As his arguments become exposed, so does he.
As many of you well know, I have taken it upon myself to refute Robert Spencer’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), cover to cover, page by page, and line by line. I have already written several articles refuting Spencer, exposing him for the fear-mongering fraudster that he is.
Omer Subhani, a reader of our website, blogged it out best:
Spencer dodging LoonWatch… again
Robert Spencer has said something like the following many times:
“…I am always happy to debate any serious Muslim spokesman…”
Really?
Then why not debate the writer of multiple refutations of your work?
That writer goes by the name of Danios and he or she writes over at Loon Watch. Danios has written numerous refutations of Spencer’s work without much of a peep leaking from Spencer. Yet, Spencer was more than happy to share with his audience a list of people he has formerly debated.
But no mention of anything written by anyone at Loon Watch.
I smell something. And it smells like chicken.
What’s the excuse? Danios is writing anonymously? That shouldn’t matter. Spencer, you have continuously proclaimed from the day you started writing your blog that you would debate anyone, anywhere, any time. Well, Danios has penned multiple refutations of your work and yet you have failed to reply. You have hinted at Danios’ work in previous posts, but you haven’t gotten around to refuting Danios. You have called Danios a “slick liar,” but have failed to respond substantively to what Danios wrote.
Why are you chickening out, Spencer?
You’re aware of Danios’ refutations of your work, but you won’t engage in dialog. Usually when someone doesn’t respond to another person’s argument it means that they’ve conceded the point. Maybe Danios’ refutations of your claims were so absolute that it really isn’t worth debating. If that’s the case, then be a man about it and say so.
Subhani notes that Robert Spencer referred to me as a “slick liar,” but it may interest you to know that Spencer was so frustrated that he went even further, declaring:
The slick liar who penned that piece ought to get 100 lashes
In another article, Spencer upped the ante, and decided that 100 was just not enough, and threw in one more for added effect:
The slick liar who penned that piece ought to get 101 lashes
Instead of using such violent language, why doesn’t Spencer just refute the points I raised? Isn’t that always his gripe against those who write about him negatively in the media?
The “piece” I wrote for which I became a “slick liar” can be found here: Robert Spencer Rapes the Truth, Part 1: Does Sharia Reject the Testimony of a Rape Victim? In that article, I contest Spencer’s bold claim that in rape cases a woman’s testimony is rejected under Sharia. And I promised that in part 2 (coming to a theater near you soon) I will discuss Spencer’s claim that under Sharia a woman is lashed if she claims rape but cannot produce four witnesses.
So let’s read Spencer’s response, which is as follows:
Recently someone forwarded me a pseudo-scholarly piece by a smooth Islamic apologist purporting to prove that I was wrong, wrong, wrong (and therefore evil as well, of course) about Islamic rules of evidence for crimes of zina (adultery, fornication, and other sexual offenses), and claiming that rape victims in the Islamic world are never punished for being raped. The slick liar who penned that piece ought to get 100 lashes instead of “Camille” for his obfuscation and enabling of this kind of torture of women.
OK, let’s take that one line at a time, shall we? First, Spencer writes:
Recently someone forwarded me a pseudo-scholarly piece
Here is a really bad case of projection. Robert Spencer tries passing himself off as a scholar, and therefore assumes that I would too. Apparently, Spencer has no idea what a scholarly paper looks like, because if he did, he would know that my article is far too irreverent a piece to be scholarly. Does that mean that every piece of writing that is not scholarly becomes pseudo-scholarly? What an absurd understanding. Do newspaper articles or op-eds then become pseudo-scholarly works?
Then, Spencer says:
by a smooth Islamic apologist
I haven’t revealed what religion (if any) I follow. In fact, I think the fact that I approach these debates as a neutral outsider–instead of approaching them as a vested Muslim–is what gives me the edge over other people who have debated with Spencer. And in any case, Spencer can then be considered “a smooth Catholic apologist.” Actually, he’s more like a Catholic crusader who attacks the infidel Islamic world with his vitriolic pen.
He goes on:
I was wrong, wrong, wrong (and therefore evil as well, of course)
No complaints here.
Here is the real doozie:
and claiming that rape victims in the Islamic world are never punished for being raped.
I’ve noticed that Robert Spencer always does this in his polemical pieces. First, he builds up his argument with half-truths, and then near the end he will insert an outright lie. Nowhere did I claim that “rape victims in the Islamic world are never punished for being raped. “ This is a complete strawman argument. Clearly, there are uneducated fundamentalists who do that, and who need to be stopped. My contention with Spencer is his claim that such a thing is inherently part of Islam itself or the Islamic jurisprudential tradition.
Spencer then proceeds to report a case of a rape victim being punished in the Islamic world. So instead of critically analyzing the arguments I put forward in my article (Robert Spencer Rapes the Truth, Part 1: Does Sharia Reject the Testimony of a Rape Victim?), Spencer constructs a strawman argument (claiming that I think or said that rape victims are never punished in the Islamic world) and then proceeds to knock it down by citing a case of just such a thing. Clearly, Spencer’s need to construct a strawman is rooted in his inability to address any of my arguments. Meanwhile, my own arguments against him are always precision guided surgical strikes.
My ever so dearest Robert Spencer: please do address the actual points I raised in the article.
Spencer Responds to My Latest Article on Dhimmitude
Awhile back, I published part 1 of my rebuttal of Robert Spencer on the topic of dhimmitude. I already addressed Spencer’s bumbling reply to part 1. Once again, he was absolutely unable to debate the actual topic, which was the historical treatment of dhimmis (vs perpetual serfs). After Spencer refused to respond, I called him out as a chicken.
