The Great Debate: David Goldman vs. Robert Spencer — on The Jamie Glazov Show

Join the Jamie Glazov Show that aired on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 8-9 pm Pacific (11-12 pm EST) on Blog Talk Radio. This week we featured: The Great Debate: Was communism a greater threat than Islam?

Two titans went toe-to-toe:

David P. Goldman, the author of the new book, How Civilizations Die (and Why Islam is Dying, Too). After 9/11, he began writing weekly essays at Asia Times Online under the byline “Spengler.” After joining the masthead of First Things magazine early in 2009, he revealed his identity and devoted himself to writing, mainly on politics and strategy, but also publishing essays on religion, classical music, literature and mathematics.

and

Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of ten books, including two New York Times bestsellers, The Truth About Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (both Regnery).

To listen to the program, click here.

Or go to: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/radio-jihad/2012/01/18/the-jamie-glazov-show

See you next Tuesday night!

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle. Click here.

  • jules

    Listening to Robert Spencer and David Goldman debate on Communism vs Islam: the greater threat? Superb discussion. I am impressed by Mr. Goldman's insight on Western history and cultural ideologies. He is mostly optimistic that Islam will inevitably die out in spite of their active efforts to instill this archaic, supremacist evil theocracy throughout the world.

    And i can't help but agree with Mr. Goldman that Islam will dissolve under the weight of its own moronic impracticality in the modern and free world. He says this will happen when all Muslim girls get a high school education.

    Thank you, Jamie, for bringing these two great knowledgeable minds together for our enlightenment tonight.

    • WildJew

      1)Mr. Goldman, in my opinion, is like the false prophets in ancient Israel who said, "Thus says the LORD, you will not see the sword nor will you have famine, but I will give you lasting peace in this place."

      But the American people and our leaders 'say to the seers (e.g., the Goldmans), "You must not see visions"; And to the prophets, "You must not prophesy to us what is right, Speak to us pleasant words, Prophesy illusions." '

      2) If Romney is the Republican nominee, he might beat Obama. And then he might not. Sadly, unlike Gingrich (with all his baggage), Romney is not a fighter in the sense that he will take it to Obama – he will not even call Obama a socialist. Unlike Gingrich, Romney is an apologist for Islam, which puts him at a distinct disadvantage when facing Obama.

  • Salim

    I always encourage debate but your two panelist are very offensive and divisive with their comments. To say that anyone that believes in the Koran is a complete Moron is ignorant. Especially considering that the Koran has more in common with the bible than it doesn't have in common being one of the great three monotheistic religions. With over a billion adherents around the world At one point Mohammed was accused of plagiarizing the bible because of their similarities. For David to say that the adherents of Islam are not intelligent because they only have one nobel prize is misleading. The nobel prizes only started in 1901 and are not a great measure of a religions intellectual strength or contribution. To be correct there are 4 and not 1 Muslim nobel prize winners for science and literature to be exact. This is not including nobel peace prize winners. Islam has had a great influence on science and math, just look at its influence in spain. The works of Al-Khwarizmi (Alghorismus) were translated into Latin. Alghorismus, from whom the mathematical term algorism was derived, wrote Sindhind, a compilation of astronomical tables. He, more importantly, laid the ground work for algebra and found methods to deal with complex mathematical problems, such as square roots and complex fractions. He conducted numerous experiments, measured the height of the earth's atmosphere and discovered the principle of the magnifying lens. Many of his books were translated into European languages. Trigonometric work by Alkirmani of Toledo was translated into Latin (from which we get the sine and cosine functions) along with the Greek knowledge of Geometry by Euclid.
    Along with mathematics, masses of other knowledge in the field of physical science was transferred. The Muslims discovered the Principle of Pendulum, which was used to measure time. Many of the principles of Isaac Newton were derived from former Islamic scientific contributions. In the field of Chemistry numerous Islamic works were translated into Latin. One of the fields of study in this area was alchemy. The Muslims by exploring various elements, developed a good understanding of the constitution of matter. Jabir ibn-Hayyan (Geber) was the leading chemist in the Muslim world, some scholars link the introduction of the ‘scientific method’ back to him. A great number of terms used in Chemistry such as alchohol, alembic, alkali and elixir are of Islamic origin. All of this knowledge transferred from the Muslims to the Europeans was the vital raw material for the Scientific Revolution. Muslims not only passed on Greek classical works but also introduced new scientific theories, without which the European Renaissance could not have occurred. Thus even though many of the Islamic contributions go unacknowledged today, they played an integral role in the European transformation.
    As far as Islamaphobia goes your panelist do not need to worry. We live by and are governed by the united states constitution. Sharia law has never been used on US citizens ever and will never be used on our citizens unless we change the constitution. No US Muslim would want to be governed by Shariah law anyways. We love our internet and music and freedom to do whatever we want too much to live under laws formed by the dictatorships to control their people. The only thing I do agree with is the education of the Muslim girls in these arab countries. Not so that they can become smart enough to leave Islam. But so that they can read the Koran and understand its teachings instead of having some radical cleric tell them what it means. Also so that they can defend themselves and their children from the hateful hurtful speech that I listened to on this show. If Roberts worst fear is Muslim assimilation. Tell him it's best to keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
    Peace and Blessings (aka salam aka shalom)

