Yesterday I debated Robert Spencer at the Conservative Political Action Committee annual conference in Washington D.C. The debate was aired live on C-Span. Our topic was essentially, Is Islam the Problem? My book The Enemy at Home says no, locating the problem in the way that liberal foreign policy and liberal values projected abroad have strengthened radical Islam and emboldened it to attack us. Spencer's books collectively answer yes, the problem is with Islam itself.
But Islam has been around for 1300 years and the problem of Islamic terrorism is a recent one. How can Islam be to blame? For me the intelligent question is: what is it about Islam today that has made it an incubator of a certain kind of fanaticism and terrorism?
Spencer iwill have none of it. He is part of an influential strain of conservatives who blame the teachings and practice of Islam for producing Islamic terrorism. Since the terrorists do what they do on behalf of Islam, Islam must be the source of their convictions and therefore Islam needs to be examined, denounced and reformed. This is how Spencer thinks we can win the war on terror: by demanding that Muslims stop practicing Islam as it has been practiced since Muhammad.
In arguing his thesis Spencer locates all the violent verses in the Koran and all the hideous deeds performed by Islamic conquerors, especially in their early centuries of irredentist expansion. Then he links these to the words and actions of Khomeini, Bin Laden and today's Islamic radicals. Spencer is an effective polemicist.
But his historical argument is dubious. It emphasizes violent passages in the Koran, while downplaying the passages that urge peace and goodwill. It applies a moral standard to Islamic empires (they didn't give minorities full rights! they reduced Jews and Christians to second class citizens!) that certainly could not be met by the Roman empire or the empires established by the Portuguese, the Spanish, the French and the British. In the Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella, for example, Jews had three choices: convert to Christianity, leave the country, or be killed. No Muslim empire legislated or systematically enforced such a policy toward its religious minorities. Yes, the Koran says "slay the infidels" but no Muslim empire actually did that. For example the Muslims ruled North India for two centuries before they were displaced by the British. The Mughal emperors could have killed the tens of millions of Hindus under their control or at least forced them to become Muslims? They did nothing of the sort.
Spencer glibly jumps over entire centuries in linking, say, the savagery of the Ottomans in Constantinople with the savagery of Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Taliban in Afghanistan. How different is Spencer's one-sided reading of Islam from, say, the works of historian Bernard Lewis. Lewis is hardly uncritical of Islam. But he knows that world, speaks the local languages, and exhibits in his work a nuance, judiciousness and balance that, alas, I don't find in Spencer or other conservative Islamophobes.
It is Bin Laden's argument that radical Islam is true Islam. It is Bin Laden's contention that he is doing nothing more than what is commanded in the Koran and the Islamic tradition. And Robert Spencer essentially agress with Bin Laden! Spencer is willing to concede one of the world's great religions--one with more than a billion adherents worldwide--to the murderers of Al Qaeda. At one point in our CPAC debate he asked me to name a traditional Muslim, as if such a creature scarcely exists in the world.
Do we really want to go to war with a billion Muslims? If not, is it realistic to approach the Muslim world with the premise that the only good Muslim is a non-Muslim? Don't all these Western attacks on Islam and the Koran and Muhammad, not to mention Spencer's agreement with Bin Laden that Islam mandates violence and terrorism, have the effect of alienating traditional Muslims and pushing them toward the radical camp? These are my questions for Spencer, and for other conservatives who follow the same line. It's time, I would urge these good folks, to reconsider some basic assumptions. Unfortunately you are part of the reason we are losing this war of ideas.
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 5)
46. it's not the Muslems. It's the Arabs.
s jacobs at 2:30PM on Mar 2nd 2007
47. It is good to see practically no positive responses to Mr. D'Souza's ludicrous claims, as supported by his preposterous book. Robert Spencer has forgotten more about Islam than Dinesh will ever know. We all know the ideology of Islam, taken directly from their canonized immutable texts (Qur'an/Hadith/Sura) as applied throughout the world today, and historically since it's inception (Muhammad was a warrior by trade), is the sole cause of 9/11. Yeah yeah yeah, the cultural left in America facilitates the spread of Islam, but D'Souza's response is classical "tu quoque", sensationalized to make another buck for the man, probably subsidized by the Saudi's, to publish the trash that his book is.
