May

Religious Bigotry from the Right

Posted by: Wordsmith @ 10:16 am in Fanatical Islam, Hearts & Minds, Middle East, Mohammed Cartoons, Religion, The Iraqi War, War On Terror

Visited 1298 times, 3 so far today

Muslims attend Eid-al-Fitr prayers on a street in Mumbai, India. Muslims across the world are celebrating Eid al-Fitr, the festival marking the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan.Punit Paranjpe, Reuters

Most people assume that bigotry and prejudice are born of ignorance. Of a lack of education. This is true. But I think it is also based upon an overabundance of “slanted” knowledge.

Like many FA readers, after 9/11, I steeped myself in literature of the Robert Spencer-variety, warning me of the dangers of (radical/political ) Islam. Anyone who wanted to define Islam as “a religion of peace” was ridiculed as being asleep and ignorant; of having drunk the political correctness kool-aid and multiculturalist nonsense. And they were right.

But now, I think we have become so “educated” on Islam, that as mostly outsiders looking in, we have only educated ourselves to the opposite extreme, in our views. And that is just as damaging to fighting and winning the war against Islamic terror as it is to deny that we are engaged in a real war with a radical movement. Yes, radical. Not normative, but extremist, radicalism.

I know allies of mine on the right insist that radical Islam is the norm; that there is no such thing as a “moderate” Muslim, unless he be an apostate to the religion of Islam. And they will point me to all the passages from the Hadith and Koran that I’m already familiar with, and tell Muslims that they know Islam better than the Muslims themselves know Islam. Great.

A devout Muslim tells you he is peaceful, and you tell him, “No you’re not; and if you are, you don’t know Islam. You’re not a real Muslim, because I read Robert Spencer’s books and know better than you do about your own faith; you don’t get to define it, who practice it; I get to define it for you, who studies a slant side of it.” Merely reading anti-Islamic books and taking the Koranic word literally, isn’t necessarily education. It’s an important part of our education; but when you are only immersed in a one-sided viewpoint with an agenda, then that becomes propaganda. Propaganda from the right, countering propaganda from the left. Somewhere amidst all of that, lies the reality.

Michelle Malkin is a high-profile blogger of great influence, with many “fans” on the right side of the blogosphere.

Amy Proctor’s reaction to one of Malkin’s latest entries, is shared by myself as well. By way of Bottomline Upfront:

Michelle Malkin’s appalling new series on her blog, Stuff Muslims Don’t Like: A new feature, is inflammatory, insulting and ignorant. My husband is a MSG in the Army and a Religious Leader Engagement subject matter expert in the war on terror, particularly relating to Iraq, and he is equally appalled. She justifies her series by comparing it to a blog called Stuff White People Like:

“Of course, Stuff Muslims Don’t Like doesn’t purport to characterize the entire Muslim population anymore than Stuff White People Like purports to characterize the entire population of white people. It’s a look at predictable predilictions, proclivities, and trends.”

Sure it doesn’t, Michelle. She makes no distinction between an entire population and whoever her swipes are intended for. Her flawed analogy doesn’t consider that Islam is a religion, not a race.

A sign of a mature, 21st century-evolved religion, is one that is thick-skinned enough to endure irreverent humor and insults without flying off the handle. So someone like Bill Maher enjoys the freedom to slander the Pope and insult a great religion and we have the freedom to criticize him for it. Bill Maher isn’t courageous, since he knows Catholic Crusadists aren’t going to come after him and take his life; all he can whine about in terms of persecution and freedom of speech, is if his HBO show has the plug pulled because we exercised our freedom of speech in expressing our indignation and dissatisfaction. Real courage is standing up to the Islamic crazies. It’s when Iraqis like,

Abu Ali said that on 1 April 2007, he and his people attacked al Qaeda in Buhriz for their crimes against Islam. He also said something that many Muslims have said to me: al Qaeda are not Muslims. (Both Sunni and Shia have said nearly the exact same words, at times on video.)

Abu Ali said that “al Qaeda is an abomination of Islam: cutting off heads, stealing people’s money, kidnapping . . . every type of torture they have done.”

Muslims like him, who oppose the hirabahists, should be embraced as the true adherence to Islam. The majority of Muslims who are not plotting to subjugated the entire world under Islamic fundamentalism should be allowed to define who and what they are; not the armchair Spencerian Islamic scholars and not the Zawahiris and Qutbists.

You say you want to win the War on Terror? Win in Iraq? How does that instill confidence in Abu Ali that he chose not only the winning side by allying with the U.S., but also that he chose the right side, when we lash out as his religion, as a whole, rather than surgically zero in on the Wahhabists, Salafi fundamentalists, and Qutbist ideologists who are waging war on everyone, including on Muslims?

Amy Proctor writes further,

It goes on with comments of blathering ignorance of proportions that make me shudder. Do Malkin readers hold those views toward this man and his son? Or these Muslim women who are laying down their lives for their country? How about this man? Or these blind children and their amazing teacher? They’re Muslim, too. How about this Muslim who teaches children that the United States is their friend? Or this man and his son? Or these Muslims who reached out to the Vatican in a gesture of unity and peace? How about this Iraqi volunteer who saved U.S. troops and civilians by throwing himself on a suicide bomber? Funny, because I thought she and her readers typically praise these Muslims

Muslims have been losing their lives, fighting against al-Qaeda and other Islamic terror networks. American Muslims such as Dr. Zuhdi Jasser (if CAIR is the Jesse Jackson Rainbow/PUSH Coalition of the Muslim community, Jasser is like the Michael Steele of American Muslims) acknowledges that his faith needs reformation and modernization; telling devout Muslims like him that Islam cannot be reformed, or it’s no longer Islam, is like telling all the branches of Christianity that continue to spring up that they are not true Christianity, because they don’t practice the faith as it was practiced two thousand years ago (or is it 6,000?).

No, I’m not drawing a moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam. I’m neither a Biblical nor Koranic scholar, and am not talking about theological tenets. I realize that at their core, they have fundamental differences. Christianity has evolved. I find that a portion of the Muslim world is still rooted in 12th and 7th century cultural-thinking and beliefs.

Michael Totten points to a part of the Islamic world that has embraced modernity…and they aren’t even in the United States:

I’m writing this from the capital of Kosovo, the least “scary” Muslim country on Earth. I’ve grown accustomed to moderate Muslims after living in and traveling to places like Beirut and Istanbul, but Kosovo is surprising even to me. Islam in this country is so thoroughly liberal (“moderate” doesn’t quite cover it) that, if it weren’t for the mosques, there would be no visible evidence that Kosovo is a Muslim country at all. I’ve been in Prishtina, the capital, for four days, and I can count the number of women I’ve seen wearing a hijab on one hand. Aside from the conservative dating culture, women here are as liberated as Christian women in the rest of the Balkan region.