    • WildJew

      I thought it unfortunate Mr. Spencer conceded Mr. Goldman's point, that only Muslims who are morons believe the teachings in the Qur'an. I don't think Spencer believes it for one minute. While there are dangerous teachings in the Qur'an, devout Muslims are not morons by any stretch of the imagination. Little doubt Mr. Goldman would say Jews like me are morons if I believe the teachings in the Torah.

  • Salim

    I always encourage debate but your two panelist are very offensive and divisive with their comments. To say that anyone that believes in the Koran is a complete Moron is ignorant. Especially considering that the Koran has more in common with the bible than it doesn't have in common being one of the great three monotheistic religions with over a billion adherents around the world. At one point Mohammed was accused of plagiarizing the bible because of their similarities. For David to say that the adherents of Islam are not intelligent because they only have one nobel prize is misleading. The nobel prizes only started in 1901 and are not a great measure of a religions intellectual strength or contribution. To be correct there are 4 and not 1 Muslim nobel prize winners for science and literature to be exact. This is not including nobel peace prize winners. Islam has had a great influence on science and math, just look at its influence in spain. The works of Al-Khwarizmi (Alghorismus) were translated into Latin. Alghorismus, from whom the mathematical term algorism was derived, wrote Sindhind, a compilation of astronomical tables. He, more importantly, laid the ground work for algebra and found methods to deal with complex mathematical problems, such as square roots and complex fractions. He conducted numerous experiments, measured the height of the earth's atmosphere and discovered the principle of the magnifying lens. Many of his books were translated into European languages. Trigonometric work by Alkirmani of Toledo was translated into Latin (from which we get the sine and cosine functions) along with the Greek knowledge of Geometry by Euclid.

  • Jules

    Thank you, Salim, for reminding what brilliant Muslim minds have contributed to science and mathematics in history. However, it was these geniuses in the Medieval Ages who happened to be Muslim (did they have a choice?) and NOT Islam that should be credited.

    Also, it is encouraging that you state you support the U.S. Constitution and that Muslims, like yourself, have no desire overtake it or to instill Sharia in America, demonstrating you have learned to think for yourself, unlike most followers of Islam.

    As long as Muslims keep their religion separate from U.S. laws and do not undermine others' civil rights, there is no problem with anyone practicing their right of freedom of religion. It is your extreme Islamists who are your real enemy and who render Islam ideology an opprobrium to free thinking people.

