I am not saying that Islam is perfect just as it is; it has serious defects that make it incompatible with Western civilization, just as Hinduism, Buddhism and Catholicism have in the past. I am saying that Islam is reformable, however, due to its doctrine of abrogation. That reformation will come over time, as societies like Iraq and Kurdistan demonstrate the positive value of secular government and religious tolerance. Muslims must desire to join the West as Muslims before they will seek to conform Islam to the best of Western values, as Hindu cultures like India have in the past 50 years. The must walk willingly through that door, not be dragged and whipped. Hostile intransigence and self-satisfied condemnation will not induce this, nor will Laura Bush’s rejection of a scarf.

I don’t attack Robert Spencer because I respect his arguments, and I agree with the man’s conclusions, the insults of his devotees like you notwithstanding. I also know that he isn’t advocating for the eradication of Islam. I have no reason to believe the same of you.

Exit question: Would Ayaan have put the scarf on in the same circumstances?

No. Nor would Ayn Rand, or better yet Margaret Thatcher. We need so many more like them today.

Laura, Nancy and Greta need to get a clue and a life. All three can’t even hold a candle to or walk in the shadow of the three aforementioned strong ladies.

Often in life I’ve been asked to do things in the name of other people’s culture or religion. I’ve always politely declined, without offending anyone. It is possible to remain true to self, without offending and especially without submitting.

Laura could make a huge difference and doesn’t. Nancy thinks she’s big and isn’t. And…Greta doesn’t matter.

That’s what our military is for.

Wrong. Nations wage wars, not the military. It is merely one aspect of the war effort albeit the most crucial. You can’t send your military off to war, press the Snooze button and roll over back to sleep. It doesn’t work that way. If the First Lady is submitting to barbaric customs then ultimately capturing Anbar isn’t going to be enough.

Easily. I know Muslims that reject those aspects of their religion and wear head scarves

Yippee! So do I. That doesn’t alter the theology of Islam. It’s nice that some decent Muslims reject the violent parts of their religion but that does not change the fact that Allah commands them to wage war against the unbelievers.

I also know Catholics that do not follow the practice of self-flagellation or make a habit of burning heretics.

I’m a Catholic myself but I must have missed the part where Jesus told his followers to burn heretics.

Wife beating and female mutilation are problems endemic to certain Muslim cultures, but they are not endemic to all Muslim cultures. It is simply unjust, incorrect and counterproductive to attribute it to Islam as a whole.

They are endemic to Islam theologically. The Islamic societies where they do not flourish (Turkey, Tunisia, Soviet-ruled Central Asia) are where Islam has been suppressed. The societies in which they do flourish (Iran, Saudi Arabia, modern Britain) are those in which Islam is sacred.

That is quite an indictment. The world went to war 60 years ago with fascism, and for good reason. Are you saying that Islam is an irretrievably fascist ideology?

It certainly is (quite an indictment, I mean). Islam is irretrievably totalitarian, racist and oppressive. It predates fascism by over a thousand years yet is parallel in its attempt to subjugate the intellect, create an empire based on a hierarchical slave empire (Third Reich, Caliphate) and control every aspect of every person’s life.

Equating the hijab to female genital mutilation is a categorical indictment of Islam.

When did I say that?

The First Lady should not be the spearhead of our righteous indignation. That’s what our military is for.

Although the phrase “righteous indignation” is almost always used sarcastically and derisively I think that our (my?) indignation is righteous and completely justified.

Yes certain Muslims are interpreting the Koran rationally to seek irrational and evil goals.

Irrational by our standards. They are carrying out what they believe is the word of Allah (the God, not the blogger). They are interpreting the Koran correctly by the litmus test of every accepted Muslim scholar of the thousand-and-a-half years.

What does that have to do with the price of rice in China?

I haven’t got the slightest clue what you’re dribbling on about.

Or the fact that Laura Bush was trying to be a gracious guest among the Saudi Royal Family, our ally?

Some ally. Being a Republican myself (in the traditional sense, not the political party) I wouldn’t offer the steam off my piss to any Royal Family let alone the Saudis who are utterly undeserving of graciousness (grace being a Christian concept.)

I would add, though, that I understand that there are Muslims that wish to establish Shariah law in the West. I do not see them as friends. I do not see them as reformers. I’m only making the point that the First Lady giving the Saudis the bird will in no way facilitate a world-wide reform of Islam; it is likely to have exactly the opposite effect.

Why do these Muslims wish to establish Shariah law in the West? Because it is a central tenet of their religion. How on earth can you talk about reforming Islam when you haven’t the slightest clue of what Muslims believe? It can’t be reformed, not really. It can be interpreted non-literally (unlikely) or negated through philosophical and theological criticism. I’d be all for that but even here on HotAir genuine critical discussion of Islamic theology by anyone except Robert Spencer throws up a gallery of dupes (spmat, DaveS) who don’t even know what they’re talking about.

It would be nice if courageous athiests like Allahpundit, jummy, Nonfactor and JayHawPhrenzie would expand on this pressing “theocon” issue. Given that Christianity takes a daily beating on this blog it would be nice if I could criticise Islam without my thoughts being called “unjust, incorrect and counterproductive”.