A large number of Kosovo’s Muslims are Sufis—the most peaceful and the least fundamentalist of all the world’s Muslims. Sufis can be found in many parts of the Islamic world, but here in Kosovo they proudly proclaim that they are the most “progressive” of all.

Soft-imperial Wahhabis are trying to export their brand of Islam from the deserts of Saudi Arabia to this fertile green land. They have their work cut out for them with this crowd. Bosnia notoriously welcomed thousands of Salafist mujahideen fighters from the Arab world during Yugoslavia’s violent demise. But the Kosovo Liberation Army brusquely told them to stay the hell out of their country—even while they faced an ethnic cleansing campaign directed from Belgrade.

Amy Proctor:

Malkin and her commenters ought to be ashamed of themselves. They say they support the war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq but systematically insult the allies GEN Petraeus and our troops are making on the ground in the combat zone. Their words are as poisonous as any Democrat’s who continue to call Iraqis too lazy to fight for their own country. While politicians like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich argue that a U.S. presence in the Middle East in and of itself has provoked Muslim nations to take aim at U.S. interests around the globe, it is sentiments like Michelle Malkin’s that make it more difficult for Muslims to want U.S. soldiers on their soil. If these people are the friends of the troops, who needs enemies?

Some previous posts:
One Muslim’s Jihad, is Another Muslim’s Hirabah
LA Screening of Islam vs. Islamists
Counter-Propaganda
Dhimmi Я NOT Us
Understanding Counter-Insurgency
Islam for Dhimmis

Print This Post

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 11th, 2008 at 10:16 am and is filed under Fanatical Islam, Hearts & Minds, Middle East, Mohammed Cartoons, Religion, The Iraqi War, War On Terror. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

47 comments so far

john Ryan

I always think it a bit funny when we say that one of our goals in Iraq is to produce a LIBERAL democracy.
The problems that we are having with Islam now are not coming from the liberal wing of that religion.

May 11th, 2008 at 11:54 am

Skye

Jasser is like the Michael Steele of American Muslims) acknowledges that his faith needs reformation and modernization; telling devout Muslims like him that Islam cannot be reformed,..

My fear is that Islam can reform, and has, its reformation is towards radicalized Islam. We need to recognize and support those moslems who reject this rabid destruction of their faith.

It goes on with comments of blathering ignorance of proportions that make me shudder. Do Malkin readers hold those views toward this man and his son? Or these Muslim women who are laying down their lives for their country? How about this man? Or these blind children and their amazing teacher? They’re Muslim, too. How about this Muslim who teaches children that the United States is their friend? Or this man and his son? Or these Muslims who reached out to the Vatican in a gesture of unity and peace? How about this Iraqi volunteer who saved U.S. troops and civilians by throwing himself on a suicide bomber? Funny, because I thought she and her readers typically praise these Muslims

It is good that Amy Proctor has gathered these examples, as I don’t recall them making headline news ANYWHERE.

Quite frankly, I wish that Michelle Malkin has run concurrently a report of Moslems reaching out to western civilization. We need to educate ourselves on the destructive and pervasive nature of radical islam and recognize and support those moslems who are fighting to save their faith.

May 11th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

marinetbryant

Ok, I’ve had my knee jerk WTF moment.

I’m of the opinion that if you ain’t for us you’re agin us. Most Muslims have no clue as to what is going on because all their media is controlled by the radical element and, just guessing, most can’t read. They are “schooled” to memorize the Koran, not read it. Should they have a question they go to the very ones who are pushing the ummah. Some Christian leaders threaten folks with eternal damnation but in my experience most try to help one understand the Bible and then let you go and reconcile the differences between your soul and God.

Islam is, from my limited understanding, solely about spreading the Islam by hook or crook, submission or death. If Muslims get offended, and they do quite frequently, then they should look deeply at their belief. And if you are afraid to even do that then you are not free and deserving of tolerance, sympathy or respect.

Some are saying that the latest cease fire in Sadr City was not because of the military but because the “people” were fed up. People, not Muslims. What does it tell one when the head Iraqi imam says nothing, for or against?

Maybe goading is not PC but it does get the ones we are really fighting to stand up and be noticed, by our intel and military. Kind of separating the wheat from the chaff and putting a big bullseye on their butts.

I believe the average person in the street is not offended unless told to be so by imams and what-not. We are winning the hearts and minds of the children and by extension their mothers and fathers.

Tom

May 11th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Mike's America

John Ryan blathered: “I always think it a bit funny when we say that one of our goals in Iraq is to produce a LIBERAL democracy.”

Who said such a thing J.R?

Give me links to quotes.

Either that or retract that absurdly stupid, revealingly ignorant comment.

May 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

MataHarley

John Ryan said:

I always think it a bit funny when we say that one of our goals in Iraq is to produce a LIBERAL democracy.

What’s this “we” stuff, Kemosabi? POTUS and WH statements say Iraq democracy will not, and should not look like ours. They use the terms “united, democractic” and “federal”. Liberal never comes up but from uninformed pundits, bloggers and commenters… uh, if the shoe fits… and of course, in your dreams

One example of victory is this WH statement…

“Our goal in Iraq remains the same: a united, democratic, federal Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself,” the statement said. “Iraq’s leaders must and will take the lead in determining how to achieve these national aspirations. … attempts to partition or divide Iraq by intimidation, force or other means into three separate states would produce extraordinary suffering and bloodshed.”

I know there’s a lot of words and data flying thru cyberspace. But please maintain a grip on reality and the sources please. Because CNN or a blogger says it’s so, doesn’t mean it is.

May 11th, 2008 at 1:08 pm

MataHarley

Agreed on your suggested better use of Malkin’s influence, Skye.

I fear that Michelle, much like O’Reilly and Coulter, has become an egocentric caricature of herself… Too much fame and perhaps too little far reaching perspective.

May 11th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

yonason

The Temple mount, and specifically the spot covered by their Dome, is the Holiest place in the world. See how much “respect” they have for it?

HINT - It’s behind them.

May 11th, 2008 at 1:41 pm

yonason

A large number of Kosovo’s Muslims are Sufis—the most peaceful and the least fundamentalist of all the world’s Muslims.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule

See, http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=299also here.

May 11th, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Gregory Dittman

Some of the stuff is cultural. Some of it’s religion and sometimes even their own culture has mixed up the two. For example which is older, burkhas or Islam? Well it’s burkhas and if you’ve see a sand storm, you would probably understand how a burqa could be practical. Even western women wore scarves and hat outdoors up until the 1960s and could have been mistaken for the Sunni look. Both did it for the same reason. Sun, dirt and sand build up in the hair is gross if one doesn’t bathe often. That’s why western women also wore perfume. Now with the modern plumbing complete around the western world, western women can enjoy bathing more than once a day while women in many places whith a high Muslim population still have a water shortage for drinking let alone bathing.

