Hi Tom,
Freedom of Expression in Islam is an interesting book

I take it that you are referring to "Freedom of Expression in Islam" by Mohammad Hashim Kamali:

http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Expression-Fundamental-Rights-Liberties/dp/0946621608/sr=8-1/qid=1163308494/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-1847968-5686301?ie=UTF8&s=books
I'll order it.

Thanks!

And speaking of freedom of speech, I join Tom in encouraging everyone to sign the petition to free Egyptian blogger Abdelkareem Soliman, at http://www.hamsaweb.com/c2/home.php?id=Kareem

I am pleased to see on this website a respectful view of Islamic history, which has its high points as well as its low points, rather than the ignorance on so many blogs and websites. No civilizational tradition has a monopoly on goodness or badness. I am not one of th ose who demand that Europeans or Americans try to 'understand' and 'dialogue with' (that is, surrender and bow before) the radicals, but I do think that a serious understanding of Islamic civilization is needed in Europe and America and elsewhere. It will help to defeat the radicals and it will help to make friendships with the many pious Muslims who are also fighting the radicals. It is a terrible crime to confuse al-Qaeda with Islam, which is only one of the many reasons we should be so strongly opposed to al-Qaeda and agreed to defeat them.

Yes, that's the book i'm refering to.

Thank you, Marwa, for the tip. And thank you, Abdullah, for the kind comments. I agree that more understanding of Islamic traditions and civilization is important to bridge gaps between friends of liberty throughout the world, and to create alliances for freedom, most especially with tolerant Muslims who are the most numerous front-line victims of the politicized radical Islamists.

Hi Tom,

Which recent Muslim-bashing books did you have in mind? Also, why do you consider the second Berman book a lot less important than the first?

For starters, Robert Spencer's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam," which was quoted to me after my talk today at the national convention of the Federalist Society. (The fact that he refers to Muhammad telling his followers that "their god, Allah, had commanded them to take up arms" suggests that he thinks of "Allah" as a name, like Tony, Melissa, or Jupiter, rather than simply the Arabic word for god, which indicates that he's a dolt.) As to the second volume of Berman's work, I didn't mean to cut it down. The first can be read on a stand-alone basis (whereas the second is less useful as a stand-alone work) and deals with very important issues rooted in the division of the church from the empire, a development that had enormous importance for the future development of European legal systems.

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the clarification on Berman. I've got the first one on your recommendation but haven't got around to reading it yet.

Regarding Spencer: I haven't read that book but would say that...

On the one hand, I'm of the understanding that Arab Jews and Christians always referred to their God as Allah, so yes, it is a little redundant.

On the other, I'd ask what the other gods at that time (i.e. not relating to the monotheistic religions) were referred to by Mohammed and his followers? In other words, did they distinguish "their" Allah, in name, from other gods?

It does not speak well of the analytical abilities of Tom G. Palmer of the Cato Institute if he regularly condemns books he has not read as "Muslim-bashing" and their authors as "dolts."

If he had troubled to read any of my books rather than relying on secondhand partial quotations, he would have found discussion of the meaning of the word "Allah." Note also, for example, this blog post from December 2004, http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004468.php. In it, I say: "Arabic-speaking Christians today use the word 'Allah' to refer to the God of Christianity, as they have for many centuries." This is not quite the same thing as saying that "Allah" is the Arabic word for "god," as Tom G. Palmer does, since in fact "ilah" is the Arabic word for god, and "Allah" is most likely "the God."

But I am sure that Tom G. Palmer, not being a dolt, is well aware of that already.

Also, if Tom G. Palmer would be so kind as to point out any actual inaccuracy in my "Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" or any other book, or to specify any passage in it that he regards as "Muslim-bashing," I would be most grateful. But I don't believe that he will be able to do so if he has any interest in accuracy or fairness.

However, I do agree with him that Hallaq's "Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law" is superb.

Cordially
Robert Spencer
Author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam"

The author of 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam' demands that Palmer read a blg post before commenting on a book. That sets a new standard. I wait for the author's book on 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Judaism,' in which Spencer will no doubt do for Judaism what he has done for Islam.

Let me add that if Spencer's work (visit his website) is not Muslim-bashing, nothing would be.

AD:

It is easier to cast vague aspersions than to deal on the level of evidence. You did not, and cannot, cite any inaccuracy in what I have written at Jihad Watch.

As for Tom G. Palmer, if he is in the habit of commenting on books he has not read, without troubling to check the accuracy of his statements, that is his business. But don't expect others to take him seriously as an analyst. For him to call me a dolt because "Allah" means "God," when I write about how "Allah" means "God" in several books and articles published over the last five years, is just carelessness on his part.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

I just got back from a variety of errands today and found this little tantrum. I'm embarrassed to say that I've read a fair amount of Spencer's nauseating book (until I couldn't stomach any more). It's a disgrace and an embarrassment. I'm sorry that I contributed to his coffers by buying a copy.

I've got some other more pressing business today, but I'll dig my copy out of the stack of "Don't bother to waste any more time on them" books and respond in more detail later this evening.

I look forward to your comments, Dr. Palmer. Just the title of the book ("The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam") tells us that it's not a work of scholarship, much less a reliable guide to a serious topic. The title announces to us that his book is likely to bbe as reliable as a book entitled "The Politically Correct Guide to Islam."

Still no substance, eh, Tom G. Palmer? It's a pity that the intellectually bereft can resort only to ad hominems. But no matter how nauseated they make you, the facts stand as they are.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Sorry, "Bob," but I just got back in. (I guess if you live your life on the internet, you're used to instant gratification.) I just fetched your trashy bit of propaganda, so I'll post in the next hour, after I've fixed a bit to eat. You'll just have to wait until then.

Letââ?¬â?¢s start at the top. ââ?¬Å?The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)ââ?¬Â (PIG-IC) is not a ââ?¬Å?Guide to Islam,ââ?¬Â nor even to the Crusades that he so enthusiastically praises. The author promises ââ?¬Å?an examination of certain highly tendentious assertions about both Islam and the Crusades that have entered the popular discourse. This book is an attempt to move the public discourse about both subjects a bit closer to the truth.ââ?¬Â (p. xvi) Instead, it is a series of counter assertions, a simple mirror image of the ââ?¬Å?politically correctââ?¬Â interpretations that Spencer claims he will ââ?¬Å?examine.ââ?¬Â As Trudy notes above, a book called ââ?¬Å?The Politically Correct Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)ââ?¬Â (PCG-IC) would promise an unreliable guide and we should expect no different from PIG-IC.

Not only is PIG-IC not a reliable guide, but it is an endorsement of the interpretation of Islam by the Radical Political Islamists (RPI). Indeed, were the radicals to search around for a recruiter from among the infidels, they could not have done better than Robert Spencer, who eagerly and brashly endorses their every claim and violent act as true to Islam and as an expression of true Muslim identity. It is as if his goal were to galvanize the Muslim world against the non-Muslim world and to recruit them all into the cause of al-Qaeda.

In order to paint Islam as essentially and uniquely intolerant and violent, Spencer has to explain away texts that might provide (and have provided) support for intolerance and violence among Jews and Christians. Hereââ?¬â?¢s an example of his effort: as a gloss of the passage in Matthew (ââ?¬Å?I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.ââ?¬Â), he writes, ââ?¬Å?To interpret this text literally is to misunderstand Jesus, who, unlike Muhammad, did not take part in battles. It fails to recognize the poetry of the Bible, which is everywhere.ââ?¬Â (p. 28) (Well, that clinches it!) Moreover, the ââ?¬Å?Old Testamentââ?¬Â passages of Numbers and Deuteronomy that call for exterminating neighboring tribes and towns are interpreted as entirely unproblematic: ââ?¬Å?Unless you happen to be a Hittite, Girgashite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, or Jebusite, these Biblical passages simply do not apply to you.ââ?¬Â (p. 29) (Whew!) Furthermore, ââ?¬Å?When modern-day Jews and Christians read their Bibles, they simply donââ?¬â?¢t interpret the passages cited as exhorting them to violent actions against unbelievers. This is due to the influence of centuries of interpretive traditions that have moved away from literalism regarding these passages. But in Islam, there is no comparable interpretative tradition.ââ?¬Â (p. 31) Itââ?¬â?¢s true that the dominant interpretative tradition is not congenial to toleration, but Spencer is making the claim that the *essence* of Islam is intolerant and violent, not that intolerance is prominent among outspoken Muslim thinkers, which is something that we know without having to read Spencerââ?¬â?¢s attack on Islam, per se. After all, PIG-IC does not claim to be a guide to intolerant Islam, but to Islam.

Spencer brushes aside tolerant Muslims for not understanding ââ?¬Å?Islamââ?¬â?¢s actual teachings,ââ?¬Â something that he claims to know so much better than they do: ââ?¬Å?Up until recent times, other cultural factors [in addition to not reading classical Arabic] have also prevented Muslims, particularly in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, from acting on or even knowing much about Islamââ?¬â?¢s actual teachings on how to deal with unbelievers.ââ?¬Â (p 44) So itââ?¬â?¢s not a matter of an interpretative tradition, but of ââ?¬Å?Islamââ?¬â?¢s actual teachings.ââ?¬Â

There is no treatment of Islamic liberal thinkers of any sort, other than a couple of brushoffs. No treatment of Islam in Indonesia or India (the most populous of Muslim-populated countries). No treatment of anyone or any movement that might offer even a hope of a tolerant Islam. No. Robert Spencer has the arrogance to tell Muslims what their religionââ?¬â?¢s ââ?¬Å?actual teachingsââ?¬Â are and it turns out that those ââ?¬Å?actual teachingsââ?¬Â are the doctrines of al-Qaeda and the other vicious killers who are killing Muslims in much, much, much higher numbers than they are killing non-Muslims.

The discussion of the Crusades is unreliable and at times even incoherent. For example, ââ?¬Å?For the first time in over a thousand years, since before the Roman Emperor Constantine proclaimed himself a Christian and legalized Christianity, the smart money was on the complete disappearance of Christianity ââ?¬â?? and the relegation of virtually every Christian in the world to dhimmi status.ââ?¬Â (p. 155) What does it mean to write ââ?¬Å?since before the Roman Emperor Constantineââ?¬Â? (And itââ?¬â?¢s worth noting that the Edict of Milan that ââ?¬Å?legalized Christianityââ?¬Â was later followed up by making Christianity the religion of the state and violently suppressing other religions.)

