A few days ago, it looked like Robert Spencer of JihadWatch had stopped running away from me and finally agreed to debate me.
But then (surprise, surprise), Spencer tried weaseling out of the debate.
One of Spencer’s sticking points was the issue of venue and moderator. I had recommended Salon Radio, whereas he suggested ABN Sat (a loony anti-Muslim Christian channel with shows like Jihad Exposed). In our email exchanges, Spencer kept insisting that ABN is “neutral” (ha!).
The funny thing is that in my initial email to Spencer I pointed out that he always tends to only debate on Christian or conservative channels. This observation angered Spencer to no end, who insisted that he would “debate anywhere.” He even seemed to accept Salon as the venue for the debate.
Spencer then had an about-face, rejecting Salon, and once again bringing up ABN, reinforcing what I said earlier: Spencer’s M.O. has been to debate Muslim floozies on Christian or conservative channels, only to then thump his chest when he wins. The fact that I suggested Salon (a respectable and award-winning site) and Spencer kept insisting on ABN Sat (a loony anti-Muslim Christian channel) speaks volumes about what company we prefer: I like the legendary Glenn Greenwald, whereas he likes loony Christian bigots.
The choice of ABN was designed to stack the cards in his favor. That’s fine. I am so utterly confident in the searing truth of my argument–and the absolute falsity of his–that I accept ABN as the venue and moderator of the debate.
[Naturally, I would insist that they give me equal time to speak, reproduce the debate in its full, unedited form, and give our website (and any other website) the right to reproduce our own recording of the debate. (Spencer has already agreed to a 2-3 hour long debate; if this is too long for ABN to air on their show, they can do what the Daily Show does by airing the first part of the debate and then putting the rest of it online.)]
Readers should understand this decision of mine (i.e. accepting such a hostile venue and moderator) as a reflection of my low regard for Robert Spencer’s arguments and views. This is especially bold of me, considering the fact that he has engaged in numerous debates whereas I am a novice in this field: I prefer written medium. Even so, I have absolutely no doubt that I will trounce him in debate.
Now that I have accepted Robert Spencer’s own choice of venue and moderator–one that is heavily slanted in his favor–what excuse will Spencer come up with to avoid debating me?
* * * * *
I must, however, insist on the following thesis:
Islam is more violent than other religions, specifically Judaism and Christianity.
As I stated before, this is not just the main theme in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), but it is even the title of one of his books: Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t. More than this, it reflects the fundamental difference between he and I: whereas I accept the violent and intolerant aspect inherent in all religious traditions, Spencer specifically targets Islam.
Under this thesis, I will individually debate the following sub-points:
1. The Islamic prophet was more violent and warlike than the Judeo-Christian prophets. This is the main argument in chapter 1 of Spencer’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), entitled “Muhammad: Prophet of War”. On p.4, Spencer compares Muhammad to Jesus and to all other prophets in order “to emphasize the fallacy of those who claim that Islam and Christianity–and all other religious traditions, for that matter–are basically equal in their ability to inspire good or evil…[T]hrough the words of Muhammad and Jesus, we can draw a distinction between the core principles that guide the faithful Muslim and Christian.” In fact, throughout his book Spencer has sidebars that compare Muhammad to Jesus. (Yet, somehow when you refute this, it’s a “tu quoque fallacy!”)
2. The Quran is more violent and warlike than the Bible. This is the focus of chapter 2, which he entitles “The Qur’an: Book of War”. On the very first page of this chapter (p.19), Spencer states unequivocally: “There is nothing in the Bible that rivals the Qur’an’s exhortations to violence.” (When I want to refute this claim, then “tu quoque, tu quoque!”) He says on the same page: “The Qu’ran is unique among the sacred writings of the world in counseling its adherents to make war against unbelievers.” On pp.26-31, Spencer explains why the Quran is far more violent and warlike than the Bible. (But refute this claim and you are guilty of committing a “tu quoque fallacy.”)
3. The Islamic religious tradition was more violent and warlike than the Jewish and Christian traditions. This is what chapter 3 of his book is about, entitled “Islam: Religion of War”. This argument is also spread throughout his book and blog. For example, on p.31, Spencer argues that in Judaism and Christianity there have been “centuries of interpretive traditions” that have moved away from violent and warlike understandings, whereas “[i]n Islam, there is no comparable interpretative tradition.” Chapter 14 of his book is entitled “Islam and Christianity: Equivalent Traditions?” (But if you question this point by showing that yes indeed the two traditions are at least equally violent, then get ready to be accused of committing “tu quoque!”)
4. Contemporary Muslims interpret their religion in a much more violent and warlike way than Jews and Christians. Again, this claim is found throughout his book and blog; on p.31, for example, he argues that, unlike Muslims, “modern-day Jews and Christians…simply don’t interpret [their scripture] as exhorting them to violent actions against unbelievers.”
5. Jews had it much better in Christian Europe than the Muslim world. This is addressed in chapter 4 of Spencer’s book, in which he talks about “dhimmitude.” On the very first page of this chapter, he states: “The idea that Jews fared better in Islamic lands than in Christian Europe is false.” (OK, so are you ready to defend this statement of yours, Spencer? Or do you cry “tu quoque, tu quoque” when asked to do so?) Spencer quotes “[h]istorian Paul Johnson” (a conservative Christian ideologue–surprise, surprise) who says: “the Jewish dhimmi under Moslem rule was worse than under the Christians,” and Spencer himself says that “the Muslim laws were much harsher for Jews than those of Christendom.” (But ask Spencer to defend that statement and see how it’s automatically a “tu quoque fallacy” to do so.)
6. Islamic law, unlike Judaism and Christianity, permits lying and deception against unbelievers. This is the import of chapter 6 of Spencer’s book, entitled ”Islamic Law: Lie, Steal, and Kill”. On the very first page of this chapter, Spencer argues that “Islam doesn’t have a moral code analogous to the [Judeo-Christian] Ten Commandments” and that “the idea that Islam shares the general moral outlook of Judaism and Christianity is another PC myth.” On p.84, he writes that Islam is alone among religions and civilizations in that it fails to espouse “[u]niversal moral values.” On the very next page, Spencer bellows: “This is what sets Islam sharply apart from other religious traditions.” (Try to disagree and suddenly you will hear chants of “tu quoque, tu quoque!”)
7. Islamic history was more violent and warlike than Jewish and Christian history. This argument is found in chapter 9 of Spencer’s book, entitled “Islam–Spread by the Sword? You Bet”. On the first page of this chapter, Spencer writes: “The early spread of Islam and that of Christianity sharply contrast in that Islam spread by force and Christianity didn’t.” On p.116, Spencer rejects the “myth” that “Christianity and Islam spread in pretty much the same way.” (Reject that claim–and yep, you got it: “tu quoque, tu quoque!”)
8. In the modern day (twentieth and twenty-first century), Muslims are more violent and warlike than Jews and Christians. This is of course the general theme found not only throughout Spencer’s book but also on his blog. This is the ultimate fall-back argument of Islamophobes, who routinely ask: “why are there no Jewish or Christian suicide bombers?”
Spencer claims these are “tu quoque fallacies” (his favorite phrase), but in fact he himself is the one making these comparisons. He makes such comparisons, and then shields himself from all counter-attack by invoking “tu quoque, tu quoque!” How very convenient.
