(cross-posted from The American Muslim)
by Sheila Musaji
Danios of Loonwatch has had an ongoing online discussion with Robert Spencer in an effort to set up a debate.
Spencer has regularly challenged Muslims to debate him, but seems to prefer limiting those debates to marginal figures or useful idiots. As Danios has said in the past Spencer’s modus operandi: engage in debate with those who are weak debaters, fastidiously avoid debating with those who are skilled debaters (and who have solid grasp of the subject matter), and then crow in victory over one’s supposedly undefeated record.
Spencer has also shown a pattern of setting impossible conditions on even something as simple as a request for an interview, let alone a debate, as Dean Obeidallah found out just last month.
In the case of Danios attempt to accept Spencer’s challenge to debate, Spencer displays both of these propensities — avoiding a genuine debate, and attempting to hide that avoidance by setting so many conditions that the other party will just give up.
First, a little background on the Spencer vs Danios debate saga, In June of 2010, Spencer stated thatThe list of the Leftist and Muslim academics and apologists who have refused my challenge to debate is very long; they know they can’t refute what I say on the basis of evidence, so they resort to broad-based smears and personal attacks — and haughty refusals to debate.
Danios of Loonwatch immediately responded to Spencer I accept your challenge, Spencer. I agree to a radio debate with you on the topic of jihad and “dhimmitude”, namely chapters 1-4 of your book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). It will then be seen if you can defend your own writing, which I argue is a load of sensationalist crock. Will you accept my challenge to debate or cower in fear? My guess is that you “know [you] can’t refute what I say” and will “resort to…haughty refusals to debate.”
Ahmed Rehab in an article stating why he personally was not interested in debating Spencer reminded Spencer of Danios acceptance of his challenge to debate: And now for some irony. Spencer, you are claiming you are ready to debate anyone but that alas no one wants to debate you because no one can. But, is this actually true? Does the name Danios of Loonwatch ring a bell Spencer? You may be burying your head in the sand hoping no one will notice, but a simple Google search on “Robert Spencer debate” reveals your hypocrisy. How come you are ignoring an invitation from another blogger who has challenged you numerous times and whose articles shredding your arguments to pieces are all over the web without a peep of a rebuttal from you? Are you conceding defeat? Are you “running away?”
Robert Spencer at first said that I am willing: if “Danios of Loonwatch” reveals his real name, finds a university willing to host the debate and contracts an impartial moderator, I’m ready when he is. Spencer expanded on the issue of Danios pseudonymn saying Sorry, I don’t debate fictional characters or pseudonyms. “Danios of Loonwatch” can go debate Scot Harvath or Harold Robbins.
ROUND 1: Danios agrees to debate Spencer in a radio debate. Spencer sets conditions: Danios must reveal his real name, hold the debate at a university, and find an “impartial” moderator.
Danios responded Of course, Spencer’s two conditions–both of which involve revealing my identity–are completely bogus. I have offered to debate Spencer on the radio. Does Spencer not do radio interviews? In fact, Spencer has appeared on the radio countless times … Danios also said This is of course strange since Hugh Fitzgerald, the Vice President of JihadWatch since 2004, himself operates under an anonymous pseudonym. Fitzgerald is a co-administrator of the site, alongside Spencer. Is Fitzgerald then a “fictional character” who is only worthy of debate with Scot Harvath or Harold Robbins? If that is the case, I challenge Hugh Fitzgerald–co-administer and Vice President of JihadWatch–to a radio debate. The topic will be Jihad, “Dhimmitude”, and Taqiyya (Stealth Jihad), namely chapters 1-4 of Robert Spencer’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).
ROUND 2: Danios says that if Spencer doesn’t want to debate an individual using a pseudonym, then he will agree to debate Spencer’s Jihad Watch site’s Vice President, Hugh Fitzgerald, who also uses a pseudonym. (Note: Spencer’s fellow Islamophobes whose work he publishes and promotes often use pseudonymns — e.g. Hanan Qahwaji, Nour Semaan, Rachael Cohen and Brigitte Gabriel are the same person. Nonie Darwish and Nahid Hyde are the same person. “Sultan Knish” is actually Daniel Greenfield. “Baron Bodissey” of Gates of Vienna is actually Edward May. “Bonni” of Bare Naked Islamis actually Bonni Benstock-Intall. Fjordman is actually Peder Jensen. Hugh Fitzgerald has been writing for Jihad Watch since 2004, although no biographical information on this individual appears anywhere else, and no photographs exist even on Jihad Watch. No one knows who Jihad Watch contributorsHugh Fitzgerald or ]Henry Rochejaquelein, or Marisol actually are.)