Spencer�s enthusiastic defense of the Crusades is, if anything, immoral. He could have pointed out that Muslim armies had for some years been conquering Christian populations and expanding the powers and privileges of Muslims. Islamic armies were not, after all, purely defensive in their actions. That might have been a valuable correction to a PCG-IC that condemned the Crusades without mentioning Islamic incursions into Christian-populated territories. It�s one thing to point out that Europe had been under assault by Muslim armies, another to eagerly defend the invasions of Muslim states.

Spencer has a great deal of material from Radical Political Islamists, which he presents as what Islam means. Thatââ?¬â?¢s a bit like taking statements from the theorists and killers of the Third Reich and claiming that they tell us what ââ?¬Å?Christianityââ?¬Â means. Or what "European civilization" means. Itââ?¬â?¢s not convincing. That the Muslim world is undergoing a great struggle between advocates of intolerance and criminality and their victims is not news. There are much better accounts around, some of them written by Muslims. To claim that such movements represent the ââ?¬Å?actual teachingsââ?¬Â of a religion is arrogant and unwarranted.

------

Note 1: I leafed through the work a few times to try to find his explanation of the meaning of the word ââ?¬Å?Allah,ââ?¬Â which he invokes at the start of the book as a name for God (as I noted in the comment above), but I could not find it. It is not listed in the index to the book. But if Mr. Spencer wishes to point out where he explained it in PIG-IC, I offer him the opportunity here.

Note 2: As an aside, I should point out that Spencer ignores one of the most important and lasting contributions of the debates within Europe over the Crusades: the doctrine of individual human rights, as articulated by the lawyer-Pope Innocent IV (Decretales, 3.34.8, c. 1250): ââ?¬Å?I maintain, therefore, that dominium, possession, and jurisdiction can belong to infidels licitly and without sin, for these things were made not only for the faithful but for every rational creature as has been said. Fore he makes his sun to rise on the just and the wicked and he feeds the birds of the air, Matthew c.5, c.6. Accordingly we say that it is not licit for the pope or the faithful to take away from infidels their belongings or their lordships or jurisdictions because they possess them without sin.ââ?¬Â That argument formed the foundation for the movements for individual rights that were later advanced by the Spanish Scholastics, the English Levellers, and others. It would have been a good thing had a similar tradition been advanced and strengthened among Muslims, but it got further in Europe. Notably, it was "secularized" and applied universally (consider the work of Grotius, Locke, Pufendorf, etc., not to mention the Levellers), in a way that can be advanced by anyone, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, or non-believer.

Note 3: I donââ?¬â?¢t follow what Spencer means by his reference to my ââ?¬Å?analytical abilities.ââ?¬Â If what he means is that I didnââ?¬â?¢t bother to read his other books when I quoted the risibly bad one I referenced, thatââ?¬â?¢s an odd way to put it.

Thanks, Tom G. I appreciate the substantive points.

1. TGP: "Not only is PIG-IC not a reliable guide, but it is an endorsement of the interpretation of Islam by the Radical Political Islamists (RPI). Indeed, were the radicals to search around for a recruiter from among the infidels, they could not have done better than Robert Spencer, who eagerly and brashly endorses their every claim and violent act as true to Islam and as an expression of true Muslim identity."

I trust that you are aware that "RPI's" are proclaiming themselves as the exponents of "pure Islam" and making recruits among peaceful Muslims worldwide (even in Indonesia and India) on that basis, and that peaceful Muslims have as yet mounted no challenge to this theological appeal that has managed to create any large-scale anti-terror movement anywhere in the Islamic world.

2. "It is as if his goal were to galvanize the Muslim world against the non-Muslim world and to recruit them all into the cause of al-Qaeda."

In fact, my goal is to galvanize the non-Muslim world to defend itself, and to ask self-proclaimed moderate Muslims to acknowledge and confront the elements of Islamic theology and law that the RPI's are using to increase their numbers, rather than simply deny their existence as they usually do.

3. TGP: "In order to paint Islam as essentially and uniquely intolerant and violent, Spencer has to explain away texts that might provide (and have provided) support for intolerance and violence among Jews and Christians."

There is a global movement of Muslims justifying violence today by recourse to the texts of the Qur'an I discuss in the book. Please provide an example of Jews and Christians justifying violence by recourse to the texts you mentioned.

4. TGP: "It�s true that the dominant interpretative tradition is not congenial to toleration, but Spencer is making the claim that the *essence* of Islam is intolerant and violent, not that intolerance is prominent among outspoken Muslim thinkers, which is something that we know without having to read Spencer�s attack on Islam, per se. After all, PIG-IC does not claim to be a guide to intolerant Islam, but to Islam."

I trust you are aware that the four dominant Sunni madhahib, as well as the four other madhahib, all teach that it is one of the responsibilities of the umma to make war against Jews and Christians (and others) in order to establish the hegemony of Sharia over the world.

Please provide evidence of a madhhab or a sect that is considered orthodox by Muslims (i.e., not the Ahmadiyya, who are persecuted for rejecting this doctrine, among other things) that does not teach this warfare as part of Islam.

5. TGP: "Spencer brushes aside tolerant Muslims for not understanding 'Islam�s actual teachings,' something that he claims to know so much better than they do."

Here again, this is not my claim, but that of the RPI's. I keep hoping for and looking for tolerant Muslims to refute it on Islamic grounds, and to create a counter-movement against the global jihad. They haven't thus far.

6. TGP: "So it�s not a matter of an interpretative tradition, but of 'Islam�s actual teachings.'�

I asked you above for examples of sects or schools of jurisprudence that deny these teachings. Individual thinkers are courageous and deserve our thanks, but they are just that -- individual thinkers. Until they affect a change in the worldwide ijma that has prevailed about jihad warfare, they are not a movement.

7. TGP: "There is no treatment of Islamic liberal thinkers of any sort, other than a couple of brushoffs. No treatment of Islam in Indonesia or India (the most populous of Muslim-populated countries). No treatment of anyone or any movement that might offer even a hope of a tolerant Islam. No. Robert Spencer has the arrogance to tell Muslims what their religion�s 'actual teachings' are and it turns out that those 'actual teachings' are the doctrines of al-Qaeda and the other vicious killers who are killing Muslims in much, much, much higher numbers than they are killing non-Muslims."

Here again, I am only asking that the tolerant Muslims confront and repudiate the doctrines invoked by the RPI's. They have not yet done so. As for their killing Muslims, this is due to the principle of takfir, with which I am sure you're familiar.

8. TGP: "The discussion of the Crusades is unreliable and at times even incoherent. For example, 'For the first time in over a thousand years, since before the Roman Emperor Constantine proclaimed himself a Christian and legalized Christianity, the smart money was on the complete disappearance of Christianity ââ?¬â?? and the relegation of virtually every Christian in the world to dhimmi status.' (p. 155) What does it mean to write ââ?¬Å?since before the Roman Emperor Constantineââ?¬Â?

Sir, you may wish to revisit your own quote. The full quote is "since before the Roman Emperor Constantine proclaimed himself a Christian and legalized Christianity" -- that is, since before the Edict of Milan etc.

9. TGP: "(And it�s worth noting that the Edict of Milan that 'legalized Christianity' was later followed up by making Christianity the religion of the state and violently suppressing other religions.)"

Indeed. I have never denied it.

10. "Spencer�s enthusiastic defense of the Crusades is, if anything, immoral. He could have pointed out that Muslim armies had for some years been conquering Christian populations and expanding the powers and privileges of Muslims. Islamic armies were not, after all, purely defensive in their actions."

I did, actually. I am on the road and don't have the book with me, but I am quite sure that's in it.

11. "That might have been a valuable correction to a PCG-IC that condemned the Crusades without mentioning Islamic incursions into Christian-populated territories. It�s one thing to point out that Europe had been under assault by Muslim armies, another to eagerly defend the invasions of Muslim states."

Maybe. But when the invasions were carried out to defend the Christian populations in the Holy Land that were under assault, I believe it is part of that defense of Europe. And in fact, as I point out in the book, the Crusades stopped the jihad in Europe for 200 years.

12. TGP: "Spencer has a great deal of material from Radical Political Islamists, which he presents as what Islam means. That�s a bit like taking statements from the theorists and killers of the Third Reich and claiming that they tell us what 'Christianity' means."

In fact, the Sunni madhahib are nothing like Hitler. They are quite ancient, and mainstream within Sunni Islam.

13. TGP: "Note 1: I leafed through the work a few times to try to find his explanation of the meaning of the word 'Allah,' which he invokes at the start of the book as a name for God (as I noted in the comment above), but I could not find it. It is not listed in the index to the book. But if Mr. Spencer wishes to point out where he explained it in PIG-IC, I offer him the opportunity here."

Thank you. I don't have the book with me but will check for this asap.

14. TGP: "Note 2: As an aside, I should point out that Spencer ignores one of the most important and lasting contributions of the debates within Europe over the Crusades: the doctrine of individual human rights..."

Thank you. In fact, this will be a considerable preoccupation of my next book, which will probably be out next summer.

Anyway, I appreciate your taking the time to support your remarks. Most of those who make such remarks do not do so, and I thank you again. I expect that our differences will not be resolved, but I also appreciate the opportunity you have provided for me to respond. In conclusion, I invite you to read Goldziher and Schacht, as well as Hallaq, on Islamic law, and to peruse the work of my friend Tashbih Sayyed, editor of "Muslim World Today."

Cordially
Robert Spencer

I'll respond to these remarks (and evasions) later this evening.