Then a few days back, I published part 2 of my dhimmitude series. Just now, Spencer issued a response. For some odd reason, however, Spencer refuses to take my name and suffices himself with veiled (but painfully obvious) references. (Similarly, he refused to take LoonWatch’s blessed name when one of our intrepid writers broke the story about how FuckAllah.com and FuckIslam.com mysteriously redirected to his website; instead, he somehow chose to target CAIR, who simply reproduced our article.)
Spencer writes (emphasis is mine):
More or less on a regular basis I am sent purported refutations of what I say here and in my books — essays that purport to show that Islam doesn’t really teach warfare against unbelievers and their subjugation as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law,
Clearly a reference to yours truly.
Spencer goes on:
although these purported refutations usually content themselves with showing that Christians or someone else were doing something worse,
Completely false. I only contented myself after proving that contemporary Muslims reject the Pact of Umar (a document which is so central to your Islamophobic viewpoint that you call it the “the foundation for Islamic law regarding the treatment of the dhimmis”). So yes, I was quite pleased with myself after I toppled the foundation of your argument. (I treated myself with ice cream.)
If you are referring to part 1, I had already been quite clear that my rebuttal would come in multiple parts, and that the first part would simply contest your claim that historically Muslims treated Jews worse than Christians did. And I have already answered this argument of yours in my response to your bumbling reply. Or do we have to go through this again? You had said earlier:
It is an extended (very extended) example of the familiar tu quoque fallacy in which Islamic apologists always indulge: other people have done evil, and therefore our evil is not so bad or not to be spoken of.
To which I had replied:
I certainly never said that the “evil is not so bad.” What I said was that the “evil” (your choice of words) done to infidels in the Islamic realm was historically less than that done to infidels in Christendom. And I said that to negate chapter four of your book, in which you specifically wrote “the idea that Jews fared better in Islamic lands than in Christian Europe is false,” and “the Muslim laws were much harsher for Jews than those of Christendom.” I am fact-checking your book, and you made a claim, and I refuted it. Simple as that. Now it is up to you to either defend your initial claim or concede that you were wrong to state it.
Back to Spencer’s recent response, he goes on:
or that some document or other to which I refer in my books is held in no esteem by Muslims
That’s it? You’ve conceded the point? Wow. This was easier than I thought. Suddenly, you’ve moved the goalposts, as evidenced by what you say next:
or virtually anything other than actually proving that there exists a sect or school of Islam that teaches that Muslims must live with non-Muslims as equals on an indefinite basis
I’m starting to sense a pattern here. Every time I refute one of your arguments, you will move to the next one. But don’t worry, Spencer my love, your wish is my command. In fact, the third (and final) part of my dhimmitude series will prove exactly what you asked for, namely that contemporary Muslims do believe that they should live with non-Muslims as equals. Stay tuned for that. (I’m sure by that time you’ll skip to another topic, never standing up like a man and defending the actual issue I write on.)
Then Spencer goes off on another tangent, writing:
In any case, the fundamental problem with all these alleged refutations is that if I am misunderstanding Islam, an awful lot of Muslims, including Islamic clerics who have devoted their lives to studying the Qur’an and Sunnah, misunderstand it in the same way. And here we have another. Afzali says he betrayed his religion, but that is, I suspect, just in order to bamboozle the unbelievers yet again.
Notice how Spencer tries to prove that there is a “fundamental problem with all these alleged refutations” by giving the example of Ahmad Afzali, an Imam who tipped off an Al-Qaeda militant. Ummm…am I missing something here? What does Ahmad Afzali have to do with any of my refutations of Spencer? What does Afzali tipping off an Al-Qaeda militant have to do with the historical treatment of dhimmis vs perpetual serfs (part 1) or the Pact of Umar (part 2)? It’s completely nonsensical and shows the sheer desperation Spencer is feeling right now.
How about instead of going off on random tangents you address the points I raised? You obviously have enough time to rant about me on your website (although in a veiled manner), yet don’t have the time to construct a few decent logical arguments? Why then did you make the claim that “I am always happy to debate any serious Muslim spokesman”? You after all call me an “Islamic apologist”, and I assume “Islamic apologists” are also “Muslim spokesmen”, so why don’t you debate me? Your loyal readers argue that LoonWatch is “beneath you,” and thus “unworthy of your time.” Yet, here you are ranting about me (albeit in a veiled manner); so why not better use that time to give more substantive responses?
Well, the answer is obvious: you’re a bully, and you’ve been bullying people for a very, very long time. But like all bullies, when you meet someone your own size, you run away like the coward you are. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I’m not going anywhere. You are in quite a bind: if you try to respond to my arguments, the weakness of your case will become even more apparent. If you decide not to engage me due to this fear, you still lose by virtue of forfeiture. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Either way is fine by me.
"The time for honoring yourself will soon be at an end."
March 6th, 2010 at 5:06 am
Wow. You clearly riled him up Danios. Branding you evil and calling you to be whipped (unless it’s some sort of sexual fantasy of his) is a little bit extreme. The guy will never debate you. If he ever agreed to then he would probably bring Pamela along with him, that other expert on Islam. Maybe he’s just stressed out, given that he’s probably spending a lot of time with her writing about ‘Obama’s war on America :-S ) I know I would be on the edge if I had to spend even 5 seconds with that woman.
