June 3, 2008
Talking Islam 3: the "Jihad" Watchdog
Frequent commenter Wtanksleyjr challenged me to respond to this blogpost by Robert Spencer. Spencer attacks a State Department memo -- actually prepared by the Extremist Messaging Branch at the National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) and released through the State Department -- that urges the U.S. government to change the lexicon by which it refers to militant Islamists and terrorists.
In fact, Spencer does not respond to the memo itself, which he neither links nor quotes. He responds only to the Times op-ed by P. W. Singer of the liberal Brookings Institution and Elina Noor of the Institute of Strategic and International Studies in Malaysia, and what the op-ed says about the memo. But his attack is no more effective than earlier attacks on the earlier DHS memo with which we've already dealt....
Our previous posts on this issue are:
- Talking Islam 1: Why Bret Stephens Acted the Fool, and Why Heather Wilhelm Needs a Neuron Infusion;
- Talking Islam 2: A Bad Meme Infects the Conservative Meme Pool.
Spencer is often cited as an authority on Islam, but he is actually just a pundit like the rest of us. (If you want an actual Islamic scholar, try Bernard Lewis.) He writes columns for some magazines -- and several of them are quite good. This isn't meant as a fisking of Spencer, whose heart is in the right place. Alas, I just don't think his rhetorical abilities are up to the task.
Spencer has very rigid, unchangeable views on Islam... which he sees (surprise) as rigid and unchangeable. Reading the Truth About Muhammad, Spencer's best known book, Sachi found numerous examples of verses that Spencer insisted could only possibly be read one way, as commanding eternal war against the infidel; yet she, herself thought of several contrary yet equally apropos ways to read the same verses. She was not impressed by his critical thinking.
And neither have I been, when I've read his articles... even when I agree with him, as with his attacks on Iran appeasers and on Rep. Keith Ellison (D-CAIR, 100%). Alas, this piece is no exception.
At first, I thought Spencer was going to give us a different argument:
At issue here is whether it is propagandistic, and playing into the hands of the enemy, to call Osama bin Laden and others like him "jihadists," or whether it is merely descriptive to do so -- in which case avoiding doing so would be playing into the hands of the enemy, for if we cannot name the enemy correctly, we certainly cannot defeat him.
This sounds like he correctly understands that the point of the memo is not to assuage the hurt feelings of the terrorists in the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), but rather to deny a propaganda victory to the terrorists. But reading further, he switches to making exactly the same mistake as the other conservatives who have attacked that memo (or in Spencer's case, a New York Times op-ed on the memo in place of the memo itself):
Here is the fundamental assumption of the new State Department guidelines, as well as of Singer and Noor: that the jihadists are twisting the meaning of jihad within Islam, appropriating for their own purposes what is in traditional Islam a spiritual struggle or a struggle for justice. Singer and Noor appear unaware that the term jihad fi sabeel Allah in the Qur'an and Islamic tradition refers specifically to warfare. They also probably do not realize that in Islamic theology justice is equated with Sharia, such that an "external fight for justice" is a fight to impose Islamic law, with its denial of the freedom of conscience and institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims.
No, no, no! Nobody I have read -- including liberals Singer and Noor -- argues that the word "jihad" cannot mean armed conflict to advance justice and godliness; this is the mother of all straw men in this debate. This is the "bad meme" I referred to in Talking Islam 2.
The underlying assumption behind the memo is that language influences how people think; this is a core conclusion of neurolingistics. If we agree publicly with al-Qaeda that what they're actually doing -- bombing their way across the ummah -- constitutes "armed conflict to advance justice and godliness," then we have lost the propaganda campaign.
Let's take a cleaner example: We all know what Hezbollah is; it's a bloodthirsty death cult that butchers people by the thousands, without regard to race, religion, or even creed... just anybody that the Iranian political leaders tell them to bomb, shoot, or otherwise slay.
But what do they call themselves? Hezbollah literally translates as "army of God." Every time we say Hezbollah this or Hezbollah that, linguistically, we're agreeing with the gangsters that they're God's holy army on earth.
If instead we relentlessly and mercilessly called them "Iran's mercenaries," "Iran's gangsters," or "Iran's enforcers" -- which, by the way, is much more accurate and (Spencer's term) "descriptive" than calling them the army of God -- we use linguistics to drive home the point, to anyone who hears or reads what we say, that they're not a "holy force" trying to unify the ummah behind the true Islam, but rather just a brutal and thuggish army-without-uniforms that does the bidding of whoever currently runs Iran... whether that's Ali Khamenei, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or perhaps tomorrow, Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi.
Whether such neugolinguistic tactics work, they certainly cannot hurt. And it's hardly "PC" to refuse to call these terrorists the "army of God" and instead call them "Iran's enforcers."
In his blogpost, Spencer writes:
Al-Qaeda and other contemporary jihadists did not originate this definition of jihad from Ibn Arafa, a scholar of the Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence, who explains that jihad is "fighting by a Muslim against a kaafir [unbeliever] (who does not have a treaty with the Muslims) to make the word of Allah the highest."
But that begs the question, for this is not what al-Qaeda is doing. They're not trying to "make the word of Allah the highest;" they're trying to make the word of Osama bin Laden (or perhaps his spritual mentor, Ayman Zawahiri) the highest. Most of their energy is spent in murdering "fellow" Moslems with whom they disagree over politics. At best, they're sectarian killers trying to assassinate their way into control of the ummah. How is it "PC" to consistently and relentlessly point this out -- and to deny them their preferred, self-congratulatory term for themselves?
The problem with Robert Spencer is that he is utterly locked into the belief that we are basically at war with Islam itself; that Islam is irredeemably evil; that the Koran can only be read to authorize -- nay, command! -- eternal, bloody war against the West. He insists that Islam must change; but the change he appears to envision is not an Islamic enlightenment but a mass Islamic conversion... which I think he knows isn't going to happen.
Spencer simply does not believe that contemporary Moslems will ever turn against this so-called "jihad." How, then, does he explain the fact that many Moslem nations and the largest of the Moslem religious organizations disagree with him? Simple: He doesn't.
For Spencer's point to carry, he must deny that this is so:
- He cannot admit, for example, that Turkey is a functioning democracy that has not attacked its neighbors (or the West) since the the Ottoman Empire fell and, a few years later, the Republic of Turkey was created.
- He must pretend that Iraq can never be a functioning democracy that supports the West (despite the fact that it already is).
- He must insist that he knows more about the Koran than Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Abdurrahman Wahid, a.k.a. Gus Dur, and any other Islamic scholar or cleric who comes out foursquare against what Spencer calles "jihadism"; either that, or else he must accuse everybody who has ever reported on any of these "mainstream," nonviolent Moslems of lying and fabricating quotations to make them look good.