A quick note about this passage, which should have been written more clearly:
-----
The discussion of the Crusades is unreliable and at times even incoherent. For example, ââ?¬Å?For the first time in over a thousand years, since before the Roman Emperor Constantine proclaimed himself a Christian and legalized Christianity, the smart money was on the complete disappearance of Christianity ââ?¬â?? and the relegation of virtually every Christian in the world to dhimmi status.ââ?¬Â (p. 155) What does it mean to write ââ?¬Å?since before the Roman Emperor Constantineââ?¬Â? (And itââ?¬â?¢s worth noting that the Edict of Milan that ââ?¬Å?legalized Christianityââ?¬Â was later followed up by making Christianity the religion of the state and violently suppressing other religions.)
-----

I should have asked, "What does it mean to write 'since before the Roman Emperor Constantine' followed by 'the relegation of virtually every Christian in the world to dhimmi status'?" The status of "dhimmi" could not have existed prior to the foundation and expansion of Islam, which happened well after the Emperor Constantine. The statement is incoherent.

I'll address the evasions and the distortions later this evening.

Thanks for the book recommendations, Tom.

This is an interesting debate. I have read another of Spencer's books, and he seems not at all to be a nasty guy personally (though I understand that such polemical titles will not lend themselves to positive interpretation). I don't know enough to add anything substantive to this discussion, but I did have a question for Robert:

You have written that Ataturk's regime represented "exactly the dream of moderate Western-influenced and Western-friendly Muslims and their non-Muslim patrons. Ataturk labored to erect a truly Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state. If the notion of a modernized, secularized Islam has any viability, it should show in Turkey, its principal research-and-development project." But on the same page, you write that that he did this in part by "outlawing turbans and mandating hats[.]" Isn't that the entire problem? That is to say: Muslims should not be obligated by their governments to wear particular garments, but nor should they be obligated *not* to wear them. I really don't think I'm nitpicking here, because I noticed some recent celebration on some websites about the recent plan in the Netherlands to ban burkas in public. This is not the proper route!

Great debate -- once the invectives were brushed aside. I appreciate the difficulty establishing and defending broad generalities by brief comments but it does stimulate thought and hopefully further investigation.

One minor aside. Tom says: ââ?¬Å?Thatââ?¬â?¢s a bit like taking statements from the theorists and killers of the Third Reich and claiming that they tell us what ... what "European civilization" means.ââ?¬Å?

Actually I would take Nazism and Communism as indicative of one facet of European civilization: collectivism. We may belong to the individualist tradition and even the British branch of that tradition, arguably the more stable variant, but the West can�t disown the collectivist horrors of the 20th century. The West isn�t a single religion or ideology. Of course, I take your point to be that Islam isn�t monolithic either.

Being non-religious, I see faults in all three mono-theistic religions but I�m afraid the debate may degenerate into a "digital" and banal "they all have faults" debate. Wouldn�t it be more fruitful to argue on the degree, duration, and centrality of their respective faults? Let me duck while you two resume.

The response above by Mr. Spencer is primarily a series of non-responses and evasions.

Rather than go through every one, Iââ?¬â?¢ll pick out the major problems. Iââ?¬â?¢ll start with a look at how the first response globally sets the standard. I point out above that Spencerââ?¬â?¢s book ââ?¬Å?it is an endorsement of the interpretation of Islam by the Radical Political Islamists (RPI).ââ?¬Â Spencerââ?¬â?¢s response? That RPI claims to represent pure Islam. Yes, and Spencer endorses their claim. What kind of a response is that? Itââ?¬â?¢s an admission of one of my major points. The fact that moderate Muslims have not defeated RPI is not a response. It took a long time to defeat religious persecution in Europe, but I would not draw inferences about who represents ââ?¬Å?true Christianityââ?¬Â on that basis. Whether Islam is compatible with toleration is a disputed question. Al-Qaeda and Robert Spencer are united in saying that it is incompatible. Muslim liberals argue against both of them and are struggling for a liberal Islam. Spencer does their cause no good whatsoever by endorsing the views of al-Qaeda. He is telling us and them in very clear terms that they are not good Muslims. There is no other interpretation.

In any case, there are in fact serious movements against RPI, notably in Indonesia, the world�s most populous Muslim nation, but one that doesn�t appear in Spencer�s book.

Toleration has become the norm in societies with Christian and Jewish majorities (well, all one of the latter ââ?¬â?? but Jewish minorities in mainly Christian societies have had a major influence in promoting toleration). That came about as a result of a struggle, as many books have documented. (I recommend Perez Zagorinââ?¬â?¢s excellent book "How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West" on the topic.) Perhaps Spencer has not heard of the doctrine of righteous persecution that was advanced, on biblical grounds, by Augustine of Hippo (called ââ?¬Å?Saint Augustineââ?¬Â by many Christians). People were burned alive on the basis of his arguments. Jews, having lost power long ago, have been less favorable to such persecution for longer, but we do see examples of violent opposition to gay people in Jerusalem among some of the Orthodox. I suspect that they are moved by texts such as those in Leviticus when they throw stones at Jewish gay people and stab them in public.

Spencerââ?¬â?¢s point 5 is astonishing. I quoted him asserting that tolerant Muslims were ignorant of the ââ?¬Å?actual teachingsââ?¬Â of their religion. Itââ?¬â?¢s not only the Radical Political Islamists who are saying that: they are joined by ââ?¬Â¦.. Robert Spencer. He should read his own book. I reproduce the whole quotation here: ââ?¬Å?Up until recent times, other cultural factors have also prevented Muslims, particularly in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, from acting on or even knowing much about Islamââ?¬â?¢s actual teachings on how to deal with unbelievers.ââ?¬Â That is a clear endorsement of the claim that RPI is true to ââ?¬Å?Islamââ?¬â?¢s actual teachingsââ?¬Â and Muslim liberals are not. It is a clear statement that tolerant Muslims are not Muslims at all, or at the very least, not good Muslims.

Spencer has focused entirely on works from Middle Eastern legal thinkers. Iââ?¬â?¢m not denying that they are important ââ?¬â?? of course, they are. But there are thinkers who argue with that tradition, just as there were and are Christians and Jews who dispute those religionââ?¬â?¢s very bloody traditions of intolerance. For some texts from the Indonesian tradition, drawing on a different tradition, see http://www.libforall.org/programs-islam-state-civilsociety.html

Regarding the Crusades, it is not offering a ââ?¬Å?correctionââ?¬Â to ââ?¬Å?politically correctââ?¬Â interpretations of the Crusades merely to hold up a mirror to them and to endorse the slaughter as good. A balanced approach that would reflect civilized values would have acknowledged the dirty hands on both sides.

Spencer�s book has one and only one effect. It doesn�t illuminate. It doesn�t explain. But it does enthusiastically endorse the interpretation of Islam offered by al-Qaeda. Robert Spencer is a one-man recruiting machine for Radical Political Islam.

Finally, it�s not that I am especially optimistic about the progress of liberty. It�s worth a defense, however, under all circumstances. And I am unwilling to write off millions and millions of allies by arrogantly telling them what their religion means and insisting that they are betraying their religion if they ally themselves with the cause of justice, of toleration, of peaceful coexistence, of freedom.

I'm no fan of the "Politically Incorrect" book series, and though I haven't read this one (I've looked at it briefly at the bookstore), if this book is of the same level of scholarship as Woods' history text or Bethell's book on science, there's probably not much in there to praise.

That said, I think we've all missed a bigger point here. Islamic dogma stems essentially from the Koran. Just like Christians and the Bible, Muslims maintain that their book was written by the creator of the universe, and that it contains absolute truth as given by revelation to Muhammad.

Now, because it's supposedly of divine origin, many (most, all?) Muslims recognize the book as holy and perfect in every respect, containing the "rules" for a holy life on Earth and the only true means to enter Heaven. So what happens when there are apparently contradictory rules (e.g., on the question of violence toward unbelievers)?

It's obvious that bin Laden and his ilk can find Koranic evidence for their interpretation of Islam (because they have, and do consistently cite the Koran). However, the same can be said of more liberal Muslims, who cite the Koran as well to promote tolerance and peace.

Given that the question of which interpretation is correct is literally unanswerable in any meaningful sense (i.e., since either side can claim that God has vindicated his own interpretation through prayer), then these debates seem almost worthless.

And it's clear that--at least here--the principal concern of both Dr. Palmer and Spencer--is political, not theological. In other words, the respective interpretations follow from the political goals, not the other way around. Dr. Palmer--to his unending credit--has worked very, very hard at establishing a modest liberal foothold in the Middle East. Therefore, he's more likely to accept an interpretationcompatible with his political cause (and for the reasons he cites above). On the other hand, Spencer, from what I can gather, cares more about eliminating "radical" Islam, so he has an incentive to portray Islam as inherently radical--again for political purposes.

The point, then, is that theological debates are impossible to answer when the source is a divinely inspired book subject to interpretation by revelation from God Himself.

Rather than arguing that "true Islam" (whatever that is) means X, we should be arguing that NO MATTER WHAT THEIR HOLY BOOK SAYS, civilization requires tolerance and peace. In other words, the argument for liberalism must be rooted in non-religious terms, else we'll find ourselves constantly engaged in struggles of interpretation that will give legitimacy to the radicals simply because there is a debate.

The answer is to de-legitimize politics from divine origins, whether Muslim, Christian, or Jew. Understanding that 95% or so of the world is affiliated with one religion or another, I get that that's an upill, if not impossible, battle. But in terms of the standards for evidence, we shouldn't concede legitimacy to ANY religious-based politics. We should say that civilization requires peace and tolerance, and that reason, evidence, and the principles of justice ought to be our guides, no matter what some religion might argue otherwise.

I substantially agree with Greg's comments, but I should point out that I do not presume to tell others what the "true meaning" of their religion is, as Mr. Spencer does. I merely note that it's a disputed question, not that I know the answer. I reach out a hand of friendship to Muslims (as well as to Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Scientologists) who reject violence and who are willing to live in peace. I leave the debates about the "true meaning" of their religion to them.

As a historical matter, such debates were important in the development of the ideas of religious toleration among Christians and Jews. The arguments for religious freedom did not arise from an atmosphere of religious indifference (e.g., the way many people conceive of the Enlightenment), but from arguments about the nature of religion itself. (Again, see Zagorin's book, as well as the early works of the individual rights tradition, at least prior to Grotius, Locke, Pufendorf, et al.) A similar debate is needed within Islam, but it is unlikely to take the turn we tolerationists prefer if Mr. Spencer's message is widely spread.