Now, we jump forward to January 10, 2012, and the Spencer vs Danios debate saga heats up again. Here is what Danios posted on Loonwatch about this development
Just yesterday, Robert Spencer posted an article with the title of “Why can’t Muslims debate? (Again)”, saying:
For example, an Islamic supremacist hate site that defames me and lies about what I say regularly charged that I was refusing to debate them:
I responded by repeating yet again something I had reiterated several times in the preceding weeks, when other Muslims had thrown up this site to me:
No response to that at all.
A simple Google search will reveal how this is a great big lie. Spencer has adamantly refused to engage in a radio debate with LoonWatch and me in particular, using my anonymity as a face-saving excuse.
Do his recent tweets reflect a change in attitude or is he still cowering in fear of me? Spencer, are you willing to back your words with action and “debate [me] anytime”? I will debate the accuracy of your book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), with regard to the topics of jihad, “dhimmitude”, and taqiyya. Are you ready to defend your arguments or not?
I think most of us anticipate “no response to that at all.”
This time, it didn’t take months for Spencer to respond. Two days later, on January 12th, Danios posted this
When I first read Robert Spencer’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) a couple years ago, I knew I could not just refute it but (proverbially speaking) blow it out of the water. After I penned my first few articles against it, I also knew that Spencer could not issue any substantive reply. Soon, I began to detect fear in Spencer’s eyes. It is no wonder then that he has refused to debate me for so long. I have documented Spencer’s evasion here.
Yet, Robert Spencer is also keenly aware of the fact that his refusal to debate the one site that is dedicated to refuting him–and was voted by his “target population” to be the number #1 non-Muslim blog with the number #1 writer–makes his fear obvious to the world. When his fear of debating me was pointed out in a recent Twitter war, Spencer finally agreed to debate me. (Of course, in true Spencer fashion, he accused us of “lying” when we said that he had been refusing to debate us for almost two years.)
Even so, I had predicted–as had many others–that Spencer would try to weasel his way out of the debate. Lo and behold, this now seems to be the case.
Initially, Spencer sent me an email saying “[t]here needs to be a thesis…So propose one.” I proposed the following thesis: Islam is more violent than other religions, specifically Judaism and Christianity. This is not only the central argument in Robert Spencer’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) but is also the title of another book of his: Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t.
Yet, Spencer emailed me back and said:
Actually, I am not interested in debating about Judaism and Christianity. I am only interested in debating regarding Islam and Jihad.
Spencer, the title of your book is a comparison between Christianity and Islam. So, are you saying that you can’t defend the central tenet and title of your book!?
He goes on:
Your tu quoque arguments are silly and have had abundant airing already. Propose another.
When you write a book titled “Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t”, then to you that’s a valid comparison, but when someone refutes that comparison by pointing out how Christianity, by the very same standards you apply to Islam, couldn’t be considered a “religion of peace,” then you cry “tu quoque”!
If my arguments “are silly,” then why don’t you debate me on them and show me how silly they are? Do you accept my counter-argument that “Judaism and Christianity are just as violent as Islam, if not more so”? If yes, then please state it openly so that we can declare victory and move on; otherwise, if you disagree with it, then refute it in debate with me.
The entire premise of Spencer’s book, the one I have been refuting all along, is the thesis I have proposed. It represents the fundamental difference of opinion I have with Robert Spencer and JihadWatch, so why should we debate something else? Does Spencer think we should debate on just any topic? Maybe we can debate the following thesis then: Arrested Development should never have been canceled because it is the single best comedy show ever.
I have never said or believed that the Islamic tradition does not have its violent aspects to it. I have only argued that Islam is not alone in this and that the religious tradition of the dominant group (the Judeo-Christian tradition) is just as bad in this regard, if not worse. That is my central argument, so why should we debate something else?
To be clear: I will only debate this thesis (Islam is more violent than other religions, specifically Judaism and Christianity) and no other, since (1) it is the central tenet of Robert Spencer’s book and (2) it represents the fundamental difference I have with him. The fact that Robert Spencer cannot defend his central tenet (and the fundamental difference between us) indicates that he knows he doesn’t stand a chance in defending the thesis. That’s why he must insist on “propos[ing] another.”
* * * * *
Additionally, there is an issue regarding “venue.” He has suggested we debate on ABN SAT–a Christian channel. Ludicrously, he calls them “neutral,” even though the channel airs a show (the one Spencer debated on) called Jihad Exposed, with the email addressjihadexposed@abnsat.com. Yeah, real “neutral.”
I had earlier complained that Spencer tends to debate only on Christian or conservative channels, to which Spencer accused me of “lying.” In any case, he asked that I propose another venue other than ABN and in the same email adamantly stated: “I will debate anywhere.” OK, if that is the case, how about we debate on Salon?