There is a very important reason that Robert Spencer refuses to debate me on this topic and thesis–he knows that he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Even when I let him choose the venue and moderator (one that slants the debate in his favor), he still cannot–at all costs–debate me on the central theme of his book and ideology. That’s why Spencer is not a real scholar: he has never been forced to defend his thesis, nor had his work peer-reviewed, challenged, and intellectually critiqued. I’m merely asking Spencer to defend the substance of his book. This refusal in and of itself is a very powerful reminder of how his ideology is fraudulent, how he himself is nothing more than a hateful ideologue and huckster, and how he is so scared that I will expose him.
The fact that I want to debate him–and that he wants to run away from me–is now self-evident: I have removed any possible barrier by agreeing to his venue and moderator. So, what excuse will Robert Spencer come up with now to chicken out of this debate? Will he continue to run away from me on the one hand and on the other hand continue to lament why no liberal or Muslim will debate him?
Don’t hold your breath for a debate: Spencer can’t debate me. It would be the end of him. So, he will continue to run.
Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011.
January 15th, 2012 at 1:59 am
I dont think this is a good Idea. I know that you will win the debate but because of editing and a biased moderator he will gain credibility which i think will do more harm than good. But I will pray for you and I am sure you can kick that scumbags ass.
Best of Luck. May god be with you.
January 15th, 2012 at 2:38 am
I have insomnia so with enough time on my hands, I am going to make it my mission to refute all eight of Spencer’s points and help Danios out on his debate.
For tonight I am going to refute Point 6. Islamic law, unlike Judaism and Christianity, permits lying and deception against unbelievers.
Moses Maimonides in his “Letter on Apostasy” permitted a Jew to pretend to accept another faith if necessary to save his life. (Thesaurus of Book Digests p. 309). This seems to be the Jewish equivalent of the Muslim taqiyya.
I believe some aspects of the letter is discussed via this link:
http://www.oxfordchabad.org/templates/articlecco_cdo/aid/304583/jewish/Introduction-to-Iggeret-Hashmad-Letter-of-Apostasy.htm
January 15th, 2012 at 2:58 am
I still think it will happen on 30th Feb, Spencer has too much to loose ( ie his Job ) I would take your own recording equipment ,just so you have your own copy of what he says . I dont trust him an inch.
January 15th, 2012 at 3:01 am
Danios, you make a very compelling case as always. Spencer is delusional in that he can never own up to his own shortcomings, lameness, and quirkiness even when almost everyone else on the planet can see it. He simply attacks the messenger while repeatedly and laughably claiming that no one can refute his message, a Porous message he cannot and wil not defend. I am sorry that you have to engage such scum.
January 15th, 2012 at 3:14 am
“Don’t hold your breath for a debate: Spencer can’t debate me. It would be the end of him. So, he will continue to run.”
Indeed. But it would be awesome if he does go through with it.
January 15th, 2012 at 3:15 am
I see no reason to respect Spencer’s arguments, BUT, I don’t think his abilities as a debater should be.
Not because he’s especially good, but because he’s especially tricky. No matter the subject, he will steer the debate towards Muslim atrocities and try to pin the blame on the Koran and Muhammad no matter what.
He’ll also point out any ad hominem thrown at him, and the same should be done to him. He always uses that and for some reason, no one points that out.
He’ll also keep cool and collected. He never loses his mask of civility on air.
January 15th, 2012 at 3:37 am
if this debate happens I am getting the popcorn, but if it does not then yeah it will only affirm how much of a coward spencer really is plus it won’t look good to his fans, but then again those guys would probably believe spencer if he told them drinking large amounts of beer will make you a better driver and that putting your genitals in front of an x ray machine will make you more fertile.
January 15th, 2012 at 4:33 am
One oddity is that Spencer expends so much energy on pretending that Judeo-Christian is the same, when the truth is, Sharia Al Yahud, is rejected by Christianity. As Daniel Pipes, whom Spencer has cited approvingly writes:
The Jewish-Muslim Connection: Traditional Ways of Life
by Daniel Pipes
Notwithstanding these points, Judaism and Christianity differ profoundly in religious terms; the real resemblance is between Judaism and Islam.
Point three above, is something that even Jewish Islamophobic ‘historians’, disagree on with Spencer. For example, Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis are just two who believe traditional Christian memes against Jews were transmitted by European colonisation of the Middle East, especially by the Nazis during World War Two.
The following two links are book reviews by Daniel Pipes. If you havn’t already read these books Danios, they may help you in your debate with Spencer. He is an ally of Spencer, so Spencer can hardly accuse him of being a ‘leftist’ or ‘Islam loving dhimmi’.
The Jew As Ally of the Muslim: Medieval Roots of Anti-Semitism
http://www.danielpipes.org/33/the-jew-as-ally-of-the-muslim-medieval-roots-of-anti
The Cutlers marshall a variety of textual and pictoral proof to make their case that medieval Christians saw a deep connection between Jew and Muslim. To take one of each: An influential twelfth-century Christian text includes the bizarre statement that “A Jew is not a Jew until he converts to Islam.” The woodcut in a book of religous disputation published in 1508 pictures a Jewish and a Muslim figure: while the Jewish figure carries a banner with the name “Machometus” (Muhammad), the Muslim’s banner depicts a Jew’s hat.
and
The authors strongly believe that medieval Christian perceptions remain a force today, that the notion of Jewish-Muslim alliance still fuels anti-Semitism.
Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World
http://www.danielpipes.org/33/the-jew-as-ally-of-the-muslim-medieval-roots-of-anti
But two powerful, important books have set the record straight. Djihad und Judenhass (2002) by Matthias Küntzel, translated into English in 2007 as Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11, shows the continuing influence of Nazi ideas on Islamists. Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World by Jeffrey Herf focuses on an earlier time, the 1930s-40s, and the major effort by Hitler and his minions to transmit their ideas to the Middle East. After reading Küntzel and Herf, I realize that my education about the modern Middle East was lacking a vital ingredient, the Nazi one.
January 15th, 2012 at 5:41 am
Personally, I would never have chosen ABN. That you have done so, Danios, shows just how much confidence you have in your arguments and leaves me more assured than ever that you will deliver to him the intellectual bitch slap he was destined to receive.
January 15th, 2012 at 5:53 am
Don’t get cocky Danio’s.
Compare your debate with Spencer to debates between scientists and creationists. While the latter have no leg to stand on, there is a reason why scientists supporting evolution will not often debate creationists in a hostile setting. Its because these kind of debates are not won based on the merits of the arguments but on rhetorical abilities.
If you loose Danio’s, it will be disastrous to your credibility.
January 15th, 2012 at 7:18 am
Above, I meant to write “point five”, not ‘point three’ at the begininning of the third paragraph.
January 15th, 2012 at 7:59 am
The problem with debating you is that Spencer would have to spend most of his time in the debate correcting your mistakes.
You’ve made plenty of outright historical and factual errors in your recent articles, let alone your habit of spinning history.
Spencer should debate you on Jihad and nothing more. If you agree with everything Spencer says on Jihad then, and only then, can the topic of discussion move on to a comparison with other religions.
January 15th, 2012 at 9:02 am
To equalize the balance of debate, put some topic that also puts Spencer on the defense. In these topics its about Spencer saying any nonsense he wants while others have to do hardwork to unravel the nonsense. And at the end of the debate Spencer can walk out without any problems because all he did was attempt an offensive attack while no threat to his defense.
Secondly, make sure the debate is properly recorded and open to all such that there does not emerge disputes over somebody suppressing this or that, diverting the crux of the debate.
