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 5 of 5)
61. 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
62. 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
63. 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
64. 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
65. Islam and the Kuran are most definitely the problem, although clearly not the only one. For 1300 years of its existence, Islam has had and implemented a fire and sword (slash and burn) theology. 1300 years ago Islam transformed the sleepy tribes of the Arabian peninsula into a formidable war machine, and they spread like cockroaches (or rats) all the way to Morocco and Spain in the West to India in the east, using military conquest and massacre as their main tools. The militant philosophy of thre Arabs was adapted by the Persians and Turks (non-Arab peoples) and they carried it forward historically after the Arab energy was spent. The Turks overran Christian Constantinople and pushed their armies to the gates of Vienna until they were turned back. The Turkish occupation of southeastern Euroope for centuries left us with the problems of Bosnia and Albania. Massacres of Christians by the Turks were rampant throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries--forming the central problem of the so-called "Eastern Question". In the 19th and 20th centuries, tired of living under oppressive Turkish Muslim rule, the people of eastern Europe (Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, etc. rose up and forced the Turks out. In order to prevent their last Christian subjects from doing the same, the Turks used Islam to institute the final solution for Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians ca 1914-1923. The Armenians and Assyrians were nearly wiped off the face of the globe for no sin except to be able to continue to worship and live in peace with their neighbors. All of these crimes and many others were committed by Muslims and against non-Muslims. The basic justification for such persecution is found in the Kuran. Make sure you get an unabridged edition.
Leon Saryan at 8:28AM on Mar 3rd 2007
66. This was very well written and a good explanation of the flaws in Robert Spencer's arguments.
I am Muslim by the way
Tariq Nelson at 8:32AM on Mar 3rd 2007
67. Leon, why don't you supplement your empty claim that "such persecution is found in the Kuran" with actual proof.
See my post, #58.
AAA at 9:51AM on Mar 3rd 2007
68. The actions of Muslims cannot be conceived as separate from their religious faith. This is true for all areas of life-- civic duty, infrastructure, sex, sports, everything. This is not a good thing or a bad thing but non-Muslims must appreciate this cultural and psychological condition as it relates to the behavior of many disgruntled modern Muslims, especially the Arabs. Whether the cause(s) of the current violence stem more from culture, politics or religion is irrelevant. None of these is considered separately, abstractly, by the minds of traditional Muslims.
Contrary to what is often implied by those who would accept no fault on behalf of the teachings of the Koran, one does not need to have a PhD in Islamic studies to gather together basic historical evidence that paints a picture of troubling trends in this religion since its founding. To fall back on the tired argument that "the Christians killed blah blah..." does not work. It is like saying you are trying to control corruption in Chicago and the guilty ones say "Well, what about all the corruption in Philadelphia?" Displacement of blame is widely practiced by all sides and it does not help to simplify a complex issue.
It goes without saying that Islam brings solace and spiritual grace to millions of followers. However, a few passages from the Koran are routinely trotted out as examples of "out of context" or "misinterpreted" texts. Here they are addressed as statements rather than perfect translations:
1. Islam forbids the killing of innocents. How does Islam define "innocent"? Without an established definition, this message gives no comfort. Are any non-believers innocent? Are any Jews innocent? Who decides?
2. Islam forbids suicide. Many Westerners fail to realize that "suicide bombers" are not suicide cases strictly speaking but rather they are warriors.
3. The Koran says that Muslims can/should make war against those who have wronged them. Can this not be interpreted very broadly? Does the export of "decadent American culture" to Arab countries constitute a wrong that justifies war being waged on the US?
I would like to see a non-ambiguous answer/discussion to these points, and many others. The fact that we spend so much time arguing about the violent vs non-violent nature of writings in the Koran is a red flag in itself.
Because of the many generalities found in the Bible and the Koran, various passages are open to different interpretations. This obvious fact accounts for the sectarian nature of both religions. That is what keeps clergy in business and presumably the case is similar in Islam. What is troubling to many in the West is that there is a startling absence of dialogue from Islamic leaders to clarify points like those noted above. We have yet to see an open, honest discussion on the part of most Muslims in this regard, which only serves to reinforce the seemingly slanted beliefs of those who believe they have reason to fear Islam.
spinifex at 12:15AM on Mar 4th 2007
69. Spinifex, here are the answers:
1. What do you think the word 'innocent' means?
"Whosoever killed a person - unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land - it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind" (Ch 5 verse 33)
So there's your definition in regards to 'killing' someone. Everyone is innocent except those who murder someone else or those who cause disorder on a large scale (although there is a possibility to forgive in those two cases).
2. If you don't believe that 'suicide bombers' are committing suicide, then I don't know what you are thinking. They ARE committing suicide, and therefore, they are committing an extremely grevious sin.
3. Now here, you need to define the word 'wronged.' See my post, #58. There you will find your answers.
AAA at 5:27PM on Mar 4th 2007
70. M. Dinesh D' Souza, I just returned from Israel, and I met many muslims.
To say M. Spencer is wrong is intellectually dishonest. There is no place in the world where muslim immigration actually worked. The cause lays in the religion itself.
drzz at 9:32AM on Apr 4th 2007
71. I think anyone who like to comment about Islamization, terorrist, jihad, etc should stay, live and learn about it in a country that has Muslim majority population like Egypt, Iran,Indonesia, etc. So that one could have real experience before giving any interpertations, opinions and comments. The reason a thinker, journalist (or what ever he says) like Dinesh D'Souza had misslead opinion about terrorism, etc because He did not have any real experience, he just talk based on his poor knowledge and experience. How stupid is that.
Kumbara Gerdot at 3:30PM on Oct 7th 2007