Last Thursday evening I was fortunate enough to attend a talk given by Robert Spencer, author of several books on radical Islam, such as Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith and Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West. He blogs regularly at his website Jihad Watch and is a frequent contributor to web sites such as FrontPageMag.com. Regular blog readers should be familiar with his work, and I have linked it here any number of times.

The evening was co-sponsored by the Middle East Forum with the specific topic for the talk billed as "How Radical Muslims Recruit."

The event was held at Temple Emanuel in Newton, Massachusetts - seemingly home to a large congregation as there was much going on in the Temple's various rooms on that Thursday night. I arrived a bit early to find a smallish room laid out with some refreshments. I forgot to count the attendance, but I'd just guess that by the time the talk started there were about 75 people there. The crowd tended strongly toward the higher end of the age range, and at 36, I think I may have been the second youngest person in the room. That's not exactly an encouraging sign for the future, particular when one thinks of all the young people out there receiving the radicals' message on the other side.

This is a fairly long piece, so please click on the link below (or the permalink) to read the entire thing.

After some brief remarks from the host, including a standing moment of silence for the day's victims of terror in Spain, and a speech given by someone on the Temple's activities in support of the victims of terror in Israel, it was Spencer's turn.

Physically, Spencer appears as a bit of a nebish, not tall, slightly round but not fat, well-groomed black hair and beard. He approaches the podium slightly hunched over, carrying his briefcase under his arm, possessing more the bearing of a Linux-nerd than the martial presence that might have the radicals in the Middle East squirming. But, unlike a Computer Science professor who could tell you chapter and verse of the Windows Programming Guide, and the best way to set up a 500-node network, Spencer quotes Islamic history. He can go toe to toe with anyone, anywhere, anytime. For instance, watch him demonstrate his depth of knowledge in this FrontPage Symposium.

When he puts down his bag and steps up to the mic, his stance becomes more upright. Here is Spencer in his element, expounding on his subject, feeling comfortable, ready to quote chapter and verse and share his knowledge with a willing audience.

What follows from here is more or less a transfer of the notes - more like scribbles - I took that evening. It is not necessarily a coherent narrative, nor in any way a transcript. I had no recorder with me. Any errors of fact, portrayal or understanding should be seen as my own, and not those of Spencer. I may have misunderstood something I heard, and I certainly did not write down every word.

As a display of the immediacy of the subject, Spencer referred to his FrontPage Magazine article which had appeared that very day, American Jihad, that gave a run-down of all of the "Jihad activity" that had occurred that week in the USA - various arrests and indictments, as well as the continuing controversy surrounding the Boston Mosque.

He spoke about his website, Jihad Watch, and how easy it is for him to keep it updated and filled with news on the subject. His readers will know how true this is. Spencer is indefatigable at keeping his site updated with multiple daily posts, none of which comes across as filler (unlike some blogs I know *cough*). The scope of Jihad Activity, particularly of the violent sort, worldwide is great enough that there's plenty of work to be done. This may be an indicator that the "tiny minority" of radicals who some like to tell us cause all the trouble may not be so tiny after all.

The answer to the question of what to do is that we must deal with the root source of the problem - a military solution will not be enough. When Spencer talks about "root causes" however, he is not talking about the self-blame favored by so many on the Left - that America's foreign policy and Israel are to blame, that America's support of foreign dictatorships is the biggest part of the problem, for instance, or that the "plight of the Palestinians" is the cause of terror, or even that what we face is some sort of deserved retribution against Western Europe for the Crusades. When Spencer talks about root causes, he is talking about a structural problem within Islam itself. Right or wrong, this in itself is a refreshing change from the morass of self-doubt and blame many of us are used to being treated to.

Using the case of the Lackawanna Six as an example of how the Islamists recruit, Spencer explained how they transform previously basically moderate, secular Muslims into Jihadis. The six came from a basically secular Yemeni immigrant community. They exhibited no outward signs of be Islamist. They drank alcohol and lived with their girlfriends. Along comes, do I have the name right, Kamal Darwish, a popular guy, football player, who had spent time in Saudi Arabia. He comes along and offers them something, like many cult leaders, some meaning for their lives, in this case, a path back to true Islam. Next thing you know, they're off to Afghanistan meeting Osama bin Laden.

Likewise, the thoroughly-seeming secular Mike Hawash. Before long, he's growing a beard and indulging in Jihad.

In any case, that is the true source of terrorism - the convincing sale of "real" Islam to receptive minds.

He spoke about the case of Abu Bakir Bashir, thought to be the head of Jemaah Islamiah, the group responsible for the Bali bombing. Bashir on one hand says that the Bali bombing was probably done by the CIA, but on the other hand was the required responsibility of Muslims as a Holy War on non-believers. Bashir is so popular that Indonesia will not be able to hold him in prison any longer - another example of the power of the "tiny" minority.

This by way of explaining the Islam is unique among World Religions in advocating violence against non-believers.