    That being said, how can a man with obvious intelligence like yourself, deny and ignore the hadiths, suppression of women, and supremacist teachings in the Koran? Not to mention the cruel & unusual penal codes and hateful mandate to kill all infidels?
    Jules

    • Salim

      It was the change that Islam brought to European society that helped to lift it out of the dark ages. These scholars were not forced to Convert to Islam. Conversion into Islam is not accepted by coercion according to the Koran. I'm not going to be naive and say that this probably never happened. But if you would like me to consider forced conversion as a valid cause for medieval Islamic scholars. We must then thank the inquisition and the crusades for all of our Scholarly Christians that have come about ever since. So let's just assume that if they are scholars they have the means to decide their faith for themselves with free will.
      A persons interpretation of the Koran is directly influenced by the intellect of the individual reading the text. It's unfortunate the illiteracy rate is what it is in Arab nations and around the world in general. I consider illiteracy the real enemy and the lack of a proper education for so many people in the world to be the real enemy. Simple minded people in dire poverty are very easily influenced by people for personal gain. Whether it's by using them as pawns for a global war against the west or internal political posturing against neighboring country rivals. It becomes especially dangerous when a cleric uses this pulpit and brain washes his followers to be martyrs based on sound bites of doctrine manipulated for selfish gain. These underprivileged under educated individuals are victims of a society like the inner city youth that gets involved in gangs to feel a sense of family or monetary gain in a dysfunctional lawless environment. If you can't read the Koran for yourself than you can't make a educated decision for yourself.
      Luckily in the US church and state are kept separate. So you don't have to worry about your civil rights being infringed upon. Although the republican race looks like a Christian race to the top in this majority Christian nation of ours.
      The hadiths are not considered Islamic holy texts. They are not even to be considered definite factual quotes or sayings from the prophet. They just consider them to be highly probable sayings recorded centuries after his death to avoid rumors. I don't live my life following by something so questionably accurate. To consider the Koran the actual word of God or the Bible is enough of a leap of faith for me. Some people consider it to be helpful to offer details not elaborated on in the Koran. Others also find it helpful in certain oppressive dictatorships to pick and chose certain hadiths that help them best subdue civil rights and ensure political supremacy. Thankfully I live in the best free democracy in the world, the USA and don't have to worry about Islamic jurisprudence based on questionable sayings.. But hopefully the Arab spring will bring much needed democracy and reform to the region.
      As far as suppression of woman go in the middle east. That's a traditional thing and not a Islamic thing. Men in Europe are typically more womanizers and controling than Americans. Monogamy is not so big out there in that part of the world. Look at Burlosconi and DFK for example. When Islam first came about women were considered nothing but property and sex slaves. First born females were buried alive because they were considered a disgrace in those pagan years. It was Islam that elevated their status and demanded that they stop burying their girls. It was Islam that gave them a right to vote and the ability to claim inheritance. It is also in the Koran that states that the gates to heaven as by your mothers feet. So obey them and protect them.
      All punishment described in the Koran is only if the criminal does not repent. Chopping off someone's head for murder and cutting off a hand for robbery that is not out of necessity sounds a little extreme to me. But it wasn't as extreme as the thief that was crucified for his crimes next to Jesus. If I had to chose one of the two I would chose getting my hand chopped off. These days we can use lethal injection. But that wasnt a option in the 1400's. I still don't really agree fully with the death penalty. Let's just let God judge. But costs of housing inmates are exorbitant. I dont wish to kill all infidels and neither does the majority of the over 1 billion Muslims that live on this earth. If death to all infidels was our motto we would be in serious trouble. We just want to spread the peace.
      Salam(peace)
      Jules.
      Ps. Thanks for thinking I sound intelligent.

      • Mel

        Jules, there are a lot of false assumptions and statements in your post. But let me address just one of them….the issue of the treatment of women. You make the statement that …"when Islam first came about, women were considered nothing but property and sex slaves".

        Yet hundreds of years earlier, Christianity taught that there was no intrinsic difference between male and female, that both were of equal value before God. Women were NEVER considered as property and certainly not "sex slaves". Christian men were taught to have only one wife and to love her as much as he loved his own body and to give his life for her. .