January 15th, 2012 at 9:09 am
This punk Spencer is nothing but a barking, rabid dog who should be ignored at best. No matter what, he’ll keep moving the goal post.
By the way, I am a practicing Shia and his ridiculous theories are absolutely null and void when we look at them from our view point. The Sunni followers and real Islamic scholars & true intellectuals like Danios and others would understand. I do not want that fat bastard Spencer to know what we know. Why should he? Neither has he been with more than 20 Muslims nor does he even know Arabic. Religions are supposed to be faith based and we know what is right or wrong.
i don’t want to disclose more as than it would be like the classic idiom; casting pearls before a swine. And we all know Spencer loves pigs mainly because he himself is one.
Good luck, Danios!
January 15th, 2012 at 9:23 am
Robert Spencer, you should be ashamed of yourself, you pseudo-intellectual, psychotic bastard!
Here is a cut and paste of an embarrassing letter by real University intellectual & scholar, Marl LeVine.
Mark LeVine is a professor of history at the University of California, Irvine. He is also a musician. He received his B.A. in comparative religion and biblical studies from Hunter College and his M.A. and Ph.D. from New York University’s Department of Middle Eastern Studies. He speaks Arabic, Hebrew, Turkish, and Persian, as well as Italian, French, German and English.—- from Wikipedia
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
AN OPEN REPLY TO ROBERT SPENCER.
Dear Mr. Spencer
First of all, thanks so much for titling a piece you did about me “Noam Chomsky as Rock Star”:
(http://www.frontpagemag.com/
Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID= 16220)
This is the best blurb I’ve gotten yet for my forthcoming book!
For the record, while at one time I would have liked to have been a rock star, that sad truth is that marriage and children have made constant touring out of the question for the foreseeable future. And while I admire Noam Chomsky, I have never to my knowledge wanted to be Noam Chomsky. Linguistics is just way beyond me; just knowing a few languages is hard enough. Also, I have heard he drinks a lot of coffee. My stomach tolerate take more than a cup a day.
More seriously, however, it seems that you did not read most of what I have written before writing your critique of my work. I say this because I have discussed in detail most every thing you have accused me of not discussing–the origins of Hamas, the immorality and futility of suicide bombings, hatred for Israel and the like. It would be nice to be accused of something that I didn’t do, instead of being accused of not doing something I have in fact done. Then at least I could learn from the criticism, which is always a good thing. Perhaps you just googled a few recent articles of mine and made your judgements from those? It wouldn’t be the first time a conservative has done that. Once the right-wing talk show host Dennis Prager called me a liar on national radio when I told him on his show that I’d witnessed Palestinian marches against suicide bombings. He did so after doing a google search during a commercial break. Unfortunately, the evidence was not googlable because the articles were too old, but was findable on Lexus-Nexus, as I explained to him after the show. He promised to have me on his show again to apologize but has yet to make good on this offer (I have written about the dangers of Google history in war time, if you’re interested:
http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/
03/28/news-levine.php).
You could also have checked my CV, which is online, and found articles in Le Monde, the Christian Science Monitor and Tikkun magazine dealing with these issues. May I suggest that it might be time for you to hire a new research assistant?
Your main issue with me, beside my taste in music and linguists, seems to be that I naively argue for a “hudna” or truce between Americans and Muslims, especially radical Muslims. This is certainly debatable advice on my part. In fact, I offered it precisely so it would be debated. However you, your criticism sadly does not contribute to a much-needed debate; instead it falls into the orientalist trap of trying to use Islamic legal compendiums dating back well over 600 years (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, the author of the source you cite for your analysis of “hudna,” ‘Umdat as-Salik, died in 1386) to define for all times what Muslims think about a particular issue. This is probably not the best way to understand what Muslims think about various issues today; just as basing the opinions of Jews solely on the writings of Maimonedes or even Americans based solely on the views of the authors of the Declaration of Independence (or better, the Magna Carta) would likely produce a distorted understanding of contemporary views. But such thinking is among the primary ideological moves in Orientalism and the larger discourse of imperialism (if saying this makes me a “Saidist”–a term I’ve never encountered before. Shouldn’t it be “Saidian”?–then so be it), as evidenced so well in James Mill’s 1817 primer for British imperial rule of India, the History of India, which argued with great fanfare, and just as great error, that the thousands year old “Laws of Manu” were a primary basis for understanding, and so governing, Hindu society.
This doesn’t mean that some, or many Muslims, might want to use a truce to regroup or grow stronger in order to better attack “us” later. Nor does it mean that some extremist Muslims use medieval texts to justify terrorism or violating agreements (what the US Government uses to justify these things is an equally interesting matter, but it seems not to interest you). But if I were you I’d be a lot more worried about a billion plus Chinese with the fastest growing economy in the world, a huge percentage of America’s debt, burgeoning high-tech sector and a lot of nuclear weapons, than a billion plus Muslims, if you’re looking for the main strategic threat to whoever it is you think the “West” is in the near future.
Moreover, you seem to think that all you need to do to understand Muslims is read religious texts and look at extremists. The 99.9% of Muslims who don’t engage in violence against the West, the vast majority of whom don’t base their life of the ‘Umdat as-Salik (however important it might be for religious scholars), whose lives are incredibly diverse, complex and conflicted, and whose dreams for their futures and those of their children and their societies are in fact quite close to ours, just don’t seem to count much to you. That’s too bad–and if you don’t believe me, believe the report by the Defense Science Board released last week
(http://www.truthout.org/
docs_04/120104V.shtml)
that warns President Bush that Muslims don’t hate our freedom and ideology but rather our support for all those supposedly “moderate” regimes which are in fact incredibly repressive and corrupt governments whose continued existence is owed to US backing.
But let’s get back to your arguments about the untrustworthiness of Muslims when it comes to honoring any hudna “they” might “sign” with “us.” Let’s leave aside the fact that Muslims might have some pretty good reasons not to trust us–in fact, a lot more reasons than we have not to trust them. Let’s just take the example of Hamas, since you seem so knowledgeable, or at least interested, in this group. I have interviewed Hamas people who’ve discussed the truce issue and I have called them on it too. In fact, last time I met with a senior leader in Gaza I asked him whether the death of Oslo meant Hamas would join the calls for a one or binational solution being increasingly advocated by Palestinian and Israeli academics, or even push harder for an explicit Islamic state solution, as mentioned in various core documents of the movement. He looked at me like I was crazy, and actually said, “Are you crazy? We want a divorce, not to live closer to Jews.” You can interpret it however you want. His interpretation, offered in his next sentence with a lot of exasperation, was “Just give us a state and leave us alone already.”
However you want to interpret it, though, the reality is that Muslims have as little ability to “destroy the west” as Hamas has to destroy Israel. In fact, the Asian avian flu that Sec. of Health and Human Services Thompson is suddenly worried about after resigning could easily kill exponentially more people in the next year than Muslims could kill westerners in a hundred years of jihad. Sorry, i know that the threat of jihad to what you call “the West” is your big thing… If you’re worried about loss of life, though, better to change your group’s name from “Jihad Watch” to “Asia Avian Flu Watch”. You’d save a lot more lives that way.
