I finally had the chance to get through this book, via the unabridged audio verson. It’s a rather interesting work, though more along the lines of religious apologetics in my view than useful political commentary. As an apologetics piece and even an unabashedly biased view of history, Robert Spencer’s work is quite powerful. Christianity and Islam have fundamental differences and while co-existence is needed for mainly temporal reasons these shouldn’t be glossed over. Yet take this book for what it is: a Christian look at Muhammad and Islam and it certainly articulated many of the reasons I myself do not follow the latter. It would be foolish to rely solely upon this book for information about Muhammad and Islam for it is only one look at these subjects. Nevertheless, I enjoyed it and will probably seek more on these topics.
Where Spencer fails in my view is the first and last chapters, wherein he attempts to turn a religious apologetics piece into contemporary political commentary. He is correct that Islamofascists, Muslim radicals or whatever term one wishes to employ about those Muslims who use violence to further their goals, are inspired by the violent beginnings of Islam. Any religion can be exploited as an ideology to be wielded in the temporal realm. I’m not quite sure what Spencer is asking for in these chapters. While Spencer himself is a fellow Catholic, this appears to be a dubious flirtation with the medieval notion of Christendom that one sees among many American Protestants today. It’s a rather curious flirtation at that because on the one hand they wish to maintain the American ideals of democracy and freedom, but only seen through the lens of their brand of Christianity. Nor are they consistent even in this as most would reject stripping ‘heretics’ or atheists of their rights under the Constitution. Yet if we look back on what Christendom meant to the medievals, then matters which cause harm in the spiritual realm are all also matters of State concern. The lines between Church & State are very tenuous, if not non-existent in many cases. Under this scheme, atheism and heresy are just as bad as murder. Indeed, one could reasonably argue that they are worse since it’s not just the body that is killed but the eternal soul and society as a whole suffers from the confusion these sow by obscuring the Truth. I’ve yet to see how their dubious flirtation with this notion resolves the inconsistencies in their reasoning, let alone a full understanding on their part of how adoption of this idea would kill the “American experimentâ€. The “fiction” the secular West maintains about Islam being a “religion of peace” is a useful and necessary one. Granted, we shouldn’t be blinded by such rhetoric, and such is ripe for parody and dry moments of irony, but unless we are willing to reinstate Christendom, take up the Cross and eradicate Islam once and for all, Spencer’s commentary here isn’t very applicable in resolving modern conflicts. Understanding one’s enemy is one thing, adopting an antiquated worldview in combating them is quite another.
UPDATE: It appears that this post elicited comments from Mr. Spencer and caused a bit of a stir at his site as well as on this blog. Instead of creating a new posting about this, I thought it more prudent to respond there. You can find Mr. Spencer’s comments and my reply here. Please note that as this is the first time I’ve posted there it may take a few hours for my response to appear as comments there are moderated.
— John (Average Gay Joe)
1 – Muslims who are using violence to further “their” goals are futhering the goals that the Religion madates they follow, using the tactics their Prophet approved.
In the entire history of the world, the Arabs NEVER attacked anyone outside the Arabian desert. They never had any goal for conquest or expansion.
Until Mohemmed preached his religion and stated that Allah wants them to Islamize the world.
How you can just dismiss that as some sort of irrelevent window dressing is beyond me.
And how you can equate that to other religions is also beyond me.
When Christians become very adherant to the Holy Texts that serve as the basis for their religion, they do not go around killing people (neither do Jews)
When Muslims become very adherant to the Holy Texts that serve as the basis for their religion, they DO go around killing people (neither do Jews)
This is very critical for everyone to understand. It’s not the generic religious person’s fundamentalism that determines if they wig out and start killing people… it’s the religious doctrines to which they structure the fundamentals of their life around.
In Islam that means Jihad.
The rest of your review is then to point out the abuses of the Catholic Church.
Maybe you didn’t read the book’s title: “The Truth About Muhammad”
Unless you’re going to make the case that Muslims are motivated by whatever motivated Catholics in Europe in the Middle Ages, then its’ completely irrelevent what happened in Europe.. the book is explaining what Muslims do , and why they do it.
this is the failure of the Western Mind and Multiculturalism… Everythikng is getting watered down so that moral equilvences can be made.. I guess this is to comfort ourselves that the Muslim mind works just like the Western mind.. and so if we Westerners find it absurd to kill in the name of religion then the Muslims will too.
Wrong.
You can compare islam to christniaty all day long… and you will continue to misunderstand Islam.
If you do want to read a book that addresses why Islam and Christian are they way they are then you should get RS’s other book “religion of peace, why christnianity is and islam isn’t”
No it’s not! Especially if the masses do not understand they are being asked to publically assent to a lie while they really know the truth.
The people do not know the truth, thus to ask them to accept a lie is to lie to them! (Thus the title of the book! People need to know that Mohemmed is not anything like Jesus)
You have completely distorted his message. RS has never advocated everyone becomming a Christian.
What a horrible review. Embarassing.
I asked Robert Spencer to respond to the review.. And he has:
From: Robert Spencer [mailto:director@jihadwatch.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 8:47 AM
To:
Subject: Re: A blog reviewed your Mohemmed book.
