Is Spencer “optimistic” about Islamic reformation?

A reader reports he just heard Robert Spencer say on William Bennett’s radio program that he’s “optimistic” that Islam can be reformed. It is hard for me to believe that Spencer said this, since it would contradict everything he has ever said on the subject.

- end of initial entry -

Steven H., who initially told me about the Spencer interview, expands on it. What he reports is disturbing:

Spencer said he was guardedly optimistic about the reform movement based on what happened in Florida last month. Dr Zuhdi Jasser was Bennett’s first guest. Jasser is a so-called pro-American reformist, former Naval officer and a devout Muslim. Although Bennett said before the interview that he was cynical about moderate Islam, both he and Spencer wrapped their arms around this man saying that this is where our hope lies. I was given short shrift and dispensed with ASAP when I tried to make the case the Islam can not be reformed. I made my rebuttal after Spencer left. He was given an uninterrupted 15 minute segment.

Spencer gave the impression that is where our hope lies. He did little to nothing to dispel this notion to the listener nor did he mention anything about immigration. I’ve personally heard this man on the radio numerous times and he has never brought up the immigration issue. Reformists are giving him hope.

Not a single thought was given to the consequences of the fact that when their children are confronted with Islamic texts they will have a good chance of becoming jihadists.

LA replies:

Though I initially said I would find it hard to believe that Spencer would say he was optimistic about Islamic reform, now that I think about it, the news actually confirms a long held fear of mine. All along, it has been Spencer’s strategy that instead of just coming out and saying that Islam cannot be reformed, which is of course the truth, he instead put the burden of proof on the supposed Islamic moderates by saying, “We’re waiting for you to demonstrate to us that you are moderates.” The implied expectation, which Spencer transmitted to his readers and correspondents, was that the “moderates” would never succeed in doing this. Spencer himself would not have to come across as an extremist and expose himself to attacks by saying that Islam is unreformable. It would be the Muslims who by their own behavior would demonstrate this. It seemed like a reasonable approach on Spencer’s part, if not very satisfactory from the point of view of someone like myself who thinks that speaking the truth about Islam is the most important thing.

But the deeper problem with Spencer’s tactic is that if a person who privately believes that Islam cannot be reformed is nevertheless constantly acting publicly as though he thinks it can be, that puts him in the position of being obligated to respond positively to every sign of Islamic reform. Instead of saying plainly that Islam is not reformable and that every sign of Islam reform must end up disappointing us, he has fueled the liberal hope that Islam is reformable by saying, “I’m looking and I’m hoping for evidence that Muslims are reforming.” He must therefore demonstrate his good faith by applauding so-called reformers when they pop up and conveying the message that the existence of such reformers indeed shows that Islam can be reformed. And that’s what seems to have happened with Spencer.

The same thing has occurred over and over with the Israel-Arab “peace” process. Instead of Israel and America simply saying that such a “peace” was impossible because the Arabs’ real desire was to destroy Israel, a statement that would make Israel and the U.S. seem extreme and intractable, Israel and U.S. would say: “We’ll give the Arabs another chance, and if they don’t respond positively, that will prove to the world that they don’t want peace.” But what this meant in reality was that Israel and the U.S. got sucked right back into responding to every little phony gesture of conciliation coming from the Arabs. Thus a tactic supposedly aimed at exposing and discrediting the false position of the other side ends up by putting one’s own side under the power of the other side. This unhappy result can only be avoided by breaking publicly and decisively with liberal premises.

A core truth developed in discussions at VFR years ago is that, in politics, it is not what one privately believes that matters, it is what one publicly says. A person who publicly says liberal things—such as that Islam can be reformed or that the Arabs really want peace with Israel—is a liberal, even if he privately indicates that he doesn’t believe these liberal things.

Andrew E. writes:

It wouldn’t surprise me if he said this because he can be very unclear on certain points. In all his writings, especially recently in his defense from Dinesh D’Souza’s lies, he always maintains that he doesn’t deny there are moderate Muslims. He goes on to say that their theological foundation is weak, but wouldn’t it be much clearer to just say that to the extent that a Muslim is moderate, he’s not really a Muslim. Serge Trifkovic and Hugh Fitzgerald are much better at making this distinction and I think I know why. It’s because Trifkovic and Fitzgerald have no qualms about calling for a halt of Muslim immigration (they are not liberals) and this allows them to be much clearer on the finer points. For example, read Trifkovic as he describes the nature of the Muslim god as a god of pure will, a capricious master that is completely transcendent and unknowable and every attempt at comprehension is incomplete and false. Spencer never speaks in such clear and uncompromising terms because to do so leaves only one option for dealing with the problem, seperationism. And we know where he stands on that.

Tony M. writes:

I’m disappointed that Robert seems to think Islam is reformable. It isn’t. If the Koran is the word of God then it must be followed without question. Although a mass of contradictions, the Koran contains so much that is utterly incompatible with Western norms as to make it unreformable. This isnt to say that ‘Muslims’ cannot become good and acceptable citizens. Almost all of the ones i know are. But they’re not Muslims, if you get my drift.

Steven H. writes:

Spencer’s denials are troublesome. By saying that Islamic reform is “prohibitively difficult,” problematic, or that it faces “monumental obstacles,” Spencer leaves the “when are the moderates going to take their religion back” crowd filled with optimism when a person like Jasser steps forward. Spencer never says in interviews that there is no such thing as moderate Islam or that Islam is incapable of reformation. By giving these wishful thinkers hope, he leaves the door open for their unabated migration into our country.

Spencer knows that blunt statements on the reality of Islam would offend the ingrained politically correct sensibilities of many of his hosts and some of their listeners. Maybe invitations to their programs would start to dry up. I find this offensive, because Spencer himself knows better. The fact that Jasser and his ilk are behaving as good American citizens rather than plotting to kill our children is something we should expect not celebrate.

Most Americans are unaware that Islam cannot be reformed. They are unaware of what is happening in Europe and they fail to grasp that Islam is at war with us which is why the immigration issue has not even crossed their minds.

Spencer has had many chances to inform millions of people who do not go out of their way to educate themselves on these matters, but he always comes up short. When he slams you over your just accusations on these matters he shows his true character.

LA replies:

Steven has explained the problem very well. Spencer, by constantly saying that Islamic reform is “prohibitively difficult” and faces “monumental obstacles,” sounds very hard-nosed and realistic. But Spencer’s very emphasis on the obstacles in the path of Islamic reform makes the appearance on the scene of a moderate-seeming Muslim like Jasser seem all the more significant and earth-shaking. Yes, people feel, Islamic reform is very difficult, but it can happen and is happening! (Just as the Bushites say, “We never said that Muslim democratization would be easy, but it can happen and must happen!”) And thus the whole liberal illusion is re-fueled and regenerated all over again. If the tent is left open even one inch, the camel of liberalism will get his nose into the tent and then it’s all over. And that’s what Spencer does. He refuses to close the tent all the way.

Only a decisive break with liberalism in general, and with the illusion of Islamic reform and assimilation in particular, can save us.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 23, 2007 10:33 AM | Send