One artist's depiction of Robert Spencer
LoonWatch.com, recently published a devastating rebuttal of chapter four of Robert Spencer’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades.
The article no doubt knocked Spencer flat on his backside. In one swift move, LoonWatch completely neutralized one of his main lines of argumentation against Islam and Muslims–his pet issue of “dhimmitude” which he recurrently brings up to fear monger. One cannot underestimate the importance he gives to this issue–after all, he registered DhimmiWatch[dot]com! It is arguably his favorite topic.
Spencer issued a half-hearted (non)reply to the rebuttal. LW immediately counter-replied, completely pummeling Spencer.
And now…silence. Spencer, who has no real job other than this, has suddenly become as quiet as a mouse. What happened, Spencer? Cat got your tongue? Where did all the bravado go?
It’s not like Spencer is averse to going twelve rounds in debate…In fact, he had a debate with Omer Subhani on this very issue, and Spencer churned out not one but three (!) articles rebutting Subhani. (See here, here, and here.) Notice the blustering confidence Spencer exudes in those articles. Unfortunately, Subhani was by his own admission very busy during the time that he wrote his rebuttal (he’s a law student) and therefore was unable to do the in-depth research that we did.
Notice how detailed Spencer’s replies to Subhani are (complete with photographs that Spencer took of his own personal library and rotund self). It is clear that Spencer’s multiple replies took a lot of effort and time (he doesn’t have a real job like Omer Subhani does). So how come LoonWatch doesn’t get just one article rebutting our article on the same exact topic that Spencer was earlier willing to write three rebuttals of? Well, we all know the answer to that: Spencer has been defeated in debate, is boxed in, and has no possible way to respond to the points raised. And so the once ferocious Muslim eating tiger has turned into a cowardly chicken.
Omer Subhani recently blogged about my rebuttal and Spencer’s non-response:
…An entire chapter of Spencer’s book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), was refuted and his response was monumentally weak and disingenuous…
Spencer is always whining about debating these issues. Now someone has come up and punched him in the nose. Will he respond, or will he avoid the conversation, thus proving the falsity of his claims that Islam treated Jews worse than Christianity? I ain’t holding my breath.
Mr. Subhani, we aren’t holding our breath either.
Further reading:
The Church’s Doctrine of “Perpetual Servitude” was Worse than “Dhimmitude”
Robert Spencer is on the Ropes; Spencer’s Bumbling Reply to LoonWatch
Update:
Robert Spencer argues in his book that the Jews historically fared (much) better in Christian Europe than they did in the Islamic world. It was this claim which I thoroughly debunked. After I published my article, two of our readers (hat tip: Reza and Nabeela) pointed out that even Daniel Pipes–an Islamophobe and one of Spencer’s own buddies–said in an interview:
Rachael Kohn: As an historian, you would know that Jews had comparatively better time under Muslim rule than they did under Christian rule. When did it change so radically?
Daniel Pipes: It was very radical and quick. The Jewish experience from the origins of Islam in the 7th century, until rather specifically in 1945, was better under Muslim rule than under Christian rule. And since 1945, it’s been better under Christian rule than Muslim rule. One can see it for example by exchange of populations. Jews fled the Christian countries for the Muslim countries, until 1945.
As late as the 1930s, when Jews fled Germany to go to Turkey. Since then, it’s been the reverse. I think this points to the fact that things change. You know, what looked like it was a permanent thing, the fact that Jews were better off in Muslim countries, just changed on a dime, in a moment, just changed. It also points to the fact that the Muslim world is going through a very difficult stage now, and it’s presumably a temporary one. It’s comparable again to Germany in the middle of the last century. It was a horrible, horrible period, did a lot of damage to Germany and to the outside world, but the Germans came out of it. And so the key now is to figure out how the Muslim world can come out of this particularly difficult time that it’s in.
Daniel Pipes even refers to Professor Mark R. Cohen’s book Under Crescent and Cross as an “excellent study.” (It is this book which I used as a template, and which convincingly outlines why life for Jews was so much more tolerable in the Islamic East as compared to the Christian West.)
Pipes noted (as did I in my rebuttal) that although dhimmis were second-class citizens, at least they were citizens–unlike the Christian world where they were excluded from society altogether; says Pipes:
…Non-Muslims were allowed to live under Muslim rule with the legal status of dhimmis (protected persons). They paid higher taxes and enjoyed fewer privileges, in return for which they had the right to practice their own religions. Such sanctioned toleration has no Christian counterpart; under Islam, Jews were second-class citizens but they were part of the legal landscape, not the problematic anomaly they presented the Christian world.
And he concludes:
In pre-modern times, they lived markedly better under Islam than under Christianity.
(Notice the words “markedly better.”)
To be clear, I don’t consider Daniel Pipes to be a reliable source, simply because he is a biased Islamophobe. But the point here is that Spencer considers Pipes to be a reliable scholar. Furthermore, it illustrates how even a staunchly anti-Islam ideologue such as Pipes (and Spencer’s comrade-in-arms) is forced to admit what Spencer in his unbelievable revisionism cannot: Jews fared better in the Islamic world than the Christian one. In other words, Pipes could not keep a straight face and argue Spencer’s point. This indicates the depths of Spencer’s lack of scholarship and sophistication.