Initially, Spencer responded (bold is mine):
I have no problem with Salon but I guess you mean a print debate, in that case.
I actually had meant Salon Radio, so it would be a recorded audio debate that they could reproduce on the Salon site. In any case, I emailed somebody at Salon, only to later get this follow-up email from Spencer (bold is mine):
Also, Salon in print is not what I had in mind. If you have a radio show in mind, I wasnt aware that Salon had one, but in that case Salon is not a neutral forum with a neutral moderator.
ABN — they offer a completely neutral forum. Let’s do it there.
Initially, he will “debate anywhere” and he has “no problem with Salon,” only to follow-up with an email rejecting Salon as a venue. And then he goes back to the same silly Christian channel as an option.
Whether or not Salon will agree to host the debate is still up in the air, but if they accept will Spencer stick by his word that he will “debate anywhere” and that he has “no problem with Salon”? Spencer?
ROUND 3: Spencer asks Danios to set a topic, Danios does, Spencer rejects that topic and asks for another. Spencer agrees to a radio debate “anywhere”, but then refuses the venue proposed by Danios and demands a different venue, ABN and with ABN’s moderator. (ABN, by the way is a Christian TV ministry whose mission statement says: ABN is a non-denominational ministry committed to presenting the Word of God and its transforming message of Jesus Christ to Arabic and Aramaic speaking people worldwide through media. Their approach to this missionary work is not to set a good example of what Christianity is, but to attack Islam. I could find nothing on their site except such biased attacks.)
This attempt by Danios to arrange a debate with Robert Spencer has now gone on since June of 2010, but perhaps, we are actually getting close to seeing this debate happen. Here is what Danios posted today, January 15, 2011:
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 recommendedSalon 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 acceptABN 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 differencebetween 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 “ in 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 “universal 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.
ROUND 4: Danios accepts ABN as the venue even though it is not “neutral” but hostile, but insists on the original topic.
Spencer has said in an article bemoaning the fact that Muslims just won’t debate him:
… other Muslims claimed they wanted to debate me, but never followed up on my invitation to email me and set a topic, date and venue. … So the real reason why no Muslims will debate me is this:
They know that what I say about Islam and jihad is true, and don’t want that fact to be illustrated to a wider audience.
Why can’t Muslims debate? Because the truth is something they don’t generally wish the Infidels to know. So they do all they can to shut down those Infidels by other means.
There is an ancillary reason also: Islam doesn’t encourage critical thinking. It has no natural theology, only a series of laws declared by fiat. In some contemporary forms of Islam, hardly any premium is put on reasoning—after all, the Qur’an itself warns Muslims not to question (5:101). Consequently, even superficially intelligent Islamic supremacists such as Reza Aslan and Ibrahim Hooper are abjectly incapable of building a cogent intellectual argument and defending it. All they and so many others like them can do, as is clear from their track record, is heap abuse upon those who oppose them.
It seems as if Danios has followed up on all of Spencer’s demands. Now all that is left is to set a date. I am holding my breath to see what ROUND 5 will be.
January 15th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Technically, even before “round one” Robert Spencer made reference to Danios’ articles on Jihadwatch (whilst being careful not to mention Loonwatch’s name). Danios responded and as soon as Spencer realised what he was getting into he stopped responding and pretended that nothing had happened.
Maybe he’s spent the last 2 years thinking of adequate counter-arguments…
January 15th, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Well put
January 15th, 2012 at 5:44 pm
I don’t think it is right calling those Muslims who get toasted by Spencer in a debate useful idiots. I made the same mistake as Ms. Musaji a great representative of the Muslim community and a liberal voice for Islam. But I disagree with her in this analysis.
I made the same mistake of calling Mr. Hamze dumb and a clown. After my anger dissolved I realized that Mr. Hamze had the right intentions in confronting Allen West. He was trying to defend the Muslim community from West’s vicious smears.
Mr. Hamze if you’re reading this I apologize wholeheartedly. I am extremely sorry for what I said. You’re heart was in the right place and it is the thought and effort that counts.
I think Ms. Musaji is making the same mistake out of anger and frustration just like me.
We all want to see Spencer humiliated and when Muslims are weak debaters and can’t do that we are ashamed and angry at our own side. But our side is trying to protect us and we should take that into account and take their bravery into account.
Anyway Ms. Musaji forgets to mention a prominent name that use pseudonyms at Jihad Watch. In fact this person is in the Jihad Watch board of directors. What is the real identity of Ibn Warraq?
I am surprised that despite our insults however, the Muslims whom we attacked such as Nezar Hamze and Moustafa Zayed remained calm and humble.
