I’m out.

Almost one year ago, in June of 2007, I posted an essay here entertaining the possibility of closing up shop.

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:

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?

I added that I had not yet really touched on this particular problem.

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 problem of where Jihad Watch stands with regard to the evil and danger of Islam”.

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 Jihad Watch Watch standing, but no longer post new essays. A link to here exists on my other blog, The Hesperado, and will remain there, for anyone interested to read analyses that in my opinion will remain timely and important into the future. The Hesperado 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.

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, View From the Right. There are two comments quoted below, one to do with the recent Koran-kissing incident, another 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 “Adela G.” writes more, not only about Spencer, but about the broader issues of the West and the problem of Islam.

The gentleman gives the floor, and the last word, to the lady:

_______________________

1)

Robert Spencer writes:

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."

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.

And that's precisely what Mr. Spencer does not seem to comprehend, for he goes on to write:

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."

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?

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."

2)

Spencer writes:

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...

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.

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.

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."

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.

Strike three. . .

From the same comments field of a Jihad Watch article whence we culled our first and second “strikes” we complete our 3-part series of egregious boners from the figurative pen of Robert Spencer.

About me (aka “cantor”) he wrote:

Oh, and by the way, I am told he keeps whining that he is banned here, but he is not banned. If he keeps up this sort of thing, he will gain a reputation for honest dealing to rival that of "An American."

Now this is what Spencer said to me (aka “cantor”) a couple of months ago in March of this year in the comments field of a Dhimmi Watch article:

You are an irritant, a poor thinker, and an unfair judge. I have banned you several times, and probably will soon do it again. Cordially Robert Spencer

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 “he is not banned”. But this would be to ignore the context of trying to have a mature and intelligent discussion with someone who

1) has the power to ban you

2) by his own admission has banned you “several times” before

and

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’t “behave”.

Is it any wonder that, at that point—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—, I felt increasingly nervous and uncomfortable about speaking my mind openly and freely and therefore soon thereafter decided to pack up and leave?

I posted one more comment after that, to which Spencer replied in prickly hostile fashion, again threatening to ban me:

. . .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.

Another poster observed a little while later, after I had not responded, reasonably inferring (as I had done):

I think Cantor's been banned again.

To which Spencer replied:

Cantor has not yet been banned again. But apparently, in what is perhaps not a surprising move in light of his his [sic] mean-spiritedness and "Gotcha!" mentality, he has withdrawn when called out on what he is doing.

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 “good-faith discussion” 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 “mean-spirited”. Rather than deal with the actual words and argument presented to him, Spencer immediately jumps the gun.

His first words of response to me on that thread were:

I know from experience that you are a relentless and indefatigable fault-finder. . .

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—again, another tactic the Muslim apologists use against him.

Consider how he deals with a mature and intelligent criticism more recently from a reader named “anonymous” in the comments field of the article about the Koran-shooting /Koran-kissing incident in Afghanistan (only comments in brackets are mine):

[first “anonymous” quotes Spencer:]

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.

[then writes:]

Anyone who shows himself as our enemy as a result of someone shooting at the Qur'an is already 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.

[he quotes Spencer again:]

D'Souza in that is asking us to ignore and deny the truth, which is never an effective strategy in wartime or peacetime.

[then writes:]

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.

Posted by: anonymous

_____________________________

[Spencer opens with a snotty salute and an irrelevant ad hominem:]

Anonymous: Hi! I know who you are, but never mind.

[Spencer then quotes “anonymous”:]

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.

[then writes:]

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

Cordially
Robert Spencer

_____________________________

[another reader, “Darcy” wrote:]

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.

_____________________________

[And Spencer replied:]

Darcy:

"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.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

_____________________________

[Darcy again:]

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.

_____________________________

[Spencer again:]

Darcy,

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.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

_____________________________

[“anonymous” then responds to Spencer:]

Spencer provides me with a link in which he quotes himself saying the following:

"Many strange things have happened in history and I would never say that Islamic reform is absolutely impossible" (my emphasis).

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.

[then quoting “Darcy”:] 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!

[“anonymous” continues:]

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.

Posted by: anonymous

_____________________________

[Spencer again:]

Anonymous:

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.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

_____________________________

[“anonymous” Quoting Spencer:]

Evidently, you, like your friends, do not know the meaning of the phrase "calling a bluff."

[“anonymous” then writes:]

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.)

Posted by: anonymous

_____________________________

[As Spencer did not respond again, “anonymous” added a little while later:]

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).

Posted by: anonymous

_____________________________

[END OF TRANSCRIPT]

Conclusion:

That last polite, mature and intelligent request by “anonymous” 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).

Seeing how Spencer was quick to respond to all of the previous posts by “anonymous” (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:

Apparently, in what is perhaps not a surprising move in light of his mean-spiritedness and “Gotcha!” mentality, he has withdrawn when called out on what he is doing.

Robert Spencer’s Two Hats: Keep Your Day Job

Robert Spencer wears two hats: the hat of the Reporter, and the hat of the Analyst.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Today, we examine his analysis of the alleged Koran-shooting incident 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 apologizing “on behalf of the American people” to the Prime Minister of Iraq).

Before we get there, let us review Spencer’s general analytical errors:

1) his misapprehension of the full nature and dimensions of the sociopolitical process called Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism (PC MC);

2) the contradiction between his implicitly ostensible condemnation of Islam, and his refusal to explicitly condemn Islam;

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;

and

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.

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.

What follows is Spencer’s analysis of the Koran-kissing incident, interspersed with my comments:

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.

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.

2. That noticing things like this may have led one soldier to use a Qur'an as target practice is unfortunate.

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 essays 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:

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.

Readers challenged this view:

. . .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.

And another reader:

. . .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!?

Yet another reader of Jihad Watch from the comments field of another Jihad Watch thread:

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.

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:

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.

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?

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:

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.

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.

A reader commented about this in the comments field of that thread superbly, and I quote:

“Anyone who shows himself as our enemy as a result of someone shooting at the Qur'an is already 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.” [emphasis in the original]

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):

1. The Koran is the war manual of our enemy;

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;

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);

4. The diversity and complexity of Islam does not vitiate #1 or #2 or #3;

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.

Spencer goes on to argue that opposing (and one presumes forbidding as much as possible) the shooting of a Koran is:

. . .avoiding unnecessary provocation that will require you to fight battles that you otherwise would not have to fight.

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.

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.

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”.

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.).

Major General Hammond is anxious to show that the U.S. is not at war with Islam. Fine.

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.

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.

We need more boorish, stupid acts from soldiers like this.

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.

Spencer, keep your day job.