On a few other notes, who exactly do you mean by “aging rock glitteratti” that I supposedly hang “hobnob” with? And what exactly is “hobnobbing”? And since when has Noam Chomsky’s star “faded.” Please correct me if I’m wrong, but last I saw he had lot more bestsellers in the last three years than you and all your friends put together have had in your entire careers. As for Edward Said, didn’t your mother tell you not to speak ill of the dead? And while I would love to take credit for making Chomsky and Said “cool again,” can you show me when they went out of style? You also accuse me of making “no mention of the fact that Chomskyites and Saidists have placed Middle East Studies departments in American universities into an ideological straitjacket that would have made Stalin blush.” That’s because they have done more to open the field from the “ideological straitjacket” of the first three decades of its life as a Cold War invention than almost anyone else. Your argument that they’ve put it in a straitjacket is one made by someone who never has actually read them in any detail and in fact knows absolutely nothing about the field of Middle Eastern studies, most of whose practitioners predicted exactly the terrorism that happened with 9/11 when our Government and spy agencies were busy elsewhere, and who rightly predicted exactly what would happen when the US invaded Iraq (so far that makes it Middle East Studies 2, Bush/Neocons 0 by my count).
In the same way you clearly haven’t read my work in any detail. In fact, this may come as news to you, but Opeds do not the sum total of a scholar’s intellectual production make. We also write articles in journals and even edit and write books, of which mine deal with the very issues you accuse me of not dealing with. How can I accuse you of this? Well, you write “LeVine owes his status [as wunderkind] to his willingness to place the responsibility for the strife between the West and the Islamic world squarely on the shoulders of the West.” And where exactly did I write that I “place responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the West”? Can you please show me where I’ve written that? I’m not saying I haven’t, but I sure don’t remember doing so (perhaps all those years on the road have taken their toll). If I did write that somewhere, then that was not very smart of me and I appreciate your calling it to my attention.
But one think I do know is that almost everything I write I make sure to discuss exactly how and why blame has to be shared, and Muslims like Americans (or Israelis and Palestinians) need to take responsibility for their actions. In my chapter in the book Twilight of Empire: Responses to Occupation
(http://percevalpress.com/
twilight.html)
that I co-edited, I specifically argue this. But now that I think about it, I say that in the very “Truce with the Muslim World” article that clearly got you upset enough to spend 10 minutes or so writing your article about me!
Perhaps you should have read it to the end. Here’s the link: http://www.tomdispatch.com/
index.mhtml?pid=1663.
What I did write was, among other things, “Clearly, a different kind of truce is needed; one that signals the first step in a genuine reappraisal of US (and to a lesser extent European) core positions and interests as well as those of Muslims, so that genuine peace and reconciliation become conceivable.” More to the point, I wrote, “Beyond the criminal minority, the 9-11 report was right to demand that Muslims worldwide confront the violent and intolerant version of their religion that is poisoning their societies and threatening the world at large. Religious leaders and ordinary citizens alike must engage in soul-searching about the toxic tendencies within their own cultures similar to the one they demand of Americans and the West more broadly… Muslim political leaders should begin a process of rapid development of participatory civil societies and hold internationally monitored elections within specified (short) time periods or their regimes will face censure and sanctions by the international community. This is the surest way to build a foundation for defeating terrorism. ”
I dunno, but I think that this is pretty much what you accused me of not writing, isn’t it? And you didn’t have to look any farther than the very article you read. Is it inappropriate for me to suggest that you get some tutoring in effective reading strategies before your next expose?
And while we’re at it, you quoted but never answered or rebutted the following argument of mine: “Not just Palestinian activists, but foreign peace activists and even Israelis are routinely beaten, arrested, deported, or even killed by the IDF, with little fear that the Government of Israel would pay a political price for crushing non-violent resistance with violent means…. Not surprisingly considering this dynamic, a poll I helped direct earlier this year revealed that Hamas has now surpassed the PLO as the most popular Palestinian political movement.” I think it’s a good argument, so thanks for publicizing it. But can you rebut it? I don’t think so…
It’s getting late and my wife is kicking me to stop typing and go to sleep already–I wonder if rock stars and Noam Chomsky have to worry about this when they want to work late. Let me close, Mr. Spencer, by saying that I would be happy to debate you publicly if you’ll take the time actually to read what I write rather than going off about what you wish I’d have written. You have a standing invitation to come to UC Irvine anytime. I’ll get a nice big room and some bottled water. You make arrangements with C-SPAN, as I assume you have better connections there than do I. Not being a rock star, and considering the budget cuts at the University of California, I can’t offer you a free dinner, sorry. However, since you seem to need help thinking straight how about inviting Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis along to help you? I’d love to get the three of you on a stage. For that, I’ll spring for dinner.
I assume you know how to reach me, although I’m not sure why you didn’t bother to do so before writing your wonderfully titled expose.
Best and peace,
Mark LeVine — That’s LeVine with a capital V, not Levine.
History
University of California, Irvine
mlevine
January 15th, 2012 at 9:50 am
The fact that the charlatan has not gleefully announced his participation in this debate on his blog is quite telling.
When he debated that ludicrous ‘imam’ buffoon, he crowed about it on his website. He might try to do this under the radar so that he doesn’t expose himself to his minions.
January 15th, 2012 at 9:50 am
Danios,
If you’re doing it at his venue, how will you be able to maintain anonymity?
January 15th, 2012 at 9:51 am
The EDL is at it again!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/14/edl-supporters-east-london
January 15th, 2012 at 10:44 am
Time to get the debate on.
January 15th, 2012 at 10:47 am
Not a wise decision danios.
You are very good at what you do, but do not underestimate the power of strategy and tactics vs facts.
Do not debate spencer at ABN. Do not Debate Him at Salon. If you truly want a debate that allow you a true opportunity to refute Spencers lies it must be with a live audience at a university. It must have a panel of neutral judges.
If you do it at ABN you are falling into a trap. You know very well Spencer is a con-artisit ..he knows himself that he cannot defeat real facts why do you think he only debates “tomato-cans”.
It will do your fans, and those who hold you in high esteem for the great service you provide, no good to allow your pride to put you in a position of ambush.
Please reconsider and debate this fool in a NUETRAL venue.
January 15th, 2012 at 11:54 am
Liars have no determinations to stand.
Danios, you will win by Will of God.
January 15th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Hate always loses. Sounds romantic but true.
January 15th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
danios is the man !!
January 15th, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Danios, I hope you tear “Jabba the Hutt” a new hole!
InshaAllah, Spencer will be utterly destroyed in this debate, assuming he even accepts to debate.
January 15th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
As long as the debate is open, anyone can come there and record it (if it is streaming). Unaltered recordings, in sufficient numbers, can counteract any edits.
January 15th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Danios
ask him specifically who he’d like to challenge in a debate
try that
January 15th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Be careful, your identity could be exposed. Good luck!
January 15th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
The CROWS of Loonwatchers have already declared DANIOS as winner against Robert Spencer.It seems Danios has already wet his pants out of fear of GIANT OF A SCHOLAR.Has Danios ever written any book on Islam to claim any scholaership?Empty vessels always make much noise.Mohammad,his champion was like a CROW,who saw the PEA-COCKS dancing gracefully.So ,to copy them,he stole their feathers and stuck on himself and joined the peacocks in dancing like them.When the Peacocks started to coo,the crow also tried but got caught because he could only crow.There is no comparison between Judeo-Christian faith and Islam.The first one is divinely Inspred and the latter one Inspired by DEMONIC SPIRIT of Allah.
January 15th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
@WhatAboutJihad:
You guys are *really* scared of the thesis I proposed, huh? haha
January 15th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
@Truth Seeker, aka Halal Pork, Milad, Cartoon, Baloney…etc.