Lastly, to retun to the issue that brougth this little post to Mr. Spencer's attention, I was advised by an Arab Christian (who is a fluent native speaker of Arabic) about the use of the term "Allah" (I have placed the comments of my Arab Christian friend in brackets):
BEGIN SPENCER QUOTE (with comments in brackets)
If he had troubled to read any of my books rather than relying on secondhand partial quotations, he would have found discussion of the meaning of the word "Allah." Note also, for example, this blog post from December 2004, http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004468.php. In it, I say: "Arabic-speaking Christians today use the word 'Allah' to refer to the God of Christianity, as they have for many centuries. [COMMENT -- No, not in the Bible or in church, they only use the word Allah in the street language when talking to Muslim Arabs. They use the term ââ?¬Å?Ar-rabââ?¬Â among themselves and in the Bibleââ?¬â?which means the Lord] This is not quite the same thing as saying that "Allah" is the Arabic word for "god," as Tom G. Palmer does, since in fact "ilah" is the Arabic word for god [COMMENT -- No, ilah is the god for God and for other religious practices. You only use ilah alone if you worship fire, love, sex, or goats, then you say: ilah al hub, for example, meaning the god of fire. Ilah, however, can be used to relate to God if and only if you add to the right of it something like ilah al kawn (the God of earth), or ilah al khalq (the God of creation)] and "Allah" is most likely "the God."
END SPENCER QUOTE

It appears that, like the parasitic aliens in films, who consume all of a planet's resources before moving on to the next planet, Mr. Spencer has moved on from this blog.

But for what it's worth, I think Dr. Palmer IS endorsing a particular view of "true" Islam, at least implicitly. After all, the Al-Qaeda Islamic interpretation--I think Palmer would agree--is incompatible with liberalism. But since Palmer is currently working to establish liberalism in the Muslim world, it must mean that he rejects this view of "true" Islam in favor of an Islam that IS compatible with liberalism.

In other words, Palmer rejects the beliefs of the minority of Muslims (which still probably reaches into the tens of millions of actual Muslims) who believe religiously motivated violence against the West is justified, in favor of what appears to be the majority interpretation of the faith, who reject that view.

Which means, of course, that to those millions with whom he disagrees, he is saying in effect, "you are practicing a fraudulent Islam." Either that, or there are two, equally valid, Islams which are mutually exclusive of one another. But that position seems incoherent on its face.

All of that said, I really don't think it's invalid to endorse one view of a religion in favor of another, even if you don't practice that religion you practice. If some sect of "Christianity" emerged preaching that "true Christianity" required slaughtering every Muslim you meet, and used the handful of Bible verses that might justify that vicious belief, it wouldn't be uneasonable for those of us who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ to reject the latter faith as a fraud, in favor of the more reasonable interpretation of Scripture.

I don�t understand how you gentlemen can take an agnostic viewpoint with respect to the central components of an ideology, religious or otherwise. Sure, a detailed specification and complete interpretation is ambitious even for the devout but certainly there is some identity to the New Testament, Koran, Hadiths, etc. that warrants an overall view of the salient facts and themes.

I�m sympathetic to Greg�s view of establishing toleration on a factual basis while I�m aware that the devout will hopefully caucus with their fellow religionists to find grounds to square toleration with their beliefs. I just think one should be cognizant of the specific challenges each religion faces. But I�m not fully conversant with the recent book on the history of toleration that Tom suggests. It should be interesting.

I think Greg is wrong here: ââ?¬Å?On the other hand, Spencer, from what I can gather, cares more about eliminating "radical" Islam, so he has an incentive to portray Islam as inherently radical--again for political purposes.ââ?¬Â

Iââ?¬â?¢ve read Spencerââ?¬â?¢s earlier works (I prefer ââ?¬Å?Islam Unveiledââ?¬Â to ââ?¬Å?Politically Incorrectââ?¬Â which I've only browsed) and visited his website from time to time. While he tries to avoid politics, his viewpoint slips out between the lines. If Iââ?¬â?¢m correct, heââ?¬â?¢s clearly skeptical of nations-building and prefers avoidance rather than military confrontation. And he always treats people as individuals. I donââ?¬â?¢t see any signs of his trying to ââ?¬Å?eliminateââ?¬Â anything and the suggestion is unfair.

I highly doubt that Spencer plays any role within Islam. Neither moderate nor Salafi will likely defer to his writings. The internal debate that matters will originate within Islam. He urges moderates to argue with their fellow fundamentalists and deal with, rather than evade, the substantial arguments fundamentalists raise.

Jason,

Fair enough. I haven't read enough of Spencer's work to say otherwise...

Greg

You guys are amazingly verbose. You can put out as much content in 20 minutes as I put into my final essay.

I think we need to note that the word "tolerance", if we apply it to the Islamic attitude toward fellow "People of the Book" Jews and Christians, means something a bit less positive than tends to be the usage in liberal Judeo-Christian society. Koran: "[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." This isn't inconsistent with a dictionary definition of "tolerance," but when Christians and Jews speak of tolerance for those of other faiths, I think they usually mean something rather more positive than, say, allowing those one cannot accept as friend to continue to exist.

Tolerance (i.e. Dhimmitude) towards Christians, Jews and Sabeans (where have they gone?) is only granted if they are part of a muslim dominated society.
Cause obviously it is only then that they are part of dar ul-Islam and not part of dar ul-Harb.

So nonmuslims lose one way ore the other, tolerance and Islam don`t go together, unless a muslim is willing to jump over its muslim shadow.

Allah is not the arabic translation of god. The Arabic word "rabb" is the arabic translation of god. Allah is the name of the god of Islam, just like Jesus Christ is the name of the god of Christianity. As an Arab-speaking Christian I do not believe in Allah, I only believe in the God of Christianity.

9:123 O ye who believe! fight those of the disbelievers who are near you, and let them find harshness in you

2:191 And slay them wherever ye catch them

9:005 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, beleager them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem of war

8:065 O Prophet! urge the believers to war

66:009 O Prophet! Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Their abode is Hell - an evil refuge

47:004 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks: at lenght, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them

You are in denial Mr Palmer.

There is no clash of the civilizations. We have a clash of the brainwashed. The muslims are brainwashed into believing that a lying, murdering, thieving, rapist, slave ownimg, misoginist, antisemite pedophile 7th century warlord was a "messanger" from god. You sir, and many like you, are brainwashed into believing that Islam is a religion of peace.

Those who post here against Islam per se seem to believe that religions do not have to learn to be tolerant. Christians were not tolerant, but most have learned to be so. Same for Jews. Muslims must also learn this. But to argue essentialist position that Islam cannot be tolerance oriented and tolerant is to surrender to the radicals. This is a big mistake.

I'm a simple unbeliever myself, so I have no problem admitting that Judaism and Christianity have had their less attractive moments (namely whenever the religious leaders had the state power to enforce their will).

However, Judaism and Christianity have mostly evolved beyond that. Jews have made the hit order on Amalekites ineffective by officially declaring that no one can be traced as an Amalekite by now, for instance, and Christians have embraced the Ghandiesque part of the Jesus story even though Jesus would probably have been exasperated himself with Ghandian nonviolence.

In contrast, while we are rather shocked to see Orthodox and Catholics still murdering each other in the former Yugoslavia, and the odd Irish throwback trying ineffectually to set off a bomb, we have grown to expect endless violence between Sunnis and Shias (whose dispute is not unlike Bush vs. Gore except for being centuries older), and we get fairly frequent reports of violence visited upon Christians in Muslim countries. (Jews have pretty much left all Muslim countries in favor of Israel and other places where they can better defend themselves.)

And their model is Muhammad himself. As soon as the Meccans threw out him and his followers, he took up desert piracy, robbing caravans to and from his former home town (or at least collecting a nice portion of the spoils after his followers did the dirty work). He murdered or had murdered just about anyone who stood in his way, and went about the business of spreading the good Islamic word with sword firmly in hand.

With that sort of role model, and Muhammad is very much considered a role model for Muslims, it isn't surprising that they find it a lot harder to evolve into something more civilized. It is not bigoted to point out that this is a consequence of the religion Islam and the idealization of its Prophet's life.

No doubt there are many good Muslims in the world. But they are good despite Islam, not owing to it.

I think one measure of a role model in religion is: Did the religious figure of my parents choosing ever kill anybody ? Jesus never killed anyone, whereas Muhammed had racked up quite a body count by the time he checked out on his magic horse.
Tom's got some good points no doubt, & in fact I'd judge that Tom's won this round, but Robert Spencer's strongest point is the one about getting moderates to confront the fundamentalists on Islamic terms to bring about change, instead of the usual denial that there's a problem, which is what we hear so often. It usually goes something like "these people are so bad/evil/grotesque, that they aren't Muslims". It's a form of denial really....

About the illah/Allah bit, what about Hezhollah... Isn't their real name Hiz'billah or Hizb'illah? or sth?, ie: Party of God, it just gets spelled that way in the media.

Well, anyway, I'm off to pray for whirled peas.

I think we are headed toward a much bigger war.
If our differences and incompatabilities with the Muslim world are as great as they appear to be, we will likely have to fight a big war which will help us to get to know each other better, and sideline those who refuse to re-make the world.
For that reason I think Spencer has won the debate. But I'm sympathetic to Palmer's perspective. Hopefully the result of such a war will be the blossoming of Palmer's vision of a Liberal Islam.

"Those who post here against Islam per se seem to believe that religions do not have to learn to be tolerant. Christians were not tolerant, but most have learned to be so. Same for Jews. Muslims must also learn this. But to argue essentialist position that Islam cannot be tolerance oriented and tolerant is to surrender to the radicals. This is a big mistake. Posted by: O"

True Mr O!
But then again being myself an atheist, Jesus was killed, Muhammed killed others without regret.
Jewish people, even in there most agressive attitude, speaking in historic terms and keeping in mind the circumstances of place and time (bronce age, early iron age), only wanted a small country of there own - not like Islam spreading violently across every culture and country (Northern Africa, Parts of Europe, Persia ...) it could and can get its hands on.