December 10th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
LOL! Someone who is easy to refute avoids debate like the plague. Take it as a compliment Danios, Spencer never debates anyone he thinks will beat him and has avoided debate for some time now. He declined a debate with Jalal Abualrub, who destroyed Craig Winn on a right-wing radio show. My guess is that he heard that debate and realized that his “career” could end at any moment if he takes a chance to be exposed by someone who is actually knowledgeable about Islam and history and isn’t afraid to fight back.
Declare victory Danios and move on to the next refutation!
December 10th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
BTW: Danios, Jalal linked your post on his website, IslamLife.
http://islamlife.com/religion2/component/content/article/56-news/678-the-churchs-doctrine-of-perpetual-servitude-was-worse-than-dhimmitude
December 10th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
When did Bobby have any “scholarship and sophistication”.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Spencer has been defeated in debate, is boxed in, and has no possible way to respond to the points raised. And so the once ferocious Muslim eating tiger has turned into a cowardly chicken………..
Ah, geez fellas, your making an awfully big deal about rebutting Chapter 4. What about the rest of the book, huh?
Your silence is deafening.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
I’m sure Spencer won’t mention his defeat on JihadWatch or Fox news. It is a shame that he is able to promote his false book yet these rebutting articles will never receive as much attention as Spencer.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
I’ve been banned by spinster so I can’t spread this website. It’s not worthy of being on his disgusting site anyways. He claims free speech, free speech!…but when somebody opposing his views comments on his website, poor widdle wobert deletes the comment and bans the person from commenting on the filthy site. Then he claims hypocrisy of Muslims when he himself is a crystal clear hypocrite. I seriously don’t know how stupid his followers are. They see his hypocrisy yet they let it slide because he’s not a Muslim and a victim of the scawee wadical Mooslims trying to take over the world. It’s funny how in Islam this life is a test; yet the loons, spinster, geller, wafa stalin etc. believe that we Muslims want to “impose” Shariah law and Islamic faith upon everybody. How the hell is life then a test??? Killing everybody off and only leaving the Muslims is going to be the ultimate test wtf??? We’ve countless times refuted their tired argument on “violent” verses in the Quran. The main point is: in Islam life is a test. Stuff will be thrown at you and you’ll have to conquer your desires. End of discussion.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Another great article!
December 11th, 2009 at 2:15 am
Thanks everyone. I just wanted to give Spencer one last chance. Lou, stay tuned because the next rebuttal is only days away.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:25 am
Lou, are you mentally challenged? Danios is not going to refute all of Spencer’s book in one gigantic post. Be patient. There will be plenty of articles to expose Spencer’s lies.
December 11th, 2009 at 3:54 am
Spencer will probably cry himself to sleep for the next few months. Sorry Bobby, LW is here to stay…
December 11th, 2009 at 4:08 am
Danios, that beautiful looking cockerel can hardly be described as an accurate image depiction of Spencer…What an insult to the poor cockeral, though the artist did a good job:)
Good article by the way. Yes, Daniel Pipes who is a buddy of Robert Spencer, is perhap’s why you don’t need to continue debunking Spencer’s lie that Jews were better off under Christian rule. Cassidy, if you’re reading this, one of the things you mentioned to me, and which i meant to reply to, was your questioning why I used Daniel Pipes when he is one of the “loons” here. The reason, is because Spencer considers him an ally, he endorses his quotes on his website, and that he is Jewish. Therefore, Spencer may reject the mainstream scholarly references used in universites the world over, by calling them “dhimmi’s” or “islamophiles” but he can’t say that about someone who he himself endorses, and who is a Jew. Mark Cohen is a respected scholar, so Spencer further’s discredit’s himself.
Danios, perhaps the more interested debate here would be what Spencer says to Pipes about this. Of course neither will rise to the occasion and debate this with each other. It would be shameful for Geller or Pipes to admit that Spencer lies about Jewish history, whilst cheering on his lies about Islamic history. In other words they would discredit themselves.
Ilm
I agree with you, and it’s Robert Spencer not “Spinster”.
“he’s not a Muslim and a victim of the scawee wadical Mooslims trying to take over the world. It’s funny how in Islam this life is a test; yet the loons, spinster, geller, wafa stalin etc. believe that we Muslims want to “impose” Shariah law and Islamic faith upon everybody”
The right wing Zionists (likud agents) in the USA have an agenda to convince people that “mooslims” want to take over the world so they can continue the occupation and deny the Palestinians a state. The fact that most Muslim countries don’t recognise Israel is the reason they keep attacking Islam, as they need to convince the world they have the same enemy. That is why Spencer, Geller and co. work so hard at their lies. That’s how they build up support for the Iraq war, in the climate of 9/11 it was easy to whip up fear, in the Bush adminsitrations which was neo con controlled.
Robert Spencer is funded by David Horowitz who is part of that crowd. Nearly all the Loons featured here are funded by fifth column Likudniks in the USA, they oppose the two state solution, want to expand territories, but they can’t do that without USA support.
If you follow the money trail of their paid propogandists and where they speak, you will always find, they either have Israel Hasbara, Likudniks, Kahanists, Kachist, Armageddonites (Christian Zionist) and the Republican right wing behind them.
They think they will have more credibility if they have other “fronts” thats why they groom and pay people like Shoebat, Gabriel, Wafa Sultan, to lie and pretend to be ex Muslims. They are paid about $8000 dollars per speech.