Fully dressed while swimming? Is the guy on our right a Muslim?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/panamaxel/2318564291/
err how about these western bathing suits:
http://www.fashion-era.com/images/Edwds1890-1915/beauties.jpg
yep, it was in the 1940s when even the U.S. style of swimming clothing started to shrink.
Of course many cultures don’t swim so changes in swimming suit styles might be non existant.

Women’s rights in America started to be recognized by the the U.S. culture just last century. The movement that got the right for woment to vote took 72 years, sometimes with imprisonment (just to try to gross out the women). In 1920 women finally got the right to vote. The “glass ceiling” cause was a 1970s event and cases of that still happen today. In the west culture, domestic violence leads the way in violent crime against women. Again I feel plates where woment are treated poorly are cultural traits and not Islamic traits.

Terrorism or Islam, which came first? Well the Koran lists several punishments relating to modern day terorists. There is punishments for killing the unarmed, for killing civililians and for terrorism and committing suicide. There are also punishments for heretics and warnings against false teachings. These people are not followers of Islam, but going against whole sections of the Koran. They have Osama bin Laden while the west had David Koresh, Jim Jones and Charles Manson, the KKK, Earth First (when compared to the Sierra Club or the Green party) among others. There are over one billion Muslims in the world. Many can’t read and many areas have little federal government sway. They are locked into tribes which could easily be corrupted by false teachings. The Koran even recognized the problem and there were systems set up to try to deal with it. It’s really up to the tribal leaders to implement those policies, but few leaders will give up without a fight and so the system has broken down and corruption runs high. It’s the old saying about power corrupting.

I believe the West should take in the cultural influences more than the religious influences, because even in the West God is on the side of whomever is praying even when two parties are fighting each other.

May 11th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Amy Proctor

Wordsmith, my husband and I love you. The Army needs more people like you who “get it”. We’ve been talking to friends in the military, LT COLs, COLs, etc., who also cringe when they see features like Michelle Malkin’s. The Army is working hard (and the Marines, and the Navy…) to counteract this sort of cultural ignorance but it is a very difficult task. It’s easier for people to paint with a broad brush rather than distinguish between the extremists and the orthodox.

May 11th, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Amy Proctor

By the way, I was just reading Robert Spencer’s series BLogging the Quran, which is equally as damaging. If he took equal time to line by line expose the Torah we would have to demonize Israel and G*d as well.

It’s all about the context.

May 11th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

alan143

Thanks for the link to Michelle’s item - looks pretty nice to me.

I improved my understanding of “moderate” muslims when I worked with one for a year. We talked, eventually in great depth.

You seem to think moderate muslims accept and permit the status quo you’re enjoying - liberty, sexual freedom and stuff. Well, no they don’t, don’t don’t! Think secret Bible Belt on steroids.

When Islam has grown through births & corporate takeovers, and adds to the power of the Bible Belt on issues like creationism, abortion, fathers rights, religion in school, and can impose this at federal level, what will you say about “moderating” your response then?

You’ll be treated as the terrorist if you protest. OK, so defend something now please.

May 11th, 2008 at 3:46 pm

I’d have to agree, with Winston Churchill that is Winston Churchill on Islam
The River War | 1899 | Sir Winston Churchill

Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 7:30:18 PM by southernnorthcarolina

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

– Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 [London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899]).

May 11th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Wordsmith

I improved my understanding of “moderate” muslims when I worked with one for a year. We talked, eventually in great depth.

I live in diverse LA, where there are plenty of Arabic and Persian immigrants, many of them Muslim. Attended UCLA over 15 years ago, and got to know and interact with a number of those who call themselves Muslim. I can only think of one Pakistani student during the time of the Gulf War, who I wonder about today, in regards to how he felt about what was going on at the time.

The only ones who ever tried to convert me were those belonging to the cult-like LA Church of Christ. No, not at the point of a sword….but could they ever be any less annoying? Going up to complete strangers to invite them to a volleyball game or picnic, with the ulterior motive of Bible Study, in mind.

You seem to think moderate muslims accept and permit the status quo you’re enjoying - liberty, sexual freedom and stuff. Well, no they don’t, don’t don’t! Think secret Bible Belt on steroids.

A good friend and former co-worker of mine several years ago, is Muslim, her family originally coming from France. I’d say she is as sexually free and liberated as any native-born American citizen.

I suppose you should define for me what is a “moderate” Muslim, first of all. I usually put that in quotations when I use it these days, because it means different things to different readers.

I’m as judgmental as the next American who likes to compare with moral unequivalence, other cultures by our standards and practices of liberty and liberal-mindedness. I’m as horrified by honor killings and repulsed by subjugation of women’s rights, as you are.

But part of it flourishes out of cultural traditions. Culture and religion are deeply intertwined; but in the War on Terror, I think it’s important to distinguish between those who wish to kill us or subjugate us from those who you or I might judgmentally deem, “culturally backward” and “repulsive”, along with those who are “merely” anti-American the way leftist liberals in Europe are anti-American: Doesn’t automatically mean they will strap on a bomb for 72 virgins and engage in or support terrorist activities against the U.S.

If we don’t single out the Islamic terrorists as the focus of military intervention, but wish to include any anti-American Muslim and “culturally backward” Muslim because their way of life is offensive to us, then we’ve just expanded and prolonged the war. Do you wish to change their way of life at the barrel of a gun? How is that different from the fundamentalist’s desire to dhimmify you at the point of a sword? Intolerance, it would appear, is not the sole propriety of Islamists.

When Islam has grown through births & corporate takeovers, and adds to the power of the Bible Belt on issues like creationism, abortion, fathers rights, religion in school, and can impose this at federal level, what will you say about “moderating” your response then?

You’ll be treated as the terrorist if you protest.

There’s a line between maintaining vigilance and engaging in conspiratorial paranoia. With attitudes like yours, we will be warring with 1.5 billion Muslims, including those who fight alongside us AGAINST the radicals and militant terrorists.

Read a few of these articles by Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, then get back to me.

Rather than calling him a “moderate” (if one considers CAIR to represent “moderates”), perhaps “modern” is a better term?

OK, so defend something now please.

I have.

One Muslim’s Jihad, is Another Muslim’s Hirabah
LA Screening of Islam vs. Islamists
Counter-Propaganda
Dhimmi Я NOT Us
Understanding Counter-Insurgency
Islam for Dhimmis

May 11th, 2008 at 5:54 pm

MDenis39

CK - I revere Mr. Churchill and all that he did to stand up to Germany while the rest of the world (including many in the US) dithered, appeased, and stalled. However I would not take cultural lessons fom the man as he was a reknowned Imperialist (or Empirist?) who was fond of stating that India would never receive their freedom as long as he was PM. I’m with him on strength, character, honor, and duty but not on his view that darker folks were inferior to the British race.