        • Mel

          Early Christian teaching prior to Islam gave women a far higher standing than Islam ever has. Mohammed, who had numerous wives and scores of concubines himself — including one who he married at age 6 (consummating at age 9) — taught that women were mentally inferior to men, and that a man could have sexual relations with up to 4 wives (at one time) and as many concubines as "his right hand posesses".

          In Islamic countries today, women remain as second class citizens; legally and culturally inferior to men. This is not a "cultural" thing, or based on some primitivism. It is due directly to the teachings of Muhammed and the example he set, recorded in the Hadiths. The ill-treatment of women comes straight from the example of the "prophet" of Islam himself.

        • Salim

          Yes, the message of the bible does tell Christians and Jews to treat their women with respect. But that message did slowly become forgotten for many over the gap of 1400 years that past between Jesus and Muhammad. So God did send his messenger to Arabia in Mecca to change the Pagan worship of over 300 Gods and the horrible treatment of Woman and slaves in the "region". If you research the history of the treatment of women in the region at the time you would find this to be true. So Islam came about about to reaffirm the teachings of the Bible for those who have slipped into error once again.

  • 9-11 Infidel

    The Koran has nothing in common with the Bible. That comment is absurd and ignorant. One Book says its wrong to murder and calls on husbands to love their wives. The other breaks the all of the Ten Commandments and compares women to a farmers's field to be used as a man sees fit and beaten when they refuse sex. One book says that Satan is the greatest of decievers. The other says that Allah is. One says that a supposed god bent down and paid homage to an old pedophile, while another says that The Creator is unapproachable light. One says that the Creator sent his Son and that anyone who doesn't believe that is a liar. They have nothing in common. One is the lies of a sick twisted murderer. The other, the inspiration of the maker of the Universe.

  • 9-11 Infidel

    On to my point. Mr Goldman is wrong about his view that "they (the Soviets) were ahead of us all the way up to the Reagan era"…He must not have read about the so-called non-existent "missile gap" which was a big part of the Nixon-Kennedy debate in 1960. We were way ahead of the Soviets in missiles and atomic weapons in 1960.
    The idea that weapons are usless unless you have the will to use them is true…The Mahdi-ists in Tehran..unlike the Soviets have that will to use them. The Soviets never had the will to use those weapons. Remember MAD? That strategic concept does not apply to the Mahdi-ists in Iran who see as their duty to force the return of the Mahdi, by the means of war. Nuclear war doesn't scare them. "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world"- Ayatollah Khomeni
    The Mahdi-ists aren't the only suicidal maniacs in Islam. That's where Islam is a bigger existential threat to the West than the Soviets ever were.

  • http://shouldipaintthispictureofmuhammad.wordpress.com Stephen Golay

    Yes, Islam will dissolve, disintegrate under pressure. But what needs to be pressed? Jihadism? The Sharia? Its political maneuverings for the caliphate?.Sure, but that's not the central point. The nut that needs to be cracked is theological, Islam's doctrine of the nature and character of Allah. Crack that and everything else self-destructs.

    There needs to be a sustained conversation of the pulling down Allah's totalitarian oneness. It is the nature and character of that which informs everything else about Islam.

    There is no shrub or rock to hide under – not even the false and fragile claim of monotheism. Islam is not so much monotheistic but mono-totalitarian. Allah's totalitarian transcendence must brought down low. Long ago he should taken a clue from the God of Jews and Christian and, if not put on our flesh, at least walk down our garden paths. That would have made him more humane, more of a man, more aware of our resistance to be boiled, pulverized in the cauldron of totalitarian, capricious, arbitrary collectivism – religious or not..