Mr. Smith at 2:38PM on Mar 2nd 2007
48. Boy....I have to say you guys have alot of nothing to say. after reading these posts I have just become dumber. If you really believe that muslims, and the people of the middle east do not want peace and harmony, and are not loving individuals you are....in itself a nut job!! One day the world will realize we are all pawns in what I consider to be a game between radical, extreme, and facist leaders. We somehow continue to put the most crude and evil individuals in power. And for all of you who are wondering....ever ask yourself why we are attacking Iraq, iran , and syria when the majority if not all of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia. Did you know that as I type this.... With the help of Saudia Arabia the United States is helping place and fund a terrorist Al Queda in Lebanon. The problems ARE MUCH DEEPER THEN YOU THINK!!
David at 2:36PM on Mar 2nd 2007
49. Over the centuries many wars have been fought over religion. Religious leaders used text (taken out of context, I am sure) to justify the slaughter of millions of people. All major religions have participated in this slaughter. Remember the crusades-Catholicism against Islam, or think of the slaughter of Catholics under Cromwell in England, and King Saul's slaughter of the Amalekites described in the Book of Samuel. These are only a few illustrations of the religious wars that have caused many deaths in the past.
The point is, do we fault the religion or do we fault those who interpret the religious documents.
In the past, I think the fault lay primarily in those who interpreted the religious documents, although there was some political influence there as well. Today, I think the problem is caused by a desire for political influence. The political figures use religious in an attempt to further their own ambitions for power and monetary gains.
We cannot blame a particular religion for the current violence. We must blame the political leaders on both sides who, in the name of religion, have caused havoc we are now experiencing.
Gene Thomas at 3:01PM on Mar 2nd 2007
50. D'Souza complains that Spencer conveniently fails to mention certain aspects of Islam, yet he does the same: while Islam failed to kill millions of Infidels undere they rule, Islamic Law demands that a nation under Sharia treat non-Muslims as second class citizens-thereby forcing millions to either convert or move. D'Souza is so intent to blame "Liberal" policies that he, also, manipulates history. May I suggest another source of radical or "Fascist" Islam: Fundamentalism of all persuasions--be it Islam, Christian, Jew--or Neoconservatism. If one is convinced one speak to or for God, that there is but one approach to truth, and that others truths must be confronted and "erased," the--in the words of Nathaniel Hawthorne--one has made to first step toward the Unpardonable Sin, or coldly and calculatedly violating the other person's heart and mind.
William Bogard at 5:15PM on Mar 2nd 2007
51. How do we fight an idealogy of intolerance? The past taught us about the Kamikaze who believed that they were doing "Gods will" and sacrificed themeslves willingly. There was no "Negotiating" possibe with them!
The "Hashashins" the original Assasins, thus the origin of the word, went to their death willingly as well, again NO NEGIOTIATION possible?
NEGOTIATION WITH A RABID DOG IS A WASTE OF TIME!
Peter Doran at 5:04PM on Mar 2nd 2007
52. agtG - thanks for giving us the background of this man.. I also notice that he keeps blabbing and blabbing his own mediocre ideas to make people in America be angry at each other aside from creating useless havoc in this country.
He doesn't share American sentiments nor will ever understand how North America was founded.
He's too quick to say that "The Mughal emperors could have killed the tens of millions of Hindus under their control.." But D'Souza absolutely will not want to know this - that the credit for Mughal success must go largely to Akbar’s recognition of power realities, and reconciliation with the Rajputs by suspension of several tenets of a typically Islamic state. It was the Rajput generals and soldiers who won many of the victories for which the Mughals took credit. The Rajput states in Rajasthan and Bundelkhand were vassals of the Mughal emperor only in name. For all practical purposes, they were allies of the Mughals who had to keep them in good humour."
isis at 5:50PM on Mar 2nd 2007
53. "But Islam has been around for 1300 years and the problem of Islamic terrorism is a recent one."