My response, and I thank you for yours, is this. You are welcome to
post it there:
This reviewer seems to have read the book through thick lenses of his
expectations. This is in no conceivable sense a work of “religious
apologetics.” I do not argue for the falsehood of Islam or the truth
of Christianity in it. I merely present the picture of Muhammad that
is presented in the earliest Islamic sources about him, and show how
modern-day terrorists invoke Muhammad to justify their actions. In the
last chapter I advocate various measures to defend ourselves against
and limit the power of political Islam, which threatens to overwhelm
free and pluralistic societies in the West. To see this as some kind
of call to return to medieval Christendom is to disregard entirely the
words I actually wrote and to enter the realm of sheer fantasy. If
“Average Gay Joe” would like to review what I actually wrote in “The
Truth About Muhammad,” I would welcome that, but he does not do so
here.
I’ve read yet another Spencer book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam.
And I think that is the important point in his work. Of the world’s major religions, Islam’s beginnings are uniquely violent. Mohammed was a conqueror, that is, something of a killer; Jesus and Paul both let themselves be executed, rather than ever become anything like that. Both anti-Christians and supporters of a very backward Christian order like to parade the ‘violent’ Bible verses, BUT, other than its commandment for the Israelites to possess the land of Canaan, the Bible really doesn’t preach violence against unbelievers; while the Koran really does.
Conceded. But one religion lends itself the most readily of all, to such exploitation.
If the book does turn into that, then its title, “The Truth About Muhammad”, would seem to be rather misleading. Does it really? Vince doesn’t seem to think so.
Wait. So the two alternatives here, forcing us to the first because the second is too extreme, are that we either (1) Not tell the truth about Islam; or (2) Eradicate it? I don’t buy that. That seems like a false choice.
How about a policy of (3) Telling the truth about Islam, simply to help its members understand why Islam has earned the modern world’s anger, and to help our people people understand why it is so important that we intervene in the Arab-Muslim world to extinguish terrorism and to establish a people-centric, democratic order in selected countries.
P.S. The necessary work in terms of point (3) will be done when mainstream Islam, the world over, feels the need to apologize for its past abuses – as Christianity has done.
Vince: This isn’t about drawing “moral equivalences” between failures in Christian history and Islam, upholding the fallacies of multiculturalism or mistakenly believing that Muslims think exactly like Western Christians do. Yet your comments here reinforce exactly what I saw as the flaw in Spencer’s book: Islam as an irredeemable ideology instead of as a religion capable of development like all others. Are there fundamentalists who would resist such change? Absolutely. He may not “advocate everyone becomming a Christian”, an odd view for a Christian to take in one sense, but in the secular realm he isn’t leaving much room for Muslims to practice their own faith either. Is Islam as an ideology being used and exploited as such by Islamofascists? Yep. Spencer seems to believe that strict adherence to Islam makes it incompatible to Western mores, something I suspect as well, but what exactly is this “strict adherence” we are speaking of? In a post-Enlightenment and post-Reformation/Counter-Reformation Christianity it’s easy enough for us to make this charge on a religion that has lacked the same fundamental shifts in theology and worldview. If all he is calling for is the same to occur in Islam, fine, I would echo such sentiment. Yet he appears to be painting himself in a corner just like the Islamofascists are by keeping Islam in the 7th century without any ability to develop, evolve or however you wish to call such change. Just for example, how different do Jews today view the commands to violence in the Tanakh? Are atheists, idolaters, adulterers, etc. subject to the penalties commanded in the Law via the power of the State of Israel? No. Islam has had a bloody history since the days of Muhammad, that’s for certain. One cannot read works by Baat Yeor among others in seeing this.
Second, you imply that the secular Western governments are wrong to maintain the “fiction” that Islam is a “religion of peace”, just as Spencer does. What exactly are you both proposing? Unless you are adopting Christendom anything short of this while advocating that secular government attack a particular religion is patently absurd and doomed to failure. The “fiction” is a useful and necessary one, not to blind people to the true nature of Islamofascism but to encourage real change in the mindset of those who do adhere to the religion and may not care for the idea of violence. What you both seem to be saying is the purview of religious apologists, not secular government.
Third, Spencer may not have intended his book to be for religious apologetics but frankly it makes an excellent source for such and certainly reads like one. A quite enjoyable book at that. Were I to engage in apologetics as a Christian witnessing the Gospel to Muslims, something I’d probably be woefully inept at doing, this book would be one of my sources.
Finally, different people take different things out of an author’s writing. If Spencer, you or anyone else disagrees with my reading of the book, so be it. I recommend that people read the book for themselves but personally don’t find it very useful or applicable for political commentary, except perhaps in seeking to understand why Islamofascists hold the views they have. Spencer has another book I just recently purchased that I’ll be reading soon called “The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Islam (and the Crusades)”. It too looks enoyable and I’m interested to see if in speaking on the Crusades he uses the works of such modern historians as Thomas Madden and Jonathan Riley-Smith.
