Tuesday, July 31, 2007

"People who have what they want are fond of telling people who haven't what they want that they really don't want it." - Ogden Nash

***

Protestations of an alleged Islamophobe:

About Robert Spencer

"Q: Why should I believe what you say about Islam?
RS: Because I draw no conclusions of myself, and I do not ask anyone to take anything on my word. Pick up any of my books, and you will see that they are made up largely of quotations from Islamic jihadists and the traditional Islamic sources to which they appeal to justify violence and terrorism. I am only shedding light on what these sources say.

I present the work on the basis of the evidence I bring forth, and invite readers to evaluate it for themselves. Critics have again and again mounted ad hominem attacks in response; they do not (and cannot) bring forth even a single example of a supposed inaccuracy in my work. I would, of course, be happy to debate any scholar about Islam and jihad; this is a standing invitation. Also, as this site has shown, I am always open to new information.

Q: Have you debated Islamic scholars and spokesmen?
RS: Yes *long list of names*

Q: I've read that you are actually ignorant of Islam.
RS: Such a charge is a common rhetorical tactic of jihadist apologists. Here are two examples of how it is used, with brazen disregard for the facts. ("assertions of points about Islam that are generally taken for granted as true by Muslims were sharply contradicted by Muslim spokesmen, who not only claimed the contrary but charged that the non-Muslims making the statements were "ignorant."")

Q: Do you hate Muslims?
RS: Of course not. Islam is not a monolith, and never have I said or written anything that characterizes all Muslims as terrorist or given to violence. I am only calling attention to the roots and goals of jihad violence. Any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts. Any hate in my books comes from Muslim sources I quote, not from me. Cries of "hatred" and "bigotry" are effectively used by American Muslim advocacy groups to try to stifle the debate about the terrorist threat. But there is no substance to them.

It is not an act of hatred against Muslims to point out the depredations of jihad ideology. It is a peculiar species of displacement and projection to accuse someone who exposes the hatred of one group of hatred himself: I believe in the equality of rights and dignity of all people, and that is why I oppose the global jihad. And I think that those who make the charge know better in any case: they use the charge as a tool to frighten the credulous and politically correct away from the truth.

Am I "anti-Muslim"? Some time ago here at Jihad Watch I had an exchange with an English convert to Islam. I said: "I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc." Is all that "anti-Muslim"? My correspondent thought so. He responded: "So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims."

In other words, he saw a call for equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies, including freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, and equal employment opportunities, as a challenge to his religion. To the extent that they are, these facts have to be confronted by both Muslims and non-Muslims. But I make no apologies: it is not "anti-Muslim" to wish freedom of conscience and equality of rights on the Islamic world -- quite the contrary.

Q: Are you deliberately ignoring more liberal schools of thought in Islam?
RS: Certainly not. I encourage any Muslim individual or group who is willing to work publicly for the reform of the Islamic doctrines, theological tenets and laws that Islamic jihadists use to justify violence. But this must be done honestly and thoroughly, confronting the texts of the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira that are used to justify violence against unbelievers, and decisively rejecting Qur'anic literalism. Not all self-proclaimed moderates are truly moderate: many deny that these elements of Islam exist at all — hardly a promising platform for reform. It is important to make proper distinctions and speak honestly about the roots of the terrorist threat."


Also interesting:

Ibn Warraq on the charge that you need to know Arabic to understand the Koran (among other things Classical Arabic is different from modern) and on context. Karen Armstrong would flip on reading these.