But you are right in one important aspect, we should not take for granted that religion is peacefull by nature or that it teaches its followers the path of peace.

theGrinch, Scott in SF, and Guy, I'm curious what evidence would convince you otherwise about the relationship of moderate muslims to radical ones. How would you know when this great push-back is happening? There is no pope in Islam. Religous authority is extremely dispersed in both Sunni and Shia Islam. So are you looking for the opinions of mainstream Islamic leaders? Because if so, then almost all of them regularly condemn al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. Yusuf Qardawi, the Mufti of Al-Azhar, the Saudi religious authorities, not one of them are fans of Bin Laden. Among Shiites I think you would also be hard pressed to find a religious leader that supports Bin Laden. Many of these leaders are very anti-Israel, and anti-US policies vis-a-vis the Middle East and Israel, but that doesn't mean there is a theological predisposition to hatred of non-muslims.

Er, Lee, if you were paying attention, I cited the Koran demonstrating that yes, there is a theological predisposition to hatred of non-Muslims. I don't see that there is any way to dispute this. The only question is in what manner that hatred should be manifested. I'm sure there are many who think Osama Bin Laden used a counterproductive tactic.

I must say that if there are all those mainstream Muslim leaders disapproving of Osama Bin Laden, I have to wonder whom those leaders are leading. All the Muslims who are naming their babies "Osama" in admiration?

That is a good question Lee. I have for almost 15 years now argued that America should fund a University of Liberal Islam, probably in New York.
I would be convinced if: I saw an Islamic institution that was actively seeking to reform Islamic institutions and education. Such an institution would most likely be pro-American, pro-Democracy, pro-Jewish self-determination, and pro-globalization. If such an institution existed today, it would have to have secret membership lists and a security detail (even in America.)
The apparent decentralized and factional nature of the Muslim World is like having no "address." It is difficult to organize and even more difficult to hold to account.
None of the individual Moderate Muslims I know are aware of a Liberalization process taking place with in Islam. George W. Bush is closest thing that has come along.

Before insisting that there are no Muslims speaking out against Radica Politicized Islamism, people ought to look around. In Turkey, in north Africa, in the Middle East, and elsewhere there are people insisting on freedom and toleration, such as my friend Dr. Atilla Yayla of the Association for Liberal Thinking in Turkey, my friends Omar and Mohammed of the Friends of Democracy in Iraq, the Human Rights Information organization in Egypt, and many, many other pious Muslims and groups who speak for them.

I'd also recommend that Indonesia and Malaysia (two very large overwhelmingly Muslim-populated nations - the former has the largest Muslim population of any country in the world) be taken into account. The work of people such as former Indonesian president and prominent Indonesian Muslim leader Kyai Haji Abdurrahman Wahid (see http://www.libforall.org/about-us-patron.html ) and popular figures such as the pop group Dewa (http://www.libforall.org/video-LF-PSA-rmvb-wmv.html ) is courageous, principled, and vitally important, Belittle their efforts if you will, but they are putting their lives on the line to defend yours. That's more than the Muslim-bashers would do for them, or even for themselves.

Libforall.org is a beautiful website, thanks for pointing it out. I'll sent them a check, and I conceed that is an Islamic Reform Institution. I wonder what their stand on Israel would be?
I did come to this your site from sandmonkey.org so I'm certianly aware that there are liberal voices. My Rabbi/Anthropologist Grandfather lived and taught in Malaysia for many years, my cousins are Jordanian Kurdish Muslims, I taught martial arts to Palestintian's in East Jerusalem, and I've interviewed lot's of people in Turkey.
Still, Spencer's pessimism is not far off the mark.

Tom, the problem isn't that there are no courageous and principled Muslims out there. The problem is precisely that these people have to put their lives on the line, as you yourself put it. I share what I would guess is Robert Spencer's bewilderment that such people stay Muslim. Their core religious document teaches them to despise anyone who does not accept their beliefs. They can ignore this fact and you can ignore it too, but there are always going to be a lot of Muslims out there who understand what Muhammad preached and who insist on following those teachings. And that is why any Muslim who by modern Judeo-Christian standards is good and decent is a Muslim who is ignoring the teachings of his Prophet and who is in danger of being murdered by other Muslims.

Yes, Spencer expresses himself awkwardly on occasion; yes, it's silly to call the Crusades defensive wars (although they do seem to have diverted Muslim attentions from the aggressive military expansions into Europe which preceded and followed them); and yes, Spencer is giving to making silly excuses for Judaism and Christianity sometimes. Despite this, Spencer is essentially right. Islam is dangerous, and there is nothing wrong with being aware of it.

Chrales, look, if we flipped the situation around, I think the average Muslim would have a much stronger case saying that "Christianity and Judaism are dangerous, and there is nothing wrong with being aware of it."

First there was Iraq war one, and then the crippling sanctions afterwards that resulted in the deaths of lots and lots of people, especially children. Then Iraq two, when a self-identified Christian leader invaded Iraq, and as a result a whole boatload of Iraqis are dead, and now this imperial power is probably going to preside over the sectarian division of Iraq, and is threatening to bomb Iran. This is the same country that invaded Afghanistan and killed buch of Muslims there too. Then, the Jewish allies of this Christian nation bombed Lebanon and killed a bunch of people, who the Christian US was ostensibly allied with and trying to help form a democracy.

Meanwhile, earlier, Christians in Europe presided over the largest mass slaughter of all time in the holocaust, and World War II generally.

I see why the US and Israel took these actions. I don't blame Christianity or Judaism. I may disagree with many of these actions, but I see the geopolitical context, etc. But it's not really my people that are being killed. Look at the emotional response to 9.11 here in the states and all the demands to go kill those f-ers. The Middle East has witnessed probably the death equivalent of at least 100 9/11s at the hands of the West just since 1990 or so. Wouldn't you be a little upset?

My point is that to look at scripture for behavioral explanations is silly. I think Tom pointed out earlier about how the violent parts of the old testament get explained away and that they only apply to the specific peoples that the Bible talks about. People fit religion and scripture to their beliefs, not the other way around. Look at Catholicism. I'm pretty sure that the bible expressly opposes sodomy, but in Berkeley, CA there is a Catholic LGBT weekly meeting. (That's lesbian, Gay, Bi, Transgender) In order to compete in the religion market in Berkeley, Catholicism had to adapt to the situation.

Likewise, when a whole bunch of people are mad as hell, they're going to gravitate towards people preaching violence. In Malaysia and Indonesia, where Western violence is much further away, it makes sense that less violence-happy religious figures come into power. You guys have the causation all turned around. I'm not saying that the US can just stop messing around in the Middle East and all will be well. These things have inertia over time, but understanding which way the causation runs is an important.

Lee, in the case of Islam at least, I wish your curious belief that the core content of a religion has nothing to do with its adherents' conduct were correct. Unfortunately, the daily news tells me that you're wrong.

.."First there was Iraq war one, and then the crippling sanctions afterwards that resulted in the deaths of lots and lots of people, especially children"...

Oil for Food. Saddam murdered and starved his own with the help of the apologists and greedy French, German, Russians.

..."Christian leader invaded Iraq, and as a result a whole boatload of Iraqis are dead"...

This has been the most PC war ever fought. The US freed millions of Iraqis from a barbaric dictator. At their peril, they have done what they could to avoid civilian casualties. On the other hand, Iran, Syria, baathist holdovers, Sadr have done everything they could to kill their fellow muslims for political gains. So, the boatload you speak about has been done by muslims to muslims because they don't want peace. They want power.

.."imperial power...threatening to bomb Iran..."

Excuse me, but when a country denies the holocaust ever happened and then proceeds to threaten another country with annihilation - many inhabitants victims or descendants of victims from the holocaust.....how is the US at fault for wanting to defend the country threatened? Also, point out to me where Bush has threatened to bomb Iran?

..."This is the same country that invaded Afghanistan and killed bunch of Muslims there too."..

You are kidding me, right?

..."then, the Jewish allies of this Christian nation bombed Lebanon and killed a bunch of people, who the Christian US was ostensibly allied with and trying to help form a democracy."..

Muslim Hezbollah, backed by Iran, invaded the Jewish allies, kidnapped their soldiers, and proceeded to launch missiles at civilians from civilian areas so that those allies couldn't respond as they should. The Jewish allies have every right to defend themselves and what is amazing, they dropped notices to tell the Lebanese to get out of areas they were going to bomb. Hezbollah never gave the same consideration. Funny that, huh?

.."Christians in Europe presided over the largest mass slaughter of all time in the holocaust..."

Hitler was not a Christian. Because Christians lived in the vicinity does not make them guilty by association.

..."The Middle East has witnessed probably the death equivalent of at least 100 9/11s at the hands of the West just since 1990 or so. Wouldn't you be a little upset?..."

Most of the deaths are done at the hands of fellow muslims. And the death toll around the world via the hands of the 'radical' muslims are a helluva lot more. Bali, London, Spain, Indonesia, etc. etc.

..."Look at Catholicism. I'm pretty sure that the bible expressly opposes sodomy, but in Berkeley, CA there is a Catholic LGBT weekly meeting..."

No doubt they are gays who say they are Catholic. The Catholic church does not endorse gay groups unless they want to change their behavior and seek redemption.

Other than the US going in and freeing the ME of a savage dictator and defending themselves from insurgents, where has the west shown any violence towards any other country or religion? It seems the opposite is true. In all skirmishes/terror attacks going on in the world, it is muslims against their neighbors. Your points and causations are weak.

Charles, humans are pretty similar all over, right? How do you make decisions about morality, and the legitimate use of force?

When President Bush said that invading Iraq is a good idea and you had to decide whether you also think this is a good idea, you probably went through many separate processes. Well, is it necessary to protect my country, my people? Are there other alternatives that might produce a better outcome? Will the people killed be worth the potential benefit?

I have no idea how you answered those questions, but I can almost guarantee that you did not go to the bible and look for specific passages to decide whether God or Jesus approved of this war. Some Christian leaders came out strongly against the war arguing that Christianity is a religion of peace and that it should not endorse any war, let alone a war of choice. On the other hand, many Christian leaders came out strongly in favor of the war, arguing that it was necessary for the survival of the people and the nation, and that self-defense is justified. Who you agreed with probably had very little to do with your theological beliefs, and probably had everything to do with how you answered the initial, analytical, somewhat political questions. Plus, if you're a republican or a democrat, those political allegiances probably predisposed you to a positive or negative view of the war.

