Update with my comments on Spencer's critique of Abul Kasem's 8-point strategy to confront Islam.
Here is a series of email conversations I had with renowned author and expert on Muslims and Islam, Robert Spencer.
My question, when all is chiseled away is:
Given that Robert Spencer knows how destructive Islam is to societies, and that Islam is making such a strong presence in the West, and specifically the United States and Canada, how can we get rid of the problem of Islam from our society?
Mr. Spencer has given me permission to post the interaction on my blog, and here it is.
------------------------------------------------
On 7/12/08 12:10 PM, "cameralucidas@yahoo.com" wrote:
Dear Mr. Spencer,
I have been reading your articles for a few years now, and have learned
copious amount of information from them.
But, during your recent interactions with Mr. Auster at the VFR, the
contention is that you haven't provided enough strategic and realistic
attempts to rid the West of Islam.
In the recent Frontpage Mag symposium "Confronting the Islamization of the West", you unfortunately spent littletime discussing Abul Kasem's practical strategy to combat Islam in the
West.
You preferred to spend most of your time and attention on the problems
with Islam (which we now know so much about), and not the strategies to
get rid of this problem.
I wonder what you think of Kasem's efforts, and would you find time to
make such a 8, 10 or even 5-point strategy to remove the dangers of
Islam from the West?
So far, you may have written them in between many other topics on Islam, but I haven't seen a deliberate, concise, direct and clear strategy from you.
Perhaps what I'm saying is can you make the leap from the scholar to the
activist, or is that (the activist's) role something you feel should be
done by others?
Sincerely,
Kidist Paulos Asrat
------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Spencer <director@jihadwatch.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:50:35 -0400
To: <cameralucidas@yahoo.com>
Conversation: Abul Kasem's 8-point strategy
Subject: Re: Abul Kasem's 8-point strategy
Dear Kidist Paulos Asrat
Thanks for your kind note.
I am happy to discuss this with you, but allow me please to ask you first:
have you read any of my books? In three of them the final chapter contains a
series of recommendations for what we must do in order to defend ourselves.
Yet Mr. Auster has stated several times that he hasn't read any of these
books, and then he claims that I have made no recommendations. I must say I
find this peculiar.
Also, I ask that you please look over the symposium again. Please note the
abysmal ignorance of Rohan Gunaratna, and the influence that he has. Rohan
Gunaratna rejected Abul Kasem's recommendations because he doesn't see the
need for them -- because he thoroughly misunderstands the nature of the
problem itself. And remember, please, that the overwhelming majority of
Americans and others are still just as ignorant and uninformed about the
nature of the problem as is Rohan Gunaratna. It is because of this that I
spend the bulk of my time trying to raise awareness of the problem. In fact,
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.
You ask, "I wonder what you think of Kasem's efforts." Answer: in the
Symposium itself I wrote this: "...we need to take strong and decisive
steps, such as Abul Kasem outlines, to protect ourselves."
[Ed. note: I will take Kasem's 8-point strategy for confronting Islam, from the FPM symposium on "Confronting the Islamization of the West", one by one with Spencer's answers to each during this "interview" with me, and with my own comments below.
n.b. Spencer was also part of the FPM symposium, but didn't address these points directly at FPM].
-----------------------
1.
AK: Adopt tough policies on the entry of Islamists to non-Islamic countries. However, we must make a distinction between the large number of in-name-only Muslims and the diehard, jihad-infused, conniving, pan-Islamists."
RS: I have taken a stronger position on this than Abul Kasem, given the
impossibility of distinguishing Muslims-in-name-only from jihadists: end
Muslim immigration. Mr. Auster grasps at straws in claiming that I don't
mean this since I have only stated it at my blog. Well, I mean what I say at
my blog.
KPA: Spencer’s earlier comment in this same symposium that “depending on [the moderate Muslims] is to lean on a weak reed, and that we need to take strong and decisive steps, such as Abul Kasem outlines, to protect ourselves.” is discussed at Mr. Auster' s View from the Right. Spencer doesn’t really have a stronger position than Kasem. He does believe in moderates – those Muslims-in-name-only – who will perhaps taking the Islamic world sometime in the future, under his watchful support. Since moderates cannot (for now) be depended upon, Spencer advocates his elusive "decisive steps" to end immigration. But, as shown above (and below in #7), his decisiveness keeps shifting.
