Robert Spencer

|

Pamela Geller

|

Bat Ye'or

|

Brigitte Gabriel

|

Daniel Pipes

|

Debbie Schlussel

|

Walid Shoebat

|

Joe Kaufman

|

Wafa Sultan

|

Geert Wilders

|

The Nuclear Card

Robert Spencer to Debate Achmed the Dead Terrorist and The Dictator

Posted on 01 May 2012 by Danios

Sheila Musaji of The American Muslim (TAM) has been keeping a close eye on the loons who write for Jihad Watch.  The chief loon of JW, Robert Spencer, had initially been slated to debate David Wood, another Christian loon like himself.  Realizing no doubt that they are on the same side of the loony equation, the debate has been scrapped.  Instead, both Spencer and Wood have agreed to face off against Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri.

As Musaji presciently noted, “[b]oth Choudary and Bakri are part of the Muslim lunatic fringe.”  The nefarious duo are very familiar to the Muslim community of the U.K., not because they have a large following (they don’t), but because they are routinely trotted out by anti-Muslim right-wingers.  The set-up is always the same: a right-winger pundit will invite one of these two clowns onto their show for a “debate.” By making the hated Choudary and Bakri the representative for the Muslim side, the debate is of course already won.  Muslims are left thinking, “with friends like these, who needs enemies…”

Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri are absolutely despised by the vast majority of the Muslim community, even by the ultra-conservative and radical Muslims they pretend to represent.   They are caricatures, just one step away from being Achmed the Dead Terrorist or a character thought up by Sacha Baron Cohen (like Ali G or Admiral General Aladeen, A.K.A. The Dictator).  Choudary and Bakri play the part of terrorists and radical Islamists, which is why hateful Islamophobes love giving them ample air time: look at how crazy those Moozlums are!

It’s absolutely no surprise then that Robert Spencer and David Wood, two loons in their own right, would debate two even loonier loons.  Spencer wastes his time engaging such unserious clowns, because–just as Sheila Musaji noted long time ago–he has a pattern of seeking out complete fools to debate with so that he can then crow in victory afterward.  Meanwhile, Spencer will doggedly avoid debating anyone (1) with a serious grasp of knowledge of the topic at hand and (2) the debating skill to back it up.  And of course, (3) anyone named Danios.  What’s interesting is that even Robert Spencer’s debating partner, David Wood, seemed to imply on his website that Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri are weak debaters.  Wood agrees with Choudary and Bakri’s view that Muhammad existed, but he doesn’t think that they will be able to make the convincing argument.  Why not just debate Achmed the Dead Terrorist or The Dictator?  It would certainly be just as enlightening and perhaps a bit more entertaining.

Robert Spencer’s homepage boldly declares that he is “the acclaimed scholar of Islam”, and yet he has no educational qualifications to validate that lofty claim.  In fact, all he has is an M.A. in Christian studies…If I get an M.A. in Buddhist studies, does that mean I get to be “the acclaimed scholar of Judaism”?  Spencer has never had his work submitted for peer review in the academic world, and so his arguments–while they certainly might pass off in the non-scholarly world–have never been tested by the real experts in the field.  Spencer’s version of peer-review is debating the equivalent of Achmed the Dead Terrorist and The Dictator.

In any case, let’s not beat around the bush.  It’s me in particular who Robert Spencer fears. One would think that he would want to debate me now that I’ve won the Brass Crescent Award for Best Writer last year (and was runner-up the year before), in no small part due to my writings against Spencer.  I have been refuting his book for a long time now, decimating his arguments one by one.  Spencer can’t respond intelligently, so of course, he naturally fears facing off in debate.  It has now officially been 684 days–that’s 1 year, 10 months, and 14 days–since I agreed to have a radio debate with Robert Spencer.  In that time, Spencer has furiously been generating excuse after excuse to avoid the debate.

Spencer continues to use my anonymity as an excuse to cover up his cowardice.  I’m an anonymous blogger and I have expressed my intent in preserving that anonymity for now.  Yet, Spencer repeatedly insists on a public venue–so that I “show my face”–knowing full well that I won’t accept such a condition.  In this way, Spencer gets out of the debate and can then disingenuously claim that I was the cause of the impasse.

Robert Spencer engages in typical right-winger projection: look how cowardly Danios is that he doesn’t show his face.  But, it is Spencer who is the coward, at least when it comes to defending his views.  What difference does it make who I am or what I look like?  The obvious answer is that Spencer wants to engage in ad hominem attacks against me, instead of focusing on the substantive value of his arguments, which my writings have shown to be severely lacking.  It’s now quite evident to all who want to see it: my refutations of his book are irrefutable.  I know it, you know it, he knows it.

And that’s why Robert Spencer will keep running away from me.  Instead, he’ll debate fools and loons.  Yawn, what’s new?

Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011.

*  *  *  *  *

Here is Sheila Musaji’s article from TAM:

David Wood and Robert Spencer “Debate”?

by Sheila Musaji

David Wood is not as well known as Robert Spencer, so a little background is in order.  Wood is an Evangelical pastor and has a series of polemical articles on Answering Islam.  His focus seems to be on anti-Muslim polemics.