If I had not been reading daily Greta’s Blog at Gretawire, I would probably be critical myself of our First Lady, Mrs. Laura Bush wearing a head scarf. (it was not worn in public)…

For the First Lady to even insinuate that would be tantamount to America declaring war on Islam. If you want her to do that, fine. I think that’s foolish.

spmat on October 29, 2007 at 10:20 PM

I’m only making the point that the First Lady giving the Saudis the bird will in no way facilitate a world-wide reform of Islam; it is likely to have exactly the opposite effect.

spmat on October 29, 2007 at 10:24 PM

So then presented with the choice of dhimmification or war, we should choose the path of appeasement and dhimmitude? And had Laura chosen, (as a free woman), to not adorn her head with a symbol of tyranny and oppression it would have inevitably led to this war? And our First Lady, having being presented with such a choice and choosing incorrectly, you’re saying that we shouldn’t make such a big fuss over it? And in fact she chose correctly?

How do you say both of these things at the same time?

JiangxiDad on October 29, 2007 at 8:21 PM

Easily. I know Muslims that reject those aspects of their religion and wear head scarves. Just like I know Hindus that reject the more oppressive aspects of the caste system. I also know Catholics that do not follow the practice of self-flagellation or make a habit of burning heretics. The difference? Islam has had no worldwide movement towards reform. That is the desired goal, and it isn’t going to come by telling them they’re all a bunch of wife-beaters and maims, shape up or else.

Wife beating and female mutilation are problems endemic to certain Muslim cultures, but they are not endemic to all Muslim cultures. It is simply unjust, incorrect and counterproductive to attribute it to Islam as a whole. Those cultures that have such barbaric practices are the ones to which I referred to having a “vested interest” in oppressing their female populations, the ones that it “would be nice if we could” make them stop.

Their stopping will not be facilitated in any meaningful way whatsoever by the First Lady going out of her way to insult an allied foreign power.

Nobody is saying that.

“The hijab symbolizes female genital mutilation… Laura Bush is condoning the oppression of women… She should have wagged her finger in condemnation of the Saudis…” And so forth. That’s the sentiment of the comments condemning the First Lady, at least as I read them.

In its doctrine and the acting out of the central tenets of its faith it is worse than Hinduism, Buddhism and Catholicism put together.

That is quite an indictment. The world went to war 60 years ago with fascism, and for good reason. Are you saying that Islam is an irretrievably fascist ideology?

Equating the hijab to female genital mutilation is a categorical indictment of Islam. A clear and unequivocal accusation. For the First Lady to even insinuate that would be tantamount to America declaring war on Islam. If you want her to do that, fine. I think that’s foolish.

The First Lady should not be the spearhead of our righteous indignation. That’s what our military is for.

The hostility of Muslims is based on theological beliefs. They respect fortitude and despise weakness.

aengus on October 29, 2007 at 7:38 PM

Yes certain Muslims are interpreting the Koran rationally to seek irrational and evil goals. What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? Or the fact that Laura Bush was trying to be a gracious guest among the Saudi Royal Family, our ally?

Does Islam need to be reformed? Yes. Please labor with them to do so instead of asking the First Lady to rattle your saber for you.

It is a fact that Islam is not categorically a worse religion than Hinduism, Buddhism or Catholicism.

It would be nice if we could make all those misogynistic bastards quit beating their wives and mutilating their daughters.

spmat on October 29, 2007 at 7:15 PM

How do you say both of these things at the same time?

Regarding moral relativism, I am saying nothing of the kind. I’m the one using objective reality here. It is a fact that Islam is not categorically a worse religion than Hinduism, Buddhism or Catholicism.

In its doctrine and the acting out of the central tenets of its faith it is worse than Hinduism, Buddhism and Catholicism put together. You’re not using objective reality merely your assumptions

It is a fact that making the Global War on Terror a Global War on Islam is a bad idea.

Nobody is saying that. However it should be a war on those who actively participate in the jihad doctrine of warfare contained within Islam. There are plenty of Muslims who want to get on with their lives yes but many don’t and not all of them are terrorists, many are those advancing jihad in non-lethal forms.

It is imperative to admit to ourselves that jihad stems from Islam (see the Koran, Hadith and Sira) and not make submissive gestures to hostile pseudo-allies. The Saudis do only so much as they can get away with. The hostility of Muslims is based on theological beliefs. They respect fortitude and despise weakness.

What’s worse, Assad used that as an opportunity to use his influence to continue his reign of terror.

He also publicly humiliated her by later refusing to meet her just as a Clinton staffer once spent some eight hours on the airport tarmac waiting for his dad to meet him.

That and Putin’s recent public humiliation of Rice and Gates and the British hostage episode bodes ill for the free world as the chances of terrorist attacks increase as the West constantly becomes the butt of a joke.

Regarding moral relativism, I am saying nothing of the kind. I’m the one using objective reality here. It is a fact that Islam is not categorically a worse religion than Hinduism, Buddhism or Catholicism.

spmat on October 29, 2007 at 7:15 PM

Yup, that’s moral-relativism all right.

