Top Menu

Danios of LoonWatch Accepts Robert Spencer’s Challenge to a Debate

Lord Voldemort, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named

Once again, Robert Spencer responds to one of my articles but refuses to take my name.  I am forever “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.”  Spencer says:

And on those rare occasions when the opposition does offer a substantive response, it’s tissue-paper thin. A friend recently told me that he posted a lengthy rebuttal to a pseudo-scholarly presentation purporting to prove false something I said about the meaning of an Arabic word (my friend is a native Arabic speaker); his comment was summarily deleted.

My response is as follows:

1. “And on those rare occasions when the opposition does offer a substantive response”

I’ll take that as a compliment!

2. “it’s tissue-paper thin.”

Of the “ultra soft and strong” variety I hope.

3. “A friend”

I assume you are speaking of Kinana of Khabyar, who like you is an intellectual huckster.

4. “a pseudo-scholarly presentation”

As I said before, this is a bad case of projection: Spencer tries to pass himself off as a scholar despite his lack of scholarly credentials,  so he simply assumes that everyone else is trying to do the same.  I have never claimed to be a scholar, and it truly amazes me that he would even assume that I tried to be “scholarly” considering I used the word “sh*% hole” in the title of my article.  How many scholarly works have you read that speak with such an irreverent tone?  The fact that Spencer would even think this speaks volumes about how little he knows about scholarship.

5. “native Arabic speaker”

Is that supposed to impress me?  Kinana of Khaybar could be a professor in Arabic for all I care or the Queen of England.  None of that changes the fact that he is guilty of academic deceit.

6. “his comment was summarily deleted.”

A lie.  I never deleted Kinana’s comment.  He never posted it on our site.  Instead, he posted it on JihadWatch, and someone posted the link to it on our site, which you will see is still very much there.  But let’s even assume–simply for argument’s sake–that I “summarily deleted” his comment.  Not only is the link posted by an Islamophobe still on our site, but I myself reproduced the link in my counter-response as well as his response itself!

7. “he posted a lengthy rebuttal”

Let’s recap the debate.  First, Robert Spencer claimed in his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), that the word “dhimmis” translates to both “protected people” as well as “guilty people.”  He went on to say that non-Muslim residents are called “guilty people” (or “dhimmis”) because they rejected the prophethood of Muhammad and altered their scriptures.  I wrote an article declaring all this to be a bold-faced lie and proof that Spencer is an intellectual huckster who is guilty of wholesale fabrication.

Both Robert Spencer and his friend Kinana of Khaybar responded to my article.  Spencer tried to cover his ass by moving the goalposts: instead of defending his claim that the word “dhimmis” means “guilty people”, Spencer argued that the word “dhimmis” is related to the word “guilt.”  Kinana attempted to strengthen this argument by citing various Arabic dictionaries that linked the word “dhimmis” with “guilt.”  In my counter-response, I exposed the intellectual chicanery that Kinana was engaging in: he quoted only a part of the dictionary definition, purposefully omitting the critical part which clearly explained that the “guilt” was associated not with the non-Muslim residents as Spencer and Kinana claimed, but with the Islamic state should it violate the rights of the non-Muslim residents.

Furthermore, the claim that the non-Muslim residents were called “dhimmis” because they were guilty of rejecting the prophethood of Muhammad and altering their scriptures is complete fabrication from the conspiratorial mind of Robert Spencer.  Neither Spencer or Kinana sought to explain this bit of wholesale fabrication.

My question now is: whose response is “tissue-paper thin”?  Will Spencer or Kinana care to defend their academic honesty (or in this case their lack thereof)?  My guess is that they will try to avoid issuing “a substantive response” as much as possible.

In the same post, Robert Spencer bellows:

The 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.

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.”

I predict that the JW minions will give excuses to explain away why their master Robert Spencer will refuse to debate me, instead of urging him to enter into a debate as they always do with other people who challenge his ideas.  They already know that Spencer does not stand a chance in a debate with me, which is why they will continue to generate excuses to exonerate him from his intellectual cowardice.  This is because deep down inside they know–as does everyone else who has followed his and my writings–what the outcome would be.