It’s almost as if you’ve waxed poetic…except you lifted this from Aesop’s Fable, The Vain Crow. Still, your garbled version also makes sense, except that Danios is a peacock and Spencer is the crow.
Moral of the story (for Spencer):
“Had you been satisfied with your own feathers, you would have escaped the punishment of your betters, and also the contempt of your equals.”
January 15th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
@Truth Seeker:
A giant of a scholar? Are you absolutely serious? When has Robert Spencer ever published anything in a scholarly journal? When has he ever held a position at a university? When has he, in fact, ever done any original research? When has he ever done any field world? The answer to all of those questions is never.
He knows no Arabic – not a word. Yet he poses as an expert on the Koran and the finer points of its meaning. There is no scholar of Judaism that is taken seriously by anyone who does not know AT LEAST Biblical Hebrew.
Look at where he publishes: Human Events(!) alongside Ann Coulter and Chuck Norris. Frontpage Magazine (which is not a magazine, just a great big blog) and the other clearing houses of right-wing opinion-dressed-as-fact shit. A giant of a scholar, you say? Are you not embarrassed to say that? I’ve written about some of his ‘work’ at the following links. Let me know if this clown is still a scholar in your estimations after reading them:
http://atlantic-right.com/2011/08/17/the-mind-and-scholarship-of-the-charlatan-robert-spencer-part-one/
http://atlantic-right.com/2011/08/18/the-mind-and-%E2%80%98scholarship%E2%80%99-of-the-charlatan-robert-spencer-part-two/
This a man who can’t tell the difference between the Arabic and Persian languages. This is a man who posed on Sun TV as an expert on British social issues, of all things, and claimed that the London riots of last year were started by Jamaicans. See here
http://atlantic-right.com/2011/08/13/jihad-watch-exploits-the-london-riots/
January 15th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
danios spencer is most likely gonna bring up a woman’s status in islam, are you ready on the allegations he’s gonna bring?
January 15th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Christian man tapes one year old girl’s mouth, wrists, and ankles and posts photos on Facebook:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57356073-504083/man-who-bound-daughter-with-tape-indicted-on-felony-charges/
January 15th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
@Truthseeker…
Are you serious man? Spencer, a “giant of a scholar”? Do you think writing in all caps makes it true? And what about writing books? Does writing a book make one a scholar? Or does the substance in the book do that?
You truly are one of Spencer’s minions, aren’t you? Trying to protect your dark and fat master from the intellectual beating he will get?
January 15th, 2012 at 4:42 pm
“Has Danios ever written any book on Islam to claim any scholaership?”
Has Spencer ever written any book on Islam that’s true? NO!
January 15th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
“If you’re doing it at his venue, how will you be able to maintain anonymity?”
That’s what I was wondering.
January 15th, 2012 at 4:52 pm
@ Ali:
That would be a good topic for a second debate with Spencer, but would be considered off-topic in this one, unless it is in relation to war. Nonetheless, I am ready for any potential curve balls like this one. Women in Islam is chapter 5 of his book and as I have said, I am ready to refute every single sentence in his book.
January 15th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
“If you’re doing it at his venue, how will you be able to maintain anonymity?”
It would have to be something like this:
I don’t see what the problem is.
January 15th, 2012 at 5:40 pm
No one who doesn’t know Arabic can ever claim to be a scholar of Islam. That’s like claiming to be a physicist but admitting you don’t know how to add substract divide and multiply. Puhleeeeeez.
January 15th, 2012 at 5:41 pm
It’s clear that Spencer won’t debate unless the deck is completely stacked in his favor so as to ensure him a “victory.” Accepting ABN was itself risky in my opinion; you shouldn’t concede another inch.
On Twitter, Spencer is making it clear that he won’t defend his work’s thesis, claiming it’s “too broad.” He and another Islamophobe are talking amongst themselves about having another debate at a university about whether or not Islam is violent, which of course you should reject. Also, Spencer is again making the ludicrous claim that the Doctrine of Witness never existed.
January 15th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Dear Danios;
I whole heartedly agree that you should debate that fake “scholar” not on ABN or even Salon. But debate him in a University setting under the patronage of real Islamic/Biblical scholars like Juan Cole, Peter Chelkowski, Mark LeVine, Shabbir Ally et el.
Or even better, debate him under banner of Aljazeera Networks or under the wing of Doha Debate’s Tim Sebastian.
Wish you all the best, buddy.
January 15th, 2012 at 7:26 pm
EDL’s online links with Norway killer fuel calls to ban London march
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/29/edl-norway-killer-london-march?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
The government is coming under growing pressure to ban a far-right march through one of the biggest Muslim communities after online links emerged between the English Defence League and the Norwegian killer Anders Behring Breivik.
The group, which has staged a number of demonstrations over the past two years – many of which have descended into violence – is planning to march through Tower Hamlets, east London, on 3 September.
But it came under scrutiny this week after the Norwegian gunman repeatedly praised it in his 1,500-page manifesto, saying he had 600 EDL supporters as Facebook friends and had spoken with “tens of EDL members and leaders”.
The anti-racist organisation Searchlight said Breivik was in touch with EDL supporters as recently as March. But members of the group deny any official contact with Breivik and insist their organisation is peaceful and opposed to extremism.
The links have heightened the opposition to the EDL’s Tower Hamlets march.
Jim Fitzpatrick, the Labour MP for Poplar and Limehouse, who has written to the home secretary to voice his concerns, said: “The connection between Breivik and the EDL is just too shocking to contemplate, and I hope it helps people realise that the EDL are not innocent or the less toxic BNP they portray themselves as.
“Any EDL presence in Tower Hamlets will be seen as a provocation and that risks retaliation from those opposed to the EDL.”
Community leaders and anti-racists say they are preparing a national “show of strength” if the march goes ahead, invoking the 75th anniversary of Cable Street, when people in the East End turned back Oswald Mosley’s blackshirts.
They have re-invigorated a body called United East End, formed last year to confront the threat of an EDL march then, and are planning a large counter demonstration.
January 15th, 2012 at 8:19 pm
I can bet that Danios will find some excuse to avoid this debate .He can foresee the end game.He will lose on all the points and end up licking his wounds for the rest of his days and lose his following on this site.
January 15th, 2012 at 10:47 pm
Truthseekermya$$,
licking his wounds?? LOL in your dreams!
January 16th, 2012 at 12:31 am
Danios writes: I accept the violent and intolerant aspect inherent in all religious traditions …
Violence and intolerance are inherent in human nature, and necessary to humanity’s ecological niche. Religious traditions restrain those and other discordances inherent in human nature. The violence and intolerance are not inherent in the religious traditions.
1. The Islamic prophet was more violent and warlike than the Judeo-Christian prophets.
“Violent and warlike” are distinguishing characteristics of those branches of the human family that evolved in the hostile climates of those regions of the world that were covered in ice during the ice ages, who in order to survive the war of the elements had to violently coerce individual robustness, tenacity, and a readiness to fight. Spencer’s trap in this false premise is to bait opponents into a prophet-by-prophet comparison, starting with Moses and ending with Jesus who reversed the “warlike” characters of the earlier prophets, which Spencer can claim as a denunciation and renunciation “proving” the “judeo-christian” ethic more pacific.