March 6th, 2010 at 5:34 am
What you fail to understand is that Robert Spencer never really cared about debate – he knows his limits, he knows he is a polemicist/bigot so he wont debate, he’ll build a few strawmen, insult you and then insinuate that you are practicing taqqiya…and thats it. Just have a look at his “debates” with eteraz
Robert Spencer has entirely different and more sinister goals than debating the finer points of Islamic theology, its time he be taken seriously.
March 6th, 2010 at 6:11 am
If Spencer really cares about women being tortured he wouldn’t deny the Bosniak genocide since a prominent component of that genocide was the torture and rape of countless women and girls.
March 6th, 2010 at 6:30 am
*Giggles* @ Robert Spencer not seeing the irony in accusing someone else of being a pseudo scholar. That’s rich.
Also, can you imagine what a fuss Spencer would make if a Muslim refuted his work by replying Spencer deserves”101 lashes”. Tsk, tsk Robert – responding with violence are we? I’m certain neither he nor his lackeys would see the humour to such a statement if a Muslim were to make it.
Keep up the good work Danios!
March 6th, 2010 at 8:18 am
Score Danios 2 Bumbling Bob 0 and still more to come I think
March 6th, 2010 at 9:47 am
101 Lashes?? What an idiot! Spencer needs to take a few long walks on the beach and get a few important things sorted out….
1. The only pseudo-scholar around is Spencer himself.
2. Danios is a young lion whose time has come.
3. Spencer’s Day of Reckoning is at hand.
March 6th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Encore Encore!
Do you plan on going through all of his books Danios?
March 6th, 2010 at 11:41 am
101 lashes!? Do you think on some level Spencer admires Saudi Arabia? LOLOL
March 6th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Thanks a lot guys. I really appreciate your support. It means a lot. But please do take it to the next level:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/03/do-you-love-loonwatch-if-so-do-your-part/
Please start actively engaging the Islamophobes in the comments section of our website. Stay calm, cool, and collected when you do, and respond in an intelligent manner. Oftentimes the Islamophobes respond to a very old article of mine and by that time I am too busy writing a future article to respond, so that’s your time to help me out and stuff them there. Thank you so very much.
Also, I added the following line to the article above:
“And in any case, Spencer can then be considered ‘a smooth Catholic apologist.’ Actually, he’s more like a Catholic crusader who attacks the infidel Islamic world with his vitriolic pen.”
Sincerely,
Danios.
March 6th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Why is it that the followers of Jihadwatch are piling in on this site and attacking Danios?
Great article by the way.
March 6th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Danios, I dont want to put you on a pedestal or anything but your work is astounding and very well sourced. You back everything you say with clear references and argue your points in an articulate and easily understood manner. You really are an inspiration mate.
March 6th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Until recently I held the position that addressing islamophobes was useless.
The scholars of just 20-30 years ago would never have such ridiculous childish arguments against Islam. Civilized researchers would debate over specific contents.
I would continue to hold my previous position that it simply isn’t worth it to respond, IF the number of islamophobes wasn’t growing exponentially.
This being said, as an avid reader of this site I will begin to do my part on this website.
March 7th, 2010 at 12:03 am
Thanks, both of you!
In the words of iSherif: LW FTW!
Sincerely,
Danios.
March 7th, 2010 at 12:27 am
Spencer’s traffic has been gradually dropping – his books are rehashes of his older books and his scare mongering is working less and less. I look forward to the day when he comes to my house asking for some spare change.
March 7th, 2010 at 12:46 am
Ali,
Some of the loons on JW are talking about how JW is so much more popular than LW…And that means exactly what? Stormfront has some 200,000 members and an astronomical number of hits…How does that mean anything?
I know JW gets crazy traffic. I’m not going to dispute that in the least. Hate sells. And nowadays Islamophobia sells like hotcakes.
Sincerely,
Danios.
March 7th, 2010 at 1:31 am
Hey Danios and LW. If any of you guys have time can you please type an article regarding the principles of Taqiyya? It’s becoming a very worrisome subject seeing that Spinster and Loony Geller seem to use it every time a Muslim speaks. It’s become a fetish for them. Only if you guys have time. Just a suggestion. Thanks!
March 7th, 2010 at 1:41 am
Truth about Taqiyya:
I have to complete my dhimmitude series (1 more article) and the article on rape (1 more article). Then I was thinking of doing a series on jihad. I was also thinking of doing a fun little article on JW’s readership.
But we’ve received a lot of requests for the subject of taqiyya. Should I move that up my list of priorities? Any other votes on which subject I should handle next? The dhimmitude and rape article are definitely next, but I’m willing to take reader input on what comes after that. So get your requests in.
Sincerely,
Danios.
March 7th, 2010 at 3:07 am
Yup, an article on Taqiyya would really knock the loons out. There does seem to be a bit of confusion surrounding this issue right now, and just like the PoU, I’d never even heard of this mysterious Taqiyya until I read the writings of the ‘phobes (Taqiyya artist, Taqiyya in action, blah blah)
“I was also thinking of doing a fun little article on JW’s readership.”
LOL! That sounds great too
March 7th, 2010 at 4:20 am
Wasn’t taqiyya invented by Shi’a Muslims in order to save themselves from persecution by Sunnis?
March 7th, 2010 at 11:44 am
yes. Even daniel pipes conceeded that point. Can Danios do Ali Sina? That guy is so repulsive that Robbie Spencer actually said “dude, tone it down.” I can provide the link.
March 7th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Danios
I third the suggestion of dealing with Taqiyah, I like I would warrant 99.9% of muslims had never heard of it, that is until a delightful member of the EDL accused me of it. I kindly informed him I had never heard of it and therefore could never practise it, to which he replied “A Taqiya artist like you would say that” so I just punched him in the face. I don’t like being accused of lying.
