Top Menu

Robert Spencer Fuming Over LoonWatch, Threatens Danios With 101 Lashes

As his arguments become exposed, so does he.

As his arguments become exposed, so does he.

As many of you well know, I have taken it upon myself to refute Robert Spencer’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), cover to cover, page by page, and line by line.  I have already written several articles refuting Spencer, exposing him for the fear-mongering fraudster that he is.

Omer Subhani, a reader of our website, blogged it out best:

Spencer dodging LoonWatch… again

Robert Spencer has said something like the following many times:

“…I am always happy to debate any serious Muslim spokesman…”


Then why not debate the writer of multiple refutations of your work?

That writer goes by the name of Danios and he or she writes over at Loon Watch. Danios has written numerous refutations of Spencer’s work without much of a peep leaking from Spencer. Yet, Spencer was more than happy to share with his audience a list of people he has formerly debated.

But no mention of anything written by anyone at Loon Watch.

I smell something. And it smells like chicken.

What’s the excuse? Danios is writing anonymously? That shouldn’t matter. Spencer, you have continuously proclaimed from the day you started writing your blog that you would debate anyone, anywhere, any time. Well, Danios has penned multiple refutations of your work and yet you have failed to reply. You have hinted at Danios’ work in previous posts, but you haven’t gotten around to refuting Danios. You have called Danios a “slick liar,” but have failed to respond substantively to what Danios wrote.

Why are you chickening out, Spencer?

You’re aware of Danios’ refutations of your work, but you won’t engage in dialog. Usually when someone doesn’t respond to another person’s argument it means that they’ve conceded the point. Maybe Danios’ refutations of your claims were so absolute that it really isn’t worth debating. If that’s the case, then be a man about it and say so.

Subhani notes that Robert Spencer referred to me as a “slick liar,” but it may interest you to know that Spencer was so frustrated that he went even further, declaring:

The slick liar who penned that piece ought to get 100 lashes

In another article, Spencer upped the ante, and decided that 100 was just not enough, and threw in one more for added effect:

The slick liar who penned that piece ought to get 101 lashes

Instead of using such violent language, why doesn’t Spencer just refute the points I raised?  Isn’t that always his gripe against those who write about him negatively in the media?

The “piece” I wrote for which I became a “slick liar” can be found here: Robert Spencer Rapes the Truth, Part 1: Does Sharia Reject the Testimony of a Rape Victim? In that article, I contest Spencer’s bold claim that in rape cases a woman’s testimony is rejected under Sharia.  And I promised that in part 2 (coming to a theater near you soon) I will discuss Spencer’s claim that under Sharia a woman is lashed if she claims rape but cannot produce four witnesses.

So let’s read Spencer’s response, which is as follows:

Recently someone forwarded me a pseudo-scholarly piece by a smooth Islamic apologist purporting to prove that I was wrong, wrong, wrong (and therefore evil as well, of course) about Islamic rules of evidence for crimes of zina (adultery, fornication, and other sexual offenses), and claiming that rape victims in the Islamic world are never punished for being raped. The slick liar who penned that piece ought to get 100 lashes instead of “Camille” for his obfuscation and enabling of this kind of torture of women.

OK, let’s take that one line at a time, shall we?  First, Spencer writes:

Recently someone forwarded me a pseudo-scholarly piece

Here is a really bad case of projection.  Robert Spencer tries passing himself off as a scholar, and therefore assumes that I would too.  Apparently, Spencer has no idea what a scholarly paper looks like, because if he did, he would know that my article is far too irreverent a piece to be scholarly.   Does that mean that every piece of writing that is not scholarly becomes pseudo-scholarly?  What an absurd understanding.  Do newspaper articles or op-eds then become pseudo-scholarly works?

Then, Spencer says:

by a smooth Islamic apologist

I haven’t revealed what religion (if any) I follow.  In fact, I think the fact that I approach these debates as a neutral outsider–instead of approaching them as a vested Muslim–is what gives me the edge over other people who have debated with Spencer.  And in any case, Spencer can then be considered “a smooth Catholic apologist.”  Actually, he’s more like a Catholic crusader who attacks the infidel Islamic world with his vitriolic pen.

He goes on:

I was wrong, wrong, wrong (and therefore evil as well, of course)

No complaints here.

Here is the real doozie:

and claiming that rape victims in the Islamic world are never punished for being raped.

I’ve noticed that Robert Spencer always does this in his polemical pieces.  First, he builds up his argument with half-truths, and then near the end he will insert an outright lie.  Nowhere did I claim that “rape victims in the Islamic world are never punished for being raped. ”  This is a complete strawman argument.  Clearly, there are uneducated fundamentalists who do that, and who need to be stopped.  My contention with Spencer is his claim that such a thing is inherently part of Islam itself or the Islamic jurisprudential tradition.