I agree with Mr. Dittman that you need to take into account the different Muslim cultures because that determines what type of Islam is spread. Those that are moderate need to be coaxed along to help bring them into a modern view of the world (ie - tolerance = good).

Perhaps an example would be to look back at our own history to see a case where one culture influenced another to make us a stronger United States. In his book “Black Rednecks & White Liberals”, Thomas Sowell compares the work ethic of white southerners to that of Yankee northerners after the civil war:

“Their labors tended to be intermittent-often when they were pressed for money, rather than a steady employment career. Frederick Law Olmsted called it ‘lazy poverty’” (parallel to the Churchill quote above)

This view was also shared by Thomas Jefferson, Alexis de Tocqueville, even Robert E. Lee who stated, “Our people are opposed to work. Our troops, officers, community and press all ridicule and resist it.”

Can we state the same today, over 100 years later? I think not - some of the most bustling, hard-working and growing cities in the US are in Alabama, Texas, Georgia.

I point to this to show how in our own history, one culture (northen) affects another culture (southern) for the common good of the whole. The same lessons that moderate muslims will teach the others. It will take generations to learn, but as more people see the prospect of something better (freedom to choose) versus repression (rule by the caliphate), we will all be better served.

Right now, the American Military is spreading the word of that choice. I’m praying that we succeed in the battles of Iraq & Afghanistan in our effort to show the morality of America. According to Michael Yon in Moment of Truth, the battles are going well - for now.

May 11th, 2008 at 7:58 pm

Mike's America

MDennis39: I didn’t see Churchill’s description of Islam as suggesting in any way that “darker folks were inferior to the British race.”

Churchill wrote those words after first hand experience in the Sudan war with the Mahdi (a self styled chosen one) and after first hand experience in what is now Waziristan.

I don’t believe that all Muslims are as fanatical as those who today proclaim a violent jihad, anymore than I believe Churchill was describing all Muslims when he wrote those words in 1899.

However, I am a little unclear as to the relative numbers of those who do believe in violent jihad and those who do not?

Since both Wordsmith and Amy Proctor have looked into this issue in some detail, perhaps they could provide an answer.

May 11th, 2008 at 8:23 pm

MDenis39

Mike - regarding Churchill - I was mixing two points, sorry for the confusion. His reference to the darker folks being inferior to the British was part of his paternalistic attitude regarding the people of India not being able to govern themselves.

May 11th, 2008 at 8:36 pm

yonason

Another apparent exception appears to be Sufi “Zikr” which is a kind of chanting, dancing, gyrating meditation, which can be mildly interesting at the high end, while in some of it’s cruder forms it seems pretty weird, especially when coupled with a desire to re-establish a Muslim empire.

So, before I rush to embrace Suni over other denominations of Muslims, I need still more data: a lot more.

I can’t help but think, “Welcome to another episode of “LAST DERVISH TWIRLING.” (ok., it would be a lot funnier if they kept falling ’till only one was left, but that’s what I thought of when they focused in on just one of them.)

May 11th, 2008 at 8:51 pm

Wordsmith

Mike’s America wrote:

Since both Wordsmith and Amy Proctor have looked into this issue in some detail, perhaps they could provide an answer.

Who knows with any certainty? Perhaps 1-3% out of 1.5 billion? 10%? A vocal and sizable minority with perhaps another larger percentage sympathetic to the “Islamic holy warriors” who engage in terrorism. Certainly not the converse, 90% radical/political Islamist.

Can’t trust surveys and polls:

Major survey challenges Western perceptions of Islam

Feb 27, 2008

WASHINGTON (AFP) — A huge survey of the world’s Muslims released Tuesday challenges Western notions that equate Islam with radicalism and violence.

The survey, conducted by the Gallup polling agency over six years and three continents, seeks to dispel the belief held by some in the West that Islam itself is the driving force of radicalism.

It shows that the overwhelming majority of Muslims condemned the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 and other subsequent terrorist attacks, the authors of the study said in Washington.

“Samuel Harris said in the Washington Times (in 2004): ‘It is time we admitted that we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam’,” Dalia Mogahed, co-author of the book “Who Speaks for Islam” which grew out of the study, told a news conference here.

“The argument Mr Harris makes is that religion in the primary driver” of radicalism and violence, she said.

“Religion is an important part of life for the overwhelming majority of Muslims, and if it were indeed the driver for radicalisation, this would be a serious issue.”

But the study, which Gallup says surveyed a sample equivalent to 90 percent of the world’s Muslims, showed that widespread religiosity “does not translate into widespread support for terrorism,” said Mogahed, director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies.

About 93 percent of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates and only seven percent are politically radical, according to the poll, based on more than 50,000 interviews.

In majority Muslim countries, overwhelming majorities said religion was a very important part of their lives — 99 percent in Indonesia, 98 percent in Egypt, 95 percent in Pakistan.

But only seven percent of the billion Muslims surveyed — the radicals — condoned the attacks on the United States in 2001, the poll showed.

Moderate Muslims interviewed for the poll condemned the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington because innocent lives were lost and civilians killed.

“Some actually cited religious justifications for why they were against 9/11, going as far as to quote from the Koran — for example, the verse that says taking one innocent life is like killing all humanity,” she said.

Meanwhile, radical Muslims gave political, not religious, reasons for condoning the attacks, the poll showed.

The survey shows radicals to be neither more religious than their moderate counterparts, nor products of abject poverty or refugee camps.

“The radicals are better educated, have better jobs, and are more hopeful with regard to the future than mainstream Muslims,” John Esposito, who co-authored “Who Speaks for Islam”, said.

“Ironically, they believe in democracy even more than many of the mainstream moderates do, but they’re more cynical about whether they’ll ever get it,” said Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University in Washington.

Gallup launched the study following 9/11, after which US President George W. Bush asked in a speech, which is quoted in the book: “Why do they hate us?”

“They hate… a democratically elected government,” Bush offered as a reason.

“They hate our freedoms — our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.”

But the poll, which gives ordinary Muslims a voice in the global debate that they have been drawn into by 9/11, showed that most Muslims — including radicals — admire the West for its democracy, freedoms and technological prowess.

What they do not want is to have Western ways forced on them, it said.

“Muslims want self-determination, but not an American-imposed and -defined democracy. They don’t want secularism or theocracy. What the majority wants is democracy with religious values,” said Esposito.

The poll has given voice to Islam’s silent majority, said Mogahed.

“A billion Muslims should be the ones that we look to, to understand what they believe, rather than a vocal minority,” she told AFP.

Muslims in 40 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East were interviewed for the survey, which is part of Gallup’s World Poll that aims to interview 95 percent of the world’s population.

Here’s a skeptic’s response:

take the authors’ apparent indifference to facts. Twice, for example, they cite as convincing evidence for their argument poll data from “the ten most populous majority Muslim countries,” which they then list as including Jordan and Lebanon, tiny states that don’t even rank in the top 25 of Muslim majority countries. Twice they say their 10 specially polled countries collectively comprise 80 percent of the world Muslim population; in fact, the figure is barely 60 percent.

