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. 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
47. 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
48. 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
49. "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
50. 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
51. to author :
you say Islamic terrorism is a recent happening. Get your history straight. check the Turks etal not so recent history against the Jews and other religions. Read the Koran. These extremists and not so extremists are out to destroy and convert whether we like it or not.Any excuse will do. I am sad to say Christain or Jew we are all in for it.
ruth brine at 6:41PM on Mar 2nd 2007
52. 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
53. 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
54. 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
55. 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
56. 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
57. I don't believe that anyone here has even cared to read the Qur'an closely, nor ponder over it's meaning. Why would you talk about something so authoritatively when you don't know anything about it except hearsay? Even Jesus (peace be upon him) preached that if you are slapped on your right cheek, give your left cheek (to get slapped) as well.
The following was the first Qur'anic verse revealed about fighting, which allowed the Muslims to fight back against their persecutors:
(capitals only for emphasis)
"Permission to take up arms is given to those AGAINST WHOM war is made, because THEY HAVE BEEN WRONGED and Allah, indeed, has power to help them-Those who have been driven out from their homes UNJUSTLY, only because they said, 'Our Lord is Allah" (Chapter 22, verse 40-41).
Study the history of early Islam. Do you know of any example of a people who suffered persecution for 13 years and never lifted a finger against their persecutors until God gave them permission to do so? And they ultimately defeated their enemy, and then forgave almost everyone. And if the Muslims eventually did not fight back, they would have been wiped out as they were outnumbered and were weaker and less experienced in warfare than their enemies.
Here are some more verses about fighting. Try to read and understand them. I am not one to 'hide' these verses, by all means read them, but please don't cut out sections of verses that will change the meaning!
"And fight in the way of Allah AGAINST THOSE WHO FIGHT AGAINST YOU, BUT DO NOT TRANSGRESS. Surely Allah loves NOT the transgressors" (Ch. 2 verse 191)
"And slay THESE transgressors wherever you meet them and drive them out from WHERE THEY HAVE DRIVEN YOU OUT; for persecution is worst than slaying...IF they fight you, THEN fight them. Such is the punishment for the disbelievers" (Ch 2 verse 192)
Again,
"But if they desist, then surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful" (Ch 2 verse 193)
Why fighting at all?
"If Allah were not to repel a section of mankind by another, the earth would be filled with disorder, but Allah is full of bounty towards all peoples: (Ch 2 verse 252)
Do you see now? Only when you are being attacked because of your religion unjustly (meaning you did nothing wrong), and after God grants you permission to fight, then you are allowed to fight your enemies, but not trangressing your enemy's rights. The early Muslims, even after recieving permission to finally fight back, were a bit afraid of the prospect of having to fight!
The 'infidels' people are mentioning is not the random Christian or Jew. If Muslims think that, then they are defective in their knowledge of Islam, Islam being an Arabic word meaning 'peace'.
The 'infidel', so to speak, only applies to those people who knowingly and unjustly continue to physically persecute and harm an innocent people only because of their faith.
There are so many examples in early Islam when Muhammad (peace be upon him) forgave his enemies. He forgave a Meccan who murdered his uncle. These were the vicious enemies of Islam, yet the early Muslims preached forgiveness and mercy and were steadfast for 10 years, and took revenge and punished the wrongdoers only when it was appropriate. When the Muslims finally conquered Mecca (from where they were forced to leave about 10 years earlier), they pardoned almost every single Meccan, even though those same Meccans wanted to murder every Muslim whenever they had a chance.
Now, how can you blame a religion for it's followers' ignorance? I agree that in present day societies, some Muslim groups have become extreme, even the 'scholars' preach some violent ideologies supposedly found in Islam. For example, many Muslims today unfortunately believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) will come down from heaven and kill all the non-Muslims. Is this Islam? Read the Qur'an again, and show me where it says to kill innocent people! Muhammad (peace be upon him) had prophecied that there would come a time when the Muslim leaders and scholars would be the worst creatures on the face of the earth.