This strategy did work for a few years after 9/11 but not has backfired…and they’re reaping their rewards. People woke up to what they’re doing. But that doesn’t mean we should not be vigilante and expose these liars and fifth columnists.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Thank god cause I can’t wait I wrote my own essay and used this article as a source
December 11th, 2009 at 8:28 am
I said it before, bit it is worth repeating: Robert Spencer can’t be refuted, and neither can the broader anti-Islam movement. One of the few sensible things I even heard from an American politician, was Obama’s recognition that conflicting views on abortion are irreconcilable. There can be no rational debate on matters which are essentially not amenable to rational debate.
By now that applies to the climate change issue as well. You ought to take a look at what happens to ‘refutations’ of climate denialism: they inevitably produce ever more detailed counter-refutations.
If it was only a question of wasting time on the refutation game, then it would be no concern of mine. What concerns me is the underlying failure to recognise the existence of widespread anti-Islam sentiments. It is not just this blog, of course: there is a general reluctance to acknowledge that Islam is now a major issue in the politics of western societies.
What you all need to accept, is the existence of a section of the population, which simply rejects Islam. Spencer did not create them. He has influence with them, but you can’t undo that. Throwing refutations at them is futile. And if Spencer disappeared, someone else would replace him: there are hundreds of anti-Islam websites (and no expertise is needed).
Think of it this way: suppose Spencer announces tomorrow, that he has been a Muslim all along, and that his work was intended to parody western intolerance of Islam. What would his supporters say? Would they say: “I made a fool of myself, I should be more tolerant of other faiths”. No they would say: “You see the dangers of taqqiya, we must stop Islam!”
December 11th, 2009 at 9:12 am
here is a Robert Sphincter Spoof
“Crazy Jihadis Burn Bibles and a church, no wait……
Crazy dispensationlaists burn Mosque and Qurans
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6953281.ece“
December 11th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I understand your point Paul, but you still have to fight them. You can’t stay silent while they peddle their anti-Muslim propaganda to the public. Then they can argue, “You see! No one is defending Islam and Muslims. We must be right!”
Even if they don’t want to change, and there are plenty of static bigots, it is still very important that you show that they are wrong. There are rational, open-minded people who can change their viewpoints about Islam, but you have to come to them with strong, convincing arguments.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Lou,
Spencer always brags that he can’t be refuted, now one of his central arguments has been obliterated, you can’t face it. For Pete’s sake, he registered dhimmiwatch.com, if that is only chpt. 4 of his book then he makes an awful big deal out of it. My prediction is Spencer won’t answer this, he doesn’t have the guts to admit he has no reply. Day by day the silence gets deafening, maybe Spencer is in his basement or his attic working on some master reply but until he comes up with it silence will be his only answer.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Good work, Danios, glad my tip helped. Do you think you could invite Robert Spencer to a live debate for this? It would be great to see this big bumbling liar for what he is.
The guy from Faith Freedom (Ali Sina) offered rewards to anyone who could rebut him, but when challenged to, he never did. They’re all the same these Islamophobes.
December 11th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
The “central argument” of Spencer, Bat Ye’or and all of the anti-Islam crowd is that Islam poses a civilisational threat because of the politico-religious doctrines of “jihad” and “dhimmitude + shariah”.
Jihad is believed to be an instrument of extending Islamic hegemony so that Muslim rule will eventually dominate the world. Spencer declares this “supremacist” and “expansionist” view of Islam as the mainstream juristic view and the view that is supported by the canonical texts of Islam. He writes for example “all — not just one, or a few, but all — the orthodox sects and schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that it is part of the responsibility of the Islamic community to wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law (i.e. jihad)”. Loonwatch may falsify this central argument soon.
The second concept, that of shari’ah and dhimmitude which supposedly most Muslims in their expansionist frame of mind (in following the same mainstream aspirations of the jihadists) are working towards (either violently or peacefully), is that once Muslim rule is the dominant form of government women and non-Muslims will become second-class citizens and the religious interests of Muslims will take priority over all else. Here the concept of “stealth jihad” is vital.
Stealth jihad (akin to a conspiracy theory of mass sleeper cells) is essentially the idea that the shariah and dhimmitude are being established following the same aspirations of the violent jihadists but in a “stealth” (not obvious) and peaceful way. Spencer derives this from an obscure Muslim Brotherhood document written by a certain Mohammed Akram nearly two decades ago which states the Brotherhood’s objective in America is a “civilisation-jihad” to “enable” Islam in America and “sabotage its miserable house” in order to make Islam dominant. The document is not official Brotherhood policy (as its present spokespeople have denied it), and the supposed affiliations listed in the document to major American Islamic organisations (like MSA and ISNA) have not been established. Likewise so-called “supermacist” statements by Omar Ahmed, Ibrahim Hooper and Zaid Shakir are from obscure sources and not found in any of their official writings or websites (CAIR, zaytuna, newislamicdirection) and some have explicitly denied these statements. Rather, their official writings in fact prove otherwise. Spencer provides an essentialist reading of the shariah as being repressive to women and non-Muslims and he therefore encourages opposition to any form of this “stealth jihad” activity as it invites “shariah” (as he understands it) wholesale. In this way, Spencer is able to characterise all forms of Muslim activism and advocacy as a “stealth jihad” to overturn Western civilisation. Here “Islamic” concepts like taqiyya and “war is deceit” (an old proverb used in some hadiths) lend themselves to Spencer’s readings.
All in all, it is a well-fortified perspective that cannot be broken except by shattering the central assumptions, as it is his methodological assumptions that guide his interpretations of all Muslim acts. Muslim acts are therefore either violent jihad or stealth jihad and in this manner almost everything Muslims do and say can be essentialised and categorised to fit his overall picture. It is indeed an eskewed picture, and unfortunately most rebuttals of Spencer have been on secondary, corollary matters that Spencer can simply ignore as they do not challenge his central and core guiding assumptions.