Spencer then proceeds to report a case of a rape victim being punished in the Islamic world.  So instead of critically analyzing the arguments I put forward in my article (Robert Spencer Rapes the Truth, Part 1: Does Sharia Reject the Testimony of a Rape Victim?), Spencer constructs a strawman argument (claiming that I think or said that rape victims are never punished in the Islamic world) and then proceeds to knock it down by citing a case of just such a thing.  Clearly, Spencer’s need to construct a strawman is rooted in his inability to address any of my arguments.  Meanwhile, my own arguments against him are always precision guided surgical strikes.

My ever so dearest Robert Spencer: please do address the actual points I raised in the article.

Spencer Responds to My Latest Article on Dhimmitude

Awhile back, I published part 1 of my rebuttal of Robert Spencer on the topic of dhimmitude.  I already addressed Spencer’s bumbling reply to part 1.  Once again, he was absolutely unable to debate the actual topic, which was the historical treatment of dhimmis (vs perpetual serfs).  After Spencer refused to respond, I called him out as a chicken.

Then a few days back, I published part 2 of my dhimmitude series.  Just now, Spencer issued a response.  For some odd reason, however, Spencer refuses to take my name and suffices himself with veiled (but painfully obvious) references.  (Similarly, he refused to take LoonWatch’s blessed name when one of our intrepid writers broke the story about how and mysteriously redirected to his website; instead, he somehow chose to target CAIR, who simply reproduced our article.)

Spencer writes (emphasis is mine):

More or less on a regular basis I am sent purported refutations of what I say here and in my books — essays that purport to show that Islam doesn’t really teach warfare against unbelievers and their subjugation as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law,

Clearly a reference to yours truly.

Spencer goes on:

although these purported refutations usually content themselves with showing that Christians or someone else were doing something worse,

Completely false.  I only contented myself after proving that contemporary Muslims reject the Pact of Umar (a document which is so central to your Islamophobic viewpoint that you call it the “the foundation for Islamic law regarding the treatment of the dhimmis”).  So yes, I was quite pleased with myself after I toppled the foundation of your argument.  (I treated myself with ice cream.)

If you are referring to part 1, I had already been quite clear that my rebuttal would come in multiple parts, and that the first part would simply contest your claim that historically Muslims treated Jews worse than Christians did. And I have already answered this argument of yours in my response to your bumbling reply.  Or do we have to go through this again?  You had said earlier:

It is an extended (very extended) example of the familiar tu quoque fallacy in which Islamic apologists always indulge: other people have done evil, and therefore our evil is not so bad or not to be spoken of.

To which I had replied:

I certainly never said that the “evil is not so bad.”  What I said was that the “evil” (your choice of words) done to infidels in the Islamic realm was historically less than that done to infidels in Christendom.  And I said that to negate chapter four of your book, in which you specifically wrote “the idea that Jews fared better in Islamic lands than in Christian Europe is false,” and “the Muslim laws were much harsher for Jews than those of Christendom.”  I am fact-checking your book, and you made a claim, and I refuted it.  Simple as that.  Now it is up to you to either defend your initial claim or concede that you were wrong to state it.

Back to Spencer’s recent response, he goes on:

or that some document or other to which I refer in my books is held in no esteem by Muslims

That’s it?  You’ve conceded the point?  Wow.  This was easier than I thought.  Suddenly, you’ve moved the goalposts, as evidenced by what you say next:

or virtually anything other than actually proving that there exists a sect or school of Islam that teaches that Muslims must live with non-Muslims as equals on an indefinite basis

I’m starting to sense a pattern here.  Every time I refute one of your arguments, you will move to the next one.  But don’t worry, Spencer my love, your wish is my command.  In fact, the third (and final) part of my dhimmitude series will prove exactly what you asked for, namely that contemporary Muslims do believe that they should live with non-Muslims as equals.  Stay tuned for that.  (I’m sure by that time you’ll skip to another topic, never standing up like a man and defending the actual issue I write on.)

Then Spencer goes off on another tangent, writing:

In any case, the fundamental problem with all these alleged refutations is that if I am misunderstanding Islam, an awful lot of Muslims, including Islamic clerics who have devoted their lives to studying the Qur’an and Sunnah, misunderstand it in the same way. And here we have another. Afzali says he betrayed his religion, but that is, I suspect, just in order to bamboozle the unbelievers yet again.