Spencer is an absolutist -- which means that it's impossible to disagree with him unless you're either a fool, an appeaser... or a "jihadist" yourself. He often doesn't even understand the arguments arrayed against his position; and he sometimes replaces them with superficially similar arguments he has already rejected.
For example, I have long derided the term "Islamofascist," or the even stupider term of Michael Medved, "Islamo-Nazi." Spencer later published an article that attacked my position (not because of me; I doubt he's ever even heard of Dafydd ab Hugh or Big Lizards... but others have objected as well); you can find it here.
Now there have been historical examples of Islamic forms of fascism; the Muslim Brotherhood, for example, as well as the political philosophy of Gamal Abdel Nasser, president-for-life of Egypt from 1954-1970. But the term is not used that precisely; in fact, it's flung willy nilly at any Islamic group that practices terror, whether they're religious or socialist, pan-Islamic or only pan-Arabic, a putative "jihadist" group or a revolutionary group. The phrase Islamofascist is therefore utterly useless, because it has no set meaning other than "I don't like you."
Here is Spencer defending the term "Islamo-Fascism" as its used, without even looking into the different kinds of groups that acquire the epithet:
First things first: "Islamo-Fascism" has connections to fascism, as Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, because “both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind.” Both are nostalgic for past glory, obsessed with real and imagined humiliations and thirsty for revenge, filled with anti-Semitism, and committed to sexual repression and its subordination of the female.
Hitchens is a great guy in some ways; but as a critical thinker, he leaves much to be desired. He opposes Islamist terrorism -- but he equally opposes Capitalism (Hitchens is a proud socialist). These similarities exist... but few besides Robert Spencer would use the Hitchens equation as the definition of fascism. Spencer continues:
There is nothing artful or contrived in the term “Islamo-Fascism.” It is derived from history itself. Hassan al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (from which today’s radical Muslim groups descend) was, after all, an open admirer and supporter of Adolf Hitler -- as was the principal theorist of the modern jihad, Sayyid Qutb. During World War II, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, cousin of Yasir Arafat and spiritual godfather of Palestinian nationalism, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, pronounced his pro-Nazi sympathies openly and proudly. In May 1941, he issued a fatwa calling upon the Germans to bomb Tel Aviv, and in November 1941 traveled to Berlin and met with Hitler. He implored the Nazi dictator to help implement a Final Solution in the Middle East. Then he went to the Balkans, where he spearheaded the creation of Muslim units of the Waffen SS.
Does it occur to Spencer that this is nothing but an alliance for common cause? Hitler wanted to obliterate Judaism; Islamic radical militants want to obliterate Judaism. But that does not mean that Islamic terrorism is best described as "Naziism." For one major difference, very few Islamic terrorist groups are avowedly atheist. (And even fewer worship the Germanic pagan god Wotan.)
But such public German paganism (and private atheism) were just as central to Naziism as was Jew hatred. And of course, Italian fascism had nothing to do with race-based Jew hatred... at least not until it was taken over by the Nazis, relegating the founder of fascism, Benito Mussolini, to the status of sidekick.
Finally, Spencer gives us yet another definition of Islamofascism:
In terms of the specific terrorist groups and entities mentioned in the MSA packet, all of them -- along with many others -- have indeed made clear that they wish to destroy the United States and dominate the world under an oppressive caliphate – that is, a unified Islamic state ruled by Islamic Sharia law
Rule by theocracy under the supposed direct word of God... how is this the least bit like actual fascism? Is Spencer saying that any empire that sought to "dominate the world" was fascist? Alexander, Caesar, the British Empire -- was Napoleon a fascist? If so, then that word no longer has any meaning.
What Spencer has done here is replace the initial argument -- that we shouldn't use the term "Islamofascism" because it's a poorly defined and misleading neologism -- with a much easier, straw-man argument: That we shouldn't use the term because it's insulting to peace-loving "jihadis." The second argument can be knocked down by simply showing that militant Islamism is, well, militant; while that may be a necessary condition to being "fascist," it's by no means sufficient. And the term fails the other required test... showing that fascism is the correct brand of militarism to use as an analogy to militant Islamism.
This technique is classical Spencerism.
My argument against the term Islamofascism is twofold: First, the second part of the term, "fascism," is so powerful linguistically that it utterly overshadows the first part, "Islam;" yet the most salient fact about militant Islamism is its Islamic character and pretensions... not any putative connection to the economic theories of Mussolini (or Hitler, for that matter).
Second, associating contemporary Islamic death cults with the Fascists or the Nazis fails to note how incredibly primitive and reactionary the former are... fascism and Naziism are twentieth-century heresies of modernity; but radical militant Islamism utterly rejects modernity and civilization, urgently demanding a retreat to the barbaric absolute monarchy of the dawn of the seventh century in the Middle East. "Sharia" terrorists don't even rise to the civilizational level of Nazis.
Fascists would consider such a position even lower on the evolutionary scale than "capitalist imperialism." Calling such human-sacrificing throwbacks "Islamofascists" is like dubbing some aggressive, stone-age warrior-tribe in Melanesia "cannibal-fascists."
Spencer never addresses either of these two points; instead, he fixates on the idea that it's not politically correct and might insult Islamic terrorists... a pair of straw men easily brushed aside with a minimum of intellectual effort.
Back to the core argument. What Spencer does not appear to understand is that religions really do change; but they change internally when their earlier paradigm ceases to work. We have good evidence that Islam hit that point of non-viability in its present form some time ago; Bernard Lewis wrote an entire book analyzing that historical fact: What Went Wrong? There is some evidence that the current (ca. 1920s) so-called pan-Islamic reactionary caliphist movements (as well as the more modernist, socialist movements of, e.g., Nasser of Egypt) are floundering attempts to respond to that failure.
(The collapse is manifest even from within Islam: They have only to compare the economic state of the ummah to that of the West. Why would Allah permit such destitution and backwardness, unless they were doing something wrong?)
So Islam is poised to change. And the only change that will stick is one that is more successful than the current paradigm. But that cannot be one that locks them into perpetual warfare with an enemy that is bigger, richer, and more powerful... and which would crush the ummah like a grape in any direct confrontation.
Most Moslems today do not materially participate in this putative "jihad;" even Spencer agrees. He argues that a majority are either passive supporters or apathetic. But even there, he relies upon polls of dubious authenticity or accuracy; we have no idea how many Moslem respondents honestly believe what they say in such polls, vice how many answer a certain way because they think they're supposed to do.
That polling effect arises even here; we often see polling that is much more PC than the actual vote. In a poll, the respondent is actually talking to a person he imagines might disapprove of his opinion; so he says what he thinks the pollster wants to hear. But later, when he is alone in the voting booth, he is free to vote his actual belief.
