out to be a “success story”. And the only way to measure that effectiveness, that success, is whether a majority of the students indeed became appropriately </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">horrified</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">”</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> by Sharia law.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> From the e-mail Spencer published, and from all attending information Spencer provided, these pivotal claims that are crucially relevant to the whole point of the challenge, remain unverified.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">While the law student also makes a similar claim about the student audience</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">that initially, before they were all so profoundly persuaded by the law student</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">’s challenging questions to the Muslim speaker,</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> “the vast majority” of them were “sympathetic and welcoming to the speaker and his ideas”</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">and similarly offers no evidence to back this up, this is so likely, given the mainstream dominance of PC MC, that one reasonably assumes this to be the case not only in any given student body throughout the West, but in any grouping of oxygen-breathing Westerners anywhere on planet Earth. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">It is the other claims the law student makes that require verification. In the absence of such verification, I have no choice but to remain cynical about such a sudden mass epiphany of a whole audience of students.<br /><br />While our War of Ideas need not be rocket science, and none of us</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">unofficially yet gravely deputized to fight this war in whatever venue of discussion and interaction comes our way</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">need be an Orientalist professor who has studied Arabic for 30 years: nevertheless, we need to maintain at least minimum standards of credibility and verification for our claims.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />And as mentioned above, the whole point of this law student’s exercise is to educate and persuade people of the horrible truth of Islam.<br /><br />While I applaud the efforts of this student and his colleagues who helped him, this one instance at some university in Ohio needs to be reduplicated a million times all over the place, in various different venues. The optimum way to do this is not to have randomly motivated individuals here and there slogging through the Jihad Watch archives to piece together what they think are effective ways to refute a speaker at some isolated Q-&-A. </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />In one of the comments to the Jihad Watch article, Hugh once again issues his broadly vague injunction to Jihad Watchers to go forth and arm themselves with knowledge:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Aux armes, citoyens. But not the normal kind of arms. The other kind. The kind that at this point are most effective for self-defense.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Hugh continues to be clueless and heedless</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">just as Spencer is</span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">—</em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">of the intolerable disarray and disorganization which impair our intellectual weapons in our War of Ideas. I appreciate what the two of them have been providing on a daily basis these past few years; but it is time to stop futzing around. It is time for a far more effective tightening up of our tactics. We cannot be flailing around amid the luxuriantly confusing excess of information about Islam that abounds out there. Not when our own sociopolitical culture is hostile to the truth. We must consolidate. </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />For the real task of the War of Ideas, lone students popping up in Cincinnati, or a few people e-mailing their representatives here and there, or wise guys like me blogging, is simply not enough. We desperately, grimly, urgently need the AIM: The </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/we-still-need-anti-islamic-manualmore.html">Anti-Islamic Manual</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">.</span><br /><br /></span>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2758015030439611172.post-40086954657749004472008-03-28T14:21:00.000-07:002008-03-28T14:39:42.479-07:00Esdrujula Watch 2<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNI_k7948sjCSa8n1ot-amQ_nILHcYiOAFqSaT0lkIp7YWmTRcCTT4uRwaVta9H1vEn8V8Je4wtRmSCus42nvscgSEiZX6Dvflt0jCnXctfIeHO7QyBUuYqtND1skDioLVCCV7iJ44ohyphenhyphenE/s1600-h/esdrujula+2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNI_k7948sjCSa8n1ot-amQ_nILHcYiOAFqSaT0lkIp7YWmTRcCTT4uRwaVta9H1vEn8V8Je4wtRmSCus42nvscgSEiZX6Dvflt0jCnXctfIeHO7QyBUuYqtND1skDioLVCCV7iJ44ohyphenhyphenE/s400/esdrujula+2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5182908667141636162" border="0" /></a><span style="">Earlier this month, I <span style=""> </span><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/esdrujula-watch.html">posted</a> yet another instance of Hugh Fitzgerald employing his “Esdrujula Explanation” to explain the massive, dominant and mainstream phenomenon of Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism (PC MC).<br /><br />And I explained there how Hugh’s “explanation” explains nothing, but only describes the superficial contours of the problem.<o:p></o:p></span> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Today on <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020475.php#comments">Dhimmi Watch</a>, Robert Spencer, in one of his signature editorial remarks he uses to introduce news stories, shows yet again his agreement with Hugh’s severely delimited non-explanation of the single most important obstacle to the West waking up to the Problem of Islam: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="">“Eurodhimmis bow and scrape, condemn Fitna” and “EU condemns Dutch anti-Islam film” were the headlines.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="">And Spencer’s remark: <span style="font-style: italic;">Stupidity and spinelessness at high levels.</span><o:p style="font-style: italic;"></o:p></span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="">The reader will recognize two of Hugh’s little Esdrujula Elves in this remark:<span style=""> </span><span style="font-style: italic;">Stupidity and Timidity</span>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Again, the problem with Hugh’s “Esdrujula Explanation” is not that it is patently false: It describes, as I said above, within its severe limitations fairly accurately the superficial contours of the problem of PC MC.<span style=""> </span>Yes, these non-Muslim EU politicians are being stupid; and yes, one factor motivating them, albeit only semi-consciously and illiterately, is fear of the inflammable, volatile fanaticism of Muslims—but this only describes the outward behavior of these non-Muslim EU politicians: it doesn’t explain why they are being so stupid, recklessly timid, and above all, so strangely irrational.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Now, I wouldn’t mind such superficial descriptions being employed by such influential Anti-Islamic analysts as Spencer and Fitzgerald, as long as they themselves clearly stated that these are merely convenient shorthand blurbs to describe the phenomena, and as long as they themselves elsewhere demonstrated a clear sense of the magnitude, dimensions and nature of the problem of PC MC whose superficial contours they elsewhere point to briefly, and for convenience.<span style=""> </span>But no, Spencer and Fitzgerald never do these two things.<span style=""> </span>And that’s why I have a problem with their analyses.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Since PC MC is the single most important obstacle to the West waking up to articulate a rational analysis of the Problem of Islam, and to take rational action therefrom, it behooves us to dig a little deeper into the massive substance of this mainstream and dominant phenomenon, and not remain suspended in pseudo-explanations as airy as fairies.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.com3