Robert Spencer’s apparent contradiction on Islam

Spencer is one of the few by-lined writers in the U.S. today who recognize that the problem with Islam is not “radical” Islam, for which an imagined “moderate” Islam is the solution, but that the problem with Islam is Islam itself. That insight should logically lead to the conclusion that Islam cannot be reformed, but must simply be opposed, resisted, and excluded. And indeed Spencer, as well as his favorite contributor at his website Jihad Watch, Hugh Fitzgerald, has said things along those lines in the past. But now Spencer takes what sounds like the opposite position and urges using carrots and sticks to reform Islam. Thus he writes:

The President should acknowledge these realities [of Islamic supremacism]. He could then address the nation and the world, and tell them that the United States is going to lead the resistance to jihad and Sharia supremacism in the name of equality of rights and dignity of all peoples. That any state that oppresses non-Muslims or denies them equality of rights will receive no American aid. That any state that allows the idea that Muslims must make war against non-Muslims until they either convert to Islam or submit to the Islamic social order will be no friend of the United States. That the idea that the U.S. Constitution should one day be replaced by Islamic Sharia, whether by violent or non-violent means, will be understood within the United States as seditious.

I agree with the idea of treating support for sharia among Muslims in the West as seditious, because that is a way of defending ourselves from Islam. But does Spencer really think that by threatening the withdrawal of aid from Muslim countries we can push them into giving up their central beliefs and become “moderate”? Again, Spencer himself has been one of the biggest critics of the belief in “moderate” Islam.

It seems to me that Spencer needs to get clear on what he really believes about Islam, and on what he thinks we need to do about it.

Our Swedish conservative reader disagrees with my comments on Robert Spencer. He writes:

It’s the usual thing, that you and I always get back to.

I think Spencer is here doing an excellent job, being “on the train,” pushing the positions forward considerably within the paradigm. It doesn’t matter if he fully believes it or not, the rhetoric is heads on.

You will naturally object to the idea of the United States leading the world “in the name of equality of rights and dignity of all peoples.” Fair enough. But such is our social paradigm since WWI and Wilson. And Spencer is here using it in the most honest and constructive of ways. And he’s not sneaking in anything rotten into it.

Then the sentence, “That any state that … will be no friend of the United States.” You claim this implies the belief in “moderate” Islam. But it doesn’t. It merely implies the idea of moderated regimes of Islamic countries. And for the countries complying, it implies nothing more than that the U.S. should cease being unfriendly, not that any deeper friendship should take place.

I think the main problem you have with his position is the reference to “equal rights for all” in the name of American hegemony. Fair enough. But I think here that Spencer is doing a good rhetorical job within the paradigm, and that it is therefore counterproductive to criticize him in this specific instance. We are all craftsmen of different kinds. If we are going to build this house, we need the carpenters as well as the painters.

My reply:

The specific thing I criticized was Spcncer’s proposal of the threat to withhold aid. To me this smacks of endless attempts at manipulating foreign countries. Not only is that obnoxious, it is futile. “You must stop being Islamic, or we withdraw aid.” “Ok, Mr. America, we’ve stopped being Islamic.” “Wait, are you sure you’ve stopped being Islam, your state-run newspapers are still running vile anti-Semitic articles and your state-paid imams are still calling for war against America, and you still have sharia law” “Mr. America, we are trying as hard as we can, we must deal with the realities of our country.” “Well, can’t you tone down the attacks in your papers a bit?” “We will try.” “Ok.” And so it goes, forever. I don’t want America trying to change the internal politics and religion of countries of which we know nothing and which we have no ability or right to control. I want America to control the things that it has the right and the ability to control, namely our own society and our own defense.

Robert Spencer has replied to my remarks with a clarification. According to Spencer, he does not intend his proposed withdrawal of aid as part of a carrot and stick approach to get Muslims to reform (as I thought he intended), but simply as the termination of any U.S. help to our enemies. He writes:

What I meant to say, just in case I was unclear, is this: we should stop financing the jihad against us. We should stop giving Muslims the rope they wish to use to hang us. We should define the enemy the way he defines himself—as a mujahid waging jihad in order to institute Sharia—and withdraw American aid to countries that allow such ideas to be spread. It’s a simple matter of self-defense.

I appreciate Spencer’s clarification, which shows, pace our Swedish conservative commenter, that my criticism was worthwhile.

One of the commenters at Spencer’s site writes:

Spencer’s response to Auster—“There is in fact no contradiction here, for I actually didn’t say anything about pushing them to give up their central beliefs and become moderate”—is disingenuous, since Auster is evidently talking about Spencer’s oeuvre as a whole, not merely one article.

Still, Spencer’s contradiction is apparent only, insofar as his frequent requests for moderate Muslims to distinguish themselves theoretically and concretely represents a rhetorical challenge, not an actual challenge: Spencer is assuming (with the evidence on his side) that there is no essentially moderate Islam; then he is challenging the Muslims who insist that Islam is moderate to prove it—and when they continually fail to prove it, and furthermore engage in transparent obfuscation and sophistry, Spencer has additional evidence to add to his arsenal. Auster is ignoring this rhetorical device of Spencer’s.

The best and most obvious and most dignified response which detractors of Spencer should marshal is to overwhelm his assumption (that Islam is essentially not moderate) with counter-evidence. So far, it seems no one, whether Leftist whitewashers of Islam or Muslim apologists, can do this.

If this is a correct view of Spencer’s approach, I disagree with it. Constant calls for moderate Muslims to reveal themselves keep alive the idea that there are moderate Muslims, just as, say, the administration’s constant statements that the Palestinians have to “give up terrorism if they want to move forward with the peace process” keeps alive the idea that the Palestinian are capable of reforming themselves. I don’t want word games; I want truth. At what point does Spencer stop asking rhetorical questions and reach conclusions?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 15, 2006 08:10 AM | Send