If the secular Western governments did this the GWOT would quickly turn into a Crusade, not only in its prosecution but in how it was perceived in the Arab-Muslim world. Any hope of making allies of “moderate†Arab-Muslim nations would be crushed far worse than what is happening now. Encouraging a peaceful development in or even a reinterpretation of a religion is one thing, seeking to undermine the foundations of it no matter how noble the goal is quite another. That job rests with religious apologists, not secular government.
Posters here have made use of the term “moderate” to describe some Muslims and Arab states. This is a meaningless term when applied to Muslims and Islam. What is it exactly these “moderates” are moderating? What will the West do if suddenly all these moderates discover the Koran and start taking it seriously? What will stop the “moderates” from becoming radical. That will always be the danger as long as Islam remains constituted and interpreted as it has been the past 1400 years.
Hi John. I’m at work and dont have the time to get very detailed but I wanted to ask.
You keep holding out some hope that some future peaceful reform Islam is going to happen. Why? Based on what in Islamic history or Islamic theology supports your hope?
I’d be interested in ILoveCapitalism defining what is meant by intervention “in the Arab-Muslim world to extingush terrorism…”
And I certainly don’t think we have any business trying “…to establish a people-centric, democratic order in selected countries.” That sounds too much like “imposing” democracy. As much as I’d like to see democracy bloom and flourish throughout the Middle East I don’t see it happening in most Muslim countries because their idea of “democracy” seems to be if there is a Sunni majority they dominate and oppress the Shia or if there is a Shia majority they dominate and oppress the Sunnis. As long as there are two strong opposing factions in Islam I can’t see our concept of democracy working. And I sure don’t want to see America’s sons and daughters dying in futile efforts to impose the type of government WE think THEY ought to have.
That statement is directly contradictory to Spencer’s position. That being said, what in recent history would lead you to believe that Islam is on the verge of reformation?
The purpose of Spencer is to educate the West to the true impetus of Islamic jihad, taken directly as a mandate from Allah and firmly grounded in the canonical Islamic texts, not to create a mental haven for peaceful “moderate†Muslims to reinterpret their own ideology.
Besides, if you cannot refute the “fiction”, then why would you consider a reformation in Islam. You cannot reform what you have not identified as needing reformng, can you?
When reviewing a book, if a detailed historical exploration of Muhammad as reported by authentic Muslim sources constitutes religious apologetics in your book, then I dare say that you are predisposed to believe so.
Spencer’s site, Jihad Watch is a non-sectarian site that routinely deletes comments that are proselytizing in nature. Even a cursory review of the site would reveal that fact.
It is helpful that when attempting to define a person’s position, you actually investigate what the person says themselves.
Ooops… too late.
“Undermining the foundations” would be your concept, not mine. I said: Tell the truth about it. Trust me: Muslims already know Mohammed was a bloody conqueror. When they object violently to it being said, they are objecting to the *context* of saying it as a bad thing, or placing Islam in a bad light. Among themselves, or where it’s framed as a good thing, they’re fine with it.
It’s we Westerners who have forgotten and are confused about Mohammed’s nature, and Islam as a creed of conquest. That leads to the following result: We (as a society) don’t understand the Islamo-fascist enemy, or why and how we are fighting him, or how it is, in fact, necessary to impose our values (democracy, development, human rights) to some extent. We are in a Long War (1400 years and counting) with a vicious, totalitarian ideology. Not telling the truth is a recipe for failure. Just witness the PR / public support failures of the Bush Administration in the current GWOT.
Bush foreign policy the last 7 years, including the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We can’t do it all at once, but progress is happening.
Oh, my god. Deal with it. The alternatives are far worse, both morally and practically.
Muslims find the term “Moderate” to be offensive.
I find it funny how people in the West act like we have to approach them with so much caution and care or else we might just drive someone to become a killer… it’s so patroninizing of an attitude.
As if the Muslim doesn’t know 1000000000000x more times about their own religion than the westerner.
It’s laughable actually.
I’m curious as to how Spencer’s biography of Muhammad, which does not even touch on the Christian religion, could be seen as “a dubious flirtation with the medieval notion of Christendom that one sees among many American Protestants today”?
Me thinks you’re a tad confused. Did you even read the book?
The reformation has occurred and was a return to orthodox Sunni fiqh wrt Surahs 9:5 and 9:29. The current jihad was the reformation.
Speaking of the Crusades, I recommend Spencer’s book there. Much of what we’re taught about them is Western self-flagellation. Some Crusaders were corrupt or made tragic errors. Many more had a legitimate desire to defend Europe by physically moving Islam’s war on Europe away from Europe, into Muslim lands. We have collectively forgotten that Muslims attacked Europe year after year for 450+ years before the Crusades, abated their attacks somewhat during the Crusades (say the 1100s), then resumed for another 450+ years in the 1200s.
I was going to make a point roughly like that, but dropped it. The Reformation in the West was a return to Scripture, faith, the priesthood of all believers, etc., with a corresponding increase in the quantity and intensity of religious war. The thing we’re really all hoping for Islam to have, and doubt it can have, is an Enlightenment period: a rebirth of reason and toleration, plus a new concern for individual rights, separation of religion from State, etc. (“Rebirth” of reason because they had a heavily Aristotelian and relatively enlightened period, I believe around the 9th century… but then lost it.)