So you’re excusing it based on the principle of moral-relativism?

FloatingRock on October 29, 2007 at 6:46 PM

Excusing what? The fact that Laura Bush had to make a decision and decided to err on the side of diplomatic cordiality? What’s to excuse?

The State Department has repeatedly held to the policy that Islam is not our enemy. This is not a war on Islam. Laura Bush’s gracious acceptance of a gift helps to prove that, for what it’s worth.

Regarding moral relativism, I am saying nothing of the kind. I’m the one using objective reality here. It is a fact that Islam is not categorically a worse religion than Hinduism, Buddhism or Catholicism. It is a fact that making the Global War on Terror a Global War on Islam is a bad idea. It is a fact that any Muslim with two brain cells on speaking terms would see her rejection of that gift as an outright insult both to the Saudi Royal Family and to Islam in general. It is a fact that the United States is in no position to insult the Saudis or Islam. We just don’t have the stuff.

That’s reality. Is it right? Not really. It would be nice if we could tell the Saudis were to stick it, pull up stakes and head home to 50 cents a gallon. It would be nice if we could make all those misogynistic bastards quit beating their wives and mutilating their daughters. It would be nice if we could prevent Castro from starving his people. it would be nice if we could make the Palestinians actually want peace and prosperity for their kids rather than the joy of watching Jews die.

It would be nice, but it ain’t gonna happen by throwing the kind of temper tantrums you folks are damning Laura Bush for avoiding.

That is not correct.

MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 6:01 PM

Presidents do not, as a general policy, send their First Ladies to nations whose governments are seen as hostile to American interests. First, there’s an implied trust in the stability of a nation’s government when you put the First Lady in their protection. Second, her position as “hostess of the White House” makes her presence in any diplomatic situation one of receptive cordiality. Receptive cordiality implies tolerance.

Hillary Clinton’s gallivanting notwithstanding, the First Lady has always been used as a diffuser of diplomatic hostility. Her presence implies either the lack of or desire to diffuse said hostility. The United States Department of State is committed to the policy of positive relations with the Saudi Royal Family. Laura Bush’s cancer awareness trip is part of that overall policy and would not have happened if Foggy Bottom didn’t want to assure the Sauds that “we’re still pals.”

If you wanna be angry, be angry at State and Rice. Leave Laura Bush out of this.

which is no different in terms of symbolic significance than the headdress worn by Jewish males, or the submission of Hindus to the rigid requirements of the caste system.

spmat on October 29, 2007 at 5:00 PM

So you’re excusing it based on the principle of moral-relativism?

Because by sending her, you’re already implicitly supporting the Saudi government and the Islamic doctrines on which it’s founded.

spmat on October 29, 2007 at 5:53 PM

That is not correct.

MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 5:35 PM

What is this?

Treaties have meanings. You don’t just break them cuz you’re hacked off.

If you wanted to end all ties with Saudi Arabia, then wouldn’t it be smarter not to even send the First Lady in the first place? Because by sending her, you’re already implicitly supporting the Saudi government and the Islamic doctrines on which it’s founded. By your estimation we should have started the bombing runs years ago, and yet you’re haranguing the First Lady for wearing a scarf?

You should save your ire for our State Department and leave the First Lady alone.

spmat on October 29, 2007 at 5:28 PM

Saudi Arabia, where 14 of the 9/11 murderers came from, and which finances hate “schools” in the U.S. and Europe, is not our ally.

MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 5:02 PM

Possibly. I just think there are better ways to demonstrate the superiority of our cultural ethic than giving the finger to an ally’s diplomatic corps.

Exit question: Would Ayaan have put the scarf on in the same circumstances?

AH HAHAHAHAHA /off Strong Bad

- The Cat

spmat on October 29, 2007 at 5:00 PM

You sound very naive.

Aid and Comfort.

thuja on October 29, 2007 at 4:31 PM

Therein is my big problem with accusations of treason. Many on the right, at least to “hear” them talk, seem to think that pretty much all democrats and non-democrats who oppose the Iraq war or any number of other things are guilty of giving “Aid and Comfort”. It is tossed around in the extreme. Of course, those on the left have their own version of this. I am actually not too worried though that any President, or his Justice Department, would dare to bring formal charges without grievous crimes and overwhelming evidence though because if they did military officers would likely arrest them to keep the country from coming apart.

MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 4:16 PM

Except that the hijab is something worn by choice as a symbol of submission to Allah, which is no different in terms of symbolic significance than the headdress worn by Jewish males, or the submission of Hindus to the rigid requirements of the caste system. By your analogy, they’re all slaves. You’re welcome to believe that, but I don’t want you anywhere near a foreign office, thanks. You’ll get us all killed.

The distinction is that the hijab is used as a tool for oppression by cultures and societies that have a vested interest in oppressing their female populations. That you’re asking Laura Bush to try to make such a subtle distinction in the crucible of the moment, with a scarf, demonstrates irrational expectations.

Chill, please.