Strike two: Spencer swings, misses mark

Continuing from my previous essay Strike one: Spencer swings, misses mark, I note the second mark Robert Spencer misses:

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.

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.

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’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—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, “refusing to be maneuvered” as he has put it so oddly—as though a clearer, calmer, and less defensive articulation of his position that is rationally more attentive to his interlocutor’s challenges rather than at every turn bristling with suspicious prickliness would somehow force him into adopting a position he does not hold.

Strike one: Spencer swings, misses mark

Today, in a comment 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:

. . .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. . .

This is patently false, as anyone who has read this blog will know.

What I do claim with reference to my objections to Spencer, as amply demonstrated in my essays here on this blog, is mainly:

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;

2) Among which are that:

a) Spencer needs to widen his resistance from the unduly narrow and asymptotic “jihadists” to all of Islam, and to all Muslims who either actively support or to one degree or another passively enable Islam—which, because of the unique features of taqiyya and because of the exigencies of our self-defense, perforce embraces all Muslims;

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 “millions and millions” of peaceful Muslims as though that has any actual and pragmatic significance with regard to taqiyya and the exigencies of our self-defense.

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.

This is my opinion. I could be wrong. But I don’t think I am, and I have a right to voice it.

Contradiction Watch 4

Two assertions by Robert Spencer:

1) . . .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. . .

2) To say that Islam is a dangerous, violent religion is simplistic and misleading because Islam is many things.

Discussion:

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:

I am not “anti-Islam”.

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:

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?

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 here and here):

If Islam really isn’t a peaceful religion, as it manifestly isn’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?

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 “Islam is a religion of peace” statements.

Contradiction Watch 3

An ostensible contradiction can be either of three things:

1) An actual contradiction—in which case only of its two poles can be true.

2) An apparent contradiction—in which case its two poles only seem to contradict each other, but really don’t.

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).

To remind our readers, Robert Spencer’s contradiction is essentially between the following two poles:

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.

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.

Put more simply:

Pole #1: We should use moderate Muslims to help us solve the Problem of Islam.

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.

If Robert Spencer’s contradiction, about which we have written specifically here and here (and which we have analyzed at length in eleven previous essays on this blog (including the 4-part series Robert Spencer: Soft on Islam?), falls under the type we listed second at the very top of our essay, then Spencer can be let off the hook.

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.

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.

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.

Thus, from a recent Jihad Watch article:

Allegation about Robert Spencer from Muslim apologist Omer Subhani:

[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.

Response from Spencer:

Yep.

Omer Subhani continued:

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?

Response from Spencer:

Good questions!

In his second response, Spencer’s snippily cheerful and breezy reply serves to support the rhetorical nature of Subhani’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.

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?

Good questions!

Weaselling Watch

Like his colleague and President, Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch is not above weaselling out of tight spots he himself has created.

A reader of Jihad Watch posted the following comment in the comments field of a recent Dhimmi Watch article:

I’m also still reeling from Hugh’s suggestion a while back that establish procedures for Muslim expulsion.

Rather than avowing and addressing the central import of this statement, Fitzgerald chose in his response to zero in on peripheral imprecisions in locution which he could exploit in order to weasel out of the commenter’s main point:

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.

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 written the following:

. . . 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.

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.

As well as this:

. . . 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.

I have dealt more fully with Fitzgerald’s analogical and anagogical use of the Benes Decree in a previous essay here, Hugh Fitzgerald finally goes official with the Benes Decree—where the weaselling in question revolved around Fitzgerald’s persistent ambiguity regarding the pivotal issue of expelling citizens, as opposed to limiting the expulsion to non-citizens (since the whole point of the Benes Decree was to expel German citizens—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 centuries of familial descent!).

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, however, who are not blithering idiots—as Fitzgerald apparently takes his readers to be—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.

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.

Contradiction Watch 2

Update: Sloppy Watch/Weaselly Watch

A reader in the comments section below helpfully pointed out one important flaw with the premise of this blog essay—to wit, that the crucial Sam Harris quote I used to demonstrate one pole of Robert Spencer’s contradiction was not located in the essay of Harris’s which Spencer unreservedly praised, but came rather from a separate talk Harris gave.

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—combined with unnecessary, bristly prickliness spiced with an arrogant wit intended to affect a relaxed nonchalance—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—though here, as in other ways, he could maintain plausible deniability if he chooses). In general principle, then, my post here is still relevant.

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 “Islamist”; and one quote particularly is troubling:

Only our willingness to openly criticize Islam for its all-too-obvious failings can make it safe for Muslim moderates, secularists, apostates—and, indeed, women—to rise up and reform their faith.

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, The Huffington Post, “of all places”—as Spencer put it, tossing a light pebble in his own glass house.)

I nevertheless retain my original post, which follows in its entirety. Readers will note that what I have written directly above contradicts my “Conclusion” at the end below—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).

Here follows my post in its entirety:

#1 and #2 below will show that Robert Spencer contradicts himself at best—or is engaging in gymnastic sophistry at worst.

I cannot think of a third option to explain the incompatibility between #1 and #2:

1)

• “We are at war with Islam. It may not serve our immediate foreign policy objectives for our political leaders to openly acknowledge this fact, but it is unambiguously so.”
  
  — Sam Harris, from his essay Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks.
  
  

• “Sam Harris speaks truth to power. . . All of this essay is excellent.”
  
  — Robert Spencer, from the Dhimmi Watch article that features an extended excerpt of the Sam Harris essay.
  
  

2)

• “I am not ‘anti-Islam’.”
  
  — Robert Spencer, from this Jihad Watch article.

• “To say that Islam is a dangerous, violent religion is simplistic and misleading because Islam is many things.”
  
  — Robert Spencer, from this Jihad Watch article.
  
  

Conclusion:

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’t really be said to be part of the Anti-Islam Movement, can he? For, in his own words, he is not “anti-Islam”!

Contradiction Watch

Below, I present two positions held by Robert Spencer.

Each position, listed as #1 and #2, has more than one example adumbrated with bullets. All examples use only direct quotes from Spencer himself.

Upshot: #1 and #2 contradict each other.

1)

• a fact that we have pointed out many, many times at Jihad Watch: there is no reliable way to distinguish jihadists from peaceful Muslims
  

• what we have pointed out many times over the years: that there is no reliable way to distinguish between Islamic "extremists" and Islamic "moderates"

2)

• 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. . .
  

• I have been saying that there are moderate Muslims, but no moderate Islam for years. . .
  

• To say that Islam is a dangerous, violent religion is simplistic and misleading because Islam is many things.
  

• I am not "anti-Islam."
  

• any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts.