To ILoveCapitallsm: I was pretty sure when I posted my comment asking you to define “intervention” that you would bring up George W. Bush’s war in Afghanistan (badly neglected in favor of the Iraqi war) and his war in Iraq. Only time will tell whether either has “extinguished” terrorism. With terrorists in Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, etc., etc. I’m curious about how big of a war you want and just where in the hell you plan to find the military forces needed. We can’t even put enough troops into Afghanistan.
Fighting terrorism is one thing, imposing our idea of democracy where we think it ought to be imposed is quite another. Since it will take the next president a full term or more to put our military back together and rebuild our forces, where do you plan to find the military manpower needed to impose democracy.
It’s easy to pound one’s chest with all this bravado, but you’re not the 18-year-old kid who’ll have to use a rifle to convince some barely educated Arab that America knows best for him.
It would appear that I’ve touched a nerve with some folks who are fans of Spencer and his work. I’m not sure why, since I did honestly enjoy the book and recommend that others read it. I’d also recommend the unabridged audiobook, the narration by John Adams is superb and quite engaging. Ok, others whom I presume have read the book as well have taken a different perspective. Good. I always enjoy discussing interesting books.
I leave that to Muslims to work out. Other than an historical and theological interest in Islam, I do not hold this faith. IMO, Spencer is correct that it’s origins can be traced to a corruption of Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism. He’s not the first to make this observation. Of course, as a Christian my saying this is hardly surprising. Yet again I ask: other than an individual or a religious group, what possible relevance does any of this have in the GWOT? Are you seriously advocating the United States government use apologetics tools to undermine Islam? Perhaps taking Ann Coulter’s comments about invading their countries, killing their leaders and forcing them to convert to Christianity just a wee bit too seriously?
Uh-uh. You don’t get to try and turn this around while implying after making such a claim and ignoring what I said. Right here you’ve just implied exactly what I said. Try again.
I believe I said…*checks*…yep, I did, that the book was useful for explaining the motivation behind the Islamofascists.
Cute. Actually, it is his use of those sources that was one reason I found the book so compelling. Yet in any religion it is the interpretation of those sources by the faithful that is important. If you want to argue that too many Muslims adhere to a more unsavory spin, even if you consider it to be more authentic, fine. I actually would agree with you. I personally think we have far better source material to draw upon, but how many different versions of Christ, Mary and Paul have we seen over the centuries? Pick up Jaroslav Pelikan’s excellent books on the first two, quite interesting to read.
Indeed. It is also helpful not to claim I said something I never did. Did I call Spencer an apologist? No. Did I say that he was engaged in Christian apologetics with Muslims? No. What I actually said was that his book reads like an apologetics work and is useful for such efforts while not being likewise for political commentary or resolving the GWOT. That is expressing an opinion, hardly even approaching what you claim above.
When have we done so without the elements of Christendom in place? You are asking to fight a war the way it was done previously with such things in place that no longer exist anymore. Instead, you should be talking about how to fight this war given the realities that exist now.
True, but even with these we are far better off than what I expect from the Dems.
Cornelius, did you happen to miss the comparisons between Christ and Muhammad, comparisons between theological principles (e.g. mercy & justice), the examples of the latter drawing from the former, etc.? Indeed, how could he not raise such issues in discussing Muhammad with a western audience? You did read this book yourself, right?
I have that book by Spencer and will be reading it soon. You are absolutely correct here which is why I mentioned Thomas Madden & Jonathan Riley-Smith. Pick up a book by either of them on the Crusades. Excellent stuff.
John,
Your attempted refutations of my critique of your original comments fell way short of their intended mark.
Like I said, based on this statement by you:
That is directly contradictory to Spencer’s position on reform in Islam. it is possible, although, not likely, and the West should self-educate and steel itself against the onslaught of Islam.
Prove otherwise about Spencer’s position or withdraw this claim to his position that you alone seem to know.
John,
Actually, you have the link that refutes your initial statement that I quoted. I put it as an attachment to clarify Roqbert’s position that you claim is refuted in his book.
You chose to keep that comment in moderation and when I reposted without the link, it eventually got through.
Read the link. It is explicit.
test
BTW folks.. while we masturbate over the issue on what word will we use to describe a murderous Muslim..
These activities are occuring South of the border..
Moreover, arms supplies continue to arrive in the Latin American continent. The US are very worried by the news of the signing, in March of this year in Caracas, of about 20 cooperation treaties between Iran and the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez regime, together with an agreement, ratified with Russia at the beginning of April, regarding the supply of 100 thousand Kalashnikov AK-47.
In addition, there is ever increasing talk about dormant cells of Islamic terrorist groups in other Latin American countries like, for example, the Venezuelan Island, Margarita, at Trinidad and Tobago.
Over the last months, in Haiti, members of an Islamic group, which appears to have ties with Al Qaeda, have provided instruction in the use of arms and explosives to a pro-Aristide gang, at the same time trying to convert the gang members to Islam.