That is one of several reasons why I do not believe polling that says some enormous percent of Moslems support "jihad." Another reason, as even Spencer agrees, is that respondents may be thinking of jihad in its "spiritual improvement" sense. A third is that the poll itself is usually conducted by "stringers," who (a) may be agents of jihadist groups (and may let the respondents know what will happen if they answer wrong), or (b) may simply get bored, stop knocking on doors, and just make up the numbers.
And a fourth reason for polling skepticism is that pollsters often ask questions that would cause even me to sound like a "jihadist," such as asking whether a suicide bombing is "ever" justified. Anyone who has the least bit of historical knowledge -- and I proudly admit that "the least bit of historical knowledge" is exactly what I have -- remembers that Claus von Stauffenberg planted a bomb in Adolf Hitler's briefing room in the Führerbunker. As it happens, von Stauffenberg left before the explosion; but had he stayed to ensure that Hitler actually died -- thus making it more likely the plot would have succeeded -- wouldn't that suicide bombing still be "justified?"
I would have to answer "Yes," which means the poll would have marked me down as a jihadist!
Instead of fixating on hard-to-interpret polling, look at what happens when we make secret contact with people who actually live under the control of al-Qaeda or the Taliban or Shiite militias... and we offer our help to free themselves: A huge percentage take us up on the offer and fight for freedom. That sure doesn't sound like people who cheer on al-Qaeda.
According to Spencer, however, none of this is happening. From his blogpost:
It consequently may seem wise for us to try to impugn that legitimacy [of being on God's side] by calling them other names, but then we must ask ourselves: which authority carries more weight for a pious Muslim -- an Islamic scholar renowned for centuries, or the non-Muslim American government?
According to Spencer's theory, Moslems will believe Islamic scholars rather than the non-Moslem American government.
According to the eyewitness accounts of our soldiers in Iraq, Moslems threw in with the non-Moslem American government and actually went to war against al-Qaeda, against Muqtada Sadr, and against the theological teachings of Iranian scholars in Qom.
Which source I should believe?
As Robert Anton Wilson used to say, "convictions make convicts." Spencer's convictions cause him to turn his back on the evidence of his own eyes:
If Muslims really reject the worldview propagated by Al-Qaeda, they can show it best not by getting huffy about Western nomenclature, but by actually fighting against the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism in their communities. Where is this happening?
In Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Indonesia, in Turkey, in Somalia, and elsewhere. There are many places where Moslems are actually bearing arms against al-Qaeda.
Where in the world are mosques preaching against Osama's Islam, and presenting a viable Islamic alternative that advocates peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals on an indefinite basis? Why, nowhere.
In Indonesia (Nahdlatul Ulama), in Iraq (the "Quietist" school of Sistani), in Turkey (where their madrassim teach exactly that -- and they're exporting that alternative to Wahhabism/Salafism around the world).
Do I think Robert Spencer has never seen or heard of any of this? No, it's impossible, given his interests. Therefore, he must simply reject it all out of hand, because it violates what he "knows" must be true. How is this any different from what Thomas Sowell calls the vision of the anointed?
I understand that many people revere Spencer for (this should make you cringe) speaking truth to power. And I don't deny that he is courageous in sticking to his principles. But I cannot be impressed by Robert Spencer's analytic ability: He begins with his conclusion and reasons backwards... as do most people.
To impress me, however, a person must rise above that average level of mentation and show me that he can break free of his own preconvictions. I want to see an example where Spencer arrives at a conclusion he never expected, merely because that's where the evidence leads. That would make me sit up and take notice.
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, June 3, 2008, at the time of 8:36 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/3049
Comments
The following hissed in response by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah
I agree, for the most part, with the exception that Bernard Lewis is a better expert on Islam. I think that Ibn Warraq is the better expert, and you can't leave Bat Ye'or out of the mix. If you look at how well the war of Euphemism is going in Europe, what, with all those "Asians" etc, and "Youths" I don't think Europe is winning. Especially in Britain and Holland, or as of today, Fwance. Maybe Italy isn't fully emasculated, and the Danes have a strong middle finger, who knows how this will all turn out.
The above hissed in response by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://biglizards.net/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 4, 2008 1:30 AM
The following hissed in response by: nash
According to Spencer's theory, Moslems will believe Islamic scholars rather than the non-Moslem American government.
Spencer wrote "an Islamic scholar renowned for centuries." Muqtada doesn't have that level of legitimacy, let alone that longevity! Please quote in context next time or I'll start considering you a sloppy thinker.
Muslims turned their backs on Muqtada and Al-Qaeda because of their thuggery. It doesn't mean they have rejected Jihadism or Islamic supremacism.
The Turkish and Indonesian government may keep a lid on extremists, but non-Muslims are still attacked in those countries and they aren't treated as equals, as Spencer wrote. So what you've offered isn't evidence that they have rejected Jihad or Islamic Supremicism.
The above hissed in response by: nash at June 4, 2008 7:25 AM
The following hissed in response by: Geoman
First, some house-keeping. "Bir Lizards"? Best correct that.
You and I have done the islamo-facist dance before (put you left foot here....). Truth be told, I am a tad uncomfortable with the term, but not so much I would dismiss it out of hand. I think there is a valid comparison to make. And not just bad thing is like another bad thing.
To say fascism has no effect or influence on Al Queda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and their ilk is a stretch. Islamo-facists hearkening back to a purer, more primitive time sounds an awful lot like fascists longing for Wotan, and the purity of the Volk. Perhaps the similarity is that both seek some sort of rational or moral dispensation to discard all this civilized tomfoolery, and to get on with the killing.
Islam can be reformed. I have to believe that, since the alternative is...unacceptable.
I think the tide has turned. The strength of the west has not failed.
The above hissed in response by: Geoman at June 4, 2008 10:42 AM
The following hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr
Dafydd, your first few posts were very convincing. I am persuaded.
On this post I'm not impressed at all.
Let me quote:
Spencer's best known book, Sachi found numerous examples of verses that Spencer insisted could only possibly be read one way, as commanding eternal war against the infidel; yet she, herself thought of several contrary yet equally apropos ways to read the same verses. She was not impressed by his critical thinking.
That's just not true. The best I can guess is that Sachi was reading the book with a hostile mindset; that's the only way to miss the fact that Spencer specifically claims that those are the only interpretations the vast majority (more than 90%) of Muslim authorities unequivocally (and inflexibly) assign to those passages. Sachi's interpretations may be logically valid, but they aren't in any way relevant to the Moslem world. Spenser's books and analyses consistently examine existing Moslem interpretations, not "possible" interpretations.