These problems would not matter much if the book gave readers the opportunity to review the poll data on which Esposito and Mogahed base their judgments. Alas, that is not the case. Neither the text nor the appendix includes the full data to a single question from any survey taken by Gallup over the entire six-year period of its World Poll initiative. We, the readers, either have to pay more than $20,000 to Gallup to gain access to its proprietary research or have to rely on the good faith of the authors.

Or, more accurately, we have to rely on Gallup’s good name–the “integrity, trust and independence” cited above. Public comments by Mogahed at a luncheon I hosted at the Washington Institute on April 17 show exactly what that is worth.

Here’s the context: As the event was about to close, Mogahed was pressed to explain the book’s central claim that radicals constitute 7 percent of the world’s Muslim population. A questioner focused on the critical distinction between the 7 percent of respondents who said the 9/11 attacks were “completely justified” and the other 93 percent. How many of those 93 percent, Mogahed was asked, actually answered that the attacks were “partly,” “somewhat,” or even “largely” justified? Were those people truly moderates?

In her answer, transcribed below, Mogahed refers in pollster code to numbers ascribed to the five possible answers to the poll question about justifying 9/11. Although she and Esposito never discuss the details of this question in their book, they did expound on them in a 2006 article in Foreign Policy magazine, which described a five-point scale in which “Ones” are respondents who said 9/11 was “totally unjustified” and “Fives” those who said the attacks were “completely justified.”

In that article, she and Esposito wrote: “Respondents who said 9/11 was justified (4 or 5 on the same scale) are classified as radical.” In the book they wrote two years later, they redefined “radical” to comprise a much smaller group–only the Fives. But in her luncheon remarks, Mogahed admitted that many of the “moderates” she and Esposito celebrated really aren’t so moderate after all.

MOGAHED: I can’t off the top of my head [recall the data], but we are going to be putting some of those findings in our [updated] book and our website.

To clarify a couple of things about the book–the book is not a hard-covered polling report. The book is a book about the modern Muslim world that used its polling to inform its analysis. So that’s important: It’s meant for a general audience, and it’s not meant to be a polling report. One very important reason why is because Gallup is selling subscriptions to its data. We are a for-profit company; we are not Pew. We are Gallup. So this isn’t about . . . it was not meant for the data to be free since we paid $20 million to collect [the data] . . . that we paid all on our own. So just to clarify that . . .

So, how did we come up with the word “politically radicalized” that we unfortunately used in the book? Here’s why: because people who were Fives, people who said 9/11 was justified, looked distinctly different from the Fours . . . At first, before we had enough data to do sort of a cluster analysis, we lumped the Fours and Fives together because that was our best judgment.

QUESTIONER: And what percent was that?

MOGAHED: I seriously don’t remember but I think it was in the range of 7 to 8 percent [actually, 6.5 percent].

QUESTIONER: So it’s seven Fours and seven Fives?

MOGAHED: Yes, we lumped these two and did our analysis. When we had enough data to really see when things broke away, here’s what we found: Fives looked very different from the Fours, and Ones through Fours looked similar. [Mogahed then explained that, on another question, concerning suicide bombing, respondents who said 9/11 was only partially justified clustered with those who said it wasn't justified at all.] And so the Fives looked very different; they broke, they clustered away, and Ones through Fours clustered together. And that is how we decided to break them apart and decided how we were to define “politically radicalized” for our research.

Yes, we can say that a Four is not that moderate . . . I don’t know. . . .You are writing a book, you are trying to come up with terminology people can understand. . . . You know, maybe it wasn’t the most technically accurate way of doing this, but this is how we made our cluster-based analysis.

So, there it is–the smoking gun. Mogahed publicly admitted they knew certain people weren’t moderates but they still termed them so. She and Esposito cooked the books and dumbed down the text. Apparently, by the authors’ own test, there are not 91 million radicals in Muslim societies but almost twice that number. They must have shrieked in horror to find their original estimate on the high side of assessments made by scholars, such as Daniel Pipes, whom Esposito routinely denounces as Islamophobes. To paraphrase Mogahed, maybe it wasn’t the most technically accurate way of doing this, but their neat solution seems to have been to redefine 78 million people off the rolls of radicals.

The cover-up is even worse. The full data from the 9/11 question show that, in addition to the 13.5 percent, there is another 23.1 percent of respondents–300 million Muslims–who told pollsters the attacks were in some way justified. Esposito and Mogahed don’t utter a word about the vast sea of intolerance in which the radicals operate.

And then there is the more fundamental fraud of using the 9/11 question as the measure of “who is a radical.”Amazing as it sounds, according to Esposito and Mogahed, the proper term for a Muslim who hates America, wants to impose Sharia law, supports suicide bombing, and opposes equal rights for women but does not “completely” justify 9/11 is . . . “moderate.”

Could the smart people at Gallup really believe this? Regardless, they should immediately release all the data associated with their world poll and open all the files and archives of their Center for Muslim Studies to independent inspection. With a dose of transparency and a dollop of humility, the data just might teach something useful to the world’s six billion citizens.

I think part of the problem with looking at Muslims in Britain and Europe and their anti-American diatribes, is that I often see them making political statements that are indistinguishable from the anti-Bush/anti-American rants expressed by the anti-American European liberal elites, let alone the ones we have back here at home and in Hollywood.

How much of that is fueled by a “radicalization” gene, within the religion itself? How many will turn protest, sympathy and apologist sentiments into terrorist actions?

How much is simple feelings of racial/ethnic/religious persecution, that causes one who identifies with a special interest group (in this case, Muslims), to be pushed toward a need to defend ones’ group from being discriminated/harmed/maligned/persecuted?

I certainly don’t think we help put matters at ease, when we confirm their fears by attacking the whole of their religion.

May 12th, 2008 at 12:17 am

Moody Deep Thinker

Defining Islam is like trying to define the physical qualities of the beach. Every beach around the world is different in some way. Similarly Islam is whatever any single adherent believe it is, or is not. You cannot generalize about Islam, is is too vague. You cannot be specific about Islam because it is self contradictory. You cannot say Islam is specific to one region or one people because every region and every collection of people considers their Islam unique to their practice.

Perhaps the more important question is not what is Islam, but who is Islam. Islam is the vast collection of clerics and theologians who seek power through the implementation of Islam. Look at the favorite meme of Islam, that is if a jihadi dies in battle for Islam, he goes to paradise to be with 72 virgins, or words to that effect. This idea produces an endless flow of misled adherents to go fight anything the clerics decide is not Islamic. The ultimate goal being to enhance and expand the power of the clerics. That is the same old crap western religions practiced until the reformation. Having learned one hard lesson in our history regarding religion, I wonder how long it will take western civilization to realize what is the real truth about Islam.