2.
AK: Enforce strict restrictions on the construction of mosques and Islamic seminaries. If this sounds unethical/ and or infringing on the religious
rights, please note the non-existence and disallowance of construction of
non-Islamic worshipping centres in Islamic Paradises. We must call spade a
spade.
RS: This cannot be done in America given the First Amendment. I have called (I
think it is in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam -- I am unsure
because I am in a hotel and do not have my books with me, but I am sure it
is one of my books) for the reclassification of Islamic groups in the US as
political unless they renounce the Sharia supremacist imperative and make
themselves open to inspection to show that not only are they not teaching
the political aspects of Islam, but are teaching against them, and
advocating the Western principles of republican government and equality of
rights for all. And if they are found to be still teaching Islamic
supremacism, they should be closed.
And of no construction of mosques or Islamic schools funded by Islamic
supremacist governments such as Saudi Arabia should be permitted.
KPA: There can be no Islam without Sharia. If Muslims are given headway based on a false renunciation of Sharia, which is against their religious mandate, as a way to enter in Western countries, then they will at some point begin to enforce their Sharia regulations when they think the setting is permissible.
Thus, if Muslims stop teaching the political aspects of Islam (i.e. Sharia) they will be teaching an incomplete version of Islam. So whether covertly or overtly, they will still be doing it.
3.
AK: Stop paying jizya to the Islamists. Do not accede to any unreasonable demands solely by the Islamists. Keep other religious people in mind. Why must Islam be treated more favourably than other religions? Ask the Islamists this simple question.
RS: We have advocated this many times at Jihad Watch. Hugh Fitzgerald has
written about it frequently and in great detail, and I endorse his views.
KPA: This is irrelevant in the current Islam/West relationship. In fact is insulting that Robert Spencer and Abul Kasem can contemplate that they think it necessary to bring up this point, as though it is an inevitability.
4.
AK: Halt the interfaith dialogue with Islam. Remember, Islam is
uncompromising. There is no way Islam will accommodate un-Islam. Please read
this sentence one more time and memorize. You will save a lot of time and
money wasted to please Islam. We do not have to please Islam."
RS: Yes. I devoted a chapter to the perils of this interfaith dialogue in my
book "Religion of Peace."
KPA: This goes without saying.
5.
AK: Assert the un-Islamic (non-Islamic) cultures, traditions, customs and ethos. We must let the Islamic world learn a bit that the world is not prepared to accept its 7th century Arab Bedouin customs and laws."
RS: This is something I have advocated for years in many, many contexts and in
many different ways. My book "Religion of Peace" is dedicated to this in
particular.
KPA: This goes without saying.
6.
AK: Reject any demand to impose Sharia in a non-Islamic society; even if it
is in the pretence for Muslims only. Remember, Muslims are the first victimsof Islam."
RS: This also I have advocated repeatedly for many years. Search for "Sharia" at
Jihad Watch and you will see.
KPA: RS’s response here is in contradiction to point #2. There is no Islam without Sharia, no Sharia without Islam. The two are inseparable. It is interesting to note that AK doesn’t seem to differentiate between Sharia and Islam as per his statement “ Muslims are the first victims of Islam” (I think he meant to write “Sharia”.)Although Muslims will not impose Sharia at the beginning, at least definitely not publicly, they will always be battling to set up the system throughout their presence. Thus, governments will always be distracted and confronted with Sharia, disrupting other functions and responsibilities. A prime example of this is how refusing Sharia courts in Ontario also led to the amendment of a decade-long Ontario Arbitration Act which had allowed arbritation of family matters by Catholic and Jewish groups, groups which are highly compatible with Canada’s legal systems and traditions. This took a couple of years of negotiations. Another is the phenomenon of polygamy within the Muslim community in Toronto, with one Imam especially saying that it is a Sharia-mandated practice. Of course, things got stickier when it was revealed that these wives (to one husband) each can collect welfare checks. The argument centered around this monetary arrangement, rather than the issue of Sharia, polygamy and Islam.
7.