Spencer repeatedly calls for Moslems to build an interpretation of Islam that does not require Sharia to be imposed on the entire world by any means. But he also notes that there currently is no such interpretation outside of fringe sects (less than 5% adherence), some of which fail to engage those texts (and so have no chance of winning over someone with questions about that text).
I note optimistically that with all of the movements you cite there's good reason to suspect they'll carry through; Turkey just lost a bid for EU membership, and the NU is entirely entwined with Indonesia's government, which has been suffering under massive terrorist attacks. On the pessimistic side, the same declarations came out of Saudi Arabia a while back, and resulting in no change whatsoever (except more police crackdown on their internal terrorists).
There's every reason to hope for improvement, and we're working to offer every Moslem an obvious incentive to help their religion improve.
Oh, and by the way, a Google search against jihadwatch and Nahdlatul shows that Spencer has indeed noticed and is not optimistic (but does end his report by asking the correct question: if all those Moslems are interpreting all those texts incorrectly, then what is the correct interpretation of those texts?). Another search targeting Turkey shows that he's positively optimistic about the country itself, if not all its leaders, and is waiting for results to show.
But even there, he relies upon polls of dubious authenticity or accuracy.
This is the worst sentence in your entire post.
There are no polls that show anything else! Some excellent pollsters have put a lot of money and time into figuring this out, and their unanimous answer has been that Muslims believe that jihad is a struggle to apply sharia everywhere by any means (the division between "lesser and greater jihad" is accepted as significant by roughly 5%). The polls match what the clerics teach. The polls hold in nations where violent coercion is rare.
There's no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the polls so thoroughly (as opposed to disbelieving them in some nations). There's every reason to accept that Muslims believe according to how their religion is preached to them.
No, no, no! Nobody I have read -- including liberals Singer and Noor -- argues that the word "jihad" cannot mean armed conflict to advance justice and godliness; this is the mother of all straw men in this debate.
You seem to be implying that Spencer was raising this straw man. He's not. He didn't say that anyone claimed this. He specifically said, and you highlighted the words in which he said, that jihad specifically refers to warfare. He didn't claim that anyone believed that it COULDN'T refer to warfare; he claimed that some on our side believe that jihad is primarily "a spiritual struggle or a struggle for justice", while few on their side believe that (and more accurately, the ones struggling for "justice" are actually struggling for sharia).
I want to see an example where Spencer arrives at a conclusion he never expected, merely because that's where the evidence leads.
I don't see why that should matter. This isn't about proving that Spencer is a philosopher-king among men; it's about analyzing his argument. Instead you dismiss him personally without considering his arguments.
Of course, you're reasonable in asking how a person deals with surprise. His post about Turkey's announcement would be one example -- given his other posts, he clearly didn't expect THEM to be the first, and reading that post, he seems to think that it's exactly what needs to be done. I can't say he finds it impossible, but I also can't find anyplace he declared that it's impossible.
I'm sorry, I'm profoundly disappointed. I'm impressed by your arguments in the previous installments, but this post addresses none of the serious arguments Spencer brought, instead wasting all its time in irrelevant attacks against the person.
Not lizardly.
The above hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr at June 4, 2008 11:03 AM
The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh
Wtanksleyjr:
That's just not true. The best I can guess is that Sachi was reading the book with a hostile mindset; that's the only way to miss the fact that Spencer specifically claims that those are the only interpretations the vast majority (more than 90%) of Muslim authorities unequivocally (and inflexibly) assign to those passages. Sachi's interpretations may be logically valid, but they aren't in any way relevant to the Moslem world. Spenser's books and analyses consistently examine existing Moslem interpretations, not "possible" interpretations.
I have not read the book; that was Sachi. But I have read many articles by Spencer... and I know that he argues that Islam unequivocally teaches that infidels must be killed, that women must be oppressed, that apostates must be killed, and so forth.
Nobody denies that those interpretations of the Koran are currently very popular among a number of putative "authorities" (which itself is a squishy concept in Islam, since there is no official heirarchy; it's more like Judaism than Catholicism). The open question is whether it's possible for Islam to have an "Enlightenment," as the Church did, to become more moderinist.
And for that question, the derivative question is whether it's possible to have an alternative interpretation that can gain widespread acceptance within Islam. Spencer clearly does not believe any such thing can happen; and from what little I saw in the book skimming through it -- and certainly what I've read in other articles of his -- he believes those verses simply cannot be interpreted any other way.
Thus, saying "Yes they can" directly contradicts the deeply held position of Rober Spencer. (Note one belief held by at least some Moslem scholars that would go a long way down this path: Some believe -- as most Jewish scholars came to believe centuries ago -- that there is a difference between what Mohammed said that is eternal... and what Mohammed said that related to governing that specific empire at that specific time of history, and doesn't apply to today.
Once that distinction is made, most of Mohammed's judicial decrees need not be followed today... just as Jews today don't call for adulterers to be stoned to death. (That was a judicial rule from God, but meant only for the nation of Israel before the breaking of the second temple and the second and final diaspora; no relevance to today's government of the current nation that calls itself Israel or any other government today.)
I note optimistically that with all of the movements you cite there's good reason to suspect they'll carry through; Turkey just lost a bid for EU membership, and the NU is entirely entwined with Indonesia's government, which has been suffering under massive terrorist attacks. On the pessimistic side, the same declarations came out of Saudi Arabia a while back, and resulting in no change whatsoever (except more police crackdown on their internal terrorists).
I believe that the current terrorist wars will actually hasten the Islamic Enlightenment: Aside from the Palestinians, who I think everyone agrees are sui generis, the rest of Islam doesn't appear to want to live in a state of perpetual warfare against a much stronger West.
Nor do most of them really want to live under the likes of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or the Khomeinists -- as we have seen in Iraq. The stark differences in quality of life between the West and the Moslem world have become manifest to virtually every Moslem via TV and the internet. The Allah preached by those who reject modernity has become "the god that failed"... and the Islamists are rapidly running out of excuses and scapegoats for their inability to solve that problem.
There's every reason to hope for improvement, and we're working to offer every Moslem an obvious incentive to help their religion improve.
Well, no we're not. I wish we were! We should, and we can... but at the moment, the Bush administration is so afraid of being called sectarian that they're afraid to lift a finger in that respect. And I'm not sure that the State Department even wants to; sadly, I'm coming to the conclusion that my gal Condi has been co-opted by Statethink: The belief that there is nothing exceptional about Americanism, that all other systems are equally valid, and we should simply make an intricate series of alliances with other countries to form "blocs" that will contain each other. (Yes, I believe Statethink says our own bloc shoudl be "contained" as well.)