The one thing you can say for certain is that Islam presents a threat to western civilization because it is a religion that comes in the guise of peace but carries the sword of domination to achieve that peace.

You can study and analyze every grain of sand to learn about the beach or you can look once and see that the beach is where the ocean roars in to wear away the shore.

May 12th, 2008 at 6:56 am

yonason

CATCH 22

“I certainly don’t think we help put matters at ease, when we confirm their fears by attacking the whole of their religion.” — Wordsmith

Yes, it is, and should be, a real concern, which is why our fear of “provoking” them makes that fear a powerful weapon against us. And they know how to use it.

The Jihadis know that we will be more restrained in our response to them because we will be censoring ourselves for fear of backlash from the “moderates.” It’s a form of “human shield” because the radicals are hiding behind those who otherwise couldn’t be bothered but stand a good chance of being radicalized when caught in the cultural crossfire that is an unavoidable consequence of jihadi actions. Bin Laden is so confident, in part, because he knows that the utility of that “shield” is in direct proportion to the perversity of his actions; the worse he acts, the more restrained his victim feels the need to be.

The founders of Islam were very clever, in a profoundly demented way, because they have made the source of, and justification for, their evil immune from attack by calling it a “religion.” Not all Muslims are bad. In fact most probably are not, but the bad ones who hide behind man and G-d to pursue their evil are among the worst of humanity. And that is why it isn’t so much the Muslims as their “religion” that is the problem.

But we fear to attack their religion, so we don’t, even though until it is removed (drastically edited) the problem cannot be eradicated. And, of course we can’t, because we are outsiders. Only they could theoretically do that, but they won’t because who can change the word of one’s god, after all? And so the nightmare grows stronger; the monster survives to kill yet again.

But, what whoever is going to “fix” the problem has to consider, as Robert Spencer reminds us, is the fact that “You can’t fix what you don’t admit is broken.”

May 12th, 2008 at 7:28 am

ChrisG

I always think it a bit funny when we say that one of our goals in Iraq is to produce a LIBERAL democracy.
The problems that we are having with Islam now are not coming from the liberal wing of that religion.

Lost as usual John…. Lost as usual. Your misquote was already fixed so we will work on word definitions and concepts today in class.

A LIBERAL in this sense is a CLASSICAL LIBERAL which today is a conservative. This is very different from a Modern Liberal or Socialist (Nationalist or Marxist).

As for Islam’s problems. They are not “right” and “left” as your sophomoric inane statement suggests. This is not a political finger pointing contest nor are your labels accurate or transferrable to American polics. In actuality, I would argue the problems Islam has come from its “reformists” who demand Sharia law and Sharia law only, death or oppression of all non-Islamic people, and endless religious warfare (even after all other religions are conquered, Islam would still fight amongst itself in their insane vision).

These “reformists” are fighting (to the death) against other Islamic people who do not embrace the holistic/totalitarian views of Islam ruling all aspects of life (religion-politics-spiritual-educational-etc). The latter group is at a disadvantage as the “reformists” control many of the madrases, schools, and “missionary” efforts in Western areas (including prisons). The “reformists” are also violent with no reguard for what their targets are or what they will destroy.

This will remain so until the “leaders” of Islam destroy (Ideologically and if need be by force) the “reformists” camp, Islam as a whole moves to maturity as other religions have, and these same leaders take up the fight against Islamic terrorists/jihadists (or whatever label makes you feel good).

May 12th, 2008 at 9:10 am

Amy Proctor

Homeland Security and the US GOV is trying to do away with the term “moderate Muslim”. My husband has been saying this for some time that to a Muslim, “moderate” means watered down. Sort of like “lukewarm” for the Christian. They should be distinguished as Muslims and Osama bin Laden et al as terrorists.

May 12th, 2008 at 10:38 am

Bubba

I ran across a very interesting phrase that I am sure will never be seen in any official document. It is just the sort of short hand I have run across before.

To add perspective, back during the Katrina disaster, I was doing disaster support work at Camp Gruber, Oklahoma (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/camp-gruber.htm) which was being set up as a shelter for Katrina Victims.
The Brass were quick to insist that the Katrina Victims were NOT refugees! America Does Not Have refugees! These people were “Displaced American Citizens”. However, not two hours had passed before I heard some of the servicemen refer to the “Displaced American Citizens” as DACs. It became a “term of art” very quickly.

In a very similar vein, I have heard the “term of art” RIFs referring to Radical Islamic Fundamentalists. And it seems to me that this term hits the nail on the head rather precisely here.

The Muslims, per say, are not the problem. The RIFs are the problem.

Just as the majority of Christians are horrified by the bombings and killings that have been carried out by a tiny Radical Fundamentalist segment claiming to be Christian, Just as most Pagans are horrified by the acts carried out by the Radical Fundamentalist segment of the earth based religions, the Muslims I know are horrified by the acts of the RIFs.

As a term of art, RIF targets it down nicely.

However, I expect that we will never be allowed to use it widely.

May 12th, 2008 at 10:51 am

yonason

Note added in proof of my above assertions…

The problem is Islam, and the Muslims who are faithful to it.

As Robert Spencer says in his excellent movie, the later violent suras ABROGATE the earlier peaceful ones, so when a Muslim points to a “peaceful” verse he is lying, because he knows that it has been superseded by a violent one.

If they follow the Koran, they WILL be violent. If they are not violent, they are not following the Koran.

Koran is the problem. Until we deal with that fact, we won’t succeed.

May 12th, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Philadelphia Steve

Speaking generically about bigotry, I never believed that it arose either from the “Left” or the “Right”.

Whatever germ of inferiority or insecurity that leads someone to try to elevate themselves by casting down others is not, IMO, an aspect of any particular political persuasion or even education level. I beleive it arises within the self, the soul if you will, and can only be changed by a change of heart. A bigot who has cured him/her-self (and I also believe that bigotry cannot be externally removed but must be personally exorcised) may or may not switch political persuasions. At times I have observed a “leftwing” bigot become very conservative upon shedding prejudicies, and other times not. Both political persuasions have passively, and at times actively, tolerated bigots in their midst because it enhanced their power. At other times I have seen politicians take a strong stand against bigotry, even when it would have served their purposes better to show a blind eye to it. Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush are two such examples.

Whatever else we say in this particular line about bigotry, please allow me to disassociate myself from any comment that attaches racial/religious/ethinic bigotry with any ideology. With only a very few exceptions, people are bigots, not parties of overal beliefs (and note my “few exceptions” comment because I do know they exist, but I do not want to allow those exceptions to be applied too indiscriminately).

Have a good evening.