Spencer backing down from a debate with me would be curious, considering that he has already conceded that my writings are “rare occasions when the opposition does offer a substantive response.”  Spencer, are you saying that you can debate with people so long as they don’t give you a substantive response, in which case you flee?

No matter, I’ll continue to pulverize your arguments in my articles.  Speaking of which, I’m almost done with my latest one (on the topic of jihad).  Stay tuned.

, , , , , ,

  • Pingback: Robert Spencer Runs Away from Debating Danios – Again – in ABN Getaway Car | Spencer Watch()

  • Pingback: Why Can’t Robert Spencer Debate Danios of LoonWatch (Again)? | Spencer Watch()

  • Pingback: JihadWatch Afraid to Debate LoonWatch | Spencer Watch()

  • Pingback: Internet Sociopath Robert Spencer Scared of Debate | Spencer Watch()

  • Pingback: Internet Sociopath Robert Spencer Wants to Debate Me |

  • Danios,

    No matter, I’ll continue to pulverize your arguments in my articles. Speaking of which, I’m almost done with my latest one (on the topic of jihad). Stay tuned.

    I am very looking forward to that. In my one encounter with Robert Spencer via E-mail (and let me have said this: Robert Spencer is a human spambot) he demonstrated various signs of the intellectual dishonesty that you have so elaborately uncovered:

    I threw an article his way about influential Indian Muslim scholars rejecting terrorism as a “thoughtless act which is against the teachings of Islam”.

    Long story short:

    – Spencer, reading comprehension amateur, described the statement as vague and said the scholars probably just meant “terrorism against Muslims”. (Quote from the article: “[Marghoobur Rahman] said that the killing of innocent people of any religion was prohibited by the Koran, the Muslim Holy Book. “)

    – Spencer, man of defunct integrity, constantly claims that Muslims do nothing to counter the violent extremists in their midst, and that he would applaud and support those who do. Yet again, one of his last points was that influential Muslim scholars speaking out against terrorism and violence are “insignificant”.

    Even Pamela Geller (Pamela Geller!!) responded jubilantly to the same e-mail, posted it on her website and gave me a linked hat-tip (Only to remove it later once somebody pointed out that I’m an evil moose-limb)

    So please, Danios, take this as a sincere plea: Carry on tearing this scholarly flyweight part. Nothing makes these cretins boil more than being exposed.

  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32)

    Where is that clucking sound coming from ?

  • aiman

    Danios, I would suggest a reading of Sheila McDonough’s book ‘Islam and Modernity: A Comparitivie Study of the Ethical Thought of Sayyid Ahmad Khan and Mawlana Maududi’. It shows how the fundamentalist scholar Maududi misinterpreted Islam in the mid-20th century in the backdrop of colonialism. This was in violation of the example set by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who clearly repudiated any such ideology:

    “He is not of us who proclaims the cause of tribal partisanship; and he is not of us who fights in the cause of tribal partisanship; and he is not of us who dies in the cause of tribal partisanship”.

    When he was asked to explain the meaning of “tribal partisanship”, the Prophet answered, “It means helping thine own people in an unjust cause.”

    He also said: “Help your brother, be he a wrongdoer or wronged.” Thereupon a man exclaimed how could he be expected to help a wrongdoer. The Prophet replied: “You must prevent him from doing wrong: that will be your help to him.”

  • iSherif

    The loons at JW are going mad!!!

    In one his latest articles, Spencer muttered the following:

    “Just as the Islamic apologists who claim that I have gotten Islamic doctrine all wrong, wrong, wrong, and write soporific refutations of my work, never seem to notice, or to mind, when Islamic supremacists misunderstand Islam in, lo and behold, exactly the same way I have.”

    Spencer’s writings then stir up a debate about Danios and LW…..

    Kim comes up with this gem:

    “Oh, no, RS couldn’t lower himself to “debate” the nasty, crude, vile, nutcase sociopaths that inhabit the infernal realm called “loonwatch.” Oh, no. That would be like accepting a debate with Charlie Manson. What’s the point?”