  • Salim

    Everyone always like to point out how the prophet Mohammad had 9 wives and was a womanizer. No one ever says anything about prophet Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines. In Judaism multiple marriage was considered a realistic alternative in the case of famine, widowhood, or female infertility like in the practice of levirate marriage, wherein a man was required to marry and support his deceased brother's widow, as mandated by Deuteronomy 25:5–10. Polygyny continued to be practised well into the biblical period, and it is attested among Jews as late as the second century. The Torah, Judaism's central text, includes a few specific regulations on the practice of polygamy, such as Exodus 21:10, which states that multiple marriages are not to diminish the status of the first wife (specifically, her right to food, clothing, and conjugal relations). Deuteronomy 21:15–17, states that a man must award the inheritance due to a first-born son to the son who was actually born first, even if he hates that son's mother and likes another wife more; and Deuteronomy 17:17 states that he king shall not have too many wives.[18] The king's behavior is condemned by Prophet Samuel in 1 Samuel 8. Exodus 21:10 also speaks of Jewish concubines. The New Testament does not specifically address the morality of polygamy. The Koran does address the issue and puts a cap of 4 wives with no concubines allowed. Mohammad never had any concubines and to say that he did is just false. So yes in Islam you can technically have 4 wives if they are all in agreement with strict rules. But one wife is what is recommended as the best option.
    Islams over 1 billion adherents are not going to disintegrate or magically disappear. According to statistics from the U.N., Islam is now the worlds second largest religion after Christianity. The U.N. statistics state that Islams annual growth rate of Islam is around 6.40% compared to 1.46% during the same time period for Christianity. Also according to these statistics, one in five people on the planet are Muslim. If any Religion is slowly disappearing its the Jews. With under 15 million adherents. I would always hope that they are around because there are lots of traditional values that they still share and practice that I feel are valuable to todays society. As far as Allah being a different god than that of the Jews and Christians thats just ignorant. Allah is the arabic translation of the word God. Just accept the simple fact that these three religions share the same God and the same prophets and the same world. So lets just live in peace and not wish the disappearance of each other on the earth. As far as Islam wanting total world domination I think thats inaccurate. Also lets not forget about the inquisition and the crusades and their goal of total dominance. When the KKK committed horrible acts of violence on others we blamed the individuals and not the Religion. Lets remember to love the person and hate the sin.
    Peace

    • Mel

      Salim, You state that …"in Islam one wife is what is recommended as the best option". Oh really!? So why did Muhammed not do what is "recommended"? And why is it that he was able to take women to bed the same day that their husbands died on the battlefield. And why did he need all those concubines….let alone a 6 year old bride?? Was that "recommended" too?

      As for Solomon, the Bible makes it clear that what he did, with his many wives and concubines, was sinful. The words of Jesus are clear that a man is to have ONE wife, and cling to her, forsaking all others — and that it was this way from the beginning. What Solomon did was not condoned in the bible. It was merely reported to show how even the wise can become foolish. Solomon did evil when he followed after the customs of those nations surrounding Israel. In taking those women, he disregarded the will of God. Can you say the same thing about Mohammed?

    • Mel

      "Allah" was, at best, a figment of Muhammed's imagination….someone who, in his rather vivid imagination, catered to his every whim and fancy. For instance, when he wanted one particularly sweet looking woman, (who happened to already be the wife of a relative), he conveniently got this "vision" from "Allah" that it was ok for him to take her. Even his child bride (Aisha) commented on how "Allah" always seemed to do what Muhammed wanted him to do. Not at all like the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

