Spencer on the ineluctible Islam problem

Robert Spencer is interviewed about Islam by John Hawkins in an undated article at Right Wing News. Spencer’s answers on the problem of “moderate” Islam are a model of clarity and truthfulness. He comes across as neither dogmatically dismissive of the notion of a moderated Islam (which, frankly, is the way that I would come across if I were asked these questions), nor as someone who is looking for the “easy out” that would make him acceptable to liberals. For example, he leaves open the possibility of some kind of reform within Islam, but clearly gives the reasons why this is terribly unlikely. Imagine if the far better known Daniel Pipes, let alone the distinguished, the most distinguished, the illustrissimo Bernard Lewis, spoke with this kind of intellectual rigor and consistency.

- end of initial entry -

June 19: As I mentioned, the interview with Robert Spencer that I commented on yesterday was undated; I even wrote an e-mail to the website telling them there was no way the reader could know if the interview was published last week or two years ago. Robert Spencer now writes to me and informs me that the interview was indeed published two years ago, and he wants to clarify or change a couple of points.

He writes:

In it I am quoted as saying: “I believe in the two state solution and I think that the Palestinians have to a certain extent, a legitimate claim….”

I do not support a two-state solution at this point. Any sympathy I once had for the Palestinian cause has been completely obliterated by suicide bombings and general jihadist intransigence. Israel is a legitimate state established in a legitimate manner, and has a right to defend itself. A Palestinian state lacks any historical legitimacy and would only be an even stronger launching ground than the Palestinian Authority is now for jihad attacks. The neighboring Arab states should have and could easily have absorbed the Palestinian refugees, as I pointed out back then.

However, it’s not clear to me what happened that made Spencer change from favoring the two-state solution only two years ago to opposing it today.

Spencer continues:

I am also quoted here: “I think that Iraq could be turned into a democracy, but that it will always be a difficult process and Iraq will from the beginning as a democracy be threatened by Muslims who believe no government has any legitimacy unless it obeys Islamic law….So democracy in Iraq, it could be established, but it’s going to take a large scale change of political and theological attitudes in Iraq for it to get deep roots and thrive there.”

I hope that last sentence is clear—I never believed in the viability of Iraqi democracy. Saying “I think that Iraq could be turned into a democracy” refers only to the fact that I believed that a weak and fragile republican apparatus might be put into place—and indeed it has been. But I would not want this to be taken as support for the entire Wilsonian democracy project in Iraq, which I was sure was doomed to failure before it began. Evidence of this comes from this article, which I wrote (the “No” part) before the adventure in Iraq began.

I would be most grateful if you could clarify those two points for your readers.

Sincerely
Robert Spencer

I did indicate in the original entry that Mr. Spencer’s caveats made it clear that he thought democracy in Iraq was practically impossible.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 18, 2006 06:26 PM | Send