Moslems are doing pretty good separating themselves from the true loonies without any cooperation from us; if we were truly to begin "working to offer every Moslem an obvious incentive to help their religion improve," we would do even better!
I see these two memos as a stumbling step in the right direction; much, much more needs to be done... and yes, that dread word "sensitivity" is important, because if we're offensive or insulting, Moslems will just tune us out. We could even set back those within Islam who are working towards that Enlightenment by clumsy or ham-fisted blundering.
Oh, and by the way, a Google search against jihadwatch and Nahdlatul shows that Spencer has indeed noticed and is not optimistic (but does end his report by asking the correct question: if all those Moslems are interpreting all those texts incorrectly, then what is the correct interpretation of those texts?).
Yes, but look at Spencer's response! Rather than dig into the teachings of NU, he simply mocks them, just as he mocked these memos. He sneers that NU thinks the terrorists are "misunderstanding" Islam, and subtlely snarks:
We have on many occasions noted the fact that this alleged misunderstanding of Islam is now a worldwide phenomenon, and that misunderstanders of Islam are often Muslim clerics who have devoted their lives to the study of the religion.
Way to go, Bob; that shows optimism and deepness of thought. The Enlightement of Christianity did indeed come to the conclusion that earlier Christianity misunderstood both the teachings of Jesus and also the Old Testament. Whether they said those words is irrelevant; the new understanding they arrived at -- in particular regarding the nexus of religion and government -- was completely different. Does Spencer also mock the Christian Enlightenment, noting that the old "misunderstanding" was universally propagated by the most revered clerics?
But even there, he relies upon polls of dubious authenticity or accuracy.
This is the worst sentence in your entire post.
There are no polls that show anything else! Some excellent pollsters have put a lot of money and time into figuring this out, and their unanimous answer has been that Muslims believe that jihad is a struggle to apply sharia everywhere by any means (the division between "lesser and greater jihad" is accepted as significant by roughly 5%). The polls match what the clerics teach. The polls hold in nations where violent coercion is rare.
There's no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the polls so thoroughly (as opposed to disbelieving them in some nations). There's every reason to accept that Muslims believe according to how their religion is preached to them.
First, the polls themselves -- even the ones Spencer quotes! -- do not show, as he claims, that "most" Moslems support jihad against the West; they show a very substantial minority, and in some countries (but not all) a plurality... but not a majority across the Moslem world.
Second, there are some subjects that simply cannot be polled, W. Polling works in a limited set of circumstances -- basically in free countries where the polling can be transparent, where there are competing pollsters, where the questions use terms that mean the same to everyone being polled, and where the issues being polled does not induce a "Bradley effect."
But these polls conducted in Moslem countries generally fail all four tests:
They're necessarily conducted in unfree countries where respondents never know who is going to find out what they said in the poll -- and what may be done to them if they don't toe the line. (Would you trust a poll conducted in Iraq in 2001?) The polling is not transparent; the relationship between the government or terrorists groups and the polls is murky -- not least because nearly all the pollster use local stringers to conduct the poll... just as the elite media use local stringers to "report" the news; that works out well, doesn't it?
The pollsters must get the cooperation of the governments... which means they often poll accompanied by soldiers and police. There is certainly no competition.
The terms they use do not mean the same thing to every respondent. For an example here, suppose you ask the question, "Do you favor or oppose engaging in diplomacy with Iran?" If 75% of people say Yes, does that mean that 75% support the Barack H. Obama approach?
No, because the word "diplomacy" means a completely different thing to me than it does to Obama. I consider what we're doing right now to be an example of diplomacy -- and Obama does not.
And this subject -- jihad -- is probably the most "Bradley effect" topic one can imagine in Islam: In many, many countries, people know that they're "supposed to" say that jihad is a duty of every Moslem. They hear it all the time in countries that have been taken over by Islamists; they even hear it in anti-Islamist countries that nevertheless have a lot of Saudi-run madrasses.
When a pollster asks you a question, and you know what you're supposed to say -- you typically say it to the pollster; it's like an oral test. But that doesn't mean you believe it or will practice it.
My entire point is that this question is untestable by polls; you can't do it. So you have to look to better evidence... and that is how Moslems actually live and what they do in practice. And what I see is that countries that are Islamist (with the Palestinian Authority as a glaring exception) must enforce their decrees by force and violence... against their own people. That is what I see in Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, and so forth; and I see much resistance against Islamist takeover in non-Islamist countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc.
I believe there are certain fundamental, evolutionary drives that are deeper than culture: And one of those drives is to live without the fear of imminent death. Militant Islamism tries to buck that drive; they want everyone to live in a state of perpetual warfare. They will lose.
You seem to be implying that Spencer was raising this straw man. He's not. He didn't say that anyone claimed this. He specifically said, and you highlighted the words in which he said, that jihad specifically refers to warfare. He didn't claim that anyone believed that it COULDN'T refer to warfare; he claimed that some on our side believe that jihad is primarily "a spiritual struggle or a struggle for justice", while few on their side believe that (and more accurately, the ones struggling for "justice" are actually struggling for sharia).
If that is his point, it's a complete non-sequitur... because that has nothing to do with the purpose of the memos. By raising that as a supposed response, Spencer is saying that the purpose of the memos is to stop saying "jihad" because jihad is a spiritual struggle.
That is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The purpose of the memo is to stop saying "jihad" because jihad has a positive connotation within Islam. They're not saying that actual holy war against evil is a misunderstanding of jihad; they're saying that by using the word jihad, we're agreeing with the terrorists that that's what they are doing... fighting a holy war against evil (that is, against us, the Great Satan).
Spencer fundamentally misunderstands the point. His argument is a complete non-sequitur. That is what I'm saying.
Instead you dismiss him personally without considering his arguments.
Oh, that's nonsense; my entire post considers his arguments. His arguments are stupid and miss the point.
We'll just have to agree to disagree about Robert Spencer.
Dafydd
The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at June 4, 2008 2:11 PM
The following hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr
necromancer, most of the points in that forwarded email aren't true as stated. None of them are necessarily true of Islam (but those few may actually be accepted by some Moslems -- which means little, since the same can be said of Christians, Jews, or atheists). It's a waste of time to refute all of them (there's just too many), but I'd be glad to look at a couple if you'd point out ones that you found especially convincing.
Please recognize that I'm not one to be covering for Islam :-), but I'd rather us deal truthfully.
The above hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr at June 4, 2008 2:34 PM
The following hissed in response by: Sachi
wtanksleyjr,
That's just not true. The best I can guess is that Sachi was reading the book with a hostile mindset; that's the only way to miss the fact ...passages.