Moses and Israel were given God’s Sword of Justice and explicitly directed to use it on a number of specific occasions. Jesus took that sword away from them and did not give it to those who followed him. Muhammad was later given that sword to be used only in defense, which was a necessity on multiple occasions, some of which involved defending Jewish people from Christian attacks and attempts at genocide, or defending unitarian Christians from Trinitarian attacks. Spencer’s false premise will claim support in the internecine power struggles within the Arab muslim empire, which had nothing to do with the faith that had been corrupted into a tool of tyrants long before. That the prophets were sufficiently “violent and warlike” to survive attacks from others who were much more “violent and warlike” ~ and are still more “violent and warlike” than any other professing adherents of any faith (including Islam) ~ is not an argument for or against any religion, and this contention is primarily a scare tactic, not merely a false comparison.
2. The Quran is more violent and warlike than the Bible.
The Qur’an is more “violent and warlike” than the Roman “New Testament,” which prohibited continuation of Israel’s war against ~ literally ~ everyone else.
This war of Israel against everyone else has never stopped. It is being waged today in its stealth form (“By way of deception shall you do war”) using the time-honored “Let’s you and him fight” strategy. Christian zionists justify Israel’s aggressions in the Middle East, openly waged on Old Testament grounds, as “fulfillment of prophecy” and thus mandated by God. This is a lot more “violent and warlike” even than the Bible, in which Israel’s violence and wars were tightly controlled and constrained within explicit limits ~ the “purity of arms” claim of the Israeli Defense Force, which is another false claim.
Spencer’s trap here is a verse-by-verse comparison, ignoring the Qur’an’s “Rules of war” restraints (which today comprise the international “Laws of war”) and ending with the prohibitions of the Roman “New Testament.” Spencer’s false premise will claim support in the Roman Christian doctrines of “Just war” as the foundations of the modern “Laws of war,” rather than admitting the origins of the “Just war” doctrines in the Qur’an’s “Rules of war” provisions.
3. The Islamic religious tradition was more violent and warlike than the Jewish and Christian traditions.
The Christian mandate is “Give Good News to the nations” ~ an outreach mission beyond Israel to the nations. Islam’s mandate is “Give Good News to the Faithful” ~ entirely within the community of faith and strictly “hands off” of other nations except in defense against them. History shows imperial colonialism as “the white man’s burden” to “civilize the savage” ~ the “savages” being those who had not been given the (Roman) Good News of global Israeli hegemony under the iron rod of Jesus. Once again the trap is word comparison, and the direct refutation of the false premise is in undeniable actions. Muslim Spain resulted from Jewish pleas for protection from Christian suppression of “Christ-killers” ~ Jesuit and Portugese colonies in the Far East had no basis even remotely comparable, they were pure imperialism masked by Christian missionary efforts.
4. Contemporary Muslims interpret their religion in a much more violent and warlike way than Jews and Christians.
Christian zionists have their analogues among the muslims ~ Christian zionists are a near-majority, muslim analogues are diregarded splinter groups even among the fringe parties.
5. Jews had it much better in Christian Europe than the Muslim world.
That’s why Jews fled Christian Europe to the muslim world, and why Iran’s Jewish community refuses to migrate to zionist Israel, and over nine hundred nation expulsions of Jews are European history while Jews and Christians ran domestic affairs in Fatimid Egypt.
I’m sure you already know all this ~ but “I accept the violent and intolerant aspect inherent in all religious traditions …” is quicksand that Spencer can use to bury you, and it occurred to me that the direct refutations of Spencer’s false premises might be useful. The “violent and intolerant aspect” is not in the religious traditions ~ it’s in the violent and intolerant character of secular society, which attacks religious tradition.
The muslims did not attack Makkah ~ they left Makkah to its own devices. Makkah attacked the muslims, fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 21:14-17. The muslims did not attack Byzantine Palestine ~ the Byzantines attacked the muslims and the muslims literally slaughtered the entire Byzantine army, with no quarter, at Yarmuk, near Meggido (as in har-Meggido or “Ar-mageddon”).
Spencer’s real complaint is that an army of soldiers afraid of dying cannot stand against an army of soldiers that prefer death to oppression and welcome death, knowing (not just “believing”) that for them it’s an instantaneous transport to paradise. And Spencer and America’s generals know that’s what’s waiting for them ~ eagerly ~ in Iran.
But as long as the loons can keep Americans blocked from knowing about Islam, with “debatable” false premises and words, then they might be able to drive a Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud some day while they wait for Jesus to come back and save them from themselves ~ which history shows that he didn’t do, at least in “educated” Europe.
January 16th, 2012 at 1:43 am
Danios, I agree that this should take place in a University. I don’t think this debate will happen because Spencer will simply run away and hope everyone forgets. He just wants to satisfy the minions like Truth Seeker and WhatAboutJihad? who have started to question his dignity and come here making BS attacks in vain hopes of defending their misplaced faith in Spencer.
But if it does, the proper venue is an academic one, a place everyone can agree is truly neutral. Don’t let your enthusiasm get in the way of your thinking, you will not have a proper debate with Spencer on ABN and he will just claim victory by posting a heavily edited recording of the debate on his website. Neither will ABN be fair, you yourself admit this. They will allow the debate to go off-topic and attempt to take you down with strawman arguments and shifting goalposts, even if Spencer agrees to your original thesis. Something like this should be moderated by professors, and there we will judge the real academic integrity of Spencer and his so called “scholarship”.
January 16th, 2012 at 2:15 am
sohail writes: Don’t get cocky Danios.
Too late.
Compare your debate with Spencer to debates between scientists and creationists.
No comparison ~ evolution is life’s response to entropy. It explains how God created complex organic living creatures, it does not attempt to explain how DNA, on some other level of consciousness, knows to modify itself in response to an entropic stimulus that did not immediately destroy it. In other words, evolutionary theory (much of which is no longer “theory”) addresses mechanisms of change, not life itself. Creation “theory” simply postulates that God gave us life ~ it cannot be proven, because empirical science cannot forensically prove the existence of God. (However, those who recognize their perceptions as evidence of a perceiver, deductively proving their own existence by empirical means, inductively prove also the necessary existence of a Creator of that perceiver.) There is no inherent conflict between “evolutionary science” and “creation theory.”
Between Danios and Spencer, there is a real conflict of misrepresented facts and half-truths. “Most of today’s armed conflicts involve muslims” omits the fact that those conflicts are in muslim-majority lands, with muslims fighting aggressors and occupying forces. A “debate” merely posits selected facts and half-truths supporting a contention against selected facts and half-truths opposing a contention, usually leaving spectators free to adhere to their predetermined conclusions. Some unidentifiable group of spectators declares themselves persuaded by one ignorance or the other, and nothing is concluded beyond “I won!,” which both contenders may claim in any case.
If you lose, Danios, it will be disastrous to your credibility.
He can’t “lose.” Neither can Spencer. That’s the real appeal of a “debate.”
January 16th, 2012 at 2:40 am
khushboo writes: If you’re doing it at his venue, how will you be able to maintain anonymity?”
That’s what I was wondering.
He can show up in a burka.
January 16th, 2012 at 2:53 am
Danios: I don’t see what the problem is.
His Private Investigator photographer lying in wait for you somewhere ~ or a battery of acolytes with cameras waiting to hear from him where you’re appearing from, so that the nearest to wherever you are can catch you on the way out the door. Once he has your picture, you’ll see it on his website.