Comment by Danios: Well, I don’t think you should have punched him in the face (even your religion would agree with me on that one), but I agree with your overall comment…just want to make it clear that we don’t condone such violence.
March 7th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Debating Robert…oh please. Danios couldn’t even debate me, let alone Robert Spencer. I’ve responding to some of Danio’s nonsensical articles ‘proving’ the peaceful message of islam, yet my responses were censored.
Danios: How do you want to debate Spencer? Do you want him to post to this idiotic site so that you can censor his posts after he proves you wrong?
Are you willing to have a fact-to-face debate with Robert?
March 7th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Al H, Spencer has his own website where he can reply to my rebuttals, just as he has done with countless other “Muslim spokesmen.” Whether or not Spencer chooses to engage me…I’m ok with both. Either way, I’m going to be putting out hard-hitting articles refuting his writing…and in the process I hope to win the middle 80%.
As for a face-to-face debate, I will one day challenge him to that, but right now I’d like to focus on refuting his entire book. Verbal debates have their place, but I find them less useful than written refutations…simply because there is no “yelling over” the opponent.
People are free to read my writing and his to determine who has the stronger points. I am confident that my articles speak for themselves.
Lastly, I’d like to remind everyone (including myself) that this isn’t a joke. Debating is not the end game here. I am not trying to win some personal competition with Robert Spencer. Rather, the goal is to curb the hateful rhetoric of the hate-mongers. That is something very serious, and I apologize if my Gladiator picture distracted from that.
Sincerely,
Danios.
March 7th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
“so I just punched him in the face. I don’t like being accused of lying.”
LOL
Comment by Danios:
March 7th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Danios, future articles I’d like to see:
1. taqiyah, Muslims can lie to non-Muslims?
2. “Honor crimes”
3. A thorough explanation of jihad
4. Wife beating
5. Muhammad(saw) and his marriage to Aisha
6. The moon god nonsense
7. Islam and “just war”… what about those violent verses?
8. Refuting the historical revisionism of Spencer’s version of the Crusades as an act of defense by Christendom.
9. Does the Qur’an say that Jews and Christians are apes and pigs?
10. Islam spread by the sword?
11. Sources of the Qur’an, i.e. is the Qur’an a copy of the Bible and other sources? (perhaps this point is a bit technical and too Islam centric… but I thought I’d throw it in there since it’s something that’s brought up a lot by Islamophobes, but it’s more of a missionary talking point)
March 7th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Thanks for your list, Les.
I wanted to tackle #3, #7, and #10 first…i.e.a jihad series to complement the dhimmitude series. This would topple two of Spencer’s main pillars, jihad and dhimmitude. I’m debating however to do the taqiyya article before, simply because so many people have asked for it. (I find this strange; wouldn’t more people want to know about jihad than the obscure taiqyya? Seems like Spencer et al. are really pushing this taqiyya stuff!)
I would like to address many of the other points you raised as well. But yes, #11 would be outside the scope of this website and thus not covered.
Sincerely,
Danios.
March 7th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
“Seems like Spencer et al. are really pushing this taqiyya stuff!”
Yes, it’s a useful trick they use when they’re refuted. Instead of making a counter argument that they know they can’t make, they have to claim that it’s taqiyya, the Muslims are lying to you, you can’t trust anything they say. In the case of the non-Muslims, it’s radical leftist Islamic apologetics! So I think people want to see this refuted because they’re sick of people calling excellent refutations “taqiyya”. Better destroy that issue first so that they are forced to address the merits of the actual refutation. It would also be nice for those who are sincere, but are ignorant about Islam, to understand these obscure meanings that they are not easily misled. Then again, your refutation of taqiyya can be considered taqiyya as well. LOL maybe you can’t win these people.
But of course jihad is very important, I will be looking forward to your series on that. It’s an issue more important than “dhimmitude”. I thought you could take care of this annoyance of “taqiyya” first so that we can direct people to it who would bring it up during the discussion on jihad.
I agree with you about #11, but I included it for readers to be aware of other things that are part of the anti-Islam discourse. If I may, islamic-awareness.org handles these kind of theological issues well that Muslim readers of loonwatch should check out.
I’d also wouldn’t mind seeing Banu Qurayza addressed. It’s a historical issue during Muhammad’s time and brought up all the time by the usual suspects.
March 7th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
“Rather, the goal is to curb the hateful rhetoric of the hate-mongers.”
Yep – when an imam in some place shouts that Jews and Christians are the descendants of pigs and apes or similar, and very real riots ensue in which people die, we should deal with the big matters – like a claim about Islam in a book written by Robert Spencer.
Then the middle 80% will never think to question that Islam is anything other than completely-peaceful with the odd “insane” terrorist acting in its name, and that the imam will be free to say anything he likes at Friday prayers without any repercussions – whether it’s about pigs and apes, uncovered meat or anything else he can think of to stir his flock into action.
Defend the bullies, and muzzle the critics. I must admit, a great plan for the next level of Jihad. There’s just one problem – the Jihad genie is out the bottle, and no matter how many words you write refuting Spencer’s works, it’s the real world that will shape people think. Because when push comes to shove, anyone can prove anything, and win any argument. It’s why lawyers win cases impossible to win, and the party with the “best” plan loses the election.
So – there’s only one REAL way to change the situation. Quit the attacks, quit the hating, quit the Nazi-style laws on marriage, proselytising and conversion, quit behaviour that makes it seem as though Islam is out to conquer the World. Actions speak louder than words – and if the actions go away, so will the hatemongers’ reason for existence, and we can all go back to at most arguing about last night’s football.