Perhaps this is due to the beauty of Islam. Islam teaches its adherents self-restraint and makes them better people. Certainly better than me.
I have seen Islam change Mike Tyson from a brute to a loving father and husband.
I have seen Islam change Malcolm X from a criminal and supremacist to believing in the brotherhood of man upon his return from hajj.
Critics of Islam charge that the prophet of Islam has committed no miracles. But he has. Changing lives for the better is the biggest miracle.
January 15th, 2012 at 6:13 pm
He won’t debate you Danios and if he does it will be the end of
him….Serioulsy ! and he know’s it .. I recently went to Spencer’s lecture in Melbourne Australia and everything he spewed out was either a fabrication or just plain tripe ! He seriously has no IDEA ! I have been studying Islam for about 3 years and nothing he stated correlated with the research i had done NOTHING! It was actually embarassing.The scary thing is Spencer actually believes what he spews out he really does and so do his fans.. Danios you have been my favourite writer for the last couple of years,i think your research skills and Methodology regarding interpreting the Quran is second to none and Spencer knows this. I hope he believes his own lies Sincerely enough to step into the ring
with you and get what he truly deserves…
peace
January 15th, 2012 at 7:34 pm
Is there anything on Jihad that you actually disagree with Spencer on?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to first discuss Spencer’s arguments on the texts and teachings on Jihad before you move on to the more peaceful teachings of other religions?
January 15th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
You can not be defeated Danios. You have the skills and knowledge of a scholar, and the rhetoric of a genius debater!
Your style of argumentation reminds me of another undefeatable debater: George Galloway. I would love to see you in a live debate.
January 15th, 2012 at 11:32 pm
@WhatAboutJihad?
“peaceful teachings of other religions”???
you mean like the following? :
Deuteronomy
2:25 This very day I will begin to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven. They will hear reports of you and will tremble and be in anguish because of you.”
2:33 The Lord our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army.
2:34 At that time we took all his cities and completely destroyed them—men, WOMEN and CHILDREN. We left NO SURVIVORS.
2:35 But the livestock and the plunder from the towns we had captured we carried off for ourselves.
Also, a lot of the violence found in Islam had its equivalent (sometimes more violent) later in Europe:
http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/execution-by-quartering.htm
The crusades is a different story.
Bottom line, go get some education.
January 16th, 2012 at 1:21 am
Guys this debate will never, NEVER, happen. Danios you can agree to debate Spencer in a room filled with 50 clones each of Pamela Geller, Frank Gaffney, Terry Jones, Wafa Sultan, Hugh Fitzgerald, Franklin Graham, Spencer’s father, Spencer’s mother, and Spencer’s pet dog, and the audience made up of Jihadwatch and Atlasshrugs fans, moderated by Bill O’Reilly on an especial religious high, and take place in the EDL headquarters in London, and presided over by the Pope himself, and Spencer will still run away.
All this is Spencer trying to make it look like you are the one who ran away from the debate and not him so he can claim victory in front of his minions who have begun to question how genuine Spencer really is.
January 16th, 2012 at 2:26 am
WhataboutJihad,
are you Bob Spencer? Why don’t you accept this challenge at your own chosen venue?
January 16th, 2012 at 3:45 am
Please. Do us all a favour Danios and humiliate this fraud. Show everyone what a shameless liar he is. Of course his buddys and followers will never stop believing he wins any upcoming debate, but still to the wider world – he’ll be exposed.
January 16th, 2012 at 4:05 am
WhatAboutJihad,
Nice try. The fact is that Spencer has clearly said “other Muslims claimed they wanted to debate me, but never followed up on my invitation to email me and set a topic, date and venue”
Danios has set a topic, agreed to a mutually suitable date, and agreed to Spencer’s venue. Therefore, Spencer should either retract that statement and replace it with “I will only debate Muslims on subjects I want to debate on, and I will not defend my publications”, or he should debate Danios.
January 16th, 2012 at 8:21 am
@Believing Atheist, I agree with what you’ve said. Ms. Musaji has called them useful idiots before, and Danios also called Moustafa Zayed a “fool” (though he later apologised). However, I cannot express just how couter productive this is.
All of this just boosts Spencer’s ego, this is how he responded:
“Oh, this is rich. Apparently my recent debates with Muslim leaders have left the Islamic establishment in the U.S. so embarrassed that Sheila Musaji, whose lies I have exposed in the past, is now throwing under the bus some of the Muslim spokesmen whom I have debated recently, and pleading with Muslims to stop debating me.”
It is true that Spencer and co. favour debating with Muslims who are not skilled at debating because they can overpower them with their rhetoric, but criticising people who are on our side will be perceived as “throwing them under the bus” and an admission of defeat. We will give the impression that Spencer was so victorious in the debate that we have no choice but to distance ourselves from his opponent out of embarrassment.