Remember that this man has virtually unlimited financial backing, he can deploy whatever troops he needs, wherever he needs them, to get whatever he can use to destroy you beyond the parameters of the “debate.” Should you demolish his false premises and leave him with a picture of you, he has won the “debate” engagement and will be sending demonstrators (demonstrators?) to every campus you attend.
Find a makeup artist who can defeat facial recognition software or wear a ski mask ~ what he’s after is a lever, not a one-off debate transcript that he might not be able to “edit” to his advantage.
January 16th, 2012 at 2:54 am
Jingoist writes: No one who doesn’t know Arabic can ever claim to be a scholar of Islam. That’s like claiming to be a physicist but admitting you don’t know how to add substract divide and multiply.
Einstein flunked grade school math.
January 16th, 2012 at 3:14 am
Two things worry me
First Pride comes before a fall, Beware Danios .
Secondly in folklaw the devil always cheats when ever he plays games . I expect Spencer to be similar , broken microphones, Danious’s real identity splashed acros the internet , naked women spontaniously appearing either in person or on the video , Spencer being ‘ill’ at the last min to be replaced by Pam Geller or a muppet . You get the drift.
January 16th, 2012 at 3:35 am
@ truthseeker
“Robert Spencer a giant of a scholer”
my responce
January 16th, 2012 at 3:37 am
@Danios: I wrote Remember that this man has virtually unlimited financial backing, he can deploy whatever troops he needs, wherever he needs them, to get whatever he can use to destroy you beyond the parameters of the “debate.”
I should have mentioned that if you have been corresponding with him by eMail from any computer other than one connected through a geographically-broad LAN (like AOL’s proxy LAN), then he knows where you were when you sent the eMail. Note the following (example) “headers” that accompany eMails to their destination:
Received: from BAY160-W5 ([65.54.190.199]) by bay0-omc4-s17.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);
Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:17:54 -0800
X-Originating-IP: [72.102.27.160]
Both 72.102.27.160 and 65.54.190.199 can be located to at least the city nearest to the sender, where his ISP (Internet Service Provider) is located. From there, it would not be difficult to generate a list of probable locations of the computer that sent the eMail ~ in the example case, within ten miles of Colville, Washington.
He’s after you, buddy. A debate might give him a chance for a better shot. Don’t think you’re involved in a duel between gentlemen, he fights dirty.
January 16th, 2012 at 3:54 am
It would have to be something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWu5fLRCFDk
I don’t see what the problem is.
Then that is fine. I am assuming you’ll be using a cell that is not registered in your name etc.
January 16th, 2012 at 3:57 am
@Danios, I don’t get why the debate has to focus on comparing Islam to Christianity and Judaism, instead of exposing Spencer’s extremely dishonest ‘scholarship’. You’re giving him way too much room for him to cry tu quoque with your choice if debate topics.
January 16th, 2012 at 6:10 am
Mr Pork you were always a delusional chap weren’t you?
The only trouble I foresee is Mr Spencer’s ‘debating’ tactics since Mr Spencer is somewhat of an expert in the art of PR and propaganda. He’s been spinning his lies for years and has become very good at it.
Jack
January 16th, 2012 at 9:43 am
Oh shut up Hajji Dawud, does anyone else find his riduclous rants over the top? why would groups outside his campus matter anyway? it would do nothing but enhance his credibility and ‘star’ status. Sounds good to me.
You people above sound like loonies,
The bottom line is Danios has said, he won’t remain anonymous for ever. There is no problem, go ahead and do it anonymously or do it by exposure, what counts is the substance of the argument.
January 16th, 2012 at 9:45 am
Anyone who thinks this thicko Spencer would be beaten in a debate by Danios needs their heads seen to.
January 16th, 2012 at 9:58 am
“Einstein flunked grade school math.” Ahh, the dangers of believing urban legends. Google something like “Einstein flunkied math” to find numerous refutations.
Sadly, that is also the danger with Robert Spencer: he has a tendency to say things that his target audience “knows” to be true, but are actually false. May I suggest that if this debate goes forward, someone knowledgeable create an annotated transcript that points out any factual errors?
January 16th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
@ Danios: I agree with others who have counselled you not to debate Spencer at ABN. They will set up the whole thing against you. They will also use crazy edits to filter out your arguments and make only that fraud Spencer look good. See, with these sort of bigots facts, logic, and sound arguments do not matter. Just look at the comments from bigots like lie-seeker and jihadbob (whataboutjihad) for examples of this. They are not interested in facts or truth. They just want someone to validate their preconceived notions. The people at that Christian bigotry channel are the same. They have already decided that Spencer is right and you are wrong. They can view the exact same debate as other people and come to the exact opposite conclusion because they are completely irrational. If you walk into this trap, Danios, it may end up hurting your credibility. Remember, Spencer make a living by selling his fraudulent arguments to idiots who actually buy them. Although I do applaud your bravery, I think you should be prepared to face a totally one sided situation.
January 16th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
“I am assuming you’ll be using a cell that is not registered in your name etc.”
Again, that’s what I’m worried about. ABN and co. can’t be trusted! They’re desperate to expose his identity. Just be careful!
January 16th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
Just Stopping By writes: Ahh, the dangers of believing urban legends. Google something like “Einstein flunked math” to find numerous refutations.
Thank you.
Einstein was a mathematical prodigy, and before he was 12, he was already better at arithmetic and calculus than you are now. Einstein was in fact so smart that he believed school was holding him back, and his parents purchased advanced textbooks for him to study from. Not only did he pass math with flying colors, it’s entirely possible that he was actually teaching the class by the end of semester. [baby language omitted]
When I was the “star” math student in my fifth grade elementary school class, Einstein was my idol. I wrote a letter to him, and he died while it was in the mail. (But I did get to meet and shake the hand of Dr. Edward Teller, at some kind of shindig for high school math whizzes, sort of a “consolation prize” to make up for Einstein’s avoidance of my letter.)
But “school” was holding me back ~ in the year 3 B.T. (“Before Televisibabble”), anxious to learn and with a seemingly unlimited attention span, repetition of what I already knew was a frustratingly boring waste of my time when I could have been inventing modular exponentiation large-prime encryption (yeah, right). Einstein, I’m sure, suffered school with the same boring frustration, although surely on a vastly superior scale. I taught my high school calculus class and amazed my Ph.D. (Organic Chemistry) aunt with my mastery of post-graduate chemistry subjects, but flunked the same U.S. History class three times in a row because it was just boilerplate nationalist propaganda with a socialist flavor, not history. So the story that Einstein did not “do well” in school resonated with me.
So thanks for the correction. But he did avoid my letter, and thought travels faster than light, and who was Eddie Teller but a designer of big firecrackers, and who cares about Monte Carlo primality testing anyway when we have a perfectly good pair of dice and enough fingers and toes to count past “one, two, three, many”?
My point being, as I recall, that “No one who doesn’t know Arabic can ever claim to be a scholar of Islam” is a crock. Arabic is a calculus of the tongue, and anyone who can comprehend some of what they hear or read is capable of being enough of a “scholar of Islam” for his or her needs. No one needs an Arabic-speaking priest to tell him what God is saying to him. Knowing Arabic as I know Arabic (I can read it) vastly improves my ability to think in American idiomatic English ~ sometimes what I write is almost intelligible. But what I understand benefits me and might have no relevance whatever to any understanding that benefits you, which is what God gives you whether or not you “know Arabic” at all.