Discussion:

The question is: How can Spencer’s two positions (#1 and #2 above) be harmonized into one coherent position?

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. 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?

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.

Similarly, Spencer wrote:

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.

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?

As I wrote in a recent essay about Spencer here:

. . . he tries to have his cake of a strictly reportorial just-the-facts-ma’am diagnostician on the one hand, and pretensions to being a grander, more synthetic analyst on the other hand—and only succeeds in vaguely combining both by his adoption of an irresponsibly evasive suspension of judgement and position: his refusal to “be maneuvered” 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.

Spencer’s weaselly way to establish a basis for avoiding condemnation of Muslims:

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.

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—our lack of “certainty about what [a Muslim] thinks or knows”—is couched in terms of the formal abstention from identifying Muslims as potentially as well as actually dangerous.

Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it too!

Transcripts Part 2: Jihad Watch readers politely yet firmly take Spencer to task:

In a previous post about Spencer being soft on Islam, I published an extended transcript from the comments field of a Jihad Watch article a couple of years ago.

In that transcript, we saw Jihad Watch readers politely yet firmly—and intelligently—taking Spencer to task for his refusal to condemn Islam. As I intimated in that post, there was more to publish.

I now publish additional transcripts, from the comments field of another Jihad Watch article that was published slightly later, thereby forming a sort of Part 2 to the discussion. The comments from Part 2 are even better and juicier than those in Part 1. They definitively undermine the carefully non-positional position of Spencer with regard to his refusal to condemn Islam.

Those of you following along will see that the reader named “neverpayretail” again figures prominently. Another reader named “Pickle” also contributed a fine articulation of the problem (the very first one); as did a reader named “Infidel Pride”, along with another named “Television” (tooting my own horn here). My new remarks will be interspersed—here and there, but not everywhere—in [brackets]. Sentiments and formulations that I particularly like I will put in bold. Please note my Conclusion at the very end.

Transcript:

Robert,

Innovation is forbidden in Islam. It is a sin.

You know this. Esmay knows it as well. And this is why your attempts at honest debate with apologist "scholars" like Esmay will never result in an honest response or a fruitful debate. He wants peace at any cost, and the truth is a very, very, minor price to pay for that in the minds of people like him. The moment Esmay acknowledges the truth of the plain point you are making (and which he continues to dance around)--that every mainstream school of Islamic thought acknowledges that violent jihad is a part of koranic and hadith law--he is acknowledging that this can never be changed by any devout Muslim, and that taking the conflict to its conclusion is the only way things will ever be settled between Muslims and the rest of us kuffār. Their law forbids any other solution except our subjugation. Esmay would rather carry on the lie that Islam is a religion of peace, in the hopes that most Muslims will somehow start believing it if it's repeated often enough. He is a fool.

But I'm not just looking critically at Esmay. As I said, you're certainly as well-aware of this fact as Esmay, and, like him, dancing around it with this stuff about respecting any Muslim who acknowledges that violent oppression of nonbelievers is enmeshed in written Islamic law, and then rejects this violence. Since, again, that sort of innovation is forbidden and considered to be one of the worst sins in Islam, I'm sure you know that no devout Muslim can ever do such a thing.

So let's stop this tapdancing and false moderation and get to the point: the conflict of Islamic and non-Islamic civilizations (if you want to attach that word to the former; I hardly think that's appropriate) can play out in only one way: Muslims waging jihad against the rest of us, again and again, whenever they become sufficiently powerful that they think they might be able to beat us. And this will NEVER end as long as Islam exists. Eternal war is built-in to Islamic law, as is injunction against ever changing this fact.

Posted by: Pickle

____________________________________________________

Pickle,

I am with you. RS seems to have a problem getting to the point.

Posted by: neverpayretail

____________________________________________________

Robert Spencer,

Wow!

"I think you are missing my point, as well as my methodology."

This sounds so familiar, just like an Islamist and their apologists claiming the Koran is being quoted out of context, that translations from Arabic to English are inadequate, etc.

"As I told you before, I have no substantive disgreement [sic] with Hugh Fitzgerald on that issue. Of that I am 100% certain."

Denial! This is a clear refusal to address the evidence and logic so presented.

"If you think you see one, you are misunderstanding either me or him."

Projection! You project the problem onto me! Instead of addressing my logic, you dismiss me in like manner to Islamists and their apologists - it is all just a misunderstanding of the peaceful nature of Islam.

Remarkable! When backed into a corner, prideful human nature is revealed over and over again across the entire spectrum of human activity and all history.

Sir, I respect your scholarship, as much as I respect James Madison (author of the Constitution). However, as you refuse to explicitly declare Islam dangerous and violent, Madison refused to declare slavery inconsistent with the principles of freedom on which this country was founded. He was not alone. For seventy years this country was locked in an endless debate over slavery that only allowed its further entrenchment, to where a horrible war had to be fought to end the damn thing.

The same is happening now concerning the threat of Islam. The threat is manifest in NOW. Today we have the same denial, the same refusal to cross that line, to declare Islam dangerous and violent, and REJECT it. Outwardly. Openly. No apology. No regrets. Otherwise, its entrenchment will march on here as it has in Europe.

There is an out. You can Change Your Mind.

Sincerely, neverpayretail

____________________________________________________

Neverpayretail:

Sir, I know Hugh Fitzgerald. Hugh Fitzgerald is a friend of mine. When I say that Hugh Fitzgerald and I have no substantive disagreement on this issue, I am telling you something that I know to be true. Your logic may be crystalline, but if it leads to a disagreement between Hugh and me on this issue, it has led you astray -- and no amount of comparing me to an Islamist in response can change that.

Your analogy is faulty: James Madison was pro-slavery. I.e., he did nothing to stop slavery. He may have owned slaves; I don't know. Now, if you think that your analogy applies to me, i.e., I am doing nothing to stop the Islamization and dhimmitude of the West, you simply haven't been paying attention. [here, neverpayretail’s analogy would have been better had he put it thusly: “You are like James Madison, if Madison also simultaneously -- in addition to the fact that he refused to condemn slavery -- published a “Slavery Watch” digest in which he presented the mountain of daily the horrible and unjust features of slavery]

I invite you to search the archives here, read the FAQ, read my articles, and read my books. I am not trying to sell you anything. But do that, and then come back and tell me I'm comparable to an Islamist and soft on the spread of Islam in the West and its imminent subjugation. My views are patent and clear.

Anyway, you are under no obligation to read this site if you think I'm pro-jihad. There are plenty of others. Consult the links on the front page.