In the Dominican Republic, two radical groups seeking technical and financial support, seem to have established contacts with Islamic radicals. Al Qaeda appears to have had ties in the country of Nicaragua for some time, and it is believed that it is now pushing groups to undertake terrorist attacks against the government.
According to what the German newspaper, “Der Spiegel†published in June of this year, in the south of Mexico, a veritable conversion to Islam activity is underway, conducted by many Moslems of “doubtful originsâ€, who have carried out an activity of proselytism and have already recruited hundreds of Maya natives.
It seems that the reviewer has reviewed the wrong book. The book he describes is Spencer’s “Religion of Peace: Why Chrisitianity is and Islam Is Not”, not “The Truth About Muhammad.”
To Trace Phelps: I was pretty sure that when I took the trouble to answer your question, you would have a comeback involving (a) Bush-bashing, or at least referring to *your country’s* necessary wars as “his”, and (b) missing the point.
I could go on about the chessboard and the necessity of picking one’s battles, and how I already made that point in talking about “selected” countries (which you had earlier noted). I could go on about how our military is doing fine and exceeding its recruiting goals as we speak. I could go on about how terrorism is suffering measurable reverses and declines in all the countries you mention, proving that the GWOT works – if we support the people who work it. But really, what’s the point? You don’t want to hear it. Bye.
awake – The comment filter at GayPatriot frequently delays comments that have links in them. It’s something us regulars live with. I wouldn’t assume John had a hand in it, one way or the other.
John, no offense, but I can’t make heads nor tails of your response to one of my points.
I said (as quoted by you):
You responded:
Huh??? Where did I say anything about fighting today with the “elements of Christendom”? You would appear, once more, to be substituting your own ideas, then alleging them to be mine. When they aren’t.
Ok, let’s put it this way: do you want to win this war? I assume that you do just as much as I do. The West doesn’t have the strength, treasure but especially the will to fight a sustained religious conflict. Heck, even during the days of Christendom we didn’t. For all the maligning of the Crusades, militarily-speaking they were poorly conceived, badly handled and proved to be failures. The moment we take the bait of the Islamofascists and make this into a War on Islam, we will lose. At the end of the last chapter in this book, Spencer makes some good proposals, only one of which I disagreed with. The ones I did agree with I would expand to include exploiting our deposits of oil shale and drilling for own oil in order to achieve energy independence; denying student visas to folks from hostile countries like Iran. However, besides the fact that it isn’t the government’s job to engage in religious apologetics, nor do I want at all for it to become it’s job, rhetoric and propaganda are important aspects in fighting any conflict. The Islamofascists have seemed to learn this and have achieved remarkable success in some areas because of it. If we drop the “religion of peace” rhetoric and the West takes a more belligerent stance against Islam itself, we will lose this conflict and as someone who’d probably make it to the top of their execution list, indeed most of us here would, that’s a prospect I’d rather not see. Spencer’s good is good and enjoyable. His work on Hot Air has been superb. Where I disagree with him on and this book is in seeking to implement in the public policy what is better suited to individual efforts like his own or religious groups, the latter of which I’ve heard are making inroads in Muslim Africa at least.
Oops. That should be “Spencer’s book is good and enjoyable”.
What are you talking about? I saw no comments awaiting moderation. Perhaps it was caught in the spam filter. Given the 1400+ mostly porn links caught in there, I have no clue where your particular post is. Try posting just a portion of the url, e.g. google.com/maps, maybe that will work or send it to me by email at avgayjoe@yahoo.com.
Considering Chavez’s support of Iran’s puppet Hezbollah in South America, which has made remarkable inroads on this continent, along with non-Muslim terrorist groups like FARC, this shouldn’t be a surprise.
John,
Agreed 100% there. Actually, Spencer has been quite critical of the folly of the nation-building of Iraq.
At least you view the conflict as religious in nature, for the enemy is quite clearly, Muslims who believe in Islamic supremacism and the path of jihad, which is directly attributable to and mandated by Islam’s canonical texts and considered obligatory for all pious Muslims as commanded by Allah.
When you come to understand that, Spencer’s book makes sense and is not religious apologia. Spencer uses comparisons, like you will see directly in his P.I.G. book, between Muhammad and Christ, for he is drawing a comparison aimed at western non-muslims.
In the academic venue in general, Muhammad and Christ are portrayed as near moral equivalents. Historically speaking, nothing could be further from the truth.
I will send you the link on Spencer’s position of Islamic reform.
Of course religion is part of this war, that is precisely what is motivating the Islamofascists. Spencer did a good job in showing this in his book, as he does on Hot Air. My point was that it would be a fatal mistake in prosecuting this war if we took their bait and made this a religious war, i.e. a War on Islam. We need that “fiction” Spencer and you have criticized so vehemently in order to win. Granted, Christopher Hitchens is right that the term “War on Terror” is misguided and stupid, but it is preferrable to “War on Islam”. Frankly, “War on Islamic Extremism” or something akin to that is far more appropriate and only runs a mild risk of inciting an all-out religious war if handled correctly. Then again, considering the bungling we’ve been doing in the West perhaps WoT is the best we can hope for.