In short, the major assumptions that must be toppled are:
1. Spencer’s view that it is a universal Islamic belief that Muslims (politically) cannot co-exist peacefully on an indefinite basis with their non-Muslim neighbours because of the doctrine of jihad
2. Muslims, as organisations and influential individuals in the West, are working “bit by bit” (Spencer’s usage) to make Islamic norms superior to Western norms so that eventually the shariah will reign supreme (stealth jihad); here Mohammed Akram’s 1991 so-called official Brotherhood document and its so-called affiliations to American Muslim organisations are important, as are the so-called “supermacist” statements of some important American Muslims; central to this is also his essentialist understanding of the shariah as oppressive to women and non-Muslims
3. Although these are the main two pillars of his entire outlook, the remainder of his writings (like Jews lived better in the West than under Islam, Islam is more anti-semitic than Christianity, Islamic science was dwarfed by Western achievements, slavery in Islam was worse than in Christendom, etc.) are part of his attempt to portray as he himself says Western “Judeo-Christian” civilisation as superior to any other, particularly Islamic civilisation, which he fears is the major threat today (because of the two assumptions above)
In this way, Spencer can justify not only opposition to any form of Muslim activism (like, say, wudu areas in airports or Islamic finance in banks), he can justify Israeli and Chinese and Indian and Russian and American torture, occupation, murder and general persecution of Muslims as a necessary struggle against “jihad” (or, as he understands it, Islamic expansionism); he can also demonise Muslims by pointing to any criminal or distasteful activity as a form of “jihad” or “stealth jihad” or an “inferior Islamic norm”. If future rebuttals focus on these assumptions from an Islamic historical and doctrinal perspective I think Spencer will have no leg to stand on.
December 11th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
I agree with Garibaldi. This is not a small tertiary or peripheral topic. Rather it is one of the pillars of Robert Spencer’s fear mongering paradigm. Like we mentioned the site itself is DhimmiWatch so it really is a refutation of their entire basis. Anyways fear not: the next rebuttal is around the corner.
December 11th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
There is a saying that I think applies very nicely here: “10% of the people will always agree with you and 10% of the people will always disagree with you whereas 80% will be undecided. Instead of concentrating on that 10% that will never agree with you anyway, work to convince the 80%.”
I believe LW is doing just that.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Loonwatch,
You don’t expect Spencer or any non-Muslim to take this site seriously due to the anonymity of the “bloggers” here, do you?
Spencer, under constant threat of duress from your fellow RoP’ers, openly appears and comments under his own identity, unlike yourselves.
While tossing around ad hominems like “chicken” and coward, you guys should realize the irony that you are displaying, by saying such brazen things from the leisure of hiding behind a moniker.
Without knowing the source, the “information” presented is valueless.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Yup, I agree with James above. Whilst it may be true that widespread anti-Islam sentiments do exist, these days one would not be hard-pressed to find an Islamophobe saying something along the lines of “Banning the Quran is justified” or “Islamophobic and proud” etc. Not refuting their propaganda gives these hateful people a sense of justification to the point where they look at ordinary, peace loving Muslims and say “You are not a good Muslim, because if you were, you would follow the instructions of the Quran, and the Quran actually tells you to be violent.” In response, I think it’s important we get the truth out there, just so that decent, rational people of goodwill are able to recognize the falsehoods peddled by Spencer in particular and the Islamophobic camp in general.
December 12th, 2009 at 7:56 am
There is no 80% undecided on this issue, certainly not in western Europe. After a decade with Islam as a high-profile issue, most people made up their mind.
The examples quoted by Muzzammil indicate the problem: many people hold views which are essentially non-falsifiable. If Muslims say they want to behead Christians, then they are the enemy. If they deny it, then that proves they plotting it in secret. There is no way to argue with such beliefs.
By convincing yourself that your rhetoric will persuade your opponents, you tend to think that you can make them disappear. That is a very general comment, not in itself confined to religion. But again and again this attitude shows up in discussions on Islam. I can’t avoid mentioning Islamophobia Watch here. It is constantly reporting that responsible community leaders and religious leaders (in Britain) condemn all the incidents they report. It leaves the impression that the whole United Kingdom, apart from a few extremists, is united in solidarity with Muslims. That is very far from the truth. Also notable is the way many commentators are now trying to downplay the recent Swiss referendum, for instance by claiming it was only about minarets.
Of course some Muslims feel a religious obligation to debate with opponents of their faith. But that personal religious belief should not guide political assessments, of polarisation and hostility. The indications are that in western Europe about half the population are uneasy about Islam, and that influences their voting pattern. A smaller but very substantial minority is by now convinced, that in principle there should be Islam in their country. For them, it determines their political attitudes. Since most Muslims are immigrants, that issue is a political time-bomb.
That’s the issue that requires attention. Robert Spencer and friends are politically relevant because of their influence, but quasi-theological disputes with them are not.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Awake,
I see, so now our anonymity has become a problem. Sorry, but that is a crock of bull, Spencer just has no reply. Maybe Spencer can reveal his alter ego, Hugh Fitzgerald who seems to be taken very seriously by you guys has yet to reveal himself.
The facts on this site speak for itself. It is Spencer and his JihadWatch cult followers such as yourself who constantly harp about Spencer’s invincible arguments. In fact, I think some of your cronies were here in the past calling LW to debate Spencer, if you want I could dig up some comments probably some from you. Now we have called out Spencer, the incredibly high standard he set for himself of “never being wrong” has been challenged and obliterated.