Notice how Spencer tries to prove that there is a “fundamental problem with all these alleged refutations” by giving the example of Ahmad Afzali, an Imam who tipped off an Al-Qaeda militant.  Ummm…am I missing something here?  What does Ahmad Afzali have to do with any of my refutations of Spencer?  What does Afzali tipping off an Al-Qaeda militant have to do with the historical treatment of dhimmis vs perpetual serfs (part 1) or the Pact of Umar (part 2)?  It’s completely nonsensical and shows the sheer desperation Spencer is feeling right now.

How about instead of going off on random tangents you address the points I raised?  You obviously have enough time to rant about me on your website (although in a veiled manner), yet don’t have the time to construct a few decent logical arguments? Why then did you make the claim that “I am always happy to debate any serious Muslim spokesman”?  You after all call me an “Islamic apologist”, and I assume “Islamic apologists” are also “Muslim spokesmen”, so why don’t you debate me?  Your loyal readers argue that LoonWatch is “beneath you,” and thus “unworthy of your time.”  Yet, here you are ranting about me (albeit in a veiled manner); so why not better use that time to give more substantive responses?

Well, the answer is obvious: you’re a bully, and you’ve been bullying people for a very, very long time.  But like all bullies, when you meet someone your own size, you run away like the coward you are.  Sorry to burst your bubble, but I’m not going anywhere.  You are in quite a bind: if you try to respond to my arguments, the weakness of your case will become even more apparent.  If you decide not to engage me due to this fear, you still lose by virtue of forfeiture.  Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.  Either way is fine by me.

"The time for honoring yourself will soon be at an end."

"The time for honoring yourself will soon be at an end."

, , , , , , , , ,

  • Pingback: Zionist Islam hater Robert Spencer: Liar Extraordinaire « Viewpoint()

  • Pingback: Robert Spencer of JihadWatch Becomes Desperate Against LoonWatch | Spencer Watch()

  • Keep up the good work. Eventually people like Spencer will be fully exposed for what they are. Many of the casual islamophobes who sheepishly follow him will feel great shame at being duped by that conman!

    I especially hate the nativity tones that his cohorts use, as if being a third or fourth generation immigrant makes them genetically American or something.

  • Momo

    Hey Danios,

    I’m 17, not the smartest kid in the world, and I’m Muslim. I hate extremism, I hate rape, I hate w/e it is that apparently applies to “all Muslims”, which is why the whole Western World is afraid of us. I live in Canada. My parents are normal, regular, kind people. The mosque I go to has some of the nicest people I’ve ever met, but just in general, I like everybody, and fit in, at least now.

    In Grade 4, back before I understood what racism was (a bit slow :P), my teacher singled me out in the class. I was absent on September 11th, 2001, and she spent the rest of the year cracking jokes on how I flew a plane into the twin towers. On the first day, she asked who in the class was Muslim, and I was the only one to raise my hand.

    I really don’t get the point of hitting the whole Muslim population with all of these generalizations (if anyone wants to own me in a debate, go ahead, I’m not good at it). Hatred is a part of human nature, and it can be manipulated easily. In the middle east, the conditions there alone fuel the hatred. Islam is used as an excuse by the the Imams, who frankly, couldn’t care less about the teachings.

    I don’t really know where I’m going with all this, but some of my childhood was pretty shitty, not being able to be friends with certain kids in Elementary school because “my mom says not to play with Muslims”. I’d like to thank you for standing up for guys like me, who like being Muslim, but don’t want to kill anybody. I don’t get what the whole Jihad of the world bs is. It’s tough enough to fit in.

    And just so everyone knows, I am absolutely against all the shit that is happening by extremist Muslims in the middle east. Just about a month ago, a mosque in Pakistan that was home to many Muslim people of my sect, was bombed and attacked in Lahore. Around 60 people were killed, and it recieved quite a lot of coverage. Instead of condemning these attacks, most of the people commenting on it just talked about how barbaric the Muslims are, killing eachother. I wish the focus could just be to prevent ANY group of people from getting hurt, or singled out. Pointing a finger at moderate muslims, who in fact, PROTEST everything by the extremists, doesn’t help. Trust me, there is a lot of stuff out there about moderate Muslims condemning extremist attacks and beliefs, but there’s no fun in focusing on that is there.

    My post comes from some pretty limited knowledge, and more personal experience. I’d just like to thank you Danios, from the bottom of my heart, for letting me know that there are people out there, outside from the friends I know, who can look past the fear of “Islamization” and just realize that people are people, regardless of who they are, and that generalizing a billion people won’t help anyone in the long run.

    Thank you Danios, and I can understand you probably won’t agree with everything I say, as there is a lot of bias in it, but I just appreciate what you are doing. Thank you 🙂

  • Imad

    @ Juan p:

    that was a mistake, and I hate it when ppl strech the truth. I see ppl do it often with the marriage to Aisha, and islamophobes see right through it and say that they do this cuz their ashamed or can’t debate it and simply whitewash it instead. Thx for pointing out my mistake.