CordiallyRobert Spencer

____________________________________________________

With Islam's built-in programs of deceit and treachery, how can you possibly know for certain that a "moderate" Muslim is truly moderate? Other than their word, how can you know?

Not to mention: "take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors..." (Quran 5:51)

Posted by: Greg

____________________________________________________

Robert Spencer,

My criticism of your failure to address my argument in no way implies you are pro-jihad. My criticism shows that you use the same avoidance tactics when backed into a corner as the Islamists. Concerning "crystalline" logic leading me astray, if the logic is crystalline, and the evidence clear, it is not I who is in error.

My analogy is not faulty. Madison spoke in such convoluted fashion about slavery that only one thing was obvious - he did not want to talk about it, fearful of the effect on the union he had just worked to establish. Endless debate did ensue in the public sector, with no progress, and slavery did become more entrenched over that time. With Islam we see the same in Europe now.

I do not suggest you are doing nothing to halt the spread of Islam. While you do not speak in convoluted fashion about jihad, you clearly refuse to declare Islam dangerous and violent, and so take the next step - rejection of Islam, as opposed to [remaining] stuck in endless debate about Islam. You have not been paying attention. My views in this exchange are patent and clear.

As such, the basis for your invitation that I search archives, read FAQ, articles, books, as well as reminding me I am under no obligation to read this site, and consult links, is faulty, requiring no further comment.

Sincerely,neverpayretail

____________________________________________________

Retail:

I will not be maneuvered into making a statement that would be simplistic and misleading.

Islam is more multifaceted than Nazism, and involves many beliefs, some good, some bad. You are comparing a huge 1400-year-old tradition over many nations with 12 years of Germany. If you met a Nazi in 1938, you would know what he thinks. But the fact is that when you meet a Muslim today you can have no certainty about what he thinks or knows.

This does not mean that I think there is some sect of Islam that teaches indefinite peaceful coexistence as equals with non-Muslims; there isn't. But Islam has meant many things to many people at different times. There are Muslims that know nothing of what I am saying here. This is a fact that must be reckoned with.

To condemn it outright as such would also be too easily misunderstood in many ways. It would drive away people who would otherwise be our allies -- and I am not in the business of doing that. In this fight we need all the help we can get. It would also be seen as genocidal, and would thus be counterproductive to the anti-jihad effort.

So I will not be maneuvered into doing it. I have been quite specific about core elements of Islam that are evil and must be resisted by every decent human being. I have been quite specific about the circumstances under which Muslims should be allowed into Western countries in a sane society. If that is not enough for you, so be it.

CordiallyRobert Spencer

____________________________________________________

Robert Spencer,

Manuevered? Open, honest debate is not about maneuvering. This is not some game. In my view open, Honest debate is about changing minds with data and logic, exactly as I have brought to this exchange. What happened to miswak and tasawwuf? Now it is about the multiple facets of Islam, and all sorts of Muslims, here, there, and everywhere, over 1400 years? Why didn't you say that in the first place? It is not I doing the maneuvering. Perhaps you did not say this before because it makes you sound just like Esmay & Co. In this exchange, it appears that for You debate is all about maneuvering. Oh, and this phrase "simplistic and misleading" is just more Esmayitis creeping into your discourse when backed up against a wall.

Your own research on Islam drives decent, thinking people to declare Islam violent and dangerous. Yet, you refuse that step. On the "On assertions without evidence" thread you posted this same response, but added, "I have fangs" (some kind of threat?). Figuratively speaking, your refusal makes you a dog on a leash (with fangs), who is very, very good at barking endlessly (and I commend the excellent substance behind the bark) at the likes of Esmay, intellectually speaking, a mere chattery squirrel. People get used to the bark, and know they can walk safely past. You run out to the end of your self-imposed chain, and cannot reach them. They learn to Ignore You.

You reply that condemning Islam "would also be seen as genocidal". Huh? Condemning a system of belief is genocide? This is absolute nonsense. You argue endlessly that Islam supports violent jihad, and you are suddenly worried that rejecting Islam will be viewed as genocide by the very jihadists you already condemn? Ridiculous. They could not hate us any more, and so what if they do? Us rejecting Islam will not get them any more money or weapons or recruits than they already get anyway. You cannot possibly Know different.

Regarding the fight, and allies, in each case Islam is the threat. Refusal to reject Islam only plays into the enemy's hands. Any democracy that does not reject Islam will come under Islamic pressure with the mere presence of Islam, especially absent rejection. The only sane society is the one that rejects Islam, so as to avoid the big waste of resources to fight it, and the risk of losing to Islam. Any other position is weakness.

Your refusal to reject Islam, an act your own research supports, makes you Weak, which is exactly what the enemy seeks. As long as you are merely a barking dog at the end of a leash, the enemy knows your limits, and so can easily strategize around you.

And no, Weakness is not "good enough" for me.

Sincerely,neverpayretail

____________________________________________________

neverpayretail

I agree with you (and TV on the previous Lawrence Auster thread) on this. Invaluable as Robert and his work has been, there is a difference between him simply presenting the evidence without comment - a persuasive exercise, vs. contradicting any assertions about Islam being dangerous and violent - something that's howls for a contradiction. And the depth of its history, in contrast with Nazism, doesn't justify the halo around it: ask the millions of Copts, Maronites, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists et al persecuted by them whether they agree.

To condemn it outright as such would also be too easily misunderstood in many ways. It would drive away people who would otherwise be our allies -- and I am not in the business of doing that. In this fight we need all the help we can get. It would also be seen as genocidal, and would thus be counterproductive to the anti-jihad effort.

Robert

Like Mishka pointed out above, there may indeed be Muslims who have no idea of what their religion entails. Leaving aside the question of which way they may turn once they do, how does that negate anything that's been proven about Islam?

As for allies, I know that we need all that we can get, but how desperately do we want the "soft" allies i.e. the ones who think Islam is good, and would abandon us the moment we stated otherwise? Also, doesn't it make sense for us to have allies who at least agree with us on this salient point? They may have varying opinions on Iraq the model, intervening in Darfur, jiziya aid to Egypt, etc but on Islam? If you are going to pick up allies who believe in the "ROP" party line, we aren't much better off then when we started.

If you want to avoid saying it to avoid a genocidal tag, fine, but by contradicting those who do say it, you aren't making the anti-Jihad cause any easier. Unless you believe that one can be pro-Islamic but anti-Jihad - something the Whitehouse and a lot of Dhimmi governments worldwide seem to believe.

Posted by: Infidel Pride

____________________________________________________

Retail:

In this as in any subject, there are multiple legitimate conclusions that may be drawn from the same evidence.

I think your analysis of the question at hand is not only wrong, but manifests astoundingly poor judgment, which if followed would drastically weaken the anti-jihad resistance.