Danios,
Isn’t it interesting how these Islamophobes argue? First, they set up a standard and say, “none of our arguments can be defeated, we dare you to try.” When they are challenged and destroyed they squirm like “Lou” and say that was only “Chpt. 4″ of his book. The next thing they will say is, “that is only one of his books what about the twelve others.” Ha.
-Garibaldi
December 12th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
To Awake
“While tossing around ad hominems like “chicken” and coward, you guys should realize the irony that you are displaying, by saying such brazen things from the leisure of hiding behind a moniker”
Are you blind? It wasn’t the anonymous moniker that laid bare Robert Spencers lies. The website founders used ACCREDITED SOURCES AND ISLAMIC TEXTS that anyone can reference and double check. They didn’t use intellectual dishonesty and make believe religous knowledge like Robert Spencer does. You cannot learn the religion of Islam from anyone other than accredited teachers (Imams) Spencer has had no such training, nor has he taught Muslim children, so he is no refernece on Islam. Only on Islamophobia.
“Without knowing the source, the “information” presented is valueless.”
Does anybody see the absurdity of this priceless piece of uselessness? The sources used above were Mark Kohen, Daniel Pipes, and others. These men discredit what Robert Spencer is saying. The anonymous monikers only put the information in black and white. The actual source is there for you to check.
Why don’t you just admit you’re dying to know who the wonderful great team at Loon Watch are.
December 12th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
spencer didn’t reply. There are a lot of muslims who aren’t fond of western countries, but given all the shit we’ve pulled (funding the mujahadeen and then abandoning them when they were no longer useful, the arms deal to iraq, abu gharib, guantanamo) it’s not that shocking.
December 12th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
First of all keep up the good work guys and gals .
Remember you will never get Mr Blobby sorry Robert Spencer to change his views he is paid to uphold but by offering a reasoned well argued explaination you show others the Loon he is .
I am not a muslim but one does wonder about the fear these very odd people have to write such lies .
They used to say sex sells but I often wonder if its fear that sells for some of these people and the Daily Mail ,Daily Express here in UK and the Fox Nutwork in the USA
December 12th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Although I disagree with awake, he kinda makes a good point: you guys shouldn’t dedicate an entire article to calling him a chicken. You did beat him in this argument though, which is a reason to celebrate. And I agree with Layla, just because it’s anonymous people writing te article doesn’t really prove anything.
December 12th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Paul
“By convincing yourself that your rhetoric will persuade your opponents, you tend to think that you can make them disappear. That is a very general comment, not in itself confined to religion.”
I read your post above. You’ve said this a number of times here in different threads.
The questions is this, what solution do you suggest? Do you have a solution in mind? If so, what?
December 12th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Comment from Danios: How many times do I have to repeat it to you, my dense friend, that I will have a follow up article which refutes Spencer’s other two points? Please get an MRI done in order to check for tumors in your brain.
Perhaps you can keep repeating your point over and over again then everyone will forget about the fact that your savior Spencer was refuted. I got your message: you want the other two points that Spencer raised to be refuted (i.e. that the laws of the so-called “dhimmitude” have not been revised), and I keep telling you that I will publish an article dealing with this lie shortly. Now for the love of God, stop repeating this same point. You’re so anxious to move on to the next point because you know you have miserably lost this one. Don’t worry, you will lose the next one too–then when that time comes, you can move on to your next topic!
Sincerely,
Danios.
December 12th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Reza:
“Do you think you could invite Robert Spencer to a live debate for this? It would be great to see this big bumbling liar for what he is.”
Although I do eventually to enter the arena of live debates–and challenge Robert Spencer to one–I actually think that online debates (one website vs another) results in a fairer debate. In real life, there is a lot of yelling over the opponent, which drowns out the other’s voice. Furthermore, live debates facilitate sound bites over actual substance; Spencer peddles in simplistic and sensationalist sound bites, whereas I have somewhat long-winded yet substantive responses.
Abu Musa:
I agree with you 100%. The battle is for the minds and hearts of the middle 80%.
Garibaldi:
“Isn’t it interesting how these Islamophobes argue? First, they set up a standard and say, ‘none of our arguments can be defeated, we dare you to try.’ When they are challenged and destroyed they squirm like “Lou” and say that was only ‘Chpt. 4′ of his book. The next thing they will say is, ‘that is only one of his books what about the twelve others.’ Ha.”
To be clear, I’m not done with chapter four of his book just yet. But yes, I already wrote enough on it to make my future articles on it “overkill.” Nonetheless, I like my meat overdone.
But yeah, I agree with you, Garibaldi. And plus, it’s not like this issue is a tertiary one–rather, Jihad and Dhimmitude are at the heart of their paradigm, and we just took a sledgehammer to their Dhimmitude pillar.
Layla:
“The sources used above were Mark Kohen, Daniel Pipes, and others. These men discredit what Robert Spencer is saying. The anonymous monikers only put the information in black and white. The actual source is there for you to check.”
Exactly. One only look at the footnotes to see the sources I cited. I made it a point to only use reliable sources.
Sir David:
“First of all keep up the good work guys and gals .”
Thanks!
Robert Spencer:
Bak bak bak!
Sincerely,
Danios.