Here is where Spencer begins to part with his colleague, fellow Middle East Forum member and Islam expert, Daniel Pipes. Where Pipes is careful to explain that the problem is Radical Islam - an Islam perverted for violence, Spencer is not quite so sanguine. For Spencer, "Radical" Islam is true Islam. Those who practice real Islam are bound to be involved with, and advocate violent Jihad. More on this as we go on.

The are many moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Yes, Islam's advocates may selectively quote from the Koran to show its tolerant side, and Spencer gave a number of examples, but there are two problems: The first is that this is the message usually only given in English for outsider's consumption, and second, there is the theory of Naskh - "cancellation," or abrogation. That is, Allah can change his mind on things, so that verses that represent a time later in the Prophet's life may cancel out earlier, often more conciliatory messages, and these later (chronologically) verses are what the real commandments are based on.

Interestingly, the Islamic calendar starts when Mohammed took over the leadership of the tribe of Medina - the polical beginning - not Mohammed's birthday, nor the anniversary of his first revelation or some other event one might logically presume to be the most important date. This is significant.

For the non-believer, death, conversion or subjugation are the only acceptable options according to Islam, and Muslims who are telling the truth about their faith. There must be a reform of these options or terrorism will never end. There will always be those who seek violent Jihad.

That ended the "talk" period, and it was on into the question period. I was wondering if Spencer, like Dershowitz might have his own "intellectual stalker" to spice things up a bit, but no such luck. Everyone was quite well behaved. I did not write down all the questions verbatim, so again I present my impressions of things. Things went fairly informally, so some of the questions went back and forth a bit conversationally. Following are some of the main points I jotted down.

One question was about reform. Why did Islam get "stuck" in this violent form? Both Christians and Jews have bad stuff in their books, too.

In Islam, there is nothing comparable to the Rabbinic tradition that involves, no requires, self-criticism. Islam's trouble is that the Book is pure revelation with no human element. It is "all" you need, while the others have assimilated revision and change for practical purposes. As an example, Spencer told the probably apocryphal story of Caliph Umar who burned the great library of Alexandria saying, "If the books agree with the Koran they are superfluous, if they disagree they are heretical."

Someone asked about Irshan Manji and Spencer said she's an apostate so she could be under death sentence (unlike Spencer who was never a Muslim so he isn't) and that she's good but it will take millions more like her to effect real change. Even the Sufis are the Jihadis in Chechnya.

Muslims are peaceful by inertia, not by theory. If they are not pursuing Jihad, it is by laziness and not backed by any theory. Here Spencer bragged a bit that he has debated the advocates and can take them on on this point - that is, he can take the "Radical's" case and beat those who say that Islam is peaceful. The Radicals are the ones who have it right. He quoted a Muslim who said, "All Muslims support violent Jihad - most just won't get off the couch to do anything about it."

The University of Alexandria in Egypt had a drive for volunteers for suicide bombing. They got 2000 volunteers. This is not a small problem. There is no guarantee of paradise in the Koran. The only guarantee of paradise is for those who are killed fighting for Allah.

The Black Muslims are heretical. The Nation of Islam has nothing to do with real Islam (its bizarre racial theories are a for-instance). The trouble is that the NOI members start to self-identify as real Muslims and they go out and find out about true Islam and wind up finding it in its violent form.

Asked what's changed things in recent years, Spencer says that Saudi money and Iran's success have been big factors.

Attaturk's abolition of the Caliphate sticks in the Islamist's craw. It was shortly after this abolition that the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928.

In the case of the Saudis, money is the problem. Spencer rejects the idea, pushed by Dore Gold among many others, that Wahabi Islam is the real problem. According to Spencer, the Wahabis are not the only violent Muslims, it's just that they're the ones with the money.

The success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran has also provided a base for the launching of violent Jihad.

So basically, nothing has actually changed in recent decades, it's just that Muslims have more means now [I've got a few thoughts on this I think I'll make into a separate post, later. - Sol]. As an example, the English in India had to contain the Muslims and their constant Jihads and deal with the Hindus. A guy named Khan made up the idea of Jihad as an inner struggle merely as a way to sell a moderate face of Islam to outsiders. It has no true validity.

The domestic policy front is muddled. No one can deal with the truth as they would be labeled anti-Muslim. Look at Spencer himself, he has trouble getting his work published or reviewed.

The closest thing to a confrontational question came from someone who took note of the fact that Spencer graduated from UNC and asked what the difference was between Pat Robertson and Louis Farrakhan. Spencer had to search for an answer for a moment, but when he found it, it was a good one. "Pat Robertson isn't allied with people who want to murder us."

And those were all the notes I took. Spencer was affable and hung around and talked to everyone who wanted to afterward. He seemed in no hurry to leave. Not surprisingly, his personal safety is a concern as he was circumspect with regard to giving details of where he lived, and no, Robert, I did not have a weapon hidden there under my coat.

I did introduce myself, "Hi, I'm Solomon from Solomonia.com," to which Spencer responded with a somewhat quizzical look and an "Ohh...uhhh...yeah, I...think I've seen that on the little referrer thing..." Ahh, basking in the appreciation of my admiring public. Blogging - the pathway to instant celebrity.