Now, enough.

CordiallyRobert Spencer

____________________________________________________

I see three reasons for Robert Spencer to stick to specific cases and avoid the universal generalization that neverpayretail wants Robert to draw:

1. Humanistic reason: Robert's reportorial, specifics-based approach avoids being the rallying point for any gang or thug who might harass or injure innocent Muslims based on an overgeneralization;

2. Strategic reason: Robert's reportorial, specifics-based approach avoids getting too far ahead of the rest of society, since most of society knows little about the huge phenomenon of Islam and is far from ready to adopt a universal generalization about Islam; the mainstream wants particular cases, indubitable specifics, concrete knowledge;

3. Epistemological reason (reason based on the nature of knowledge): By avoiding a universal generalization, which would be a philosophical, not scientific, statement, and by sticking to a reportorial approach focused on specifics, Robert clings closely to a scientific mode, which is where the Western tradition and media and ruling elites mostly are now, in terms of decision making.

The factual basis of the scientific/reportorial approach most readily lends itself to the building of consensus. But neverpayretail wants Robert to leave the scientific mode of specifics and enter the philosophic mode of universal generalization, which latter is notorious for creating multiple schools of thought and century- or millennia-long controversies before reaching consensus, if consensus is ever reached at all.

[not so: the analogy of the problem slavery in the US took not much more than 100 years (insofar as prior to 1750 the proto-USA, the Colonies, were not really a coherently entitative polity which forms part of an analysis of the process under analogy) to come to a head -- indeed, it came to a head, as neverpayretail points out, arguably because the “universal generalization” condemning slavery was continually put off by people insisting on dancing around it]

By sticking to the scientific mode Robert makes it very difficult to dismiss his work out of hand, and if he is careful in reporting the facts, it is impossible to refute him. The same cannot be said for neverpayretail's metaphysical or philosophic approach. Neverpayretail needs to learn to distinguish between universal generalization and extremely broad-based, yet finite patterns. It is his failure to understand that distinction that is largely responsible for his disagreement with Robert.

Posted by: traeh

____________________________________________________

Would it be fruitful to this educational agenda to lead with the conclusion "Islam is Evil and Dangerous?" Perhaps JW and DW should be renamed to "IslamisEvilandDangerous.org"?

That might please some of the JW and DW readers, but it would do little to draw in people who do not already agree that "Islam is evil and dangerous". For those who are not yet decided on the matter, this affirmation may in fact be an obstacle to further understanding. This is particularly true for people who genuinely want to believe that there is a irreducible core of goodness in Islam that could be brought out to mitigate the horrors of its actual practice. These people may be convincible, but need to figure it out for themselves.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite

____________________________________________________

traeh,

"By avoiding a universal generalization, which would be a philosophical, not scientific, statement"

Why would condemning German Nazism not be a "universal generalization...a philosophical not a scientific statement", while condemning Islam is?

Posted by: Television

____________________________________________________

Neverpayretail,

For goodness sake. You've made your point already. At this point you are only nagging the man.

As I understand it, Robert is aiming to be as honest and accurate in his statements as possible. No recklessness, no hysteria, no over-generalizing (which is easily refuted by even the most novice of Islamic apologists), just dead-accurate statements that are heavily supported by research. Spencer's _P.I.G. to Islam_ was on the NY Times Best-Seller list for over 15 weeks (as I recall), and that book pulls no punches. Tell me what punches are pulled in these headings, all from the P.I.G.:

"Chapter 1: Muhammad: Prophet of War"
"Chapter 2: The Qur'an: Book of War"
"Chapter 3: Islam: Religion of War"
"Chapter 4: Islam: Religion of Intolerance"
"Chapter 5: Islam Oppresses Women"
"Chapter 6: Islamic Law: Lie, Steal, Kill."
"Chapter 7: How Allah Killed Science"
"Chapter 8: The Lure of Islamic Paradise"
"Chapter 9: Islam--Spread by the Sword? You Bet."

....and so on. Your suggestion about Robert's alleged "weakness" is ridiculous. He has put his life in danger in expressing his criticisms of Islam.

Posted by: Archimedes

____________________________________________________

Archimedes,

The response/reply exercise does not constitute nagging. I had no idea the exchange would result in revealing what it did. As to recklessness, hysteria, and over-generalizing, I suggest you read the June 8, 2005 post at JW entitled "Fitzgerald: Mr. Bush, meet Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina". I think my position is pretty close to that of Mr. Fitzgerald, especially when he speaks of making Islam less attractive and giving ear to defectors from Islam.

Regarding the references you cite, credit is due, and I have not withheld it.
As to my claim of Robert Spencer's weakness, you and I disagree. I have already stated my rationale, and there is no reason for me to restate, hence, no reason for us to have exchange about it.

Posted by: neverpayretail

____________________________________________________

Infidel Pride,

I think it noteworthy that the commenter calling me an idiot said this in Spencer's defense, "Mr. Spencer is hard on Islam via his scholarship that proves his points. Not by proclaiming Islam is a heinous awful cult. He would Never get another book Published." Many pro-slavers in 1790 used similar justifications for the silence when they said (and I paraphrase) "Clearing those hot, humid, disease-infested swamps is awful work. White men won't do it. We Need slavery to get that Work done".

Posted by: neverpayretail

____________________________________________________

Robert Spencer,

As in any subject, facts, disciplined logic, and the lessons of history rule out the legitimacy of many conclusions.

I think your refusal to declare Islam dangerous and violent on the basis of your own research shows astoundingly poor judgment, which serves to strengthen the jihad movement. To give credit where due, much of what you do does damage that movement.

I now know something of you that was before hidden - at least from me. Thank you for the exchange. I had no idea the exchange would play out as it has. Live and learn.

Sincerely,Neverpayretail

____________________________________________________

It may be that people yelling "Nazism is evil and dangerous" in the 1930s may have been less effective than those who documented concrete evils of Nazi policy and theory in the hope of educating the many who thought they saw some good in National Socialism and who hoped that it might be a peaceful neighbor. And perhaps I am mistaken, but the question of how to best alert the somnolent to the present threat of Islam certainly is worth careful consideration.

The unequivocal judgement "Islam is evil and dangerous" is perfectly legitimate for many purposes, but as a practical matter, it is (or at least, it appears to me to be) not highly suitable for persuading people who do not already agree.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite

____________________________________________________

Dhimmisoftheworldunite,

I'm not sure what would satisfy "neverpayretail", but as you may know, I've never stated what I want Robert to do in light of my dissatisfaction with his gingerly approach to the question of the condemnation of Islam. For the record, I'm not calling for Robert to emblazon his website with "Islam is evil and should be condemned!" on a daily basis, nor even to write one single article or chapter in a book that argues such a condemnation. What would satisfy me is one statement, anywhere, in response to the question, "Should Islam be condemned?", that would make the simplex case that, "Yes, Islam should be condemned, and here's why: boom-boom-boom."