December 13th, 2009 at 6:14 am
Here is one of Robert Spencer’s blustering claims on his website:
“Critics have again and again mounted ad hominem attacks in response; they do not (and cannot) bring forth even a single example of a supposed inaccuracy in my work.”
December 13th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Spencer issued an open invitation to me and to anyone else in http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/03/report-on-robert-spencer-and-the-boston-anti-islamic-controversy.html .
December 13th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
When the heck is spinster going to reply?! Lmfao but this is so annoying. His website is overloading with stupidity and arrogance. He needs a good smackdown. How about starting an online campaign? Maybe using YouTube and stuff to get the message across?
December 13th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Let me try and make it clearer. The thought process involved goes something like this…
1. Even if I can only convince a few fans of Spencer / Wilders / etc, it would be worth refuting their arguments. So let me try…
2. Hey, my refutation is good!
3. That ought to convince many supporters of Spencer / Wilders / etc to change their views.
4. Opponents of Islam can easily be convinced to change their views, just by refuting them.
5. Therefore there is no substantial opposition to Islam.
I fear that too many people have got themselves stuck, in this line of thought.
If it was indeed possible to alter fundamental beliefs by posting refutations online, then the world would be a very different place. But the reality is that anti-Islam views are just as fundamental as the religion itself. Spencer has not persuaded Muslims to abandon Islam, by criticising it - so you should not expect to ‘convert’ him and his supporters, by arguing with them.
December 13th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Paul, though I agree partly with your assertions, however, what is it exactly that you want? Many naive and impressionable Muslims who are bombarded daily by Islamphobic garbage need a site like this to help them at least answer back to the accusations. At least Danios on his part is doing something to refute them, even if no one listens or cares, at least the answers will be here for whomever wants to listen and we should applaud them for this laborious task that they’ve taken.
December 13th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
The self-appointed and phony “scholar?” of Islam,Robert Spencer, has to “dodge a debat with LW(LoonWatch)” because he and his ilk of Daniel Pipes type live in an illusionary world of Islamophobia of their own making. Hence,they have become enslaved to their Islamophobia and consequently hatred of Islam and Muslims. PITY!!
Since Islam is considered as the fastest growing religion in the world,including the U.S.,it seems to me that the more Robrt Spencer and his ilk bash Islam and Muslims,the more people have become interested in Islam and eventually they have become converted Muslims.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:29 am
If people defend their religion in this way, it is called apologetics. All main religions have an apologetic tradition, but essentially it is for the believers themselves, not for their opponents - or third parties. If individual Muslims want to reply to Spencer, that is their business. However, collectively, the idea that you can simply refute all criticisms, has encouraged European Muslims to put their head in the sand.
Others put their head in the sand too, I mentioned the British website Islamophobia Watch, which has loose ties to the Labour Party. Many others in Britain have convinced themselves that it is simply a matter of argument and information. But they can’t change entrenched fundamental views by debate, or by distributing information.
This issue will re-appear. As far as this website goes: the editors need to decide if it is an information source on anti-Islam activists such as Spencer, or a forum for Muslims to discuss apologetics.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Paul,
This is your blog, right?
http://state-ethics.blogspot.com
I note that there is nothing there about yourself, which would help in understanding what your motivations are. It’s curious that none of your posts have any comments on them. It either means you’re very isolated in your thinking or you don’t allow dissent. I disagree with alot of what you say at your blog as it’s not based on reality. It’s easily disproved.
Now back to this post and what you said, I don’t mean to offend you, but you’re looking at this problem from the wrong angle and you don’t really understand it. You see it through “civil rights and state ethics” eyes. You won’t understand what these Islamophobes are until you understand why they do it, and what is motivating them. It isn’t so much a concern for the welfare of humanity, as it is a self serving agenda, to whip up support from gullibles by lying.
Criticising and fighting extremist Muslim exposers is not what we are fighting, we’re all for that. The Loons we fight here, have an agenda to lie and distort for themselves. If you follow the money trail it always ends up in either Likudnik, Kahanist or Armagedonites camp (Jewish and Christians far right Zionists). That is what we fight. Lies, distortions and fabrications done for an agenda. and yes, there are plenty of people out there questionsing these loons, and looking for a reliable source to rebut them. That is what Loon Watch provides.
I’ve read your blog, State Ethics, where you clearly state that you don’t bother with American politics. In that case you won’t understand, what this problem is all about, the root causes, the religious demographics in the US, and how they are exploited, the solution, the terror attacks in Europe came about after the Iraq war. Europe and the rest of the world were dragged into this war, by the American neo cons, who were the same people that the Loons we expose here are part of. The media in the USA at that time had a lot of propoganda coming from MEMRI and other similar right wing zionist outlets.
You also are looking at this through atheist or secular eyes. If you don’t understand the religious aspect to all this, in the USA, you won’t understand this problem, and are not qualified to suggest a solution.You wrote a post about “Judeo Christian” at your blog, and why it is not part of European standard thought, but you omitted to mention how it got started in the US, and why. You also have not mentioned in your bloggings about Geert Wilders, why he supports that, nor that he has been to Israel 40 times, or that Dutch intelligence monitor his Israeli links. Don’t you think that this is directly related to why he is supported by Zionist right wingers like Pamela? It is more for the Likud agenda than for the good of Israel.