As I said, his book is quite useful for apologetics, even if such wasn’t his intent, and certainly reads like one. Other than in highlighting the motivation behind the Islamofascists, I do not find it very useful for other purposes.
Agreed, which is why I was pleased with his criticism of Karen Armstrong’s work.
Thanks.
I sent it to you, but I must say that I strongly disagree with many, but not all of your points.
Thanks. As I said in the update to this post, I’ve responded over on Jihad Watch to Mr. Spencer’s comments. I’ll take a look at this additional posting later tonight.
Look at your own sentence construction. The Islamo-fascists have already made it a religious war. I.e., for them, it is (and always has been) a religious war. And they draw moral support and inspiration from Islam’s founding documents, events and figures.
I do not think, and have NOWHERE said nor implied in this thread, that we need to fight a religious war back. Which of our many religions (including Islam – practiced by our loyal Arab/Muslim-Americans) would we even pick, for starters?
I do say that we need to simply tell the truth about Islam. It is not a “religion of peace”. And victory begins with acknowledging the truth.
You have agreed that the “religion of peace” rhetoric is false. In a war, false rhetoric inevitably causes distrust, therefore disunity. Just look at the world around you, John. The current political scene. Would you say the American people are confused about the nature of the Long War we’re in? I would.
H/t Jawa: When The Founding Fathers Faced Islamists.
As I said: we are in a Long War, declared on the world by Islam. At first the Founders appeased and paid tribute – but they never engaged in garbage “Religion of Peace” rhetoric. They told Americans the truth. Eventually, America got its act together and crushed the Islamists. The Founders were, of course, creatures of the Enlightenment (not medieval Christendom).
Christopher Hitchens’ article is probably better:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_urbanities-thomas_jefferson.html
Of course. Their motivation is clear to see even without an in-depth analysis of the texts they draw support from. That doesn’t change the fact that we shouldn’t give them what they want by making it a religious war. IOW, let them claim this is a War on Islam all they wish but as long as we make it clear that this isn’t so that gives an edge. Taking their bait will cost us victory. Put it this way, yesterday it was reported that Al Qaeda is bemoaning their losses in Iraq. During the whole time they have been fighting us they’ve been using the poor pitiful Muslims being attacked by crusaders rhetoric, while we have strongly rejected this (screwing up along the way unfortunately as well). What part of rejecting Islam as a “religion of peace” rhetoric contributed to this success? I would argue none and that instead such propaganda has helped us in this fight.
Efforts by individuals like Spencer, or even the news made by Cardinal Tauran is one thing and whether either want to or not does help the war effort. Yet to make this public policy and have the United States or other Western governments drop this would be a very serious mistake IMO. This does NOT mean it should be taken to the extremes one sees on the Left, nor that these governments shouldn’t encourage “moderate” Muslims, but this “fiction” is a useful tool and the intended audience is not those we are fighting against. If it does effect any of them that would be a nice bonus but ain’t exactly the goal.
Good article. Notice that even the author used a distinguishing term: “Islamists”. The Founders were indeed “creatures of the Enlightenment” but they were also products of their time, which included such things as established official churches in just about every colony (I think RI is the exception off the top of my head) and where early America could indeed have been classified as a “Christian nation”. While Christianity predominates still in America, this cannot be said today. Different times and wars call for different tactics. Take, for example, our campaign against Muslim rebels in the Phillippines during the early 20th century. Tactics used against them were somewhat controversial at the time, but how much more so would this be the case today? We can’t even agree on confining folks we nab at Gitmo without talking about “constitutional rights”. No, if we attempted to do as you ask we would lose our will for certain and the entire conflict. I want victory and as long as this “fiction” is useful and one of the best ways of achieving it, I’m all for it.
ILC: I just came across a news article today that’s relevant here. Granted, this is an example that relays a more overt and inappropriate abuse, but it does tie into why I believe it would be a fatal mistake to take the bait of the Islamofascists in fighting this war.
Iraqis: Marines Try to Convert Muslims
So Muslims are in a religious war against us.. but we’re supposed to pretend they aren’t and instead it’s some abberant group of people who are against us.
So we do nothing… because you’re saying if we fought them as if our life depended upon on it, then all the Muslims would join the fight because they would be defending themselves from attack, which is compulsary for a Muslim to do, though it will be on our time and choosing.
Ok.. so the altenative is to not do that.. as time goes by and a Caliphate state is declared , and a Caliph is installed, the Caliph is the one with the legal authority to declare a Holy Offensive Jihad against the world..which is what he will do.. and then we will have to fight them at that time.. on their time and choosing.
Hmmm. I choose religious war now instead of later.
Are you saying that we are at war with ALL Muslims? Is this a war against all aherents of Islam or with a group of them, even if they represent a sizeable amount of Muslims? I argue it’s the latter and if we try to fight the former kind of war we will lose.
I never said nor even implied that. How you conclude that from anything I’ve said is beyond me. No, we fight like hell as if our lives depended upon it but we don’t do it stupidly.
How dramatic. I guess I’ll have to repeat what I said..