To conclude: Spencer's message is not exactly hopeful. The picture he paints (and can backup) is a bleak one. His is the message of true Islam - the message of violence in the name of Allah as the rule, not the exception. True Islam represents a danger to the non-believer (and even to the believer when faced with a Muslim from a different sect) everywhere and always and in cases where it does not seem to, the danger is right there, lying just below the surface. Ignore it at your own peril. Barring a deep reformation of the religion by its practitioners, this will not change. Given the violent manner with which apostates are handled, it's not likely to happen any time soon, either.

Ultimately, the real questions for us are political. We can't control Islam, so what do we control? What can we do, and what does this all mean for the War on Terror? Has George Bush been too soft on the Islamic World? Should we be at war now with Saudi Arabia and Iran? Should we nuke Mecca?

It seems obvious that we can't and shouldn't. I know there are many on the right side of the political blogosphere who believe the Administration has been too conciliatory, too slow to confront some of these nations (like Saudi Arabia), and that inviting Muslim groups to the White House for a Ramadan feast is absurd, but just imagine...imagine that George W. Bush spoke like Robert Spencer. I'll even let you imagine that Bush himself has Spencer's depth of knowledge and ability to speak and debate on the subject. If he spoke this confrontational "truth" he'd be destroyed politically so fast it would make your head spin. He'd be vilified in the foreign and domestic press as a racist and a bigot. He'd never have a chance to get his message out, or really have the debate. He'd lose the election and set the cause of resisting Islamic extremism back a decade or more. The press and the body politic would be so busy with forcing the world to fit into their pre-conceived desires to pose and feel good about themselves, that "tolerance," and "acceptance" would trump "truth" - as it almost always does.

No. We must hope our leaders recognize the truth, such as it is, see where we are and where we need to get to and then devise us ways of getting there step-by-step. That means that as long as I get the sense that George Bush "gets it," I'll cut him some slack with the steps he takes moving us along and not risking an unnecessary war against the entire Muslim world. He must be the one to figure out the best ways of defending our lives and our civilization without overcoming the inertia of all those millions of Muslims out there. If the truth is that those Muslims still sitting on the couch aren't really practicing true Islam, that they're merely lazy, I say let me get them another Coke and a bag of potato chips as I don't want to do anything to make them feel like they have to stand up - and that's a difficult balancing act to perform. Whether our methods tend toward the carrot or toward the stick and how much of either are a balance of circumstances that are both in our hands, and the hands of "the enemy."

We need people like Spencer to help us with finding the truth, and assist us in keeping ourselves immune from those on "the other side" who would deceive us, but we need the politicos, too (hence the title of this piece). Intellectuals like Robert Spencer and Bernard Lewis (for instance), provide us with information and advice, but it's up to the politicians (and I use that not as a dirty word in this instance) to decide what to do about it. I'm all for shouting the truth from the rooftops, but it must do some good. It must be done in such a way that it accomplishes some goal, not just makes us feel better for having screamed. I'm all for standing sword in hand, and even using that sword when necessary, but we will need to remember to keep one hand free, so that when the reformers come, we will have a hand empty with which to greet them.

Is Spencer "right?" That is beyond my pay-grade to assess on an academic basis. I can only listen to him speak, read what he writes, watch him debate knowledgeable opponents and then try to assess how truthful it all sounds. I can also measure his message against what I see happening in the world around me. On those bases, I find Spencer's message compelling.



Update: As a follow-up to this piece, I decided to email Mr. Spencer for a short reaction and a follow-up question. He has been kind enough to reply.

My question: Who has the authority to "reform" Islam. From whom or from whence must the reform come? Is it even possible given Islam's current structure?

Spencer: ...As for reform, the senior ulama of each Islamic nation would have to make a statement enunciating the new understanding. This is very unlikely to happen, of course, and even if it did, it wouldn't bind all Muslims. But it would have a significant impact.

In reaction to reading the piece: "It's a good summary. My wife didn't like the "nebish" part, but appreciated your saying I wasn't fat! [Heh, sorry, just my way of finding a creative way of providing an image for "Non-threatening physically, intimidating mentally." -Sol] Anyway, I agree with your assessment of the position GWB is in: I wouldn't expect him to say what I am saying. I do think, however, that he could fight terrorism without saying anything about the nature of Islam, and such statements would not be missed. Also, violent Islam is not the only true Islam, but it is a broad tradition within Islam."

So, a big "Thank You" to Robert Spencer for the illuminating evening and for taking time to respond to my piece. I strongly recommend hearing what this man has to say whenever you have the chance, and be sure to check in on his website, Jihad Watch, and its sister site Dhimmi Watch on a regular basis.

Update: Special bonus feature: Here is a scan of a couple of "pages" of the notes I took - such as they are - actually, each page is a section of an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper folded into quarters and scribbled on. Now wouldn't it be nice if the mainstream press provided access to the raw data they prepare their items from?