That is simply not true. I did not have any hostile mindset against Robert Spencer. Like Spencer, I am committed to fight against Muslim terrorism.
But, his whole argument is that Islam itself is the source of evil. He was trying to prove his point by showing many examples from Koran. But the very examples he sited gave me hope. These passages can be interpreted very different ways, if Muslims choose to do so. If a Muslim who is well versed in Koran could make a good argument against violence against non-Muslims, Koran can be a strong tool. But Spencer does not see that possibility at all.
Sachi
The above hissed in response by: Sachi at June 4, 2008 2:58 PM
The following hissed in response by: necromancer
wtanksleyjr. Thanks for answering these questions as over 4000 of my guys and girls have been killed over there in the last few years and probably five times that many have been wounded.I just don't want it to be a waste of those people. And the msm is driving me bonkers with all the crap that they spew.Go to my website using google miketrani dot com slash blog then follow the info at the top of the page.There should be a contact whatever on the top.
The above hissed in response by: necromancer at June 4, 2008 4:33 PM
The following hissed in response by: TerryeL
I have read Spencer and I think Sachi is correct. The man is very rigid. I have often thought that if he is right, there is no point in trying to help the Iraqis, because they are Muslim. Therefor doomed. That is what I do not feel comfortable with in Spencer's writings.
The above hissed in response by: TerryeL at June 4, 2008 5:01 PM
The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh
Necromancer:
Since you've already gotten a response from Wtanksleyjr, who has kindly volunteered to answer one or two points that you think particularly salient, I'm going to delete the long comment of yours for several reasons:
- It's too long; it takes up half the blankety-blank page!
- As he said, virtually everything in that internet spam is utterly false. For one falsity easily swatted aside, major Moslem democracies include:
- Indonesia (Moslem population 207 million)
- Pakistan (160 million)
- Bangladesh (132 million)
- Turkey (70 million)
- Afghanistan (32 million)
- Iraq (27 million)
- and Malaysia (17 million)
- Add them up, and that's about 645 million Moslems, or nearly two-thirds of the entire Moslem world living under democracies. Note that I only listed the larger countries -- and only those that actually have competitive elections between two or more different parties, not both controlled by the same group.
- Barack H. Obama is not a Moslem and never was from the time he could choose his religion for himself; he was more or less an atheist until he was converted to Jeremiah-Wright style Christianity;
- And it's just overall insulting -- to patriotic American Moslems (I personally know a couple and Sachi knows a lot more) and also to the intelligence of the rest of us.
So away it goes. I'll leave your second post up, so if anybody wants to go to your site and respond more fully, he can.
Dafydd
The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at June 4, 2008 8:59 PM
The following hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr
This comment is a quick test to see whether my last post, which hasn't appeared yet, was simply lost by the blog software, perhaps due to the time I spent typing it up. If I see this comment appear, I will mourn my lost effort, and then rebuild the original post.
By the way, necromancer, I wasn't able to find any contact information on your blog. Please gmail me (my username@gmail there is the same as it is here).
The above hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr at June 6, 2008 7:23 AM
The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh
Wtanksleyjr:
Did you post a comment in between your June 4th, 2:34 one responding to necromancer and your June 6th, 7:23 one mentioning an unposted comment? Nothing from you came through on any level here between those two timestamps... do you remember what you wrote?
The only comment that went into automatic moderation (due to multiple links) was the one from GW on another thread, and I already approved that.
Dafydd
The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at June 6, 2008 10:22 AM
The following hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr
Yeah, I posted one on the 5th -- I've had this happen before when I take WAY too long to type up a message (start on one coffee break, post at lunch break). Normally I'm smart enough to select/copy/log back in first, but that day I wasn't. Think of it as survival of the fittest comment -- if I wasn't smart enough to get past the login timeout, my comment probably wasn't worth reading.
I'll redo it, much shorter and more fun to read. Sadly, I probably won't get to it until Tuesday -- I had to do a lot of Googling to get all the links, and don't have the time today.
The above hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr at June 6, 2008 12:39 PM
The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh
Wtanksleyjr:
Sadly, I probably won't get to it until Tuesday -- I had to do a lot of Googling to get all the links, and don't have the time today.
Doesn't your browser have a "history" menu option?
Dafydd
The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at June 6, 2008 6:53 PM
The following hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr
Okay, here's that post I promised. Sorry about that. I'm sure this will only be read by yourself; pass it on to Sachi, who deserves my apology.
1. Sachi, thank you for a courteous and thoughtful reply to a rude insinuation on my part. You have proven your ability to read people graciously, and earned my apology for my presumptuous comment. Nonetheless, I suggest that Spencer should be critiqued not for being hard-hearted in his interpretation, but for being _right_, _wrong_, or _beside the point_, because he doesn't claim to be interpreting Islam for Muslims; he claims to be reporting on Muslim interpretations of Islam. His reporting may be inaccurate, but none of you have attempted to claim that.
2. Dafydd, a longer reply:
Nobody denies that those interpretations of the Koran are currently very popular among a number of putative "authorities" (which itself is a squishy concept in Islam, since there is no official heirarchy; it's more like Judaism than Catholicism).
Well, Spencer makes a considerably stronger, more testable, and more noteworthy claim: that those interpretations are "currently very popular" on the Muslim street (as opposed to "among a number of putative authorities"), and Muslims tend to follow them; the majority tend to follow them by omission, as with the majority of believers in all major religions, but if asked/pressed confirm in every way that they believe these things and consider their own actions to be poorly representative of Islam.
THIS is the claim Spencer makes that you have totally ignored. It's the central claim in his post and his entire website. If he's correct (and the evidence indicates that, in spite of the specific outliers you list, he is), the memo is misguided. If there are arguments for his view, unless those arguments are obviously false, the rhetoric you've used in the past few posts in this series should be toned a bit down -- the people questioning the memos are not so obviously wrong as it would seem.
The open question is whether it's possible for Islam to have an "Enlightenment," as the Church did, to become more moderinist.
This is a great question, and your misunderstanding of Church history may explain why you misunderstand Spencer.
Here's where you're wrong: the Christian church didn't "have" an Enlightenment; they had a Reformation and a counter-Reformation. Western society had an Enlightenment, and *forced* it on the Church, using the ethics developed in the Enlightenment as instruments of shame against the people composing the Church. If we're going to follow the example of the Christian Church, we need to be historically accurate -- because the question here is whether reform came from within or without.
Since the Christian church was reformed by the application of shame and obloquy from without, rather than by reformation within, why do you conclude that the mosques will be reformed from within apart from our condemnation of their wrong practices?