“So Muslims are in a religious war against us”
You don’t honestly think that the Muslims who aren’t engaged in violence don’t know what’s going on? Do you think they dont know what their religion calls for as far as war goes?
Believe me they know.. they’re not stupid.
I wonder if people in the past sat around pulling their dick “Hey Marv.. is every single person in Germany at war against us or just some of them?” “Well Roger it says that only 23,284,399 of them are.” “Thanks.. It is so much clearer now, Marv”
Get one thing right.. They’re at war against us.. not the other way around. I really don’t give a damn about distinguishing people who refuse to disguinish themselves.
So like I said.. interesting tactic… let them get stronger and eventually establish their empire. Once they have a Caliph, the authorityh is in place for them to engage in a global conquest.
How much money you want to bet they’re not asking themselves if they’re being insensitive?
Stupidly like misnaming the war at the onset? Not actually getting a formal declaration of war? Allowing the enemy to form networks in our terroritory? Lying to the public about the religion of the enemy? Lying to ourselves that we can fight them and somehow not get our nails dirty?
I argue it’s the latter and if we try to fight the former kind of war we will lose.
John,
We are at war with a central ideological foundation contained within Islam: The concept that jihad and striving in the way of Allah, as is mandated in the canonical Islamic texts, is obligatory for all Muslims for all of time.
Once that reality is addressed and not glossed, it will be a start.
Are we at war with all Muslims? I say absolutely not, but the unknown number of Muslims who do, or will at some point, embrace the Islamic supremacy doctrine is far greater than 1% or what anyone would care to acknowledge. Several polls have already adequately proven that.
Your link to the marine conversion rumors illustrates that point perfectly. The occupiers are humiliating Islam and when the Muslims are strong, they will show the Christians what is right.
They speak the truth and there is no “fiction” inherent in their words.
Really? Explain why then Al Qaeda is bemoaning its losses in Iraq even though we haven’t adopted the tactics you suggest. While you’re at it, explain how these tactics would aid us in both Iraq and Afghanistant – the former of which is showing remarkable progress thanks to leadership like that shown by General Petraeus. Do you really think the ISF would be doing as well as they have been or even bothering to work with us if we adopted your approach? Get real. I see no benefit at all to what you propose but a helluva lot of lives lost for nothing more than defeat. Are you sure victory is really what you want or simply a shot at at sticking it to the Muslims en masse because their religion pisses you off? No, your way guarantees a lot more American soldiers and Marines will be wounded and killed in an unwinnable war that will bring on another 9/11. Thank you but I’ll pass.
al-Qaeda has declared open war. You are referring to the fiction of the masses of Muslims who you say that by lying to them about their own religion, we can coax them away from it. Nonsense. The words from the “men on the street” in Iraq explicitly stated so.
The ranks of al-Qaeda are endlessly replenishable from the pool of 1.2 billion Muslims. Even a victory here in Iraq, and Afghanistan without identifying the root cause of it, Islamic supremacism and jihad, will do nothing to stunt Islamic agression in the future.
This vicious cycle will continue, because Islam does not evolve because no one has sufficiently called it out and forced it to evolve. It is still an all-encompassing ideology from the 7th century in obvious conflict with the 21st.
I find it odd that it has taken longer to eliminate this disorganized rag-tag “extremist” group, al-Qaeda, then it was to crush the axis powers of WW II.
Who cares? In the final analysis it isn’t a matter of whether their holy texts call for violence or not that is important: it is what they themselves believe about it and what they do with that belief. Many do not share the views of Al Qaeda in this and most in Iraq now strongly oppose them.
Are you seriously comparing a largely homogenous united country from 60 years to a hodge-podge of ethnicities and countries – many of whom despise each other – just because of what groups like al Qaeda claim? Give me a break.
Hey, if you want to play crusades (at least the one of popular myth) and bring down Islam feel free to raise your own army and give it a shot. You’d better have something far greater than misguided paranoia if you’re going to demand more American blood be shed than is necessary in this fight.
On the contrary, each one of these is an example of straying too far to the left and how the Bush Administration has bungled its handling of the war effort. Their failures, however, does not mean that we overcompensate by wildly swinging so far to the right, as you suggest, that we foolishly spark a greater war we cannot win.
You find it “odd” because your analogy is deeply flawed. Show me the Berlin to be captured that Al Qaeda holds and then perhaps you’ll have a point. Asymmetrical warfare is NOT the same as what we faced in WWII. Not by a longshot and General Petraeus is the first commander we’ve had in this conflict who understands that. Hence one good reason we are seeing success now.
Absolutely correct. There are no more uniforms, nationalistic borders, unifying flags of the enemy, with one exception…they all share a uniquely similar ideology…Islam.
Now you are starting to get it!
This is a long war to be fought on many fronts. Islamic supremacy, the mandate to spread Islam as the sole ideology with dominion over all the Earth, as is mandated in Islam.
It is seen on the battlefield, in mosques and schools around the world, in governments, through litigious aperations under the false claim of victimhood. It all serves a singular purpose., to compel capitulation to and further the cause of Islam.
Denying that, the basest base of truth is fallacious. We need to enlighten the masses in the West to this reality. We have the right to defend ourselves first and worry about what the Muslims will do as a secondary concern only.