      • Salim

        It clearly states in Ch 4 verse 3: "And if you have reason to fear that you might not act equitably towards orphans, then marry from among [other] women such as are lawful to you – [even] two, or three, or four: but if you have reason to fear that you might not be able to treat them with equal fairness, then [only] one –
        or [from among] those whom you rightfully possess. This will make it more likely that you will not deviate from the right course." Contrary to the popular view and the practice of many Muslims in the past centuries, the Qur'an does not provide any sanction for sexual intercourse without marriage. If you are quoting Hadith regarding the 9 wives and concubines supposedly taken by the prophet for fornication without marriage, I can't defend nor feel the need to justify hearsay from centuries ago. I only interpret and defend the holy text of the Quran.
        As far as the verse that Aisha is referring to 30:50 "O PROPHET! Behold, We have made lawful to thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowers, as well as those whom thy right hand has come to possess from among the captives of
        war whom God has bestowed upon thee: And [We have made lawful to thee] the daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and the daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who have migrated with thee [to Yathrib]; and any believing woman who offers herself freely to the Prophet and whom the Prophet might be willing to wed: [this latter being but] a privilege for thee, and not for other believers – [seeing that] We have already made known what We have enjoined upon them with regard to their wives and those whom their right hands may possess.
        [And] in order that thou be not burdened with [undue] anxiety – for God is indeed much forgiving," this verse states that women who they own as "slaves" are lawful to be taken as a wife but not as a concubine and still not exceeding the limit of 4.
        a dispenser of grace." The rights given to a persons wife exceeded that of a slave girl so it was looked upon as being beneficial for the woman at the time. Could you imagine something like that happening in the south in the 1960's here in America. This was happening 600 years ago in Arabia. instead of having to pay a dowery the slave woman was freed and offered the same rights as a wife. The 6yr old bride you refer to was the prophets companion daughters that he begged to marry. Aisha was very pleased to marry the prophet. Kids getting married at 9yrs old was a very common practice in medieval times although it may seem strange now. Aisha was also credited for the narration of the majority of Hadiths that you like to quote from.
        The prophet mohammad did not sin because his actions were made legitimate by god in the verses of the Quran. So no, I cant say that he was sinning by taking on more than one wife. For you to say that god catered to his every whim and fancy is just silly. Every prophet that came before him suffered extreme persecution for this message they were trying to convey to the people and he was no exception. He and his followers were so persecuted in his hometown that most had to flee to abyssinia (the land with the Christian King) that offered them asylum until establishing a Muslim state with the Jews in Medina. The Jews in medina recognized Mohammad as the prophet promised to be sent to the arabs in former scripture.
        You claim that Mohammad has a rather vivid imagination. But with all due respect I think you have a more vivid imagination for your views on Islam. Maybe you should write a book and see if you can get 1 billion followers who believe in it so much that some are willing to die to uphold its legitimacy in the world.

  • Salim

    Lets not forget that Solomon wasn't the only prophet of the bible with multiple wives either. Abraham: Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. She had a female Egyptian servant whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said to Abram, “Behold now, the Lord has prevented me from bearing children. Go in to my servant; it may be that I shall obtain children by her.” And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai. So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife. The Book of Genesis 16:1–3, emphasis mine
    Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah. The Book of Genesis 25:1, emphasis mine.
    Also David: David arose and went, along with his men, and killed two hundred of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law. And Saul gave him his daughter Michal for a wife. The First Book of Samuel 18:27, emphasis mine
    When David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, “Blessed be the Lord who has avenged the insult I received at the hand of Nabal, and has kept back his servant from wrongdoing. The Lord has returned the evil of Nabal on his own head.” Then David sent and spoke to Abigail, to take her as his wife. The First Book of Samuel 25:39, emphasis mine
    David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel, and both of them became his wives. The First Book of Samuel 25:43, emphasis mine
    And the sixth, Ithream, of Eglah, David’s wife. These were born to David in Hebron. The Second Book of Samuel 3:5, emphasis mine
    And David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came from Hebron, and more sons and daughters were born to David.The Second Book of Samuel 5:13, emphasis mine
    Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. 8And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. The Second Book of Samuel 12:7–8, emphasis mine
    Then David comforted his wife, Bathsheba, and went in to her and lay with her, and she bore a son, and he called his name Solomon. And the Lord loved him. The Second Book of Samuel 12:24, emphasis mine
    Slavery has been abolished for the most part in the land and most people agree that having one wife is enough work these days with the next recession always looming. If all you can do is belittle mohammad because of his sexual interaction thats lame. Lets focus on how much we both have in common and respect each other for sharing in the same in rich religious history as one another. Lets not use out words to divide but unite. We are both going to be judged on the same scale for our good deeds and bad deeds. So lets both race each other to see who can be most righteous and pious in our human race and stop trying to divide in order to conquer. But unite in order to concur on how to solve the dire poverty and educational woes in our society.