In this decision-making, Christian doctrine and scripture may have been an influence, but I think you would agree they were probably a very small part of the decision-making process. I would argue that Muslims go through the EXACT same decision-making processes, just with different inputs. If you ask most supporters of Bin Laden why they support him, I guarantee that the majority will not say, "because he is the true representative of Islam, and the Qur'an says we need to make war on the infidels." They will say, "because our civilization is under attack, and we need to fight back to show we are strong and prevent the west from killing our people with impunity."

Tom, if you see this and Charles doesn't reply, would you mind emailing it to him? Thanks.

Ann, my point wasn't to say that the US is necessarily at fault for everything I mentioned. I supported the war in Afghanistan and even now hope that we send more troops there (although it may be too little too late.) My point was to highlight the PERCEPTIONS of the US role in the Middle East. Perceptions matter much more than reality. My main point for bringing all this up was to argue that there are very tangible, non-purely-ideological reasons for a lot of Muslims to be anti-western that have nothing to do with Islamic scripture.

Of course Saddam was responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people during sanctions, but so was the US. He could have chosen to not be corrupt and let the food through, just as we could have chosen to lift the sanctions. In some ways it is worse, as the US probably KNEW that he wouldn't pass all the food on. Of course not, he's a corrupt dictator, so in essence they were pursuing a policy that they knew would starve and harm many of the Iraqi people, in the hope that they would get fed up with Saddam and overthrow him. Most Middle Easterners realized this, while most Americans did not.

Plus, with the victims of the sanctions being discussed in newspapers and television all across the region for eight years, and most local analysts blaming the US, it built up a lot of anger. But this is all tangential to my point that most violence is not scripturally based.

I doubt Mr. Palmer has even read the koran, at least not the one I read.

To apply a western mindset to islam is his first mistake.

To use ad hominem attacks shows his immaturity.

Lee, I mentioned in one of my earlier posts that I'm an unbeliever. I'm not going to defend Christians or Christianity except insofar as to say that I don't know when recently Christian doctrine has pushed people toward evil. (Well, there is the general business of faith, which has pushed crazies toward doing terrible things from time to time. Making faith a virtue can be dangerous.) Adolf Hitler, to the best of my knowledge, was baptized and confirmed as a Roman Catholic, and he never renounced nor was renounced by Holy Mother Church in his lifetime. OK? I have absolutely no problem admitting Christians, in all their multitudinous varieties, can do terrible things, as can Jews.

Are people pretty much the same all around the world? You can say that, and biologists will tell you that you're pretty close as far as the old genome is concerned. OTOH, the Holocaust was caused by Germany of the Third Reich, not New Zealand, not Thailand, not Botswana. That's because we are all more than genomes, and to that extent, Lee, we are not pretty much the same all over the world. We can be pretty different, which has its good and its bad points.

Now I'm going to give you the same Koran quote I gave you before. Pay attention.

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

It's my contention that such ideas, and worse, make it more likely for adherents of the book promulgating those ideas to hate Christians and Jews than the books of the Christians and Jews make them hate Muslims. Admittedly there are a few bits in the New Testament which are hostile to Jews, but it's mild stuff compared to what's in the Koran, not to mention extra-Koranic teachings which insist that Jews have deliberately falsified their own holy writings in order to eradicate all the prophecies of Muhammad which were supposedly there.

Basically, what I am saying is that ideas have consequences. Islam is a collection of ideas, and just like any other ideas, they have consequences. I don't think those consequences are often positive. Islam promotes mercy and compassion, and then tells husbands to beat disobedient wives and to distrust all Christians and Jews, and that the best road to Paradise is a Jihad martyr's death. What sort of consequences do you think such ideas have?

Charles, I understand your point about scripture. But my whole point is that scripture is a lot less important than people give it credit for. I also am not very religious so I don't have many bible quotes lying around. But I'm pretty sure that in the old testament the punishment for adultery is death by stoning. By your logic, this dangerous idea should predetermine that West will be violent towards women. In fact, the West treated women like crap for most of it's existence, until the idea of the women's rights movement, enabled by time-saving technological advances became the commonly accepted norm. Looking back, lot's of people have justified human rights movements in Christianity, arguing about Jesus as a figure of love and tolerance and respect. But if the words and scripture themselves were so powerful, why did it take 2000 years for the seemingly basic idea that women and men should have equal rights to appear?

I would argue that most of the Muslim world today is very similar to the United States about 70-100 years ago. The problem is not in the scripture, or in the religion itself, they just haven't gotten around to the liberal reforms that we have in the West. But those reforms have almost nothing to do with the underlying scripture supporting or opposing it. You're right, ideas have power, but ideas come from all over, and thinking that specifically religious ideas are the end all and be all of muslim society, and always will be is both ignorant, short-sighted and innacurate.

For example, before the current turn towards Islam in the late 60s, communism was all the rage in the Middle East. If we were having this debate then, I'm sure you would be talking about the dangers of Communist ideology, and Islam would barely enter the picture.

For a liberal Muslim ('westenized,' some would say, but I see myself as just believing in human values), this is all a very interesting question. Do I exist? I think I do, but some people think I don't. am I in a minority? Yes, I am. Sorry, we'll try to do better, for all of our sakes.

Spencer's book is a part of a healthy discussion, but that doesn't make the book's thesis correct. We Muslims should be challenged, but the challenge is to interpret our religion in terms that make sense, and not to confuse the requirements of a tribal society in ancient Arabia with the requirements of modern life, or to throw reason away when people insist that they and only they can tell us what to believe. That goes for the radical Islamists and for Robert Spencer.

Spencer's book, from the copy I browsed through in a bookstore, overlooks so much and is written in such a nasty style, throwing the good out with the bad, that it's hard to take it seriously. It doesn't set the low standard for personal attacks -- that was set by our own 'Islamists' -- but it does fail to rise above them. It's hardly surprising that Tom Palmer responded negatively to the book. I welcome such attacks, not because they are right, but because they force us as Muslims to develop an understanding of our religion that is defensible and compatible with the modern world.

Lee, my point would be: Scripture seems to be a lot more important in Islamic societies than it does in what we might call Christendom these days. Can Islamic societies evolve away from this? Sure. OTOH, even such societies as seem to have undergone such evolution can rapidly snap back -- the obvious example being Turkey.

Omar, I sympathize with your attempts to find a more humane interpretation of Islam, but I have to wonder whether it wouldn't make more sense, if apostacy weren't so dangerous, to just abandon Islam in favor of Christianity or unbelief. I find Muhammad to have been an extremely unsavory individual, so it seems pretty hard to humanize a religion which takes him as the exemplar of the ideal human. As a free marketer I have a problem with Jesus's violence against those Temple moneychangers (they seem to have fulfilled a necessary purpose), but aside from that, he doesn't seem to have been a bad guy. Just my interpretation.

I suppose I should add that for unsavoriness Muhammad has nothing on those favorites of the Hebrew God, David and Solomon, bloodthirsty hypocrites the pair of them.

"For the first time in over a thousand years, since before the Roman Emperor Constantine proclaimed himself a Christian and legalized Christianity, the smart money was on the complete disappearance of Christianity ââ?¬â?? and the relegation of virtually every Christian in the world to dhimmi status.ââ?¬Â (p. 155) "

Granted this may not be the most elegant of sentences, but the meaning is obvious: by the middle ages (around a.d. 1300+), the advance of Islam portended the end of Christianity as a dominant religion in the West. That is, absent the Crusades, Islam might have overrun Europe, subjecting the Christian population to dhimmi status. He certainy was not saying that the term "dhimmi" had any meaning during Constantine's time.

Charles, I think you're missing my point. I'm arguing that I don't think scripture is that important, and I gave several examples of possible alternatives for causing behavior that you attribute to scripturally based actions.

Your response is to say, "Scripture seems to be a lot more important in Islamic societies than it does in what we might call Christendom these days." There's no reasoning or evidence there. That's just an assertion.

I'm genuinely curious why you think that modern anti-western sentiment is based on Islam, and not a host of other factors. For example, in the 20s and 30s, America was actually admired in most of the Middle East for their anti-colonial stances. They were seen as the protector against the colonial French and British. Does that mean that all those Middle Easterners were going against Islam?

Lee, I believe that Scripture, and religion in general, are more important to Muslims than to Christians in influencing them to evil actions because so many more Muslims than Christians cite Scripture and religious tradition in defense of their evil actions. Have you been missing this? Do I have to give examples? Gloriosky, how could you miss this?

I don't doubt that there exist factors other than religious ones influencing attitudes toward the United States. But disliking another country's policies doesn't always translate into taking suicidal terrorist acts against its population. Did the Soviet Union ever engage in anything vaguely similar to the 11 September 2001 attacks, even at the height of the Cold War? Did the United States ever do anything like that to the Soviet Union? Of course the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were states, and states avoid actions like that because they result in war. What we are opposing today is not a state. It is a group defined by religious fanaticism. And I'm not talking about wild Buddhists.

Roman Catholics have their little problems too. Just look at Cardinal Mahoney and the latest priestly pedophilia payout. But I don't have to worry about a gas attack on the D.C. Metro ordered by the Pope, or his cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, monks, or nuns. I do have to worry, we all have to worry, about the insane things Muslim religious leaders encourage their followers to do.

I shouldn't have had to wonder whether the Pope would make it out of Turkey alive. I'm happy he did, despite many calls for his death. These were not the result of border disputes between Turkey and Vatican City.

Look, there is a preponderance of religion in the Muslim world generally, not just related to violence. It's the way people talk to be persuasive about anything. In many ways this is because the regimes of the region destroyed any other potential sources of dissent.

Initially, opposition to governments in the Middle East took much more normal, political forms. There were a diverse array of political parties in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and probably others although those are the countries I know best. Then, one by one, the rulers of these governments methodically destroyed the opposition, killing or imprisoning them, while the rest of the world did nothing. In Syria and Iraq, it was the Baath party (although very different Baath parties) while in Egypt it started with Nasser and continued on through to the present day.

As a result, people turned to Islam to save them from their governments. It didn't help. The massacre at Hama (where the Syrian government killed up to 20,000 members of the Muslim Brotherhood) and the imprisonment and killing of much of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Plus, Saddam, until 1990 or so wasn't so Islam-friendly either.