That’s my two pence worth anyway.
March 7th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
AntiJihadist:
You present a false “either-or” situation. As if we can only tackle the extremist Muslims OR the Islamophobes. Rather, we can–and should–oppose both.
This site is dedicated to the latter group, and hence it would be outside of its scope to tackle extremist Muslims. This is simple common sense.
Furthermore, I do not think the Islamophobic propaganda is as innocuous as you say it is. Rather, it has very real consequences: the far right wing, neo-cons, Islamophobes, extreme religious right, and what have you play a very big role in leading our country down the path of war…Wars that lead to many innocent people dying. Additionally, these wars fuel the extremists, which I assume you want to stop.
Let me be very clear: I support anyone who opposes extremist Muslims in peaceful ways, so long as they do not demonize the entire Muslim community (or the faith itself) in the process.
Lastly, I think the words “quit the hating” coming from a hate-monger like yourself is real thick.
Anyways, it’s been real fun, guys…Glad I had a free weekend to interact with people!
Sincerely,
Danios.
March 7th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Wow. Spencer is looking like a roach under this guy’s slipper right about now… Danios, you’re shredding this guy apart with your common sense, and confident analysis of language, history, religion, and truth… The Catholic Crusader on the other hand knows only one weapon “vitriol against the Islamic infidels” just as the article says… it’s lovely to watch the disgraceful fall of spencer
March 7th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
“Furthermore, I do not think the Islamophobic propaganda is as innocuous as you say it is. Rather, it has very real consequences: the far right wing, neo-cons, Islamophobes, extreme religious right, and what have you play a very big role in leading our country down the path of war…”
Yes there have been wars fought and this is fuelled by rhetoric, but didn’t even you claim that neocons such as Daniel Pipes disagreed with Spencer about the problem being Islam itself? There are many who believe Islam is violent who did not want the Iraq war – and there are others on the Left who deny this, yet say the Iraq war was the wrong choice as it would “wake up a hornets’ nest” – imlying similar, unless you think hornets are peaceful at heart.
Good that you agree extremist Muslims should be tackled – however your site is called “Loonwatch.com”. From which I would expect a watch on ALL loons, not just anti-Muslim ones. What about communist loons, creationist loons – or yes, even “Muslim loons”?
But even if tackling extremist Muslims was “outside Loonwatch’s scope”, isn’t this precisely what Jihadwatch is doing? Just from this weekend’s headlines – Adam Gadahn’s arrest (or not), US searching for “radicalised” Americans overseas, Ahmedinejad about 9/11, Muslims targetting gays in California, Jihad attack in Russia. All about Muslim loons some would say are much more loony than Spencer – and definitely much more dangerous.
As for “the faith itself” being demonised – we are free to demonise Left, Right, Republicans, Democrats, Communism, Capitalism… Christians and Jews have suffered this historically, and worse… so why should any faith be free from this? Let alone one which dictates every aspect of life, and even how a nation should be run, such as Islam?
Lastly – you say I’m a hatemonger after I’ve engaged you in the “debate” you say you’re after. So – apart from my moniker, where exactly is this hatemongering? Or is this the way you see anyone criticising Islam?
March 7th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
“Yes there have been wars fought and this is fuelled by rhetoric, but didn’t even you claim that neocons such as Daniel Pipes disagreed with Spencer about the problem being Islam itself?”
I have never claimed that neocons like Daniel Pipes said that. In fact, he says the exact opposite, namely that extremist Muslims hold positions that are theologically stronger and grounded in the Islamic tradition. This is the same position as Spencer, namely that the extremists are “true Muslims” following their religion properly. Please see Nat’s excellent post in the Protocols of the Elders of Mecca comments section. He said it much better than I can.
“There are many who believe Islam is violent who did not want the Iraq war”
Please name them.
“and there are others on the Left who deny this, yet say the Iraq war was the wrong choice as it would “wake up a hornets’ nest” – imlying similar, unless you think hornets are peaceful at heart.”
Are you comparing Muslims to hornets?
As for my view, it is that occupation breeds terrorism. It is not particular or peculiar to Muslims. It is only bigots who think to themselves: we shouldn’t attack Muslims because they are violent hornets. Nice to know how your brain works though.
“From which I would expect a watch on ALL loons, not just anti-Muslim ones. What about communist loons, creationist loons – or yes, even “Muslim loons”?”
The site is only about anti-Muslim loons, which is why it is referred to as the “Ultimate Islamophobia Watch website.” Please use common sense.
“But even if tackling extremist Muslims was “outside Loonwatch’s scope”, isn’t this precisely what Jihadwatch is doing?”
As I said to you before, if JihadWatch was only criticizing extremist Muslims, I would support the site. But that site is demonizing the Muslim community and the Islamic faith itself. Do you deny this? Can you deny it with a straight face?
Again, please read Nat’s comment in the other article.
“All about Muslim loons some would say are much more loony than Spencer – and definitely much more dangerous.”
Your opinion. I think Robert Spencer is a very dangerous man. I have already explained the danger that Islamophobes like him pose.
“As for “the faith itself” being demonised – we are free to demonise Left, Right, Republicans, Democrats, Communism, Capitalism”
And I am free to refute you.
“Lastly – you say I’m a hatemonger”
Yup. Take your heart out of your chest, wash all the hate out, and put it back in. You will feel like a much better person. I was a hate-filled person before, and after I renounced it–and dedicated my life to refuting such hate-filled people–I felt much better about myself.