    The eternal loon, duh_swami, had this to say:

    “Loonwatch is for loons who worship the moon…That guy Danio’s, who someone said used to post here under another name, showed up on JW and issued that debate challenge…I’m happy to say that I was one of those who dumped tar and feathers on him, mounted him backwards on a jackass, and sent him down the road mumbling to himself…
    If you read loonwatch, be sure and run your virus scanner after, and it wouldn’t hurt to take a shower…”

    Kim pops up once again:

    “Well, why don’t you ask RS why he doesn’t “debate” the sociopaths at “loonwatch?”
    Why doesn’t he just “debate” Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot?
    If anyone is so stupid and evil to be a “loonwatch” fan – go for it.
    Exactly. RS doesn’t lower himself to reply to evil “Danios.”

    LOL! It’s laughable how these minions still stick to the same old tired excuse that Danios is “evil” or “RS doesn’t lower himself” etc.

    BTW, did you know Spencer’s discovered a new favorite word??? He’s dumped “tu quoque” now…the new word is “soporific.” Haha! 🙂

    The article can be accessed at:

  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32)

    Where has Bob gone ?

  • Brian

    Is Danios muslim or just a non-muslim defender against Islamophobia.

    Go Danios!

  • Ustadh

    Any word from Spencer on this?

    I love your avatar.

  • No way will Spencer go through with this.

  • Sir David, how about George Soros? 🙂

    He is said to be secret funder behind this site……LOL

  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32)

    Elsaporte :I dont think spencer is insane he knows he is wrong I suspect now pam……….
    Muslim Heritage : no not me as I said before but ‘a name’ will not give spencer an easy excuse not to take part. Nelson Mandela ? The Pope ? Colin Powell? any ideas out there ?
    I am told both the President of Iran and the Chief Rabbi of Britain are unavailable.

  • How do you debate somebody that might be insane?

  • Abdullah

    Danios, a good article on the Dhimm and their rights during Calipha Omar.
    It may help!

  • iSherif

    Spencer sucks!! The coward has backed out yet again…..unbelievable!!

    There’s going to be no debate by the looks of things 🙁

    The challenge was posted on JW but the loons are pretending to ignore it. Not a peep from Spencer either.

  • RDS,


    You mean if Danios is not Muslim God should not bless him? and only if he isn’t only then should we aspire to be like him?

    well, i was wondering, why does one qualify the other? why not both…why not we wish God blesses him AND we aspire to be as critical and impartial as he is……

    Sir David,

    You volunteered, now you can’t back out. Danios, you found your chairman. and Sir David, are you a professor? I think you once mentioned you were Scottish or something…thanks for your support. We appreciate it.

  • Robaby

    Hey Danios,

    You should use information from this link also in your upcoming article about Jihad:

    As I mentioned before in another post, it points out that the early muslims(including the companions of Prophet Muhammad) made peace with the Ethopians and Nubians without imposing jizya on them and making it an Islamic state. There are even some evidence of Caliph Umar sending an ambassador to China and a mosque being built in China there before the first mosque was ever built in Pakistan or Afghanistan, without imposing an Islamic state on China. Moreover, the link above provides evidence of many instances in history of Islamic states making peace with non-muslim states in the middle ages to the 18th century.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Danios of LoonWatch Accepts Robert Spencer's Challenge to a Debate | --

  • RDS

    I know it is no matter whether or not Danios is a Muslim or not, but here’s what I think: Danios has been defending Islam through his research. If he is a Muslim himself, then may God bless him. If he is not, then other Muslims should aspire to be as critical and impartial as he is. It’s better to not just be the spectators.

    Since a peaceful resolution is a little too remote a chance, I’ll instead pray that, like the adage of old, “right makes might” shall prevail.

    Salam Alaykum.

  • IbnAbuTalib

    Thiagan: Spencer is a person more erudite and scholarly.

    and dishonest.

    It would be great if Shabir Ally debated Spencer. I think Ally is the top defender of Islam of our times. If he can handle the likes of William Lane Craig, he can definitely handle a neophyte like Spencer.

Powered by Loon Watchers