Of course, once Robert did that, some folks may at some point come out of the woodwork and start making demands that he unpack that simplex case; but I don't think that should be cause for concern that the case unpacked would be a Pandora's box inimical to the anti-jihad cause: I'm perfectly confident in Robert's ability to stay on track and patiently reiterate the simplex case for condemning Islam without ever being "maneuvered" into false slippery slopes like Demonization of Islam --> Genocide against all Muslims --> based on Racism; and so forth.

I therefore think Robert is drawing his patient, reasonable line in the sand a bit short of where the facts warrant: indeed, Islam is worse than German Nazism -- unless Robert thinks the attempted genocide by Muslims against Hindus of over 60 million (just to pick out of a turban one of several examples from the evil history of Islam) was not centrally motivated by Islam. If he does agree that the Hindu genocide (and all the other Muslim atrocities of history and the present) was centrally motivated by Islam, how in the world does the vetust richness and diversity of Islam let it off the hook of condemnation!?

Posted by: Television

____________________________________________________

Television,

Thanks for that last post to Dhimmisoftheworldunite. A Simple statement along the lines of what you suggest makes sense. Such a statement arrives at the Obvious conclusion, would permit Mr. Spencer to reference it when asked, and so, when properly challenged, avoid resorting to nonsense in defense.

Posted by: neverpayretail

____________________________________________________

Hi television,

The JW/DW agenda is not a theological or metaphysical agenda of plumbing ultimate good and evil and assigning to Islam its rightful place on that spectrum.

[here, Dhimmisoftheworldunite is erecting a straw man of my position: I did not, and still do not, call for JW/DW and Spencer to do any such thing: I only expect Spencer to formally state -- with all the weaselly language his heart desires to buffer it (without however logically blunting the core point) -- that Islam is evil & dangerous and that all Muslims enabling Islam whether passively or actively are agents of that evil & danger. It needs to be spelled out that the “evil” under discussion is dangerous, not merely evil. This formal statement can be made by Spencer without interfering with the ongoing mission and performance of JW/DW one iota. And it can be done in an intelligently nuanced way that would force those who would seek to smear Spencer to quote at the very least a very long and complex sentence Spencer could formulate that would be impossible to boil down to a “hysterically Islamophobic” sound bite.]

Its agenda is to alert people to their peril. It is permissible to call Islam "evil and dangerous", but it is not mandatory in every context,

[it is mandatory in at least one context: of being on record for standing up for what is right and true]

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite

____________________________________________________

Here's an example of why it may not suit the purposes of JW/DW to assert the ultimate theological/metaphysical conclusion that "Islam is evil".

That assertion begs the question "evil by what standard?" and that question can split the anti-jihad movement. For Evangelicals, the answer is simply that "Islam is a false religion that leads people to damnation." For libertarians, the answer might be something along the lines of "Islam is incompatible with the realization of human potential through actualization of the self."

For left-liberals the view might be that "Islam is evil because it infringes on personal autonomy, most clearly in the realm of sexual expression and reproductive freedom." The anti-jihad coalition, to the extent that such a thing even exists, does not agree within itself about "why Islam is evil." And Robert does not wish to have that particular conflict rise above the common concern that Islam threatens to overwhelm us all in this century.

[Thus the word “evil” is not necessary: what is necessary is to condemn Islam. More pertinent would be a condemnation on the basis of its danger to us, and of our needs for self-defense from it. Islam’s danger is part and parcel of its evil, but because entities, organizations and individuals can be “evil” without being dangerous, the danger aspect should be paramount in our condemnation.]

It's a reasonable posture and I think that we should leave the man alone to write his "life of Mohammed and why it matters to us" biography rather than pestering him to conform to our individual standards of ideological purity.

[As I said, Spencer will be “left alone” to pursue his projects perfectly freely after he goes on record condemning Islam. But he deserves to be pestered as long as he continues his gingerly balancing act suspended above the hard choice that has to be made.]

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite

____________________________________________________

Retail, your argument is compelling but there is a dividing line between scholarship and activism.

[Then Spencer should completely stop making analytical statements. He should rigorously limit himself to being a Reporter, not an Analyst. It is Spencer’s frequent editorial remarks of Analysis with which he salts and peppers his various JW entries that have aroused readers like “neverpayretail” to notice the curious paradox between his Analyses that fall fastidiously short of condemning Islam, and his “day job” of Reporter daily, weekly, monthly, yearly amassing the ever-growing mountain of Islamic horror that would lead any reasonably intelligent person to connect the dots to such a condemnation from which Spencer fastidiously abstains.]

If Robert Spencer officially "condemned" Islam, he would lose all credibility as a legitimate, reputable Islamic scholar.

[No: it would depend on HOW he condemned Islam. I have utmost confidence in Spencer’s skillful ability to use language in brilliantly weaselly articulations of sophistry, such that he could craft a formal Position on the condemnation of Islam in a way that would make it exceedingly difficult for critics to use to smear him -- not counting, of course, those many criticis who would smear him anyway, as they do NOW and have for YEARS already, no matter how gingerly and careful he tries to be.]

Posted by: Susanp

____________________________________________________

The anti-jihad coalition, to the extent that such a thing even exists, does not agree within itself about "why Islam is evil."

Here's a basic litmus test (there are others that could be added to this, but this by itself is a sine qua non):

If any member of the anti-jihad coalition does not support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they should be summarily excluded from the coalition. Islam is intrinsically, endemically, traditionally, zealously, ideologically, actively, and presently opposed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This isn't rocket science. This isn't a matter of "theology" or "metaphysics". Individuals, and groups, can be rightfully and rationally condemned, no matter whether they happen to also sell girl scout cookies and help little old ladies across the street, along with the other absurdly mitigating factors (Islam is older, Islam is more varied, Islam has many more people that seem nice) by which Robert in gingerly fashion distinguishes German Nazism from Islam.

Posted by: Television

____________________________________________________

Susan,

Robert is already unjustly beleaguered and vilified by the majority: I doubt that if he simply stated that Islam is condemnable as it stands (and has stood since the time of Mohammed) it would make much significant difference to his calumniators -- they already think he condemns Islam anyway and all the other related things you listed in your post. I haven't seen anyone from the vast and dominant mainstream publicly support Robert and invite him to speak or write in their venues on the basis that "Robert does not condemn Islam".