Sincerely,
Danios.
March 7th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Thanks for your support, Rogain!
March 7th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Danios you’re doing a great job my friend.
March 7th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
“quit the Nazi-style laws on marriage”
I am really confused about that. Considering, my Islamic marriage could hardly rank with goose stepping.
My wife made all the stipulations in our marriage contract. It wasn’t an arranged marriage, and for all practical purposes she is the one running the show…so yeah.
March 8th, 2010 at 2:13 am
@ dale
Maybe he means the femi-nazi style laws on marriage.
March 8th, 2010 at 3:21 am
“As for “the faith itself” being demonised – we are free to demonise Left, Right, Republicans, Democrats, Communism, Capitalism… Christians and Jews have suffered this historically, and worse… so why should any faith be free from this? Let alone one which dictates every aspect of life, and even how a nation should be run, such as Islam?”
Thats not what j-watch does and you know it. J-watch demonises muslims, all of them because even the most peaceful ones swell the numbers of Muslims and cannot be trusted because of taqqiya. J-watch is laying the intellectual groundwork for the forced removal of Muslims, the vectors of Islam, the ideology.
No one buys the robert-spencer-is-just-reporting-on-what-extremists-say, not even you.
March 8th, 2010 at 4:22 am
Well said Langsammer ; To report as fact with out opinion the garbage on JW and other sites is the same as writing it.
March 8th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Danios:why don”t you expose your true Identity first before you challenge Intellectual heavy weights like Spencer.You do not seem to have any clout and you are like barking dogs which seldom bite.Have you written any book so far to justify your credibility.You just like to hear praises by equally brainless Muslim supporters.Try to get rid of your delusions of grandeur.You live in the West but despise its values which is very typical of every Muslim.Just go back where you came from and enjoy the bliss of Islamic freedom and justice in the hell hole of some Islamic Paradise.
March 8th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
“challenge Intellectual heavy weights like Spencer”
LOLOL!! Funniest line of the day. Let me know when Spencer produces ONE peer-reviewed journal article on Islam.
March 8th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
@ Milad:
I lol’d at “equally brainless Muslim supporters.” first, not everyone her is Muslim, and second, I think the best people to define a religion are its FOLLOWERS. Yes, anyone can inform anyone else about Islam. But it’s the Muslims who should decide who’s right or not.
March 8th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
@milad:
What a stupid, irrelevant comment. Calling a fraud like Spencer an ‘intellectual heavyweight’ does a disservice to real intellectuals who exert themselves to the nth degree, to keep honesty and objectivity in their work.
Danios (irrespective of whether its his real name) has much more clout than old Spinster since his articles go into far more depth than the repetitively hateful garbage turned out by the JW crowd. Nor do people here at LoonWatch have any significant delusions of grandeur…Regardless of whether they’re perfect or not..all they do is respond to the loon’s constant barrage of rubbish. Compare that with those lovably cooky JW-ers and their ilk who claim to be on some self-proclaimed quest to ‘save Western Civilization’ from Mooozlim hordes or some other delusional bullshit like that.
Where has ‘hatred for the West’ been shown by Danios exactly?….the only ‘typical’ thing here is the tendency your lot have to paint all Muslims with the same brush as some high-profile idiot (like Anjem Choudhry) who have little to no credibiltiy and live to rant on street corners.
Telling someone to ‘go back where they came from’ is the last sigh of the racist. And the answer is quite simply ‘because he’s already there’….why don’t you go back to Wankerville?…:P
March 9th, 2010 at 3:07 am
milad
Very funny shall we run a competition to name other interlectual heavy weights like the bumbling Robert Spencer? I had a look on the JW web site ,poor fare indeed ,full of begging adverts and hate . The interlectual heavyweight who seem to support young Robert , Pipes ,Batty Or and Pam Geller are unfortunetly of the same standing. I wonder what qualifications they have . Are they all professors of long standing ? well known teachers ? All with Doctorates ?
Er…………………no.
They are all promoting each other in the hope that it gives the patina of scolarship and respectability to there racist anti islamic cant and rant.
Sorry a pitiful try but no prizes
March 9th, 2010 at 4:41 am
Why would any muslim scholar or even small student waste their time with a person who doesnt have a small command of the arab language and has no understanding of any of the islamic sciences??????????????????
March 9th, 2010 at 6:21 am
Spencer. “Heavyweight”, definitely. “Intellectual”, Nope.
March 9th, 2010 at 11:30 am
wait. When was danios a bigot?
March 9th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Danios great job. All the LW writers are proud of you! I think threatening LW writers is going to become a past time for Spencer.
March 10th, 2010 at 2:36 am
Danios –
“didn’t even you claim that neocons such as Daniel Pipes disagreed with Spencer about the problem being Islam itself?” — “I have never claimed that neocons like Daniel Pipes said that. In fact, he says the exact opposite, namely that extremist Muslims hold positions that are theologically stronger and grounded in the Islamic tradition.”
If you didn’t then my bad. Maybe it was someone else, but it was on this website.
“There are many who believe Islam is violent who did not want the Iraq war” — “Please name them.”
The British National Party for starters. Strongly-opposed the Iraq war, while also hating Muslims. The Daily Mail was also one of the British papers strongest opposing the Iraq war, while playing host to the likes of Melanie Phillips and criticising Islam. I’ll assume many of its supporters also fit in that bracket.
“and there are others on the Left who deny this, yet say the Iraq war was the wrong choice as it would “wake up a hornets’ nest” — “Are you comparing Muslims to hornets?”