Let me now go through some of what you said, and show you where you’re off the mark:-
“If it was indeed possible to alter fundamental beliefs by posting refutations online, then the world would be a very different place. But the reality is that anti-Islam views are just as fundamental as the religion itself. ”
The reality is just the opposite, and it is possible. This website itself features one such person the LGF blogger Charles Johnson who an ally of the Loons we feature here
The Blog Wars: Robert Spencer Goes Postal on Charles Johnson
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/12/the-blog-wars-robert-spencer-goes-postal-on-charles-johnson
The Blog Wars: Charles Johnson Takes on Robert Spencer for Associating with Extremists
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/09/the-blog-wars-charles-johnson-takes-on-robert-spencer-for-hanging-out-with-the-extremists/
The likes of Charles Johnson, of LGF is only of a growing number who saw what was going on, and realised that there were others who are exploiting 9/11 for their own even more dangerous agenda.
“Spencer has not persuaded Muslims to abandon Islam, by criticising it!”
Of course not, because he lies and fabricate, we know what our faith is. Nobody pays us to be Muslim, but he is paid to lie. That is the differnce. He is funded by David Horowitiz, a neo con. Nearly all the Loons featured here are funded by the same far right Zionist groups who have to work hard to convince people that they the world shares their same agenda, and that Islam is their enemy too.
“ so you should not expect to ‘convert’ him and his supporters, by arguing with them.”
The difference is that Spencer is part of a lying paid propoganda machine. and your thesis is proven wrong, because so many Americans who have converted to Islam have said they did so after learning that what the Islamophobes were propogating was not the truth. Also,. In actual fact what is happening is that many Evangelicals are dumping the faith because of it’s bigotry and intolerance. America is turning left wing. I can bring you links if you want, but I’ve posted some in other threads so you may have seen some already.
After 9/11 there was a climate of fear exploited by neo con Likudniks and the Bush republican party whose base was the Evangelicals. These people care less for America, and more for Israel for their own agenda’s (religious and territorial). Islamophboia was a tool in their hands which they used to decieve the public through the media. Did you know much of the information about the Middle East that Americans see in their media comes from neo con contolled spin machines like MEMRI (founded by Yigal Carmon, an Israeli IDF colonol with Mossad links) which distorts and lies, to promote the Likud agenda?
Check out Brian Whitaker’s (The Guardian) articles exposing MEMRI and the part they played in deceiving the media in America about the threat of Islam.
http://browse.guardian.co.uk/search?search=selective+memri&sitesearch-radio=guardian
Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/975574.html
By Haaretz Service and Reuters
Let me give you some hard examples of how that worked after 9/11:-
————–
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute
MEMRI is operated by a group closely associated with the Israeli
intelligence organizations.
http://browse.guardian.co.uk/search?search=selective+memri&sitesearch-radio=guardian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans
The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon’s office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam’s Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
” Many others in Britain have convinced themselves that it is simply a matter of argument and information. But they can’t change entrenched fundamental views by debate, or by distributing information.”
Yes you can,(proof below) to be honest you’re not clear here. You have yet to articulate what you suggest as a solution, What do you want European Muslims to do? That is because you have built a case on imagined scenario’s and unreality. There is no “entrenched fundamental” views, you seem to have convinced yourself that there are, without offering any evidence.
My guess is your main reason is your paranoia of religon. Why are Europeans converting to Islam if that is the case?
I don’t think you even understand what the problem is. There is a difference between Nazi/right wing propoganda and neo con/Zionist propoganda. You cannot distinguish between the two, nor can you see how American Zionists are abusing European fascists. When they train fascists like Geert, they make sure his version of fascism is pro-Israel.
For all your hot air, you have limited knowledge about this, because you dont understand the religous background.
“However, collectively, the idea that you can simply refute all criticisms”
Proof below of how you can do just that, by distributing information. That is how people came to realise that the American media was neo con contolled, with an agenda to distort Islam. Read Tim Montgomeries report below, in how it was information online that was available in Britian that helped defeat the neo con/evangelical hold on American politics. That is why the neo cons are now wanting Sarah Palin. Not because of what she can do for America, but for what she can do for Israel. She is an Armeggonite.
Whilst their propaganda machine is busy churning out misinformation, people can judge for themselves what is truth and what is not.
Right wing Evangelism is being dumped, AIPAC and Zionism are losing influence, and converts to Islam are rising. Meanwhile, Americans are mistrusting the neo con controlled media. Obama’s election is a shift to the left, which will not be reversed any time soon in the USA.
Fundamentalism and the Decline of Christianity
April 02, 2005
http://tcpc.blogs.com/better/2005/04/fundamentalism_.html
Today, if you identify someone as a Christian, most of the people I know
will assume that you mean a narrow-minded, self-righteous bigot.
The negative connotation has made considering Christianity as an option
unlikely for many well-informed people. To get their attention, churches
reaching out to them can never use the word “Christian” without a qualifying adjective, such as progressive. Even when we do, we have a hard time convincing the skeptical that we are different from the politically
influential right-wing Christians they read about in the news. Is it any
wonder that a shrinking number of people in America are willing to call
themselves Christians?
————
Updated Friday, June 01, 2007
Southern Baptists seek revival as evangelism sputters
By Adelle M. Banks
http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/content/news/2007/06_01_2007/ne010607southern.shtml
statistics from the nation’s largest Protestant body paint a picture of
evangelism in decline.
————–
http://www.thejc.co.uk/Home.aspx?ParentId=m12s114&SecId=114
THE ISRAEL LOBBY IS RAPIDLY LOSING SUPPORT -
Coverage from the FT to The Economist suggests that Aipac’s power over the Middle East debate is fading
Alex Brummer, Jewish Chronicle, 3/23/07
————
British media could swing the next US election
May 28, 2007
http://britainandamerica.typepad.com/britain_and_america/2007/05/british_media_c.html
By Tim Montgomerie, Editor of BritainAndAmerica.com.