Posted by: Television

____________________________________________________

I think that your talk of "litmus tests" is counter to the spirit of what JW/DW is trying to accomplish, which is to alert people to the peril to their liberty that is posed by Islam.
There are many things that Islam is unequivocally opposed to. One that I suspect is even more vehemently rejected by Islamists than the UNDHR is "Trinitarian theology", which is regarded by Muslims as a form of polytheism and a very grave crime. Should Evangelicals insist that "embrace of Trinitarian theology" be part of the litmus test?

[No, because refusal to embrace Trinitarian theology, and even theological condemnation (devoid of laws and politics and hatred) of Trinitarian theology, does not pose a danger. It is not Islam’s rejection of Trinitarian theology that makes it dangerous, it is the reasons why it rejects Trinitarian theology, and the psychosocial apparatus it has developed to “cleanse” the world of Trinitarian theology that makes it dangerous]

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite

____________________________________________________

neverpayretail

You owe Mr Spencer an apology. Your criticisms are immature. Spencer is fighting the Jihad in many effective ways. Your dumb suggestions would kill Mr Spencer's effectiveness. Seen in the worst light you are an agent provocateur who is craftily tying to draw Mr Spencer into saying things he will be slammed and denigrated for. My own estimate is you are simply a a naive fool

You have a childish concept of what silence in the face of Jihadist Islam is. Robert Spencer most certainly is not silent. His website is very active. He updates it every day. I know of no other website like it that has the latest Jihad news every day. That has many good to excellent commentators with Hugh being the foremost. This takes time and effort for Robert to do. He reaches many others via his books. These books are a labor of love, no one is becoming rich off of them. He has the guts to write an upcoming biography of Muhammad which can really raise danger to his personal safety. Who else has the brass balls to write such a book these days?

Thanks to you, Robert Spencer!

Posted by: dennisw

____________________________________________________

Television asked me:

Why would condemning German Nazism not be a "universal generalization...a philosophical not a scientific statement", while condemning Islam is?

Television, my point is not that you cannot try to universally generalize about Islam, and perhaps even be successful. My point is that it is hard to do convincingly, much harder than to universally generalize about Nazism. If the caliphate existed and controlled all Muslims worldwide and were on the march with numerous divisions of tanks and brigades of soldiers and hundreds of airplanes dropping bombs in Europe, it would be a lot easier. Nazism existed for only 12 years. Islam is a far more complex phenomenon that has existed far longer, and that has no single center of political power, certainly not in the way the Nazis had Berlin. A rather different kind of Muslim lives in Indonesia than lives in Saudi Arabia. It's fine for you to draw the conclusion that across all its variation, Islam remains a unity, and an evil one. But to generate consensus around that point is much harder, given all the differing circumstances, than to build consensus around the idea that Nazism is evil. So arguably Robert is smart to just sidestep that Sisyphean task and stick to the abundant concrete specifics that no one can refute, and allow people to draw their own general conclusions if they wish.

Still, I have to confess to some uncertainty on what Robert's position is on all this. My uncertainty is enhanced by the chapter titles from Spencer's Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades :

"Chapter 1: Muhammad: Prophet of War"
"Chapter 2: The Qur'an: Book of War"
"Chapter 3: Islam: Religion of War
""Chapter 4: Islam: Religion of Intolerance"
"Chapter 5: Islam Oppresses Women"
"Chapter 6: Islamic Law: Lie, Steal, Kill."
"Chapter 7: How Allah Killed Science"
"Chapter 8: The Lure of Islamic Paradise"
"Chapter 9: Islam--Spread by the Sword? You Bet."

These titles seem like they might amount to universal generalizations.

[Indeed!]

Posted by: traeh

Dhimmis,

"Should Evangelicals insist that "embrace of Trinitarian theology" be part of the litmus test?"

It already is part of the UNDHR, insofar as the UNDHR ensures freedom and equality of religious practice. Also, you may not have picked up on a subtlety of my litmus test: it's a negative litmus test, not a positive one: i.e., anyone who opposes the UNDHR is out (but that doesn't mean the UNDHR is the sole criterion of membership in the anti-jihad movement).

Think about it: anyone who opposes the UNDHR is out: that means that an evangelical group that demanded that Trinitarian worship be part of the litmus test would be, ipso facto, failing the litmus test.

Posted by: Television

____________________________________________________

traeh,

"It's fine for you to draw the conclusion that across all its variation, Islam remains a unity, and an evil one."

What do we mean when we use the term "Islam"? Do we mean simply the sum total of Muslims? Do we mean a motivating ideology that unites them, despite their differences? Or do we mean a messy constellation of ideas that highlights their differences and reveals there is no real unity?

Behind some answers to these questions are many attempts at having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too (HYCAEIT): i.e., many "moderate" Muslims will claim Islam is too variegated to make generalizations about it, but at the same time will posit certain unifying features of Islam that make all the world's Muslims (or most Muslims, as a detachable "Islam" from the "small minority of extremist hijackers of Islam who-are-not-true-Muslims") so peachy keen and hunky dory and so un-terrorist-like. Robert's HYCAEIT seems to be that there is an "Islam" that is evil and dangerous, but that because it is only a central, crucial, gigantic chunk of a larger "Islam" that is ethically and culturally variegated, then he can't condemn "Islam", because he doesn't want to condemn the latter, larger Islam when he condemns the former Islam: therefore he avoids the word "Islam" when he is condemning-by-implication. The pivotal problem with Robert's approach here is that the smaller Islam that Robert condemns, by screaming implication, on a daily basis is avowed by him to be not some peripheral, detachable part of the larger Islam, but its very heart -- central, crucial and vital. In my book, a central, crucial, vital heart of something is that something, and the rest, no matter how many-splendored its "tapestry" seems, is, ethically speaking, window-dressing: and if that heart is evil and dangerous, then the whole body is a Frankenstein monster -- made more dangerous for its distracting camouflage that would obfuscate the condemnation. Robert and you seem to be confusing the aesthetic level with the ethical level.

You make much of "Robert's reportorial, specifics-based approach", but no one, not even the AP wire, is or can be wholly and merely data: there is a guiding interpretive ideology behind Robert's choice of data, presentation of data, explanation of data, day in and day out. He may be exercizing more restraint than others in this regard, and I agree that is a good thing; but he is not avoiding making general, "philosophical" claims about what all the data mean.

[This is what I meant by Spencer when he puts on his Analyst hat, in distinction to his Reporter hat]

And he chooses to avoid condemning Islam because that would in his mind necessarily entail condemning every last couscous stand, every last carpet fiber, every last sandal strap, every last friendly Muslim, every last piece of hygienic advice now and for the last fourteen centuries.