After these overt acts of repressions, the Islamic opposition got wise. They started spreading opposition to the governments subtly, and through culture. In Egypt, wearing the hijab for women became a sign of being politically active, and in some ways against the political elites who were overtly and aggressively secular. Of course, today it has gone the other directoin and it is now being anti-Islamic that is considered subsersive in many ways. But my point is that there are reasons for the dominance of Islam in political and daily discourse in most of the Middle East. Simply to say that because people talk about it more, and justify actions with it more make it the actual cause aren't necessarily true. The soviets were avowed atheists and often criticized the US for its religion. Did that make their desire to nuke us on account of their immoral atheism?

Also, I would argue that being willing to engage in a nuclear war and wipe us out being a few steps more dangerous than 9/11.

Finally, one last religion leading to violence parallel. What about the Klu Klux Klan that dominated the South for a long time, couched their rhetoric in Christian terms, and because of them, many young black civil rights workers were, "lucky to make it out of the south alive." To paraphrase your Turkey example. If not for a historically rare and charismatic leader like Martin Luther King, what do you think the US would look like today? We might just now be starting the civil rights movement in earnest, and would have very little of the moral high ground that we assume we have today.

Were the Klan inherently un-Christian? I would argue no. They were doing what everyone does. Using religion to justify immoral actions they want to take for other reasons. Was Christianity, or Christian scripture driving the Klan? I would argue no more than the Koran and Islamic scripture is driving terrorism and Bin Laden.

Lee, I'm not terribly familiar with the ideological roots of the 20th Century Ku Klux Klan, but they may have included some Bible references. But aside from toleration of slavery, and a common misunderstanding about Ham as ancestor of blacks, the Bible pickings would be pretty slim, and opponents of the Klan could easily come to an opposite interpretation of what constitutes Christian conduct. In any case, I don't see crazy Christians as a major problem today.

Islam, on the other hand, is a religion which became a state within the lifetime of its founder, who is regarded as the religion's ideal practitioner. Jesus did not, as far as we know, commit child molestation, robbery, assassination, or aggressive warfare. He didn't own slaves, and didn't condone the rape of women taken as spoils in combat. Muhammad did. I can't imagine how you think that none of this has consequences for those who hold him up as an ideal.

If you don't think that Islam, as part of the cultural background of Muslim terrorists, has a very genuine influence on making them terrorists, I would have to say you have a curious blind spot.

I am completely flabbergasted by this:

"Also, I would argue that being willing to engage in a nuclear war and wipe us out being a few steps more dangerous than 9/11."

Uh, Lee, 9/11 HAPPENED. The Nuclear Holocaust which was a common theme of an enormous number of science fiction stories of the 1950s... didn't. Your comparison is completely off the wall.

"Look, there is a preponderance of religion in the Muslim world generally, not just related to violence. It's the way people talk to be persuasive about anything. In many ways this is because the regimes of the region destroyed any other potential sources of dissent."

Why do you find it misguided to attribute the way Middle Eastern (and not only Middle Eastern) Muslims handle themselves to the religion they follow? Maybe they talk in religious terms because their religion insists that everything must be addressed in religious terms. Maybe they are contemptuous of those of other religions because their religion teaches contempt for those of other religions. You seem to attribute a lot of stuff to "That's the way Middle Easterners are" without considering that they may be that way because of the attitudes taught by the religion they follow.

Tom:

It's somewhat disturbing the hostility you show to Mr. Spencer. It is quite apparent to me that you chose to hate him and his work well before you read anything.

You believe that Spencer is endorsing the ââ?¬Å?versionââ?¬Â of Islam that the terrorists have. Should we worry about the peaceful ones?

What if the terrorists are just following the Qu�ran literally? The Qu�ran is supposed to be the literal word of god himself.

Can you not understand why Qu�ranic literalism is a problem if the religion is ever going to be peaceful in the western sense?

According to the teachings of Islam, the terrorists are logical followers of their faith. Can you not understand how western types such as yourself have trouble believing that?
Ask yourself: do you just not want to believe it?

Many people refuse to believe that terrorism and Islam is linked�mainly because the consequences of that truth are very bad for the world.

Charles M

Charles M.,

What a load of swill. You start by asserting that you and Osama bin Laden are the correct interpreters of Islamic thought, and no one else: "According to the teachings of Islam, the terrorists are logical followers of their faith."

As to whether I am hostile to Spencer, I can assure you that I had never heard of him before I picked up his nasty little "PIG" book and read his arrogant and hate-filled tract for myself. My hostility is not to him personally (I've never met him, so I can't comment on his personal traits), but to his demonstrated arrogance. (But really, creating a mirror-image of the various "Politically Correct" whitewashes of Radical Political Islamist terror [the ridiculous Noam Chomsky, who embraced Hassan Nasrallah when I was last in Beirut, where I am now, comes to mind] by writing an equally unhinged attack on all Muslims and then glorying in how you are being "Politically Incorrect" is quite simply something to be ashamed of. I am unimpressed by the Michael Moores and the Ann Coulters of the world, who just mirror each other, just as I am by the nasty whitewashers of radical Islamist violence and the Muslim bashers who mirror them. )

No text interprets itself. The issue at stake is what is the correct interpretation of texts and traditions. It's dishonest of Spencer to insist that, as a non-Muslim, he knows better what Islam "really" means or requires, despite being in disagreement with plenty of Muslims. I don't insist that Islam requires this or that, just as I don't presume to tell Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, or Jews what their religions demand of them if they insist that it's a disputed matter.

And, yes, I do think that Spencer's work serves as a recruitment tool for al Qaeda, by 1) demonstrating active hostility to Muslims per se he reinforces the Islamist claimst that the non-Muslim world is "against them," and by 2) insisting that, if they were really and truly Muslims, they would have to join al Qaeda and try to kill you and me.

Tom:

As Mr. Robert Spencer pointed out, it not just our interpretation of Islamic texts but of all the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence. You seem to have the deluded notion that the followers of the religion can only dictate what the religion represents. You should read the Qu�ran and other Islamic texts. The texts and teachings are the religion, not what the followers that you like better stand for.

Again you resort to such crude tactics that people in rational debate generally look down upon. You assume Spencer is trying to balance the world opinion of Islam? Why, just because Spencer is at the ââ?¬Ë?extremeââ?¬â?¢ in view points, must he be wrong? Maybe it is you who is being intolerant?

Tom, you insist that Spencer has no right to interpret the texts or religion. Think about this for more than 3 seconds. Can you read our constitution as a non-American and decide what it is about?

And again for the 3248525th time, these ââ?¬Å?interpretationsââ?¬Â are not just Spencerââ?¬â?¢s or mine, or Bin Ladenââ?¬â?¢s. He tells you about the leading and reputable scholarââ?¬â?¢s interpretation and how this is passed down to the people. So maybe you should take your argument to them? Tell the men long dead now that they interpreted ââ?¬Å?Slay the unbelievers wherever you find themââ?¬Â¦Ã¢â?¬Â wrong, in you opinion.

In reality, it is people like you who insist that the west is somehow to blame for the way Muslims in Palestine, Kashmir, Sudan, Thiland, France, Chechnya, Nigeria, ivory coast, Afganistan, Phillipeans, Indonesia, Turkey/Greece, Kosovo, Papua New Guinea, Chad etc. are acting. Even worse is when you insist that learning what inspires terrorism, suicide bombing, honor killings, abuse of women etc. only inspires more.

If you hadnââ?¬â?¢t already convinced yourself that that ââ?¬Å?hate-filled tractââ?¬Â is wrong, maybe you could realize that all of those things are justified by the texts, and the mainstream interpretation of them.

Charles M.

P.S.

I also enjoy how you say on November 20 that Spencer ââ?¬Å?has gotten himself very upset atââ?¬Â your remarks. The idea that any real emotion displaying Robert as ââ?¬Å?very upsetââ?¬Â was at all present in his responses to your slanderous review is laughable. Maybe you would just like to make yourself feel important that you conversed with a two time NYTimes Bestselling author? And then even more important that you managed to make him ââ?¬Å?very upsetââ?¬Â? Does it make you sleep better at night to believe that you stuck it to the man? Do you feel like youââ?¬â?¢re fighting a righteous battle? Perhaps you are simply compensating for the fact that he is more knowledgeable about the subject than you could ever hope to be?

Charles M., you make your case so well, you must be right.

In summary T.G Palme says that those who are not Muslim would do well to just ignore the core Islamic texts and the interpretations of the principle schools of jurisprudence because to do so is to invite more extremism. In effect Islam is to be given a special pass for the violence that is commanded of its followers just because we who are at the sharp end of Islam�s sword will inflame the situation.

His invective against Robert Spencer is puerile at best; he makes no attempt to refute the doctrinal support for violence that Mr Spencer highlights in his books. Books which I might add have done more to raise awareness about Islam�s expansionist and supremacist ideologies then any other. If we were to listen to Mr Palme we should rely on the small number of individuals who are trying to reform Islam while millions of Mohammed�s followers engage in open warfare against all those who would question Islam�s motives. This is perhaps one of the most inane ideas I have ever come across.

Mr Palme is unable to address the arguments outlined by Mr Spencer and others on this site and so resorts to ad-hominem attacks to try and salvage his own crumbling intellectual position.

One final point that I would like to add is that for all the so called advances that Islam is supposed to have achieved (which a thorough understanding of history shows that the majority are appropriations from other societies or from dhimmis that have been subjugated under Islam) none outweigh the risks associated with its violent expansion.

Palmer has responded with some strong words to a book that is full of strong words, and for that the fans of Robert Spencer call him impolite! This reminds me of the person who kils his parents and asks for mercy from the judge because he is an orphan.

I do not read the remarks of Palmer like Kevin McCairn does. Palmer is not ignoring Islamist violence and he is not giving them a special pass. He is instead doing more to combat it than the hard-talking anti-Muslim fanatics. Do you want to help Muslims to find peace or do you declare war against all of us? I don't want war with you and I don't want to be killed by radicals. I want peace and freedom. What do the followers of Robert Spencer want? I think I know: it is a war of civilzations. God help us all if they and the Islamist radicals are successful, for we will all suffer from it.

