Spencer now says that jihadists’ interpretations of the Koran do NOT reflect core Islamic beliefs

This is unbelievably bizarre. Robert Spencer is now denying that he believes the very thing about Islam that over the course of his entire career he’s been arguing is the case. In fact, he’s denying that he believes it, even as, in the same blog entry, he’s reasserting it.

Here is a section of Erich/Hesperado’s entry where the Spencer quotes are provided. Hesperado writes:

In a related follow-up to this article, Spencer published a criticism of him by a Muslim apologist, and answered one of his charges by stating:

I have never stated that “the interpretations of the fanatics … reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition … ”

What this means is that Spencer thinks that the interpretations of the fanatics do not reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition.

Not only is this a preposterous position for Spencer to assert—to anyone who has been reading Spencer in any length and detail over the years—the preposterousness is bizarrely augmented by subsequent paragraphs in the same missive in which he is answering this Muslim apologist. Spencer goes on to challenge his Muslim critic:

Please supply, specifically, rulings by jurists from any of the recognized Sunni or Shi’ite madhahib, declaring that jihad is not to be waged against unbelievers in order to bring them under the authority of Sharia, but rather that non-Muslims and Muslims are to coexist peacefully as equals under the law on an indefinite basis, even when the law of the land is not Sharia. Please show evidence of any orthodox sect or school of jurisprudence that teaches this.

What Spencer is clearly saying here is that in fact the rulings by jurists from all the recognized Sunni and Shi’ite madhahib declare that jihad in fact is to be waged against unbelievers in order to bring them under the authority of Sharia, and that therefore non-Muslims and Muslims are not to coexist peacefully as equals under the law on an indefinite basis anywhere on Earth, and that furthermore no evidence has been found of any orthodox sect or school of jurisprudence that teaches this.

Furthermore, Spencer goes on in the next paragraph to challenge his Muslim critic:

… please explain why the fard kifaya/fard ayn distinction was elaborated in Islamic law, and why the various madhahib elaborated guidelines for offensive jihad—and how you propose to convince them today to discard those guidelines, even were a caliphate to be restored.

What Spencer is clearly saying here is that the various madhahib did in fact elaborate guidelines for offensive jihad.

If this isn’t evidence that the teachings of the fanatics do, in fact, “reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition,” I don’t know what is.

What is even more curious is how his followers seem utterly blind to this, and apparently cannot see that their Emperor has, in this respect at least, no clothes….

[end of Hesperado excerpt]

—end of initial entry—

Kidist Paulos Asrat writes:

“Unbelievably Bizarre.” Yep.

But, you have to understand that Spencer is still in the process of trying to get the rest of the world educated, before he discloses the true Islam to them. He says he believes that they are not ready. When I asked him when he was going to get real about Islam’s dangers in his mainstream articles in my email correspondence with him, this is what he said:

I believe that pushing for certain policy recommendations before there is a general awareness of the problem they are intended to solve can actually make it less rather than more likely that the policy recommendations in question will be taken seriously and eventually adopted.

I have pegged Spencer for a dhimmi a long time ago. I don’t think he is worried that ordinary people won’t understand or accept his message—many already understand the dangers of Islam.

I think Spencer is genuinely on a quest to try and “redeem” Islam, for whatever reason. He talks about his moderate Muslim friends, and for all his awareness of the jihad-Islam link, he is truly trying to find that moderate Islam somewhere underneath it all. I think that is why he is not willing to go all out about the truth of Islam.

I meant to comment on your post on “Romney says that jihadism is an “entirely different entity” from Islam” this past June. I think part of the problem is mainstream writers like Spencer and Daniel Pipes who keep writing about moderate Islam, separating jihadists (radicals) from the moderates.

Politicians and other leaders don’t have time to study all the angles of Islam, and they rely on such experts to make their decisions, coated with their own personal interpretations—in this case probably Romney’s Mormonism.

So, Spencer does much more damage than he thinks (of course he doesn’t think he’s doing damage, but being cautious and “responsible”).

Still, what is more important for him, protecting the well-being of Americans, or not insulting his moderate Muslim “friends,” or finding a moderate Islam to satisfy his ambivalence about a violent Islam?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 17, 2009 01:18 PM | Send