The Guardian’s Susan Hansen argues that Americans are partly turning to online British newspapers because of their more feisty scrutiny of politicians - particularly the much greater scepticism about Iraq that was evident from the BBC, Guardian and Independent during the run-up to the decision to go to war.
The Unacceptable Cost of Judeo-Christianity; Its Legacy of Pain
Charles E. Carlson Oct 05, 2009
http://whtt.org/index.php?news=2&id=3307
We Hold These Truths’ objective for nine years has been to explain why members of this loosely knit group we call Judeo-Christianity thinks and acts as though political Israel was a god. We note again that the grassroots individuals within this movement are almost always motivated by altruistic religious belief (this author was once one of these), while the driving force behind their leaders is almost always tainted by money and the power of fame.This paper explores how Christian Zionism is co-opted by a foreign lobby, AIPAC, and used to carry out Israeli objectives.
————
True believers
Nov. 24, 2005
By KSENIA SVETLOVA
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1132475618729&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
” Islam is by far the fastest-growing religion on the planet, with a growth rate estimated at 2.8%-2.9% per year.
One explanation for this increase is that the birth rate in Muslim countries is much higher than in the majority of Christian countries (a reasoning popular among Christian missionaries), while others say that most of Muslim growth in Europe and the US comes from immigration, rather than conversion.
However, numerous studies indicate that the rapid growth of Islam in the United States, Canada, Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa is, in fact, due to conversion.
Fox News: Youth Christian Americans Turning To ISLAM
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2420950/fox_news_youth_christian_americans_turning_to_islam/
————
Turning Muslim in Texas
http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/texas1.html
George W Bush may be backed by Christian fundamentalists but in his home state of Texas, Islam is the latest big draw. There are 400,000 Muslims in Texas alone and Islam is the fastest growing religion in the USA. Since 9/11 there have been more converts to Islam than ever.
————-
Priests & Preachers Coming to Islam”
http://www.islamtomorrow.com/yusuf/priests_n_preachers.htm
“To be honest, I was a “dedicated Christian” and a good ‘ol boy from Texas.
We hated everything about those “Mozlems”, just like you are supposed to, here in the West. Hijackers! - Kidnappers”
December 14th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
I can always tell when the Muslim Student Association is involved. “Islam is the fastest growing religion” is one of their standard lines.
As a salesman myself, if thats your only recruiting tool, you’ve got problems. And maybe if you keep telling yourself that, someday you’ll believe it. But the simple fact is, once people become literate and can read what is in the koran, islam has considerably less appeal. Which is why its such a hard sell in the West. Lets face it, islamic values - and you know exactly what I mean - dont go over well here.
I’d be very curious to hear what research you base this claim on. Danios?
December 14th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Omg I was SOOO excited when the title and picture for this post was changed cause I thot it was a new article.
When will the new one come up? I’m rly sorry for being a whiny b**** but I must admit I’m extremly excited for this one to come up.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:53 am
“I can always tell when the Muslim Student Association is involved. ‘Islam is the fastest growing religion’ is one of their standard lines…I’d be very curious to hear what research you base this claim on. Danios?”
Why are you asking me?
“When will the new one come up? I’m rly sorry for being a whiny b**** but I must admit I’m extremly excited for this one to come up.”
A new article is up by another author…As for my next rebuttal of Spencer’s book, I’m working on it. Unfortunately, I’ve been really busy with my career, which hampers my free time to write. I apologize for the delay. Should not be long though. Within a couple days.
Sincerely,
Danios.
December 19th, 2009 at 1:56 am
Really? I couldn’t find it! Plz link it to me
December 19th, 2009 at 6:41 am
My next article is complete. Should be up real soon.
Sincerely,
Danios.
December 19th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Wow, awesome…can’t wait..
December 19th, 2009 at 10:38 am
[snipped]
Comment by Danios: Please do not copy/paste huge amounts of text, especially since the formatting was all messed up, making your post unreadable. Additionally, please keep in mind that as a policy we do not condone bashing of any religion, be it Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. I was unable to read your post like I said, but from what I could make out it seemed like a wholesale attack on Judaism. I may be mistaken, because like I said, your post was unreadable due to formatting problems.
Lastly, I ask everyone to kindly stay on topic. The topic is what the article is about.
December 20th, 2009 at 8:05 am
YOU deleted an article which shows how torah holds innocent ppl responsible for the crimes of thier ancestors and how the israeli religious fundamentalists use thier books to justice brutality in palestine. i cnp a point by point rebutall by ex-christian farell till who WHO destroys the christian apologits reinterpretation of torah verses.
Comment by Danios: I deleted your comment because it was too long and the formatting unreadable. Sorry. I’ll be more careful next time to give you a chance to express yourself. However, I think we may have a difference of opinion on what constitutes “bashing” and what doesn’t, so please do tone it down for this site. Thank you for your cooperation.
December 20th, 2009 at 8:10 am
ACTUALLy there was no “bashing” going on in the rebutal you removed, but a point point rebutall INFORMING your readers the FLAWS of reinterpretation.
one of your readers here challenged me to prove the sins of his jesus. i responded to him,but you did not allow my comments to go through.the article was “huge chucks” and the formating was EASILY READABLE by anyone.
December 20th, 2009 at 10:17 am
no problem my friend. your site your rule.