I am afraid Omar that it is Islam that has declared war, we are now just responding to your canonical texts.

Until Muslims take a step towards reformation then it looks like this impasse will remain. It is not for us to initiate this reformation our responsibility is to recognize the danger Islam presents in its current manifestation and analyze this threat at every level. Something Robert Spencer has done with great clarity much to the dismay of apologists like Mr Palmer.

I am sorry if this offends your sensibilities but Sharia law and Islamic supremacism offend my sensibilities. Maybe you don�t want war with us, and I am sure you do not want to be killed by radicals but be honest Omar would your ultimate vision of freedom involve instigation of the sharia?

In response to Charles R.L, and vaguely to other people...

Charles, you're still neglecting my main argument. If Islam necessitates violence against the West and non-muslims generally, why is it only recently that Bin Ladenism emerged? The Koran hasn't changed in 1400 years, so why is it that we are only now seeing the development of a mass anti-Western movement? What about 30 years ago? 70 years ago? 200 years ago? Is it just technology? Were muslims in the 1920s thinking to themselves, "man, if only we had some explosives so I could strap them to myself and go kill some Westerners!"

Islam has been around for the last 100 years, so why is it only now that we see the emergence of Bin Laden's movement?

It is a simple social science question. How can something that has existed for so long unchanged (like Islamic scripture) be at fault for a modern and new phenomenon?

I would argue that it is much more plausible that a confluence of socio-political-economic factors are at work rather than the inherent doctrines of a religion.

Well Lee what about 300 hundred years ago, does Jan Sobieski and the gates of Vienna ring a bell. What about the Ottomen empire.

The reason there was a lull in the early part of the 20th century was that secularism did take a hold and was expressed as Arab nationalism through groups like the Baath party, however as they kept being soundly beaten by the Jews Islam made a resurgence.

Islam has always been expansionist but it is only through modern technology that we are now much more aware of it. And it is for this reason that apologists like Mr Palmer are now so frustrated because their cover has been blown.

I would argue that it is much more plausible that a confluence of socio-political-economic factors are at work rather than the inherent doctrines of a religion.

The typical leftwing/socialist fall back position it must be socioeconomic who would be so silly as to believe in God.

Well the fact is Lee a lot of people do and this drives them to make irrational decisions in our eyes but to them they are doing what they are commanded to do and think will allow them entry into heaven. We in the West need to realise that there are people who think this way and take appropriate defensive postures against them.

Lee, I've never said that Islam "necessitates" violence against the West. Islam generally preaches an arrogant and hateful attitude toward those of other faiths, particularly Jews, but much of the time Muslims may see no great percentage in committing terrorist acts which will only provoke undesirable reactions, such as active U.S. military involvement in the region.

However, once a Muslim gets it into his head that murdering a bunch of infidel civilians might be a good idea, his religious beliefs, far from discouraging such atrocious actions, in fact encourage him (and, from time to time, her). It also encourages nasty attitudes whenever a Muslim finds himself by various circumstances in some sort of position of power, witness the nonstop vandalism by young Muslim thugs in France.

And while active military invasions of the West may not be taking place, Muslims haven't forgotten their duty of subjugating any territory which ever was subjugated, i.e. the Iberian peninsula and much of Southeastern Europe, but of spreading Islamic dominance on from there, with consequent, explicity spelled out constant humiliation, at least, of non-Muslim populations. It is not out of line to point out that Europe is in danger of being overwhelmed by a "peacefully" invading Muslim population which reproduces considerably more prolifically than the natives.

Islam, in short, is nasty stuff. While its followers kept to themselves (from our point of view), we didn't much care. Now we have to care.

BTW, just because they weren't committing terrorist acts against the United States during the 50s and 60s, for instance, that doesn't mean they were acting like saints. Muslim states of the Middle East generally mistreated their Jewish populations, which to me is the major justification for the existence of Israel: it provides a haven not just for European Jews, but for the multitudinous Jews who migrated from other parts of the Mideast, looking for a country which would not mistreat them as a foreign element, forcing their children to recite antisemitic poetry in the schools.

Islam is nasty stuff.

"I would argue that it is much more plausible that a confluence of socio-political-economic factors are at work rather than the inherent doctrines of a religion."

Lee, why is it so hard for you to admit that religious doctrines might play a role next to socio-political-economic factors? Or as a very large part of that "socio" business?

I'm reminded of various critics of a book which appeared several years ago highlighting German antisemitism as a cause of the Holocaust. The critics pointed out that there were other countries similarly antisemitic which had not acted like Germany. The author responded, correctly, that he had never said that German antisemitism was the only reason the Holocaust happened, but when various other factors entered the mix, German antisemitism entered the mix as one of the essential factors. Just so, I'm not saying every problem in the Mideast is owing to Islam, only that some, perhaps many, problems might be solved were it not for the influence of Islam. Islam isn't the only factor, but it is an important and necessary factor in many problems such as the spread of terrorism and, I might add, the inability to accept the existence of the State of Israel.

I see the debate continues and, as is usual for the internet, it has become quite heated.

I have a suggestion. Instead of asking if a ââ?¬Å?moderate Islamââ?¬Â or ââ?¬Å?liberal Islamââ?¬Â is possible and sustainable; let me ask instead if the Salafi ââ?¬Å?interpretationââ?¬Â that we commonly call ââ?¬Å?fundamentalistââ?¬Â is a bona fide interpretation of Islam.

Adherents, of course, will have their opinion of the ââ?¬Å?other interpretations.ââ?¬Â Catholics, Methodists, and Unitarians all have a view on the correct understanding of Christianity. But as a non-Christian, I see these as all viable and bona fide interpretations of the teachings of Jesus.

As an outsider to Islam, can anyone here say that Salafi Islam (i.e. following the ways of Mohammad and the first few rightly-guided Caliphs) is not a genuine interpretation? Certainly it is not the only interpretation but is it not a genuine interpretation that an outsider must acknowledge? Can we agree on that much?

Jason, someone would have to elucidate on the various strains of Islam for most of us to answer your question. I'm no expert. I know some of what is in the Koran, and I know something of the generally-agreed-upon facts of the life of Muhammad, who I believe is regarded by all Muslims as a model to be emulated. If there is a strain of Islam which thinks the Koran should be ignored and that Muhammad was a jerk, I'd be fascinated to hear about it. Otherwise, I'm not sure there is much to be gained by delving into the details which may pit various types of Muslim against each other, but which don't prevent them all from hating non-Muslims.

The reason Islam appears to only be showing it colors now is because of oil. Oil has given them power and wealth. So much that they could make all the Arabs states into wealthy prosperous nations. With no western powers to civilize them they instead chose to follow their religion.

There is no way around the fact the it's the fault of the religion itself. It is not our foreign policy, its not poverty, and it surely is not Israel. These are all issues they scapegoat to explain to their people why they are living in their own s***. And when their Qu'ran itself condemns Jews on many occasions, its easy to think, as a Muslim, that Zionists are behind all their problems.

In places like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.(Muslim countries) people were polled and said that 9/11 was a Zionist plot. They also were polled and believe that 9/11 was a great victory for Islam. There is disconnect with reality and complete loss of rational thought.

I love the example of the KKK in the U.S. being influenced by Christianity like Islamists are influenced by Islam. Big problem 'though, it is a pre-Civil War type of KKK.
Do we need an Islamic John Brown? Brown was a truly great man inspired by his deep knowledge of the Old Testament and personal experiences of equality and integration. But Brown's 'terrorist' actions intent on starting a Civil War would have come to nothing if H.D. Thoreau had not taken up his cause, calling him "the Christ of our time."

conversation seems to have died down, but in case anyone is still here, this is an interesting AP article about an Islamic sex information call-in show.

http://arabist.net/arabawy/2006/12/04/islam-sex/

Is the host inherently unislamic as many people on this thread believe? Or is she providing one (of many) equally valid interpretations?

This is my point about religion generally. It is interpretable, and the socio-economic context mostly determines which interpretations will be favored or rejected.

Fascinating Lee, especially since the sexology movement was started in San Francisco and was pro-gay and was part of the free-love movement. My father http://phillips.blogs.com/ started the first Sex Information hotline in the world, San Francisco Sex Information.
While I think it is wonderful what she is doing, it is also very judgmental. The Nazi's also had a 'pro-creation sex within marriage is good for the nation' movement.
I followed her links and she is anti-American and anti-Jewish self-determination.
Perhaps Dr. Heba Kotb is cracking the door open as much as she can, or perhaps she really supports an Islamist agenda. How can we tell?
Like Orahan Pamak, I think Islamists are part of Modernity. Mohamed Atta had a degree in City Planning from Hamburg University. He wrote his dissertation on the integration of Mosques in to modern cities.

Nice that Muslim women can talk about sex, but I'm not sure that reassures me. As far as I know this doesn't go against the Koran or anything else authoritative. So why should I consider the lady "inherently unislamic"? Who else on this thread does?

Inherently unislamic would be, for instance, such advice as: "Be friends with Christians and Jews so that they might appreciate Islam by your example. Remember that they are your brothers and sisters through our common spiritual father Abraham.And pray for a settlement to be made with maximum fairness to our brothers and sisters in Palestine and in Israel, both our Muslim brothers and sisters and our Jewish brothers and sisters." By Christian or Jewish standards, that's a pretty plain-vanilla sort of sentiment. Can you show me a Muslim group which says anything like this?

BTW, is everyone here aware that the Hamas Charter is not only against the Zionists but also against the Rotarians and the Lions Club? Yeah,that last is the bunch which gathers old eyeglasses for poor people. Horrible conspiracy.

spencer got totally pwn3d!

What's to interpret about the Quran? The language is as plain as day. Thankfully,most people can't bring themselves to murder,no matter the encouragement from Allah. Interestingly enough,both Shia and Sunni militias in Iraq keep a religious figure handy to pass out death sentences,usually after the victims have been sufficiently tortured. How much murder and mayhem would be going on without Quranic justification is anyone's guess.

I don't think any honest writer can write a book about islam and not hurt the 'feelings' of the muslims.

I wonder what people think of the book "Judaism's Strange Gods" by Michael A. Hoffman