If we want to follow the example of the Enlightenment, we have to be very clear with the Muslims: takfir is not wrong, is not shameful. We don't judge hirab (I recommend reading "Islam and War" for a detailed look at the process of development that Islamic "just war" doctrine has gone through -- it's rather different from the Western doctrines, and worthy of elaboration, but not worthy of our endorsement nor deserving of our condemnation). We condemn irhab very strongly (whether we call it terrorism or irhab). We condemn the subjugation or extermination of people for their faith (including converts), we condemn the oppression of women, and therefore we condemn the concept of jihad as they, by and large, know it.
If we do this, the prssure is on THEM to reform their religion, as Christians did to Church. Thanks to that reform, Christians can now sing "Onward Christian Soldiers", full of military paegentry as it is, and nobody watching will assume they're about to take up sword or gun.
Those groups that don't like how we see jihad had better get cracking -- their best bet at correcting us isn't nagging *us* about openmindedness; it's yelling at the people who are ACTUALLY abusing the name of Islam, the ones who actually BELIEVE, preach, and act as if that those vile things are part of Islam.
This last paragraph is a point that Spencer is constantly harping on... Most Muslim defenders start working only when somebody outside of Islam says something negative about a horror perpetrated by a Muslim, rather than when somebody inside of Islam does something horrible and claims that Islam was the source of the horror.
And for that question, the derivative question is whether it's possible to have an alternative interpretation that can gain widespread acceptance within Islam. Spencer clearly does not believe any such thing can happen; and from what little I saw in the book skimming through it -- and certainly what I've read in other articles of his -- he believes those verses simply cannot be interpreted any other way.
This time I agree entirely with your question. Unfortunately, your statement about Spencer is wrong. Spencer doesn't touch how to interpret the verses; he looks at how Muslims interpret them (see his "blogging through the Quran" series). He DOES believe that it will be very hard to get Muslims to interpret them otherwise -- but this is not necessarily because he thinks Muslims are evil, but rather because he sees that they're not being taught otherwise.
You believe that the appropriate way to change the Muslim community is to adopt their preferred language and propagandize them using their ethical terms until they change their ethics. Spencer thinks that's a waste of time: he thinks that we need to keep our ethics and apply those ethics directly to the Muslim social conventions.
And seen that way, jihad as it's practiced and preached is _bad_, not good. It violates all reasonable ethics. It's bad in the same way as many Christian church practices were bad at the time of the Enlightenment. In fact, in a crude way, it bears some similarity to some of the Christian church practices before the Enlightenment. We condemned those then, and condemn them now; let's be consistent, and go with what worked before.
Thus, saying "Yes they can" directly contradicts the deeply held position of Robert Spencer.
Spencer doesn't contradict "yes they can". He often contradicts "yes they are". Here come the links. First, a quick "yes they can" link:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2006/07/012099print.html, "join me and the true moderate Muslims" (both those who are secular and those who identify themselves as believers) in condemning jihad as a demonstrably evil institution..."
Next a "yes they are":
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2004/03/001159print.html (here he notes the democratic reform that's being imposed on Morroco and speaks highly and hopefully of how it's being done -- although, consistent with his other writings, he explains how these reforms contain challenges to fundamental interpretations within modern views of Islam).
And a "no they're not"... Well, I'm not going to pick and choose; almost any news report on his site will serve, with one or two happy exceptions. Over and over, he cites news items that he claims indicates that Muslims are not paying any attention at all to the reformers that the West is so excited about, and that they are overwhelmingly paying attention to the "extremists" (who, Spencer concludes, are actually therefore mainstream).
And finally, for fairness, the most pessimistic essay I could find; it wasn't written by Spencer, but since he posted it without comment he must agree:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2006/05/011494print.html. Here we see claimed not only that extreme changes are needed, and that those changes aren't happening outside of tiny communities (most without support from the West); we also see the claim that "It can't be done." This essay contains the gratest challenge I could find to my thesis that Spencer believes Islam to be reformable, so of course I have to attempt to address the challenge.
So, what exactly does Spencer think can't be done? Answer from the essay: "How could anyone ... who knows anything about Islam and the umma believe ... [in] 'reform' without ... explaining how they think the Muslim masses could ever accept [it]." (I apologise for my extensive editing -- that sentance was too complex, but I think you'll find that my parsing is accurate.) So Spencer's cohort isn't claiming that the reform can't be done; he's claiming that nobody could believe in reform without any explanation of how the Muslim masses would accept the reform.
And that's a fine question indeed! Perhaps if an entire country with a moderate population, like Turkey or Iran, were to reexamine the essentials of Islam, their population would serve as a center for the spread of the reinterpretation... but that isn't happening (we thought it was happening with Turkey, but sadly, they corrected us to announce that it's not).
This essay contains much more tortured grammar -- I'm not impressed with it. In my opinion the author is not merely self-important and obsessed with pretentiousness; he's actually deliberately creating misunderstandings to allow people like me (who can read what he's actually writing) and Islamophobes (who will assume that the essay begins and ends with "it can't be done") to both walk away happy. If this were Spencer's writing you'd be right to call him names (as I just called the actual author names). But it's not.
So why are you calling names?
I think this battle has to be fought on multiple fronts; and those of us who use ideas must wield them with discretion.
The above hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr at June 21, 2008 1:32 PM
The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh
Wtanksleyjr:
Since the Christian church was reformed by the application of shame and obloquy from without, rather than by reformation within, why do you conclude that the mosques will be reformed from within apart from our condemnation of their wrong practices?
The Christian church wasn't reformed by moralistic shaming from China or Egypt or the Incas; it was reformed by the surrounding culture of Western Europe itself.
In fact, in a crude way, it bears some similarity to some of the Christian church practices before the Enlightenment. We condemned those then, and condemn them now; let's be consistent, and go with what worked before.
"We" (our forebears) condemned the excesses of religiosity and corruption from within the culture; that is a crucial requirement.
I precisely meant that I expect the radical mosques to be reformed by larger political movements within the Islamic world. It's a mistake to insist, as Spencer appears to do, that it can only be tamed by Christian truculence.
(I should use "renaissance" rather than "Enlightenment," because I believe Western civilization first began to change in the direction we're talking about in the late 1300s... not just in the eighteenth century -- the "Age of Enlightenment" -- or even only after Luther in the early sixteenth.)
I expect a renaissance that will come internally from the Moslem world, where I believe most Moslems are not themselves radicalized and only "support" the radicals in polling because of the Bradley Effect. We cannot achieve the result by ordering Islam to reform itself.
Unfortunately, your statement about Spencer is wrong. Spencer doesn't touch how to interpret the verses; he looks at how Muslims interpret them (see his "blogging through the Quran" series).
