Questions for Robert Spencer

January 19, 2006 at 7:00 am | Posted in Hypocracy unmasked | Leave a comment

From Watching JihadWatch

—

Robert Spencer, on JihadWatch, again defended Hugh Fitzgerald (JW Board Member) and his assertions that we need:

“A complete ban on Muslim migration to the Western world (which needs to be undertaken in any case), and limits put on any contact between Muslims living in the West, who may already have obtained citizenship and — unless they are native-born converts — their countries of origin.”

“And the first way is to put a complete stop to Muslim immigration, and to find creative ways to deport all Muslim non-citizens. These two measures would be accompanied by the creation of an environment where the practice of Islam is made not easy but difficult.”

To “Understand how very useless is the concept of the “moderate” Muslim — because it is impossible to know when someone’s “moderation” is real or feigned”[5] and must take “specific moves to limit Muslim immigration. This can only take place if the Idols of the Age, about Diversity and Everyone Wants the Same Thing and Tolerance is Always the Only Conceivable Policy, are undermined, mocked, and shown up as the dangers they are.”

The defense? Well, he says, these were offered as an alternative to the “Nuke Mecca” suggestions by a certain Congressman. Oh! Well! That explains it! Ethnic cleansing and racial/religious discrimination is a better alternative! Of course. Why didn’t I think of that! That makes it all better! Here is my reply:

“Of course, there is always Hugh’s article “Islam for the Perplexed” – not written, as far as I can tell, as an “alternative” to Tancredo’s suggestion.”The second important goal is to stop all Moslem migration from Moslem lands, to the U.S., to Canada, to Western Europe. For obvious reasons, Moslems do not migrate to Eastern Europe and Russia. If possible, not only should migration be stopped, but life can be made more difficult, if not by the government, then by private individuals, so that Moslems will be discouraged from remaining. What do I mean? I mean that we, as private citizens, do not have to hire Moslems, we do not have to buy their goods, or make their lives, economically, more rewarding. It may seem mean, and many of you may be offended by it, and I am perfectly aware that there are nice Moslems, that there are those who simply ignore the main tenets of Islam. But as a group, the Moslems are a threat to me and those I love. Even the innocent ones, merely by being here, swell Moslem political power.”

In the St. Petersburg Times article that was recently linked to on JihadWatch, Robert Spencer said that “he bans” the “racists” who visit his site. Both quotes from him. Now, I know there are many among you who will say “Muslim” is a not a race. Clearly true, but the quote was in the context of people who are bigoted against Muslims. (To put this in context, the definition of Anti-Semitism in the M-W dictionary is: “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.” I’ll assume good faith in your statement and assume you meant the same, just replacing the word “Jews” with “Muslims”)

Seems that Hugh, “as a group, the Moslems are a threat to me and those I love”, qualifies.

Mr. Spencer: Will you a) clarify whether you also hold similar opinions to those above and b) ban Hugh from JihadWatch as one of the “racists” you claim to abhor?

Will you also make an unconditional statement that you are against those who hold or practice “hostility toward or discrimination against any religious, ethnic, or racial group, including Muslims”?

Thank you.”

I’ll keep you aware of any replies.