I received an e-mail Monday. It said Robert Spencer was coming to Madison to speak on behalf of the UW-College Republicans. It probably hit many people’s inboxes — I’m not necessarily on their personal mailing list. The message read, “Jihad: What Muslims say it Means and Why It Matters.” I am overly excited. As Voltaire said, “I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it.”
My first reaction was along the lines of, “Well, Bob, Muslims have lots of different things to say about jihad, considering that there’s over a billion of them.” It’s going to take forever for him to cover everything. He probably won’t.
Ahmed Rashid, Muslim writer of the lauded book “Taliban” said, “Essentially jihad is the inner struggle of a Muslim to become a better human being, improve himself and his community.” This is a far cry from the common misconception that jihad means a holy war against unbelievers. Granted, some Muslims do include violence as a part of jihad, but they are certainly in the minority. If there were half a billion Muslims who felt this way, we would be wholly aware of it and not need the evening with Robert Spencer.
My main problem with Spencer is that he confuses the term Islam with radical-Islamism. In his book “The Truth About Muhammad,” he spends a mere two pages attempting to debunk the distinction between the two. He claims, “Many Muslims, even those who are quite serious about their faith, have only a dim awareness of what [Koranic] texts actually say.” Spencer goes on to define Islam as being built ideologically and historically on foundations of violence, so, therefore, no separation is necessary. He goes on to claim moderate Muslims simply do not understand what their Holy Book means, even to themselves, so we should not draw a distinction between their religion and radical-Islamism. The claim is as preposterous as the conclusion.
For making such arguments, Spencer calls himself politically incorrect. Others call him racist. Most academics and people who study the Middle East call him flat-out wrong. His words are never on their face racist — he does not shout expletives at Sarah Palin rallies. And whether or not Islam is actually a race seems to negate the point. What he does is readily foment division — such as the ever-present “Muhammad versus Jesus” information boxes in the book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam.” By creating an “us-versus-them” mentality, it is not a stretch to say Spencer sows the seeds of racism in the minds of his undiscerning readers.
His body of work is another example of attention-seeking politicians and writers attempting to characterize the entire Muslim population as something that is — by any stretch of the imagination — the complete picture. He wants to be noticed, and many in Madison will oblige, ready to tell him off. He won’t care. He is armed with quotes from radical Islamists and punts them off as accepted by moderate Muslims. Utilizing selective fact checking, he plays off of fear and national identity to harness his audience. Rhetoric such as Spencer’s is very convenient because it gives many Americans the sense we are fighting a war like WWII, us against totalitarianism. That makes us feel good.
Spencer’s mistake is failing to draw a distinction between moderate Muslims and the religion’s militaristic fragmentations. This feeds the perception that the War on Terror is a war on Islam, which only encourages misplaced fear. A very intelligent friend once said la peur est tr?s mauvaise conseill?re — “fear is a very bad advisor.” Take heed to this message when Spencer speaks.
James Sonneman ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and history.