No, he looks at how some-but-not-all Moslems interpret them (as Robert Anton Wilson contracts that expression, sombunall). Nobody has really surveyed Moslems intelligently enough to determine how many of them believe the Spencerian interpretation of the Koran and how many just mouth those words which their local authorities demand (often at pain of death for non-obedience).
I don't even know that such a thing can be effectively and properly polled; not every question is pollable. But clearly only sombunall Moslems interpret the Koran to mean what Spencer writes in that book. The Turks don't appear to do, nor the Iranian population apart from the mullahs and their cohorts, and neither do most Indonesians (the largest Moslem country in the world). Nor do most American Moslems, nor tens of millions of Moslems in other parts of Asia. Those are some pretty tall exceptions.
He DOES believe that it will be very hard to get Muslims to interpret them otherwise -- but this is not necessarily because he thinks Muslims are evil, but rather because he sees that they're not being taught otherwise.
We certainly agree that without the "Moslem in the street" having theological authority for a more benign interpretation of the Koran, to counteract the radical interpretation, it will be virtually impossible for the radicalized part of the Islamic world to enjoy a renaissance. But such authorities exist and appear to be gaining strength. At least we're seeing more of them; and the radicalization itself is a reaction to increasing secularization within the Islamic world.
You believe that the appropriate way to change the Muslim community is to adopt their preferred language and propagandize them using their ethical terms until they change their ethics.
I said no such thing.
I said that we cannot expect Moslems to react as negatively to words like "jihad" and "mujahidin" as we Westerners do. Using such terms invokes a respectful and godly image in the minds of Moslems... so why are we conspiring with the radical Islamists to praise them?
That is completely different from "adopt[ing] their preferred language."
And seen that way, jihad as it's practiced and preached is _bad_, not good. It violates all reasonable ethics. It's bad in the same way as many Christian church practices were bad at the time of the Enlightenment.
You and I agree that jihad in practice is evil. But the sticking point with most Moslems is that the radicals have played the same game that Leftists here in the West have played, which I characterize as "argument by tendentious redefinition."
The radicals took a concept that was sometimes used to mean killing infidels and other times used to mean a spiritual struggle against sin... and simply erased the second definition. But the traditional connotations of the words -- including the more benign one -- remain, muddying the waters.
Here is an example from our own culture: Suppose you are trying to persuade liberals not to nationalize the oil companies, as Maxine Waters urges. It does you no good to say, "You can't do that -- it's progressivist!"
Now, we both believe (I believe) that Progressivism in the early 20th century led to horrible abuses, such as eugenics and anti-sedition laws and the other elements of liberal fascism. But the word "progressive" has a very pleasant connotation to the bulk of liberals... so dubbing some policy progressivist will not have the same effect on liberals as it would on conservatives and other anti-liberals.
So I would advise you not to use that word; it would actually be counterproductive. Instead, use a word like "fascist," which is equally negative to both Left and Right.
As to the two articles you linked, the first is not by Robert Spencer but by Andrew G. Bostom instead.
The second article has no byline, so I shall assume it is by Spencer himself. But it hardly contradicts anything I wrote: In fact, Spencer seems extraordinarily skeptical that the reforms touted by the Moroccan ambassador to the United States, Aziz Mekouar, will amount to anything:
I applaud the Moroccan King's efforts to reform Islam, as that is just what is needed on a large scale, but the proof of the pudding will be the general acceptance of these women's rights laws by Muslims in his own country, as well as their adoption as principles for reform by other Muslim countries. Instead, so far we have seen resistance, including suicide bombings.
Well sure; there are radical reactionaries throughout the Islamic world. But have we also seen acceptance by the Moroccan public? Spencer doesn't tell us... which is odd, as that should be the point of the entire essay.
Nowhere does Spencer rise from his gloomy world and say, "gee, this might really work!" Instead, I read a world-weary shake of the head and an unstated groan of here we go again, another blind alley.
You're certainly not making your point that Spencer has the slightest belief or even hope that the Islamic world will ever -- can ever -- experience a renaissance. Instead, it's the same message of futility and utter hopelessness that I read in all Spencerian maundering.
Perhaps if an entire country with a moderate population, like Turkey or Iran, were to reexamine the essentials of Islam, their population would serve as a center for the spread of the reinterpretation... but that isn't happening.
Well, it wasn't happening in Christendom in 1100, 1200, or 1300, either. But by the middle of the fifteenth century, the renaissance was in full swing in many countries throughout Europe.
If I may be permitted the indulgence of quoting from the lunatic Charles Fort (it's attributed to him), I believe that "it steam engines when it's steam-engine time." When the Islamic renaissance appears, it will be sudden and unexpected, and it will sweep Islamdom like a prairie fire.
So why are you calling names?
Because Spencer himself deserves to be called an unthinking pessimist who does more harm than good. He is the right-wing equivalent of Squeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Haight-Ashbury, 93%) saying we cannot drill our way out of this oil shortage.
Dafydd
The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at June 22, 2008 5:01 AM
The following hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr
Because Spencer himself deserves to be called an unthinking pessimist who does more harm than good.
Hmm. Good arguments; I'm convinced. I've removed him from my RSS reader. One of the best arguments against him (which you didn't use) is to look at the comments on his blog. Granted, he doesn't, can't, and shouldn't control all of his commenters, but he did set the environment in which they thrive.
I like the clarifications you make here on your own positions, too; I agree that the Renaissance is more applicable to what we need than the Enlightenment (although we must hope and work for both).
My thoughts: As far as I can see, this task should be approached from a number of different angles; if we can divide the enemy by peeling off people who can be persuaded that external Jihad as originally taught by Mohamed is evil, then we should do so. We should be using commerce to build a Renaissance, philosophy to build an Enlightenment, war to defeat dangers to us (and as a side effect to quench feelings of superiority or destiny), and so on. We should use history and textual criticism to build an accurate picture of Muslim and tribal heritage.
I suppose I had a lot of nervousness about your apparent anger against the people who were looking at the problem differently; but on reflection I see that your anger is towards people who wish to veto any approach other than their own favorite -- especially when those people don't even predict success for their own approach.
Enough babbling from me. Thanks for the deep research and work you've done here.
The above hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr at July 14, 2008 11:08 AM
The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh
Wtanksleyjr:
My thoughts: As far as I can see, this task should be approached from a number of different angles; if we can divide the enemy by peeling off people who can be persuaded that external Jihad as originally taught by Mohamed is evil, then we should do so. We should be using commerce to build a Renaissance, philosophy to build an Enlightenment, war to defeat dangers to us (and as a side effect to quench feelings of superiority or destiny), and so on. We should use history and textual criticism to build an accurate picture of Muslim and tribal heritage.
I agree completely.
Dafydd
The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at July 14, 2008 5:36 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)
(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved
)