There is no correlation to what I am calling for and starting a Crusade. That sentiment is histrionical.
I have defined the enemy as I perceive it to be. Do you care to give your definition?
Awake:
I “got it” quite awhile ago. You are being very slippery in changing your argument by giving erroneous analogies on the one hand only to retreat from them and claim a different position when they are shown to be seriously flawed. I noticed you skipped entirely the questions and points I raised but instead focused upon burning down strawmen. So again…
Explain why then Al Qaeda is bemoaning its losses in Iraq even though we haven’t adopted the tactics you suggest. While you’re at it, explain how these tactics would aid us in both Iraq and Afghanistant – the former of which is showing remarkable progress thanks to leadership like that shown by General Petraeus. Do you really think the ISF would be doing as well as they have been or even bothering to work with us if we adopted your approach? Get real. I see no benefit at all to what you propose but a helluva lot of lives lost for nothing more than defeat. Are you sure victory is really what you want or simply a shot at at sticking it to the Muslims en masse because their religion pisses you off? No, your way guarantees a lot more American soldiers and Marines will be wounded and killed in an unwinnable war that will bring on another 9/11. Thank you but I’ll pass.
Let’s add to this the assessment of the CIA Director that’s in the news now:
Awake:
On the contrary, when you use such reasoning to make enemies of folks who themselves are not our enemy, grounding this in an interpretation of a shared faith that is NOT held by all adherents, you are indeed calling for such. Well, the Crusades of popular myth that is. Islam itself and all those who practice this faith are not our enemy, in the secular sense. It is Islam as practiced by those who would use violence to further their goals and those whose belief about their religion makes it antithetical to Western values and mores that is the enemy. What you are proposing to do as matter of public policy in prosecuting this war has not been shown to provide us a reasonable path towards victory but in my estimation has every potential of dooming us to failure. Get around that and address the realities as that exist without the “histrionics” and perhaps you’ll have a point. Until then, you are simply tilting at windmills.
Burning down straw men? Hardly.
I responded to your proclamation of major gains against al-Qaeda (which is factual) in Iraq with a response that their ranks are endlessly replenishable. al-Qaeda is not limited to the theatres of Iraq and Afghanistan. The US military is finally doing what it should do in a war…kill people with guns and bombs who are trying to kill you.
That being said, only time will tell how long the liberation of Iraq will remain a success and at what price. Recent history has shown that when the Taleban was routed in Afghanistan, the US redeployed out only to see the Taleban re-emerge. Normally whern enemies are defeated, they don’t miraculously regenerate.
but in all reality, this is all peripheral BS, as you well know. it really boils down to the definition of the enemy:
This mental conundrum is typical. Islam is not the enemy, but Islam is the enemy. It is obvious that Islam itself is inanimate and cannot be an enemy, but rather the adherents to Islam are the enemy, although not all adherents.
No matter how you try dress it up, Islam is still the common denominator. It is obviously logical that not all 1.2 billion Muslims are enemies, otherwise a good old fashioned global holy war would be in full effect at the moment, but that is not the point at all.
The point is that by your definition of the enemy that it is impossible to differentiate between the two and therefore valueless. Education that because of ideological points inherent in Islam allow for the potential of any and every Muslim to become the latter is what matters.
I have no asperations of “prosecuting” this particular war at all and have made no suggestions to do so. What I, and others have tried to do is to demonstrate that the revelation and acknowledgement of the truth about our enemy is a far better alternative than continuing with this “fictional” charade.
Spencer’s site is primarily pedagogical in nature and I would be remiss to call him a policy guy. The truth is always the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be.
Awake: You dance divinely, I’m sure, but still have failed to address the matter at hand and continued with your erroneous meme. This makes further discussion on this pointless. Btw, you or Robert Spencer may wish to take Ed Morrissey to the woodshed for this post:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/02/on-jihad-maybe-state-had-a-point/
John,
As you can see, I and many others already have.
I don’t know about dancing divinely, but I certainly do disagree with your premise.
The erroneous meme that you accuse me off I am not aware, but I hope it is not as apparent as mis-labeling a historical biography of Muhammad from mainly authentic Muslim sources as an apologetics piece.
Awake,
And many others have agreed with Ed. I respect your consistency but find your take on this matter to be flat-out wrong and dangerous in prosecuting this war. This is my last post on this now old thread so if you wish any further response please choose a newer thread or send me an email. Thanks.
John,
You and Ed are simply wrong and most disagreed with him on that thread.
A final word from Spencer (without Christian apologia) on the subject:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021257.php
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/would_a_jihadi_by_any_other_na.html
Raymond Ibrahim, editor of the essential Al-Qaeda Reader (he translates Arabic to English) also disagrees
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021276.php
Phares: How can these counterterrorism bureaucrats process bin Laden’s words which they can’t use or touch “when dealing with Terrorism”?
In “Good Jihadists and Bad Jihadists?,” the always excellent Walid Phares brilliantly explains what’s wrong with the new State Department gag rules on using the word “jihad” and other words. I tried to explain it here and here, but Walid does it better.
Read it all.