  • Juan P


    Daniel Streich, the politician you’re referring to was NOT the leader of the campaign to ban minarets. He was simply a member of the Swiss People’s Party at the time. Having converted to Islam 2 years previously, he left the party in protest at the campaign. Either you simply made a mistake in relating the story or you’re one of those individuals who love to stretch the truth in order to display the ‘superior’ nature of their faith.

  • Imad

    “But ‘All Muslims cannot be trusted because of Taqiyya” versus “those Muslims that are violent will seem peaceful because of Taqiyya'”

    if u go on jihadwatch and write a comment simply saying ur a Muslim, you are immediatly accused of taqiyyah. Also, according to the second statement, well, ANY muslim is prone to violence, not because their Muslim but simply because their human. Because of that, any Muslim can fit into either category.

  • iSherif

    Great response Imad!! Keep it up bro 🙂

  • Imad


    “That said – if it can be proven that Islam is not at heart promoting violence, supremacism or taking over parts of the world by various means, I will all too gladly accept that. As I suspect would Spencer, Geller and most others. Being under attack is generally NOT something people like to be!”

    your acting as if their position is a fact and not an opinion. No, the conclusion of Islam being a violent religion is only an opinion, and a pretty biased one. I remember my mom getting an email saying that the leader of the switz campaign to ban minarets actually CONVERTED to Islam. Many people study Islam like Spencer but don’t come up with the same conclusion as him.

    That’s the problem with spencers site and books. Many ppl don’t KNOW all the nessacary knowledge of the Quran or Islam to be able to see his half truths and deception. For example, I remember reading chapter one of the politically incorrect guide to Islam, and I remember the exact words: “when even Mohammads uncle refused to accept Islam, Mohammad cursed him in violent language is preserved in the Quran to this day.”

    error 1: this is NOT mohammads words. This is actually Allah himself speaking and not the words of Mohammad.

    Error 2: more importantly, the situation in which these verses were revealed are crucial. Basically, the prophet Mohammad called the tribe of quraish to the top if a mountain and asked them to believe in Allah and beware of his punishment. In response, abu lahab (his own uncle!) said “may you perish!” afterwards, the verses were revealed.

    This account is something that I learned in 6th grade. Great scholarship!

  • Imad

    @ anti j:

    I’m not a heavyweight debater like other commentors on this site. However:

    “Yep – why would Jihadwatch have anything against people born as Muslims who merely watch the soccer and integrate — or even those who pray five times a day, but who do not live by the violent or supremacist lines of the Quran? Has he explicitly attacked all Muslims anywhere?”

    To answer ur last question, you need not look further then the sidebar of jihadwatch, where the Mohammad cartoons (or Motoons as some ppl obnoxiously call it). Spencer has
    also compared Islam to a fascist ideology previously in his site.

    Some of the responses to the Mohammad cartoons were obviously fanatical, but many Muslims in my community simply decided to boycott Danish products. As you probably know, Mohammad is a central figure to all Muslims, so yes, Spencer insults all Muslims by having these cartoons in his site.

  • Anti of Anti-Jihadist


    Please wake up from your pretend world that Christians are all good and dandy all over the world and do nothing bad. Your a typical “if we do it it’s ok and right but if others do it then HELL NO!” Robert Spencer and his website is awfully hateful and they’re extremists! Don’t come here and try to defend their hate while accusing this site of hate? What is your IQ level? I know republicans are not know to be very intelligent people but come on! Robert Spencer and not wanting hate against Muslims? Your blind. And don’t give me that “love your enemy” BS. Bunch a hypocrites! They don’t follow that principal in the least! If anything they talk behind the “enemy’s” back, ridicule them, offend them and their beliefs, pick on them, treat them like NOTHING and then they say “Oh I’m Christian and my religion says to love my enemy.” COMPLETE BULL! Does your religion also tell your elites and most noble people (priests) to rape and abuse kids as is front page news nowadays?


    Great work man, you nailed Spencer! He got NOTHIN on you.

  • Muslim

    As-salam alaikum,

    Haq has to be hurled against Baatil & our Danios is a veritable Olympian Gold medallist!

    How about passing on more tips on how to the search for truth & present it effectively for the upcoming generations?

    My personal tip is to go back to the O.E.D. (dictionary) & see if the meanings & context fit the usage e.g. radical is derived from the Latin for root, so radicalism implies a going back to the roots, not away from them as is so often implied.

    Allah hafiz

  • Ryan

    Read the old testament. It is far more violent then the quran.

  • IbnAbuTalib

    AntiJ:Please – me hating, when my religion says “Love your enemy”?

    Do you love satan?

Powered by Loon Watchers