Nope, that was in fact a left-winger on a talkboard who mostly opposed the Iraq war and defended Muslims.
“It is only bigots who think to themselves: we shouldn’t attack Muslims because they are violent hornets. Nice to know how your brain works though.”
As I made clear previously – it was in fact a (Muslim-defending) left-winger who made that (implied) comparison.
“As I said to you before, if JihadWatch was only criticizing extremist Muslims, I would support the site. But that site is demonizing the Muslim community and the Islamic faith itself. Do you deny this? Can you deny it with a straight face?”
Yep – why would Jihadwatch have anything against people born as Muslims who merely watch the soccer and integrate — or even those who pray five times a day, but who do not live by the violent or supremacist lines of the Quran? Has he explicitly attacked all Muslims anywhere?
“The site is only about anti-Muslim loons, which is why it is referred to as the “Ultimate Islamophobia Watch website.””
Well, it’s still advertised as a site “watching loons”. But not that relevant. If I’m a loon, then I’m proud to be one.
“All about Muslim loons some would say are much more loony than Spencer – and definitely much more dangerous.” — Your opinion.
If it’s only “my opinion” that fanatic Muslims who actually KILL those they don’t like are more dangerous – then you must think criticism of Islam is just as bad, or even worse, than murder. The hallmarks of a fanatic.
“I was a hate-filled person before, and after I renounced it–and dedicated my life to refuting such hate-filled people–I felt much better about myself.”
What, you’re not even hating Spencer or Jihadwatch? Sometimes the biggest haters are those who accuse others of just that.
“Take your heart out of your chest, wash all the hate out, and put it back in. You will feel like a much better person.”
Please – me hating, when my religion says “Love your enemy”? True, I might be against certain totalitarian ideas – like Nazism, Communism or Islam. But why hate people, who had no choice over being Muslim – and might actually dislike the violent texts of their religion? If anything, they can only be pitied.
That said – if it can be proven that Islam is not at heart promoting violence, supremacism or taking over parts of the world by various means, I will all too gladly accept that. As I suspect would Spencer, Geller and most others. Being under attack is generally NOT something people like to be!
March 10th, 2010 at 2:48 am
““quit the Nazi-style laws on marriage” – I am really confused about that.”
So – can a Christian man marry a Muslim woman in Egypt?
” J-watch demonises muslims, all of them because even the most peaceful ones swell the numbers of Muslims and cannot be trusted because of taqqiya.”
Yes, actions speak louder than words. Especially if there is something like Taqiyya. But “all Muslims cannot be trusted because of Taqiyya” versus “those Muslims that are violent will seem peaceful because of Taqiyya”… can you not see the difference?
“J-watch is laying the intellectual groundwork for the forced removal of Muslims, the vectors of Islam, the ideology.”
Why are you talking about “laying the groundwork”, when there are actually people right now being persecuted because of their religion all around the world? Ok I forgot, they’re Christians in such ‘naturally-backward’ places like Egypt or Pakistan, so I guess they don’t count. But still, surely even you admit it’s a lot more than “laying the groundwork”, as is comments such as “Jews and Christians are descendants of pigs and apes” which are spoken during sermons in the Middle East?
“No one buys the robert-spencer-is-just-reporting-on-what-extremists-say, not even you.”
If you find a better source for reporting what Islamic extremists say, let me know. But for sure, it’s not anywhere in the mainstream media.
March 10th, 2010 at 11:43 am
AntiJ:Please – me hating, when my religion says “Love your enemy”?
Do you love satan?
March 11th, 2010 at 4:17 am
Read the old testament. It is far more violent then the quran.
March 11th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
As-salam alaikum,
Haq has to be hurled against Baatil & our Danios is a veritable Olympian Gold medallist!
How about passing on more tips on how to the search for truth & present it effectively for the upcoming generations?
My personal tip is to go back to the O.E.D. (dictionary) & see if the meanings & context fit the usage e.g. radical is derived from the Latin for root, so radicalism implies a going back to the roots, not away from them as is so often implied.
Allah hafiz
March 18th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Anti-Jihadist,
Please wake up from your pretend world that Christians are all good and dandy all over the world and do nothing bad. Your a typical “if we do it it’s ok and right but if others do it then HELL NO!” Robert Spencer and his website is awfully hateful and they’re extremists! Don’t come here and try to defend their hate while accusing this site of hate? What is your IQ level? I know republicans are not know to be very intelligent people but come on! Robert Spencer and not wanting hate against Muslims? Your blind. And don’t give me that “love your enemy” BS. Bunch a hypocrites! They don’t follow that principal in the least! If anything they talk behind the “enemy’s” back, ridicule them, offend them and their beliefs, pick on them, treat them like NOTHING and then they say “Oh I’m Christian and my religion says to love my enemy.” COMPLETE BULL! Does your religion also tell your elites and most noble people (priests) to rape and abuse kids as is front page news nowadays?
Danios,
Great work man, you nailed Spencer! He got NOTHIN on you.
March 18th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
@ anti j:
I’m not a heavyweight debater like other commentors on this site. However:
“Yep – why would Jihadwatch have anything against people born as Muslims who merely watch the soccer and integrate — or even those who pray five times a day, but who do not live by the violent or supremacist lines of the Quran? Has he explicitly attacked all Muslims anywhere?”
To answer ur last question, you need not look further then the sidebar of jihadwatch, where the Mohammad cartoons (or Motoons as some ppl obnoxiously call it). Spencer has
also compared Islam to a fascist ideology previously in his site.
