Wednesday, September 07, 2005

The Logic Of Islamofascism Explained


Jamie Glazov interviews Robert Spencer in Front Page Magazine. Mr. Glazov notes that he has received numerous death threats from Muslims for criticizing the violence which seems to be inherent in Islam. Glazov is confused. Spencer explains:


Glazov: ... the numerous death threats I have received entail the same irrational paradigm. Let me explain:

While it is a given that many Muslims are on our side against extremism, that we must ally ourselves with them (i.e.
Free Muslims Coalition, Sheikh Palazzi etc.), and that Muslims have the power to collectively reform and change their religion into one of tolerance and peace (and that we must promote this effort), I have at times shed light on the elements of the Islamic religion that, as you show, legitimize and promote violence. Because of this, I have often encountered email correspondence of the following nature:

[a] A Muslim emails me and tells me to never say again that Islam ever advocates violence because this is not true.

[b] I answer in an email that I am not saying such a thing off the top of my head but simply just gathering conclusions from reading the Qur'an (i.e. the Verse of the Sword, Sura 9:5, 9:29 etc.) -- a source from which Osama and al-Zarqawi receive their inspiration.

[c] Then the Muslim writes back saying that he will kill me.

The logic here is very twisted. How does the individual who threatens me rationalize his step c with step a?

If his effort is to convince me of the inaccuracy of my own findings, he is not doing a very successful or convincing job, to say the least. What is the psychology here?

Spencer: This is a strange contradiction from a non-Muslim perspective, but not from that of a Muslim who believes in traditional Islamic legal directives calling for the deaths of unbelievers who are at war with Islam.

From the perspective of such a man, Islam is indeed a religion of peace:

the peace that will prevail over the world when Sharia is the supreme law of every land.

To bring this about, he believes he is commanded by God to wage war – not undifferentiated mayhem, but war for specified purposes, under specific circumstances and for particular ends.

When you invoke the Qur’an and other Islamic sources to make that point that elements of the Islamic religion legitimize and promote violence, you are doing so as an infidel. Even if what you say is correct, you are approaching it all as an infidel and are thus insulting Islam. And this insult must be avenged. It isn’t that you are inaccurate, it is that you are critical.

You are mistaking what they see as justice for undifferentiated violence.


This would be the equivalent of an American killing a Muslim for saying that Democracy causes violence.