Again, this is not rocket science: when an organization has a central tenet enjoining its members to feed live little girls through wood chippers every Friday, and when our reportorial, specifics-based approach shows that many members of this organization have been, as good members, dutifully following this central tenet for centuries and continue to do so now, then it doesn't matter if that organization has all the many-splendored variety of Islam and all the venerable centuries of Islam, and all the smiling faces of Islam: that organization must be condemned: Robert himself would condemn it. What would you think of someone who refused to condemn such an organization?

[This post where Television (i.e., moi) counter-argued the poster “traeh” triggered a long series of verbose exchanges between the two of them, which I will not include in this transcript, as I think the Television post immediately above definitively established the point that needs establishing here. For those who want to continue reading the sub-thread of this particular exchange, click here.]

Posted by: Television

____________________________________________________

Dennisw,

Sorry for the late reply. I have been spending some time with friends.

Disagreements and criticisms do not require apology. I think Mr. Spencer understands that. On several occasions, going clear back to May 17 (my first two comments on JW), I explicitly gave him credit for his work, and expressed my gratitude.

The terms "crafty" and "naïve fool" are mutually exclusive. I do not see how I can be both.

I believe Mr. Spencer's effectiveness would be unaffected or even enhanced if he were to follow my suggestion. To carry one's own research to the obvious conclusion adds weight to the research itself. Failure to take that step only gives fuel to those who are already slamming and denigrating him. In their eyes, if he won't take the step, why should they? In their eyes, he does not trust his own research, so why should they? What they see is a guy asking the same question over and over again, which to the naïve listener may give the appearance of self-doubt. This is not to say that I doubt his research, nor even that he does. It just gives detractors another excuse to doubt him, over and over again.

Concerning "silence", I distinguish between saying something has badness in it, and saying that something Is bad because of all the badness in it. The abolitionists not only talked of the badness of slavery (beatings, lynching, chains, humans as property, etc), but they also said outright that slavery is evil, and did not look to the slaver owners for approval of that judgment. From 1790 forward Congress put up tremendous resistance to Any discussion of slavery, and was mostly successful. That refusal allowed it to become more and more entrenched. I think the entrenchment is dangerous. There needs to be a clearly, simply stated reason, backed up by facts, to resist such entrenchment. Continually asking "show me a mainstream Islam that is not jihadist" does not function as reason to resist the entrenchment. To resist such declaration on the grounds that it is "simplistic and misleading", and then explaining that stand as he finally did (once we got past dental hygiene) only adds confusion. Reasons for action are not effective stated as questions. For the larger populace to support resistance Simple rather than Subtle is Most effective for motivation. This is the world we live in as driven by unchanging fundamental human nature. And if this risks upsetting "PC world" academics and media people, well, preserving our freedom is worth that risk, and besides, I think they will get over it.

Posted by: neverpayretail

____________________________________________________

To Television:

You seem to want to add to Robert's reporting of data and of broad patterns, an additional twofold task:

1. That he adopt as an explicit program that everyone and every organization should be tested as to whether they adhere to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and if they don't,

2. Robert should condemn non-adherents as evil and encourage others to condemn non-adherents.

[again another straw man -- I did not propose Spencer “adopt a program” (is that like “Adopt an African Child?”); all I suggested was that he make a formal pronouncement to that effect -- once -- to which he can refer back with a link anytime the subject comes up again]

Posted by: traeh

____________________________________________________

"Spenser could alienate those who just do not know enough about Islam by ranting, just like Esmay (whom we’ve already discounted as part of the brains-fell-out sect). So, since we’ve all agreed Esmay is just a ranter…why do we expect Spenser to do exactly the same just because he’s on “our” side?"

To condemn Islam requires no "ranting"; one can do it in a rational, mature, intelligent manner.

[Here, here! I couldn't have said it better myself! :) ]

Posted by: Television

____________________________________________________

"Spenser could alienate those who just do not know enough about Islam by ranting, just like Esmay (whom we’ve already discounted as part of the brains-fell-out sect). So, since we’ve all agreed Esmay is just a ranter…why do we expect Spenser to do exactly the same just because he’s on “our” side?"

Once he clarified his position (which he seemed reluctant to do), I disagreed with that position, perhaps a bit too strongly, and pursued the matter no more with him. He clearly wanted no more discussion.

I have been appreciating the subsequent discussion, detecting no ranting from anyone who has taken the time to follow it. It seems to me that once the truth is established, mankind is served by Action based on that truth.

Action might be a little ahead of the game, but with the growing readership of Spencer's books, the desire for action will gain steam. As I see it, the discussion between Television and Traeh serves the call to action.

There appears to be agreement that condemnation is appropriate. The struggle is how to do it in a pragmatic way that won't "backfire". The term pragmatic seems to include force of law, systematic, practical, and opinions. Also, there might be an issue as to degree of backfire that is acceptable. However, countering any movement is going to experience pushback, and I believe Speculating about it does not form sound basis for not condemning and resisting Islam.

FWIW, I think all this exact same stuff was part of the abolitionist struggle, and the lesson is that delay allows entrenchment which only increases the degree of backfire when things finally come to a head - just a rhetorical statement.

Posted by: neverpayretail

____________________________________________________

Conclusion:

In the last comment above, “neverpayretail” mentions how the refusal to come to a definitive conclusion about condemning slavery only caused the issue to become further entrenched, and to fester and become more and more infected, until it had to come to a head, like a boil.

And that “head” that America came to—the Civil War—was outrageously unacceptable, yet turned out to be an all too tragically inexorable, and horrifically gaping wound in our history.

Those who refuse to condemn Islam, and who refuse to condemn all Muslims who enable Islam either passively or actively, are—in timorously and fantastically thinking they are avoiding the horrors of collective bigotry whose slippery slope will pull them toward genocide—in fact helping those sociopolitical forces that are, by continually putting off the hard choice that has to be made, further entrenching the unresolved problem, causing it to fester in the darkness of fear and censorship, rather than raising it up to the sunlight of public discussion, rational analysis, and courageous resolve.

As with the refusal to condemn slavery, and the horrible devolution which that refusal, more and more entrenched, finally caused when it broke out in the inflammation of the Civil War, the increasing entrenchment of our collective refusal to condemn Islam is only pulling us to a far messier, and bloodier, denuouement than the one we could more effectively manage by coming sooner, rather than too late, to the conclusion of a total condemnation. And Spencer, on this particular, yet crucial, aspect of the larger problem, is helping the wrong side.