She does have a point that those Muslims who know they can’t handle it shouldn’t try but this is not the right way to go about things.
January 16th, 2012 at 8:52 am
This is how Spencer misleads, he writes, “…after all, the Qur’an itself warns Muslims not to question (5:101).”
He doesn’t care to explain whet 5:101 is. This is what it is:
O’ Believers, do not ask [useless & unnecessary] questions about matters, which, if explained in detail, would cause hardship upon you (such as whether or not one should go to the Pilgrimage of Mecca only once or once a year.) If you ask them when Qur’an is being revealed [or perhaps when it is being penetrated in your heart,] the answers will be made known to you. God has forgiven you for what you have done up to this point as He is Forgiving and Understanding.
A guy came up to the Prophet and asked him whether to do Haj every year. The Prophet did not answer at first but upon the guy’s questioning again, the Prophet said what if I decree that you should do it more than once? This is what the verse above implies (amongst other things) that do not ask and make thing unnecessarily complicated. If the Prophet had told the guy that you should do the Hajj every year than all Muslims would have to abide by it. So in short Quran says “do not ask unneeded stupid questions for the things whose answers are obvious”. And that seems to apply directly to you Spencer.
January 16th, 2012 at 9:52 am
Beleiving atheist,
It was big of you to realise you were a bit hot and over the top in the Hamze affair. Thank you for your humility. Shows you have strength of character. Damn, please don’t misunderstood this, i always rub you up the wrong way.
January 16th, 2012 at 11:53 am
Ahmed
Nice try. The fact is that Spencer has clearly said “other Muslims claimed they wanted to debate me, but never followed up on my invitation to email me and set a topic, date and venue”
So if Danios does not intend to debate Spencer on Jihad, is that a tacit admission from Danios that what Spencer writes on Jihad is indeed accurate?
January 16th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
@bobbie boy
“So if Danios does not intend to debate Spencer on Jihad, is that a tacit admission from Danios that what Spencer writes on Jihad is indeed accurate?”
It’s hard to tell if you’re being dishonest or stupid. Danios delineated the topics he wanted to debate with your hero and they clearly include jihad. There are plenty of inaccurate things Spencer says about jihad, and you know this—but, alas, for you Spencer’s seething hatred of Muslims more than compensates for his blatant lies. Spencer doesn’t want to talk about the Judeo-Christian tradition because he lies about that too, e.g. he recently claimed (again) that the Doctrine of Witness never existed.
January 16th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
@WhatAboutJihad
If Danios allows me (since I assume he can not possibly handle all loons at once)
1. Danios did not say he does not want to debate about Jihad. He said he will debate the thesis: “Islam is more violent than other religions, specifically Judaism and Christianity”. Which, if you are smart enough, already includes the topics: JIHAD, the crusades, and the “all-for-peace” God of the OT.
2.Islam has violent elements and aspects. Danios never denied that. What he’s against is: (A) singling out Islam in criticism (Judaism and Christianity have their own share of violent teachings and interpretations)
(B)presenting Muslims as an existential threat to the world with a conspiracy to take over the west (in spite of the fact that it is the West which has been occupying other countries for the past few centuries, let alone the concentration camps for Jews and Blacks)
Bottom line: we loonwatchers do not claim Muslims’ shit does not smell bad, but that Christian/Judaic shit smells just as bad (to say the least)!
So please, stop being the stupid person you are.
January 17th, 2012 at 7:46 am
JT concludes: Sheila Musaji does have a point that those Muslims who know they can’t handle it shouldn’t try but this is not the right way to go about things.
The pertinent hadith says “None narrates [teaches, relates, advocates] except an amir, one ordered [by an amir], or a pretender.”
An amir is somewhat like the conductor of an orchestra ~ he administers the application of the talents of leaders (imams), other amirs who have taken him as their amir, and others who are able to do things that need to be done. He only has authority to direct members of his ensemble who have, on their own initiative, given him that authority; he may not interfere in the administration of a subordinate amir; and any directive he issues can be refused without breaching the agreement making him the amir of the one who refuses, which can be dissolved at will by either the amir or the one who makes him his amir. This brings up another relevant hadith:
“Who has no amir, Shaitan is his amir.”
Thus: God’s instructions to those who administer common affairs give no one any authority to prohibit a pretender from making the muslims look like a gaggle of fools, weaklings, or idiots. Those who take it upon themselves to “defend Islam” (which needs no defense) or “protect the faithful” (who God protects) from an “attack” which does not threaten anyone except the attacker, and fails, will suffer any and all consequences of that vain “defense” and that failure. Everything suffered by everybody as a result will be returned, by God, on that self-appointed “hero,” who obeyed his amir Shaitan na’oodhu billah, and caused that suffering.