AK: Muslims migrating to non-Islamic countries must sign a declaration that they do not believe in pan-Islamism. If found contravening their signed declaration they should be stripped of their citizenship and promptly deported to the Islamic Paradise they had migrated from."
RS: If this idea did not originate with me, at very least I have been one of its
foremost advocates. This is the "screening" proposal upon which Mr. Auster
has heaped scorn. He has pointed out that Muslims entering the country will
lie when they declare their rejection of Sharia and acceptance of Western
principles. Quite so. But then if they begin advocating Sharia in any way,
this will become grounds for deportation. You can find this at JW in
connection with earlier controversies with Mr. Auster.
KPA: Spencer abandoned this idea as he states in point #1: “I have taken a stronger position on this than Abul Kasem, given the impossibility of distinguishing Muslims-in name-only from jihadists: end Muslim immigration.” So on the one hand he says that the screening process doesn’t work, on the other hand he keeps saying let’s give it a try. And once again, he is unable to articulate (I am sure he knows and understand it, though) that with Islam comes Sharia.
8.
AK: Proselytizing by Islamic dawa must be strictly controlled, and if necessary, banned. If you think I am being unreasonable. Please look at the laws of Islamic Paradises (such as Malaysia, Pakistan, Sudan, NigeriaŠ) with regard to the propagation of other faith among the Muslims."
RS: Of course. Its political and supremacist character must be recognized.
KPA: Here again, RS contradicts himself. Firstly in points #2 and #6 he talks of limiting to Islam in Western countries to its non-political component. Now he recognizes the Islam does indeed have a political and supremacist character which “must be recognized.” The implication here is that Islamic dawa – which simply translated means “making an invitation” is taken by Spencer and Kasem to mean a political and supremacist agenda. They are thus confirming again, in contradiction to other statements, that Islam is a political entity, amongst other things. And that political and supremacist characters are not separate from its essence.
-------------------------
In sum, I stand by my contention that Lawrence Auster is falsely stating my
views. I have advocated numerous solutions, and continue to do so. At the same time, as I explained above I still believe that the primary task that must be done is raising awareness. And I am going to continue to focus on that, without apology.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
------------------------------------------------
On 7/12/08 1:30 PM, "Kidist Paulos Asrat"
Mr. Spencer,
I think this clarifies my understanding of your position:
At the same time, I explained above I still believe that the primary task that must be done is rasing awareness. And I am going to continue to focus on that, without apology.I understand that not everyone can be a strategist. But there is only so much awareness that we can raise, without making the final call.
With all due respect, that must be why you are having such a difficult contention with Mr. Auster. Raising awareness is no longer necessary (and even if so, it is now ineffective.)
The role for Islamic experts now is to combat, directly and without equivocation.
[...]
Even God felt it necessary at some point to give us a list of things to do with His Ten Commandments, rather than to just read and ruminate over a story.
I say all this with such conviction because my own country of birth (Ethiopia), although I came here to Canada as a very young child, went through a devastating Islamic Jihad. Fortunately we are now able to tell the tale, and recognize the ominous signs.
If you wish, you can read my entry on "Christian Tolerance, Islamic Jihad" it is at my blog: Camera Lucida .
Thanks once again,
Kidist
------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Spencer
Subject: Re: Abul Kasem's 8-point strategy
To: cameralucidas@yahoo.com
Date: Saturday, July 12, 2008, 10:37 AM
I respectfully disagree. Most Americans have no idea of the facts you know well and are impatient with me for repeating. I am going to continue to try to change that. You say that raising awareness is no longer necessary. I disagree.
------------------------------------------------
From: "Kidist Paulos Asrat"
To: "Robert Spencer"
Of course I agree with you that the facts will ever be there to be unraveled, by scholars like you and also like Dr. Bostom.
I was talking of the necessity to put strategy to fact. And convince Westerners that the facts they know so far (however limited they may be) along with awareness, need to be, at this critical time, joined with specific strategies.
Perhaps, if I may be so bold, your important role now as an expert on Islam, is to make these clear strategies in the manner that I have suggested that Mr. Kasem has so clearly delineated. I think people would trust you, and would not doubt any ominous suggestions you might make given the depth of your scholarship.