God damns pretentious priests in no uncertain terms ~ in Arabic. But you don’t need to know any Arabic at all to know that those who pretend to stand between you and God are devils in pious disguise. My understanding of “Islam” may be as comprehensive as that of the scholars of al-Azhar, as Dr. Mehdi testifies ~ but it is your understanding that can benefit you, in any language, while my understanding is just as likely to condemn me, in Arabic or any other tongue ~ as it has with those who say “No one who doesn’t know Arabic can ever claim to be a scholar of Islam.” The Qur’an itself says that isn’t true.
So Einstein didn’t flunk grade school math. Neither did I, but I’m no Einstein. But a lot of what he wrote at the end of his life demonstrated that he was more of a “scholar of Islam” than many an Arabic-speaking “scholar” walking around in fancy robes, odd-shaped hats, and peacock feathers, with a load of books that would kill a pack mule. The devil himself na’oodhu billah knows Islam better than all of them put together ~ he’s doing what God condemned him to do, and he does it by The Book. The people I’m talking about can’t even read The Book, and they’re Arabic scholars.
Go figure.
January 16th, 2012 at 7:10 pm
@Truth Seeker January 15th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
“GIANT OF A SCHOLAR.Has Danios ever written any book on Islam to claim any scholaership?”
What is a “scholaership”? (sic.)
On that basis, you aren’t a credible judge i.e. not even being able to spell it!
“There is no comparison between Judeo-Christian faith and Islam.The first one is divinely Inspred and the latter one Inspired by DEMONIC SPIRIT of Allah.”
The Arabic-speaking peoples of the Holy Land were some of the earliest converts to Christianity. To this day they worship “Allah” who you claim to be a demonic spirit!
Once again, we see such basic ignorance that exposes those fools who form the ignorant flock & their “ability” to judge scholarship!
Truth Seeker – I hope you find it, though it’ll probably be a long journey.
January 17th, 2012 at 2:00 am
Sir David writes: Two things worry me …
There’s no need to worry ~ there’s another Player in the game, Who determines all outcomes. We don’t know what He is doing here, but we do know that Spencer is the ultimate Loser.
First, Pride comes before a fall; Beware, Danios.
“In ancient Greek, hubris (ancient Greek ὕβρις) referred to actions that shamed and humiliated the victim for the pleasure or gratification of the abuser. The term had a strong sexual connotation, and the shame reflected on the perpetrator as well. It was most evident in the public and private actions of the powerful and rich.”
It’s hubris, not “pride,” that threatens Danios with a symbolic, but otherwise meaningless, “defeat.”
Secondly in folklaw the devil always cheats whenever he plays games.
I like “folklaw” ~ “folklore” fails to identify itself as commentary on natural law.
Spencer has deftly wound Danios up for a battle of the century. Singing to his own choir, he’ll bring whatever will resonate with them, for example disdain for academic discussion of “irrelevant inconsistencies” with “all this blood on the ground even as we speak.” There needn’t be any blood, of course, to play on their emotions.
This is not likely to be an academic debate. It’s more likely to be a shock-jock circus.
January 17th, 2012 at 2:44 am
Is the debate still officially “on” at this point?
January 17th, 2012 at 10:50 am
Danios, I don’t think you should debate Spunskter. Not that you are not smart or we are afraid that you will lose. It’s just that this people are unruly American mafia. Look at the discussion with his boss David Horowitz and that guy who wrote the book, the professor- i forget his name but the author of “heavy metal islam”. he ia a scholar but these thugs like Horrowitz, Sean hannity etc just shut him down on Fox. The prof argued well but this jerk Sean Hannity just would let the guy argue.
These guys don not want to learn or accept anything about Islam with open mind. In fact their minds are made up about denigrating Islam.
So I don’t see any point in arguing at all with them.
To Spencer and thugs:
Muslim intellectuals laugh off your work. And most would not even give you time of the day. You know why? Because they think you are just rebel rouser, and you’ll keep moving the goal-post and your mind is made up.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
@WhiteAmericanMuslim Everyone likes a good laugh.
January 18th, 2012 at 12:22 am
Good point, WhiteAmericanMuslim. Btw, I’m a Caucasian Muslim too. It’s nice to “meet” another one! (That’s not to denigrate any other Muslims, it’s just that Caucasian Muslims are a very small minority of Muslims.)
I think the difference between Sean Hannity suppressing the Heavy Metal Islam guy’s speech, and Danios’s debate with Spencer is that Hannity has a talk show that doesn’t follow the debate format. He’s the kingpin, he’s the boss, he decides when to cut his guest off at any time, without warning. A planned debate is different, wherein the two parties agree to a certain amount of time that each person has, how much time a rebuttal can be, how much time goes to Questions and Answers, etc. I do agree that the venue Danios agreed to is extremely hostile toward Islam, but the beauty about the internet is that most people who are worth their salt will watch the debate on the internet in its unedited form, rather than on the actual T.V. station itself.
Sure, the Spencerite lackeys and the bigoted “Christians” will watch the spoon-fed, “go team!” version that ABN will deliver to them, which will undoubtedly be edited to Spencer’s favor. But the majority of those people will never change their minds anyway, so I think it is irrelevant. The amount of viewers who could be swayed to a more honest and objective approach to understanding Muslims, is so small that Danios isn’t taking much of a risk. Most people who “religiously” watch those…erm…religious stations, already have their minds made up before they would even watch the program.
January 18th, 2012 at 4:07 am
If no word from Blobby Spencer by 12/00 gmt 18/1/12, then lets suggest either Spencer is
)
a) A lier who never intended to debate any one anyway about anything
( no surprise )
or
b) A scared chicken ( no surprise )
or
c) both a lier and a chicken ( most likely option
Lets move on to other things
January 18th, 2012 at 6:40 am
Isa writes: I’m a Caucasian Muslim too. It’s nice to “meet” another one!
There are Caucasian American muslims all over the place, who have been “unwelcomed” at the mosques listed in the telephone book because they didn’t jump feet first into the Salafi/Wahhabi party line. You won’t find them either at or through those mosques. But start wearing a kufi and they’ll find you.
January 18th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Danios,
I am just going to echo what others have said: do not concede any advantages to Spencer whatsoever.
We know that your case against his book is airtight and that he can’t possibly defend against the numerous criticisms you have carefully outlined and constructed over the years. That’s precisely why he is so insistent on holding this “debate” on a network that is friendly to his bigoted views. He wants to do whatever is necessary to drag the focus of the discussion away from his book, because that’s the only way he stands a chance. It is going to be exponentially easier now that he has the home field advantage.
The moderator can cut you off, change the subject, make claims without giving you a chance to respond, etc. It’s going to be very difficult for you to handle that without coming across as exceedingly combative or uncooperative. More importantly, given that you’ve taken so long to come up with your battle plan, you may very well become frustrated if you are not allowed by the moderator to follow it. Simply put, what you’ve agreed to is not a debate, it’s a game, and one that Spencer is not a stranger to. That said, you still have the advantage so long as you commit to staying focused on the real issue, i.e. Spencer’s faux scholarship. If you can keep Spencer on the defensive about that, he has no hope of winning even in the eyes of his deluded followers. However, I think you need to be careful not to let overconfidence cloud your judgment regarding what kind of obstacles are going to get in the way.
March 10th, 2012 at 3:46 am
I don’t even know the way I ended up here, however I assumed this put up was good. I don’t know who you’re but certainly you’re going to a famous blogger in the event you aren’t already. Cheers!