Sheila’s warning is a gift for those who will take heed; it merely buries others deeper in their own error. Not knowing who might be which, she is correct in making that warning general, to all who might be stupid enough to fight Shaitan on his own ground, which is most certainly the situation of “debating” someone like Spencer or Geller, who are obviously directed by the Father of Lies.
Having said that, I should add this:
When someone ignorant of the real character of such a situation, on the basis of sincere intentions, starts moving toward that situation of fighting Shaitan on his own ground, it is not a “favor” to encourage him, but it is a necessary kindness to offer him the understanding and the weaponry he will need to defend himself and, should God so choose, “win” the otherwise vain “fight.” God does this on occasion, for His purposes, to show the power of truth; just as He may allow someone to “lose” to show him that despite what he may think of his own abilities, there is no power, and no might, and no capacity, except by God.
Solomon decided to feed all the fish in the sea, once, like God does every day ~ and when he had assembled a mountain of food on the beach, one fish came and ate it all in one bite. Solomon said “Glory be to God! Praise be to God! There is no god but God! God is the Greatest! And there is no power and no might but by God, The Highest, The Mighty” and God gave him command over the winds and the birds.
So Danios’ personal jihad can go either way. I hope he doesn’t walk into a basket of unintended consequences just to save face.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:05 am
@WhatAboutJihad
Have a look at Murtadha Al-Mutahari’s piece on Jihad or Mahmud Shaltut’s, and compare them with what Spencer says. Don’t hand me books written in the 16th century as “proof”.
January 17th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
So tell me, a “dhimmi” unbeliever atheist, how am I supposed to react to: al-wala’ wa’l-bara’?
and the total wars waged in the Bible – weren’t they directed against a particular enemy and then done with? No one doubts humans can be savage – all people’s have proved that. However Islam commands a perpetual war against all who are not Muslim – Dar al-Harb, until the arrival of the Mahdi – Day of Judgment – that’s a forever jihad against me, my children and theirs and so on. As a secular science oriented humanist who would like humans to reach for the stars, I ask you: WTF?
January 17th, 2012 at 1:21 pm
@Danios: Now that you’ve taken the bait (Spencer’s calculated obstructions amounting to refusals) and set the hook (by accepting his venue, his turf with his moderator), I notice there are several new loons here, provoking and goading you into pursuing your “debate” intentions on his turf, cheering you on, and exaggerating your undemonstrated (untried?) skills at emotionally hostile contention.
It’s “Yeah, you can whip him ~ let’s you and him fight,” and he’s been playing “weak” to lead you into seeing “scared.” He’s not scared ~ you can’t bother his profit margin or popularity among his disciples no matter what you do in debating him. It’s heads you lose, tails he wins.
I smell a trap. I think he has no intention of allowing a debate between two reasonable people, because there aren’t two reasonable people involved here ~ there’s only one, you, with experience in academic environments but none in shock-jock attack radio.
I suggest that you balance (a) what you could gain by proving what he obviously is (that anyone can already see), against (b) what he could gain by provoking you into protesting his dishonesty and crude treachery (which is his milieu) and (c) what you could lose.
You have the limb, he has the saw. Not good, from where I stand beneath the limb.
January 17th, 2012 at 2:20 pm
To idiot Dan S.;
How many Muslims have come and invaded your family and children? Idiot, do you even read what you write. You sound like a scared Little Chicken. It is you who lives in a perpetual fear created by American bigots and Christians/Jews. Its you stupid racist Jews/Christians who have been attacking countries after Islamic countries. And now you punks wanna attack Iran.
It should be them (the Islamics) who should be afraid of the axis of Evil- US—Israel—UK.
January 17th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
To Dan S. ;
Since you create fear amongst other here, from Wiki:
Al Wala’ Wal Bara’ is an Arabic phrase. Within the context of Islam, the phrase means, on one hand, drawing near to what is pleasing to God and His Messenger and, on the other hand, withdrawing from what is displeasing to Allah and His Messenger.
Now where the f**k does “war’ even come in picture???????. Idiots like you should jump off the cliff.
Stop hate-mongering and instead build bridges between religions, faiths and cultures.
January 17th, 2012 at 2:36 pm
DanS,
“However Islam commands a perpetual war against all who are not Muslim – Dar al-Harb, until the arrival of the Mahdi – Day of Judgment – that’s a forever jihad against me”
If perpetual jihad was actually mandated by Islam, as Islamophobes insist, then none of the Muslim countries — especially those that have Islam-based laws — would be in a state of peace with the so-called Dar al-Harb. If your interpretation is true, then where are the billion+ Muslims fighting this perpetual jihad?