So if Muslims claim that Islam is the religion of God, then why all these problems in the Muslim world? Why all this negativity against Islam, so much so that someone on this blog wrote 'death to Allah' and there have been other nasty things said unjustly about Islam. May God have Mercy!
The truth is, that God has already sent the Promised Messiah for the rejuvenation of the Muslim world and the world at large, no matter if you are Christian, Jew, Hindu, Atheist, whatever. There is an International Muslim Organization who claims their leader is the Promised Messiah, the second coming of Jesus. Their motto: 'Love for All, Hatred for None.' They believe that religious warfare has ended with the coming of the Promised Messiah. Now it is the time for sincere prayers for the world. That is the present day 'weapon' of Jihad. Prayer for the good of mankind. If anyone needs to see a true Muslim organization without any bigotry in their beliefs, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is the one. Those Muslims understand that true Islam is found at the time of the early Muslims.
Obviously as time goes on, the followers stray from the right path. This has happened to all followers of religion. Don't you see the ancient civilizations and their rise and subsequent fall?But that doesn't mean that religion is bad or that it is causing violence. And every religion mentions violence because religion is supposed to be a way of life. It must cover every aspect of life and give advice and guidance, otherwise what good is religion?
So now that the Promised Messiah has come, those who accept him will come to understand the true nature of God, which is the only thing that will create peace in the end. This is the real reason why God would send the Promised Messiah; that is, to teach the present day people (who would be advanced in terms of worldly knowledge) of the real existence of One God. This is the source of peace, if you want to know it.
AAA at 12:33AM on Mar 3rd 2007
58. Well, a lot of people live w/o heating & cooling or eat with their fingers, some people do not have something to eat everyday. HA it's called the poor of America but the poor here do not blow up their own or kill, or maybe might if desparate because people born & raised here do not have a lot of options anymore. A lot of our resouces are going to the wrong cause and the people. What to do, what to do. Yes this administration is partly to BLAME on how they treated foreign affairs, so far!
Bernie at 4:53AM on Mar 3rd 2007
59. D'Souza is a closet Indian Hindu with boxed-in thinking that is so rooted in the radical right-wing Xtain mode. It was so easy to follow Hitler philosophy that "all Jews are bad" and its the same with the radical Xtian right "all Muslims are bad." I have made this statement many times and its never been refuted: More people have died in the name of Jesus or been killed by weapons of the so called Christian West than any other religion, even Islam. The "Christians" in America for example engage in proxy killings thru their all powerful Military Industrial Complex. Iraq War was written in Hebrew by the Israeli Zionists and the Chrisitan fundamentalits, who helped bring Bush to power, provided the ink. Bottom line; Xtianity does its killings thru its mighty armies and [the a tiny fraction of extremists] who claim to be Muslims do it thru their terrorism but the it is the Xtians that net higher deaths of the innocents.
Robb anti-Dinesh D\\\'Souza at 6:53AM on Mar 3rd 2007
60. I am really with Jim Steel above. I am really sick and tired of all the pointless politics. I do appreciate Bush for at least making a decision. All the Democrats seem to be doing is retroactively saying they didn't support the war.
It is absolutely necessary that we work out the base issue between Islam (radical) and the West, especially the U.S. In the meantime, the U.S. should do absolutely everything possible to move our use of fossil fuels to hydrogen fuel so we can get rid of the dependancy on oil.
I wish that was the case and we could somehow relocate Isreal (I know, it will never happen), but if we could take away those two items--they should solve the problems. Although these middle east countries will realize the West is what helpf fund their country. If they remained militant after this, then these are people who just enjoy killing and should be aggressively dealt with.
Well, that is the easiest way: remove the land-peace obstacle and remove the leverage.
Don A. at 7:38AM on Mar 3rd 2007