Some of the responses to the Mohammad cartoons were obviously fanatical, but many Muslims in my community simply decided to boycott Danish products. As you probably know, Mohammad is a central figure to all Muslims, so yes, Spencer insults all Muslims by having these cartoons in his site.
March 18th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
(continued):
“That said – if it can be proven that Islam is not at heart promoting violence, supremacism or taking over parts of the world by various means, I will all too gladly accept that. As I suspect would Spencer, Geller and most others. Being under attack is generally NOT something people like to be!”
your acting as if their position is a fact and not an opinion. No, the conclusion of Islam being a violent religion is only an opinion, and a pretty biased one. I remember my mom getting an email saying that the leader of the switz campaign to ban minarets actually CONVERTED to Islam. Many people study Islam like Spencer but don’t come up with the same conclusion as him.
That’s the problem with spencers site and books. Many ppl don’t KNOW all the nessacary knowledge of the Quran or Islam to be able to see his half truths and deception. For example, I remember reading chapter one of the politically incorrect guide to Islam, and I remember the exact words: “when even Mohammads uncle refused to accept Islam, Mohammad cursed him in violent language is preserved in the Quran to this day.”
error 1: this is NOT mohammads words. This is actually Allah himself speaking and not the words of Mohammad.
Error 2: more importantly, the situation in which these verses were revealed are crucial. Basically, the prophet Mohammad called the tribe of quraish to the top if a mountain and asked them to believe in Allah and beware of his punishment. In response, abu lahab (his own uncle!) said “may you perish!” afterwards, the verses were revealed.
This account is something that I learned in 6th grade. Great scholarship!
March 19th, 2010 at 2:15 am
Great response Imad!! Keep it up bro
March 19th, 2010 at 11:36 am
“But ‘All Muslims cannot be trusted because of Taqiyya” versus “those Muslims that are violent will seem peaceful because of Taqiyya’”
if u go on jihadwatch and write a comment simply saying ur a Muslim, you are immediatly accused of taqiyyah. Also, according to the second statement, well, ANY muslim is prone to violence, not because their Muslim but simply because their human. Because of that, any Muslim can fit into either category.
March 19th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Imad,
Daniel Streich, the politician you’re referring to was NOT the leader of the campaign to ban minarets. He was simply a member of the Swiss People’s Party at the time. Having converted to Islam 2 years previously, he left the party in protest at the campaign. Either you simply made a mistake in relating the story or you’re one of those individuals who love to stretch the truth in order to display the ‘superior’ nature of their faith.
March 20th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
@ Juan p:
that was a mistake, and I hate it when ppl strech the truth. I see ppl do it often with the marriage to Aisha, and islamophobes see right through it and say that they do this cuz their ashamed or can’t debate it and simply whitewash it instead. Thx for pointing out my mistake.
June 17th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Hey Danios,
I’m 17, not the smartest kid in the world, and I’m Muslim. I hate extremism, I hate rape, I hate w/e it is that apparently applies to “all Muslims”, which is why the whole Western World is afraid of us. I live in Canada. My parents are normal, regular, kind people. The mosque I go to has some of the nicest people I’ve ever met, but just in general, I like everybody, and fit in, at least now.
In Grade 4, back before I understood what racism was (a bit slow
), my teacher singled me out in the class. I was absent on September 11th, 2001, and she spent the rest of the year cracking jokes on how I flew a plane into the twin towers. On the first day, she asked who in the class was Muslim, and I was the only one to raise my hand.
I really don’t get the point of hitting the whole Muslim population with all of these generalizations (if anyone wants to own me in a debate, go ahead, I’m not good at it). Hatred is a part of human nature, and it can be manipulated easily. In the middle east, the conditions there alone fuel the hatred. Islam is used as an excuse by the the Imams, who frankly, couldn’t care less about the teachings.
I don’t really know where I’m going with all this, but some of my childhood was pretty shitty, not being able to be friends with certain kids in Elementary school because “my mom says not to play with Muslims”. I’d like to thank you for standing up for guys like me, who like being Muslim, but don’t want to kill anybody. I don’t get what the whole Jihad of the world bs is. It’s tough enough to fit in.
And just so everyone knows, I am absolutely against all the shit that is happening by extremist Muslims in the middle east. Just about a month ago, a mosque in Pakistan that was home to many Muslim people of my sect, was bombed and attacked in Lahore. Around 60 people were killed, and it recieved quite a lot of coverage. Instead of condemning these attacks, most of the people commenting on it just talked about how barbaric the Muslims are, killing eachother. I wish the focus could just be to prevent ANY group of people from getting hurt, or singled out. Pointing a finger at moderate muslims, who in fact, PROTEST everything by the extremists, doesn’t help. Trust me, there is a lot of stuff out there about moderate Muslims condemning extremist attacks and beliefs, but there’s no fun in focusing on that is there.
My post comes from some pretty limited knowledge, and more personal experience. I’d just like to thank you Danios, from the bottom of my heart, for letting me know that there are people out there, outside from the friends I know, who can look past the fear of “Islamization” and just realize that people are people, regardless of who they are, and that generalizing a billion people won’t help anyone in the long run.
Thank you Danios, and I can understand you probably won’t agree with everything I say, as there is a lot of bias in it, but I just appreciate what you are doing. Thank you
June 19th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Keep up the good work. Eventually people like Spencer will be fully exposed for what they are. Many of the casual islamophobes who sheepishly follow him will feel great shame at being duped by that conman!
I especially hate the nativity tones that his cohorts use, as if being a third or fourth generation immigrant makes them genetically American or something.