If Islam commands Muslims to always be in a state of war with unbelievers, then it would not allow peace treaties. But it actually does and in fact encourages peace — “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah.” (8:61). The Prophet himself made numerous such peace treaties including the famous Treaty of Hudaibiyyah. History shows that Muslim nations have also made peace treaties with non-Muslim nations many times.
Finally, if Islam really does call for all-out 24/7 jihad then why am I not killing you as we speak?
The only jihad allowed is in response to violence or oppression.
January 17th, 2012 at 3:17 pm
@DanS. You state: “Islam commands a perpetual war against all who are not Muslim – Dar al-Harb, until the arrival of the Mahdi – Day of Judgment – that’s a forever jihad against me, my children and theirs and so on.”
I’ll let you in on a little secret about this “perpetual war against all who are not Muslim”: they’re not doing a very good job of it. I have visited majority-Muslim countries where people knew that I was Jewish, and I have eaten food they prepared for me and slept unguarded in their homes and hotels. And so far, the worst that has happened to me was that I found some anti-Semitic books in a bookstore. Well, perhaps that and getting wished a “Merry Christmas” by those who only knew I was a tourist. Oh, the horror!
The bottom line is that in most cases, what you find will be a reflection of what you bring. If you come in with a belligerent attitude and say nasty things about Islam, you should not be surprised if many Muslims don’t appear to take that too well. But if you don’t project a negative image on them, I’ll bet you’ll find that most of the time Muslims are really quite friendly. Why don’t you try asking about your concerns in a neutral manner, and I bet that many of the Muslims here would be happy to explain what Islam really means to them and how it calls for peace, not war.
January 17th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Dear Dan S.
If you are really a scientific minded person as you claim, you are not doing a good job. Please stop reading Spencer and Gellar’s stuff.
Search for authentic truth about Islam. And as a scientific minded person like myself you would know that a lot of stuff on Internet is garbage. Hence one should be extra careful doing research on the net.
January 17th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
http://tawheednyc.com/aqeedah/al%20walaa%20wal%20baraa/alwalawalbara3.pdf
http://islamworld.net/docs/wala.html
Not my words. doesn’t sound like peace to me. sorry.
January 17th, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Dan S, why not read what Murtadha Mutahari, Zaid Shakir and Mahmud Shaltut say on the issue? I don’t quite understand why anti-Islamists never explore these sources as well and then tell us “what Islam says” so confidently. Islam isn’t a monolithic faith, by any stretch of the imagination.
January 17th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
DanS, the only thing you should apologise for is your haste in condemning a wonderful and diverse religion such as Islam as well as its 1.5 billion adherents based on what you found on some websites.
The websites that you have selected as “evidence” are in fact by the same author who belongs to the Salafi group (sometimes referred to as Wahhabis). In the first document, Qahtani attempts to refute a list of Muslim imams and scholars who spoke in favour of interfaith relations. What this means is that mainstream Islam is supportive of interfaith relations but a minority of people oppose it. Wala wal bara, I believe, is a Salafi doctrine and requires Muslims to not make “an alliance” with the unbelievers. This does not mean what you think it does, because the author — despite, not approving of interfaith relations — makes it clear that we must still be courteous towards non-Muslims and not treat them unjustly. (The Quran itself forbids ill-treatment of anyone who does not harm you in 8:61). BTW, I’m not against Salafis but I think it’s important a distinction is made here between the beliefs of different sects.
“[T]he strongest position belongs to those who say that Allah has not prevented us from good conduct with any people, regardless of their nation or their faith, who do not struggle against us; nor should we disregard their rights or fail to deal with them justly…Indeed, courtesy and respect are required of a Believer towards any of the ‘people of war’; those who are relatives and those who are not. So long as they do not hinder the Muslims, assault them or take up arms against them, their position is assured.” [Page 65 of the document that you linked to]
See, no call for perpetual jihad. They do make disparaging remarks against atheists, Christians and Jews but that is to be expected as these people feel very very strongly about the religious differences between everyone. This call for dealing justly and respecting the rights of non-believers came from the document you brought as “evidence” whose author was, if I may say so, a little on the “extreme side” of things. Imagine what you would have found in the writings of mainstream Muslim scholars?
To sum up, Dan, some Muslims don’t like you — because of your lack of belief, nothing personal — but there is no requirement upon any Muslim to kill you or fight you but instead we are commanded to be respectful and courteous towards you.
January 17th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
@JT,
Wait a minute, some Muslims don’t like me because I am an atheist? Even after I am on your side and your ally?