May 12th, 2008 at 7:12 pm

Gregory Dittman

I think “radical Muslim” is just a horrible phrase. It implies that their goal is one of religious nature when they are using religion to justify their actions. In WWI and WWII in Europe, God was supporting both sides. We already know ignorance, heat, boredom, greed and poverty cause violence even in the U.S. Latin America, Africa and Europe have been very violent places for the very same reason there is violence in the Middle East. Greed defently plays a large part of any violent conflict.

I would also question who these radicals are. This was done through polling so education and wealth were just questions on a sheet. I would say there is plenty of bravato. Do people really think people will admit they are ignorant and poor? Al Sadr’s army is an army of people living in slums, the guys coming over from Pakistan were hired to fight by given new clothes. The fighting in Sudan and Somalia is between poor people. Educated middle class Muslims are not the ones rioting in Europe. The money being spent is through Syria and Iran in some cases and rich people playing games of Bum Fight in other cases or in other cases they are just gangs that got large over the years.

If these people were really fighting for their religion they would be following the Koran like soldiers following Geneva Convention. Instead I believe they are just using religion to justify their actions rather than using religion to cause their actions.

May 12th, 2008 at 10:22 pm

yonason

Gregory Dittman,

“… I believe they are just using religion to justify their actions rather than using religion to cause their actions.”

Excellent observation.

Actually, the Koran was written for just those malcontents, and so it makes pretty good “justification” for them. As to causing, it probably does in a some cases, but wouldn’t if the worst of them weren’t pushing the others so hard. Also, adherence to it requires not being critical of the bad actors, and even support of them, so even the best of them (except for the really exceptional ones, and they do exist) won’t be able to mount any effective resistance against the blood thirsty ones

May 12th, 2008 at 10:47 pm

Gregory Dittman

The Koran banned torture, killing civilians, taking drugs (or getting drunk) and terrorism while promoting science and literacy and several rights for women including making a living and inhertiting. For it’s time it was a very liberal book. Of course the culture that came before the Koran stayed and that culture was a thug/Macho mentality. It’s this culture and not their religion that’s behind the way they act. Many can’t even read the Koran so how could they even follow it? Some take the quotes out of context to incite the masses and even Jesus said the Devil knew the Bible. The thugs are just picking and chosing things out of the Koran (one of the tell tale signs U.S. troops were looking for was stuff forbidden in the Koran which Al Qaeda members had in their homes) and often twising the context. If they read the whole Koran and followed it, they wouldn’t be using the Muslim religion to press their case for what they are doing.

May 13th, 2008 at 12:28 am

yonason

Gregory Dittman (#29),

Sorry, Greg, we part company on those comments. None of the evidence I’m aware of supports them, and much against. If you can supply some, I’ll consider it, but to date everything I’ve seen says exactly the opposite.

One can start by watching “Islam, What The West Needs To Know”, see also the information provided by a Pakistani ex-Muslim. There is no love lost between Hindus, whose civilization was destroyed and whose scientific and mathematical accomplishments were stolen by Islam which claimed them as it’s own. Here is some of what they have to say regarding the ‘just’ treatment of non-Muslims by ‘peaceful’ Islam.

Also, see here, which is from here.

“If they read the whole Koran and followed it, they wouldn’t be using the Muslim religion to press their case for what they are doing.”

The Koran contains what appear to be many “peaceful” teachings. Unfortunately, those were all the earliest ones, before Mohammed’s god changed it’s mind. The latter teachings are all the violent ones, written after Moe became powerful enough to be honest about his intentions, and are the most authoritative, because later teachings always supersede earlier ones. (see here)

May 13th, 2008 at 6:54 am

yonason

Gregory Dittman (#29),

CORRECTION = missing link …(no, not Mohamed’s grandfather)

Also, to clarify what I said in my post (#28) - Most peaceful people will not feel obliged to follow the dictates of violence contained in a “religious” text, since that is against the nature of most humans (most of the time), UNLESS they are coerced. The fact that Islam’s ideal is a violent sociopath, those types, when in power, will con or compel as many of the rest to comply with the literal meaning of the text.

May 13th, 2008 at 7:17 am

yonason

ON THE LIGHTER SIDE

How do you say “Conehead” in Arabic? in Hindu?

Seriously, as Shrek said of Farkwad, “Do you think he’s compensating for something?” I wonder if that’s why all the people behind him seem so amused, like they just put a “kick me” sign on his back. And, from the look on his face, he looks like he knows it, too, and isn’t too happy about it, either.

Oh, and he’s a Sikh, not a Muslim. Funny, they also have a moon symbol, but instead of a star, they have … a spear, or something inside it.

May 13th, 2008 at 8:57 am

Philadelphia Steve

During the Dark Ages of Europe, the only “western” centers of learning and inquiry were in Islamic lands. It is not, in my opinion, the religion itself thatis at fault, it is those who latch onto others’ religious beliefs to exempt themselves from accountability and direct attrocities at “outsiders”.

Even within the Muslim world, there are “outsiders”. We have seen the split between Shia and Sunni Muslims that is not unlike the split between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism Christianity: And some of the horrors committed during the REformation period rivals anything that Muslims have committed.

Blaming the religion itself just enhances the power of those who base their power on “everyone else is out to get us” rehtoric, and closes their communities to contact. While “Islamofacist” might make a cute rallying cry, it creates more war that it solves. “Facist” by itself does not have the problem of linking a religion to a political movement, although I myself would not use that particular word for what is going on in the al Qaeda’s of the world. Plain old “Hate Movements” would do.

May 13th, 2008 at 10:01 am

yonason

P.S.,

“During the Dark Ages of Europe, the only “western” centers of learning and inquiry were in Islamic lands.”

“…one thing about the historical record is noteworthy; the various golden ages of Islamic civilization always occur early in the first few centuries in which a new territory is occupied. Wherever the various Muslim vanguards invaded, the vast majority of the population was non-Muslim. It would take many years for this population to be converted and assimilated. These non-Muslims or recent converts are the ones who carried on the work which many historians are prone to attribute to “Islamic” civilization. Thus, a distinction must be drawn between the so-called high Islamic civilization and the religion of Islam. Eventually as the process of Islamization proceeds the non-Islamic component of the population becomes a small minority and stagnation sets in.” (FROM HERE)

Other articles on that site debunk more of the myths regarding Islam we have been “educated” into believing.

It isn’t a “hate movement” to truthfully analyse the source of most of the violence on the planet which, having been directed at us, poses such a serious threat to our existence.

EVERYTHING THEY KNOW IS WRONG
(although it is only their own fault if they persist in the face of evidence that they are wrong - as do all die-hard lefties)

May 13th, 2008 at 10:48 am

Gregory Dittman

They are promising suicide bombers that they will go to Heaven when the Koran claims those that commit suicide will go to Hell. They also use religion to justify killing civilians even though it’s forbidden.

The punishment for those committing terrorism in the Koran is to cut the arm off one side and the leg off the other side. Obviously there was terrorism before there was the Koran.