Recent???
Surely you jest?
From the OED:
[a. F. assassin, or ad. It. assassino: cf. also Pr. assassin, Pg. assassino, Sp. asesino, med.L. assassnus (OF. forms were assacin, asescin, asisim, hasisin, hassissin, haussasin, etc.; med.L. (pl.) assessini, ascisini, etc.), ad. Arab. ashshshn and ashshiyyn, pl. of ashshsh and ashshiyy, lit. ‘a hashish-eater, one addicted to hashish,’ both forms being applied in Arabic to the Ismli sectarians, who used to intoxicate themselves with hashish or hemp, when preparing to dispatch some king or public man. The OF. variants, (pl.) assacis, hassisis, haississis, med.L. assasi, haussasi, med.Gr. , point to the Arabic singular, but the form finally established in the European languages arises from the Arab. plural, as in Bedouin; cf. also It. cherubino, serafino, F. and earlier Eng. cherubin, seraphin (sing.). Naturally the plural was first in use, in the historical sense, and occurred in Eng. in the Lat. or It. form before assassin was naturalized: the latter was still accented assassin by Oldham in 1679.]
1. lit. A hashish-eater. Hist. (in pl.) Certain Muslim fanatics in the time of the Crusades, who were sent forth by their sheikh, the ‘Old Man of the Mountains,’ to murder the Christian leaders.
Steve J. at 6:17PM on Mar 2nd 2007
54. Dale Freeman's comments regarding the Assassins is incorrect. There was no "Guild of Assassins" but rather the Naziri Ishmaeli, an Islamic sect that split from the Shi'i over sucession issues resolving around the Sixth Imam. Their 12th Century leader, Hassan i Sabah, chose to establish mountain fortifications in Afghanistan and used some revolutionary espionage methods, including the first known incidents of "Sleeper Agents" in the West. They were not hired killers but acted to preserve their faith's way of life against Christian and Musilm attempts to supress them.
For those interested in learning more about the group _The Assassin Legends: Myths of the Isma'ilis _ by Farhad Daftary is a good palce to start.
Patrick F. Brady at 6:22PM on Mar 2nd 2007
55. What a complex topic to be generalized in such a short space. The U.S. made a huge blunder in helping create Israel by displacing several hundred thousand Palestinians. Now there are millions of Palestinians who were born and still live in refugee camps. You think they're angry yet? Since the U.S. was only 50 years removed from moving native Americans to reservations in 1948, it's not hard to understand that they thought the Palestinians were equally powerless. However, the Palestinian refugee camps exist in most Arab nations. Their homelessness is now everyone's cause. Just because Islam is the primary religion in these countries, the religion can't be faulted. The creation of Israel will go down in history as the largest geo-political blunder of all time, if a peaceful settlement can't be brokered in the next few years. The consequences of failure are going to be nuclear war with global radiation poisoning.
SS at 7:11PM on Mar 2nd 2007
56. Dinesh
For an Indian, your omniscience about Indian history is amazing. In your book, the only Muslims who ever ran India were the Moghuls. In any case, all of them - to varying degrees - forcibly converted Hindus to Muslims, and Aurangzeb - the last of them - was the worst. In other words, as time went on, things got worse, not better for Hindus, and it was only the military success of the Hindus and Sikhs at the end of the Moghul empire that ended the persecution.
Also, Islamic rule didn't last a mere 200 years. It started around 1000AD - ever heard of Mahmoud of Ghazni? - and went uninterrupted through 1525, when the Moghuls started. And not one Islamic ruler was tolerant of Hindus, much in line with the bigotry that was prevalent elsewhere.