January 17th, 2012 at 7:30 pm
DanS, you are quoting one man, Muhammad Saeed al-Qahtani, as representative of 1.57 billion of us?! I’ve never even heard of the guy… but it seems like he is/was a terrorist suspect currently held in Guantanamo. That is representative to you?! No one would cite this man as representative given his background as JT points out.
As others are saying, if you really are a scientific minded person, on what basis do you draw such a conclusion?
Jack
January 17th, 2012 at 7:31 pm
Believing Atheist, yearp, sadly. There are unfortunately shallow minded persons of all faiths, including lack of a faith.
Jack
January 17th, 2012 at 11:38 pm
@Dan S.
There are two types of people who come here and ask questions. First are people who are actually curious and courteous and polite, and keep an open mind with the aim to learn.
Then there are you, the self-important “Im a scientist-guy smarter than all of you and have all the Star Trek visions of humanity and I don’t give a fuck what you say cuz I’m better than all of you” people who come here with accusations meant simply to annoy and act all condescending and obnoxious.
If you have something you wanna know, ask it properly and you’ll get a Muslim perspective and maybe learn something. If you wanna act like a close-minded, condescending little know-it-all accusing Islam of all the horrors of the world then please do us all a favour and go back to your 5th grade Astronomy books.
January 18th, 2012 at 4:53 am
@Believing Atheist, there are indeed some Muslims that don’t “like” anyone who has actively rejected God or Islam. Anjem Choudary and his gang come to mind — they shake hands with non-Muslims using their left hand deliberately as a sign of disrespect. But that’s expected, they are extremists. I’m responding to DanS, who claims that just because some Muslims have a doctrine of Wala wal Bara (loving and hating for the sake of Allah), it means that Islam won’t make peace with non-Muslims. I responded by saying that that is the opinion of a few Muslims and even if they hold such ideas, they still don’t call for a “forever jihad” against all non-Muslims as DanS had claimed.
I personally have no problem with you, what you believe is up to you, and I appreciate that you are on our “side” especially since a lot of ex-Muslims team up with Islamophobes soon after their conversion.
I hope that clears it up.
January 18th, 2012 at 7:38 am
The priestly innovation of the so-called “Doctrine of Al-Wala’u wa Al-Bara’” has nothing to do with love and hate ~ it has to do with interdependence and independence. The Arabic word walaa’ means to be in charge, manage, run, administer, govern, or (essentially) be responsible for something or someone. The Arabic word baraa’ah means to be or become free, be cleared (from obligation or accountability), acquitted, or relieved.
The Qur’an tells us ~ explicitly ~ that we are not responsible for others ~ not for Jews, Christians, or anyone else but ourselves, and that we are free of responsibility or accountability for what the people of other communities do, how they administer their affairs, or what they do for or to each other among themselves.
God says “If you mingle your affairs with them, then they are your brothers.” We do honest business with other people, aid them when asked, and protect ourselves from them or their interference in our affairs (see the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the January 11, 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church and School vs. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), but we do not interfere or intervene or intrude ourselves into their affairs, and we are not responsible for managing, administering, or governing their affairs, unless (for example) we are formally asked by them to adjudicate some specific dispute among them according to their laws, which we may decline to do without being accountable for that refusal or whatever they do about that dispute.
In other words, “To you your works and to me my works,” and “To you your Convictions and to me mine” is the Rule of Law for muslims. Or in another language, “Live and let live” is our rule. Or more down-to-the-nitty-gritty, we are not your mother or your father, we’re not your older brother or sister, and we have to damn well mind our own business, not yours.
We’re responsible for managing ourselves, and we are free of what you do. That’s absolute, and “Al-Wala’u wa Al-Bara’” reaches no further than that.
God says to muslims “You are those who love them although they love you not,” and there are some people out there who just don’t fit that definition of a muslim. They don’t just hate you, they hate anyone who differs from their views, including members of their own families, and they hate themselves. I think that’s called “bigotry,” and no one has any monopoly on that.
There are a lot of hypocrites out there who think that pretending to be a muslim will save them. It won’t ~ they and their parties are deep in The Fire and sinking, and they’ll wind up deeper in it than the loons that are talking about them.
January 18th, 2012 at 11:29 am
Danios, I wait with bated breath to see you rip ‘ol whatshisface Spencer a new one…
Problem is, the chicken chickens out like a chicken chickening out…lol
He can’t lose face with his followers…He will never debate you…He will keep going round and round in circles and his entourage of ignoramuses will be in full tow…It’s like the emperor has no clothes but his unthinking lackeys will keep complimenting him on the finesse of his non-existent raiment…
Still, once this debate, if this debate, happens, I have no doubt Spencer will squawk even more loudly like a chicken with its head cut off yet still attached…lol
Looking forward man…Make it happen…