The Koran declares Israel the land of the Jews and forbids killing Jews and Christians because all three worship the same God.

The link with honor killings is they accure in strongly feudal tribal cultures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour_killing
Honor killings aren’t mentioned in the Koran and it happens among Hindus too.

Muslims weren’t the only ones that used the sword to convert people. Chistians went all over the world with their weapons to convert people and the Bible didn’t. Also the Spanish Inquisition had religious justification and they were quoting the Bible, but it was really about controlling the masses. Rev. Wright has also not helped the Christian image either.

May 13th, 2008 at 11:18 am

Spencer Roberts

Like many FA readers, after 9/11, I steeped myself in literature of the Robert Spencer-variety, warning me of the dangers of (radical/political ) Islam.

It has perhaps not occurred to many of the readers here, but Robert Spencer is, contrary to popular opinion, rather soft on Islam.

May 13th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

yonason

WHERE’S THE BEEF?

Poster #36 says a lot, and produces little.

Out of curiosity as to what he bases his ridiculous assertion on, I checked his references.

He accuses Spencer of being a pussy cat when it comes to Islam, but his “proofs” are convoluted and misleading, based on misinterpretation and rooted in his anger at Spencer for not rubber stamping his paranoid conspiratorial rantings: not worth bothering with.

But, since he’s given you links, go ahead if you must, but don’t expect any substance.

…interesting way to generate traffic to one’s website, but it’s a one time event. enjoy it while it lasts.

May 13th, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Spencer Roberts

I’d be curious to know what exactly yonason categorizes as “paranoid conspirational rantings”, as I failed to notice anything of the kind in the post I linked to in my previous comment.

For those interested in reading more about Robert Spencer’s shortcomings, they might want to check the post Contradiction Watch at the same blog.

Although yonason didn’t approve of the writings on “Jihad Watch Watch”, I’d be surprised if he had any objections to the following point, made by blogger Lawrence Auster:

“Though Robert Spencer, substantively, always points to facts strongly suggesting that Islam is not reformable, Spencer, rhetorically, always leaves open the possibility that Islam can be reformed; indeed, he consistently expresses fond hopes for such reformation. (…) May one respectfully point out that this is not helpful? As long as Spencer, an influential scholar and critic of Islam, keeps suggesting that somehow Islam can be reformed, he prevents the decisive realization in the public mind of the truth about Islam–the truth that Muslims are eternally commanded by their god to dominate, subdue, and destroy non-Muslim societies, and that there is no way this can change so long as Islam remains Islam. The discovery of this truth is the indispensable condition of the West’s saving itself from Islam. Yet Spencer withholds this truth from his readers.”

May 14th, 2008 at 10:40 am

yonason

S.R.#37

You have one complaint, i.e., that Spencer isn’t Spencer enough for you, so you are out to out-Spencer Spencer. That’s all you have going for you, and it ain’t much.

You have one little drum, and keep pounding on it as hard as you can, all the while sounding the alarm that Spencer is a Spencer in Spencer’s clothing, and that if we knew what was good for us we would either elect you the new Spencer, or just quit listening to him. But if we do the former, we will soon realize that you are an ignoramous when it comes to Islam, and if we do the latter we will be just as bad off, because there is no one else as knowledgable as him who is doing the work he does.

In short, your rantings are shameless substanceless self-promotion, and a complete waste of time.

Anyone who has watched, and understood,this excellent film, or this excellent presentation, knows you are about as fit to be Spencer as any pit bull is to be Lassie.

Good Night

May 14th, 2008 at 8:48 pm

yonason

My last(#39) should have been to S.R.#38, not S.R.#37, obviously.

May 14th, 2008 at 8:55 pm

Spencer Roberts

Apparently, yonason has yet to notice that I am not the author of the blog “Jihad Watch Watch”, and thus my links to posts on that blog are not self-promotion (which seems to be his main gripe, for some odd reason). Apart from that, he seems reluctant to comment on the points raised by the author of that blog, and he simply ignores the quote I provided from the blogger Lawrence Auster.

Because the problem with Spencer is that he is unwilling to draw the natural conclusions from his own vast knowledge. For instance, why can’t he just admit that Islam cannot be reformed, instead of being evasive and present the nonsensical “challenge” to Muslims to reform it even as his knowledge makes it clear that Islamic reform is indeed impossible?

May 14th, 2008 at 10:08 pm

yonason

Here (as I referenced above) Spencer specifically says that Islam is the problem, and he says it in several ways that illustrate how we should go about dealing with it. And, yes, he also postulates, theoretically, that there may be moderate Muslim “reformers” and that we should be looking for them, but then asks (I paraphrase) “If they are out there, then why the hell can’t we find them?”

…therefore…
Your accusations are false.

(I don’t care that it’s not your website. You are the one who came here making those ridiculous assertions, so as far as I’m concerened you own them.)

You tell us not to listen to Spencer. That’s a “plan?” And it will accomplish, …what? All you would succeed in doing is subverting the most coherent voice of alarm which spells out what we need to look for to resist it, and replacing it with an irrational one of panic, at best.

…therefore…
Your thesis is dreck.

F- for the course.

May 15th, 2008 at 9:03 am

Wordsmith

“Spencer Roberts” in #38:

I’d be curious to know what exactly yonason categorizes as “paranoid conspirational rantings”, as I failed to notice anything of the kind in the post I linked to in my previous comment.

You failed to notice, because you are a paranoid conspiratorial ranter who sees nothing wrong with what you say, and as yonason put it so accurately, to paraphrase, even Spencer isn’t Spencer enough” for the likes of you.

“Spencer Roberts” is a waste of time. He posts the same derangement drivel over and over in any thread that falls one iota short of condemning Islam as an evil religion. He is stuck on slant, and can’t see his own bigotry and evil for what it is: Evil and bigoted.

May 15th, 2008 at 10:51 am

Spencer Roberts

And, yes, he also postulates, theoretically, that there may be moderate Muslim “reformers” and that we should be looking for them, but then asks (I paraphrase) “If they are out there, then why the hell can’t we find them?”

So Spencer asks the question, but does he actually answer his own question? I haven’t checked the link provided by yonason, but judging by Spencer’s usual behaviour, it is safe to assume that he doesn’t. And even in the unlikely event that he does so this time around (which would be a very welcome change for the better), the problem with Spencer is that he usually doesn’t.

You tell us not to listen to Spencer.

This is simply not true, in fact I must acknowledge that as far as knowledge about Islam goes, there are few that are better than Spencer. What I try to point out are the shortcomings of Spencer - indeed, even Spencer has his faults, and there is nothing wrong with pointing them out.

May 15th, 2008 at 11:17 am

yonason

Wordsmith-#43

GAME, SET, MATCH

May 15th, 2008 at 11:28 am

Religious Bigotry from the Right

Trackbacks

47 comments so far

Leave a reply