I suggest reading up the following Muslim dynasties in India:
Mamluqs
Khiljis
Tughluqs
Bahamanis
Syeds
Lodis
Ahmadabad
Malwa
Berar
Ahmadnagar
Bidar
Bijapur
Golconda
Moghuls
And find out how each of them treated Hindus in their kingdoms throughout their reigns. And then stop doing to Hindus what Ahmadinejad does to Jews - denying that their respective holocausts ever happened.
Infidel Pride at 10:06PM on Mar 8th 2007
57. Ameen. Finally, an educated and well thought out article that doesn't bash Islam. Spencers literalism is a dangerous problem, and anyone who singles out a single verse in any religious text is going to have serious misinterpretations. Islam is a religion of peace. It does not condone violence, but it does permit self defense. Suicide is a major sin, not the path to martyr status. Anyone who commits violent crimes in the name of God ought to be ashamed of themselves. Negative attention is always more popular than positive enlightenment. We muslims want the same things as everyone else: peace, freedom, happiness, security, a future for our children. People like spencer pray on the fears of American.
muslimamerican at 7:46PM on Mar 2nd 2007
58. I am finding at least as much violence in reading these talkback comments than I do in reading the Koran, which certainly does have violence as does the Bible, the Bahgavagita, etc. All cultures have gone through a stage of development where they use violence. Don't we need to support and learn to resolve our conflict by using the tools of confclit resolution rather than war if ANY of us are going to survive?
Rachel at 9:18PM on Mar 2nd 2007
59. Everything, like a coin, has two sides; good or bad, bright or dark. I mean everything! The only question is which will dominate and the answer will set the criterion for a choice.
Mr. D’Souza felt its unfair for Mr. Spencer to downplay the passages that the Koran had urged peace and goodwill. The fact is Mr. D’Souza failed to see through the smoke that the Koran’s urge for peace and goodwill exists only when the “infidel” is not present. Otherwise, there will be no peace and goodwill at all.
Muslim world was, is and very likely will be in turmoil, not just recently, not just in the last 200 years. From its beginning to the present time, Muslims resort to unnecessary and excessive force and violence in every situation everywhere, either between Islam and any other religions or within their own society, woman’s right and crimes for example. They even kill their own Islam believers just because slightest differences, of course to non-Muslim, within their own religion.
There is no any religion in this world that preaches intolerance and gives direct orders to kill like Islam towards people who are different from their beliefs. As everyone knows the Koran says "slay the infidels." Mr. D’Souza said, “but no Muslim empire actually did that.” How can Mr. D’Souza ignore that the preaching is in effect and on going that propels Muslims to kill whenever the situation warrants in accordance with Islam’s doctrines. The preaching just like time-bombs waiting to explode, you can not assume the slaying will not occur just because “no Muslim empire actually did that.“ As a matter of fact, many Islamic countries is pressing this practice. And, the gruesome slaughter happens all the time, in the past and present time.
Islam is the problem to the world because of its preaching of intolerance and, the worst, killing, period.
PS: When we express our own opinion on this practical and critical issue, we can not allow us be biased and neither be naïve. We need to exam the issue in every angle, especially from the victims’ point of view. Of course, not everyone who got hurt or killed is a victim.
Heng Chin at 10:21PM on Mar 2nd 2007
60. Muslim radicals do follow the true Islam Cult .
Muslims are terrorizing this world
they are heard everywhere and for nothing good .
I can't see what and how anyone can follow such man made evil cult and say it is from god .
Common sense is all you need but if you read the quran you would see how evil it is yet they say it is a religion of peace when Muhammed himself was not a peaceful person ! Muslims are afraid to doubt their religion and learn other since they are brought up to believe it is the only way or you will get hell .The quran talks so much about death hell,.fire ,doom ....Islam attracts criminals
Islam is a religion that likes to convert and grow
so they can rule the world ...they are doing a good job now with ruling the world with their terror and death ...
marlen at 10:33PM on Mar 2nd 2007