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. 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
62. 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
63. 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
64. 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
65. 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
66. Dinesh, you didn't even address Spencer's points. Essentially what theological basis do Muslims have for being only 'traditional' and what theological basis is there that says that Bin Laden is the wrong Islam?
Jack at 3:35PM on Mar 7th 2007
67. 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
68. 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
69. 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