Kiera Feldman reported on an incident in 2010:

Organized by Stop the Islamization of America, the first rally against the “Ground Zero mosque” was held in a plaza near the site of the Twin Towers on June 6th—D-Day. “We are not hatemongerers!” Pamela Hall proclaimed from the podium. “We just want our families and our future to be safe from the racist, bigoted ideology that murdered 3,000 people.” In the crowd, signs ranged from “Everything I need to know about Islam, I learned on 9/11” to crude drawings of Mohammed with the label “beast.”

Toward the end of the rally, two dark-skinned men were overheard speaking Arabic. The crowd transformed into an angry mob, surrounded the men, and shouted, “go home” and “get out.” The Bergen Record reported that the two scared men, Joseph Nasralla and Karam El Masry, had to be extricated by police. It turned out they weren’t even Muslim. They were Egyptian Coptic Christians who’d trekked cross-country from California to join the cause against the “Ground Zero mosque.” Nasralla later told John Hawkins of Right Wing News that the Record coverage was indeed accurate, adding that he’d been shoved and his camera knocked to the ground. “He said he was worried that things might have really gotten out of hand if the police hadn’t escorted him and Karam El Masry away,” Hawkins wrote.

“I actually caused that by accident,” an evangelical pastor named David Wood told me with a chuckle. He meant the near race riot. Wood is a PhD student in philosophy at a respectable New York institution whose name he didn’t want me to use. Passionate about proselytizing to Muslims, Wood’s expertise is Christian apologetics, the practice of arguing unbelievers into faith. He is best known as the creator of a viral video “Of Mosques and Men,” which argues all Muslims—even those who seem “peaceful,” like “good citizens in public”—had an urge to “smile when there were terrorist attacks.” But Wood allows himself a little laugh about violence when Muslims are on the receiving end.

As he tells the story of that day, “[The Copts] were complaining about not having anything to hand out. And I said, ‘I’ve got some pamphlets on Islam, specifically on whether Islam is a religion of peace.” The pamphlets contained passages of the Qur’an selected to suggest the answer is no. “People thought they were there to defend the mosque and promote Islam,” Wood explained. “Lots of people were fired up about that.” But it was a goofy case of mistaken identity, a funny little mix-up. “The guys who were doing it were actually Christians,” Wood told me as if clearing up the whole matter. “They weren’t Muslims.” In other words: the mob’s anger and actions were justified, but misdirected. Aim better next time?

Garibaldi of Loonwatch has written exposes about Wood in two articles here and here

Wood and Robert Spencer will have a “debate” this coming Sunday on the thesis of Spencer’s new book Did Muhammad Exist?  This “debate” will be moderated by Pamela Geller.  That may be the only time that you will see the combination of Pamela Geller and moderation in the same sentence.

Wood made the “challenge to a debate” by video and Spencer accepted the “challenge”.

Spencer is still falsely claiming that Muslims are afraid to debate him, and says in his acceptance: So David Wood will do their work for them.  Read my article Danios vs Spencer:  18 months and Spencer still avoiding a debate for the Saga of Spencer’s avoidance of a debate with Danios.  See The Muslim Communities Useful Idiots for information on some of Spencer’s past debates with Muslims, and why I believe that engaging with bigots is not productive.

These are not individuals who hold respectable, if controversial opinions.  These are bigots, and engaging them in such a forum only provides them with some veneer of respectability.

Hosts like Hannity, or Bolling can claim that they have been “fair and balanced” because they included a Muslim.  And, full time, paid mercenaries in a “holy war” against Islam like Spencer, will claim “victory” no matter what the outcome.  If they have no “facts” that will stand up to scrutiny, they will stoop to ridiculous slurs, as they did with Christina Abraham.  And, when all else fails, if any Muslim says anything reasonable, they will say that it is taqiyya.

This sort of devious, unethical, and downright childish behavior, is not surprising from individuals who consistently “get it wrong” when it comes to Islam and Muslims, and who see no ethical problem with simply removing articles from a site when they are proven to be inaccurate.  Not too surprising for individuals who are co-founders (Spencer & Geller) of a group, Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), which has been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  The group is also described by the ADL in the following terms: “Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), created in 2009, promotes a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the guise of fighting radical Islam. The group seeks to rouse public fears by consistently vilifying the Islamic faith and asserting the existence of an Islamic conspiracy to destroy “American” values. The organization warns of the encroachment of shari’a, or Islamic law, and encourages Muslims to leave what it describes as the “falsity of Islam.”

I believe that it is not “cowardly” to leave these folks alone, just sensible.   It is not that their claims cannot be, and have not been answered, but rather that they have proven themselves time and time again to be untrustworthy and dishonorable in both their tactics and their responses to reasoned argument.

Spencer and Wood seem to have a mutual admiration society.  Spencer posted a notice about the “debate” with a note to watch Wood’s video, and Wood posted a notice with a note to read Spencer’s book.

The notice points out that this “debate” will be right after Geller and Spencer’s “Jessica Mokdad Human Rights Conference” (their most recent anti-Muslim hate fest) ends.  It is worth noting that David Wood will be a speaker at Spencer and Geller’s conference.  I’m sure their promotional video will be more exciting than the actual “debate”.

It seems pretty obvious that rather than a debate, this is a calculated publicity stunt to gain a little more notoriety for their conference, and to publicize Spencer’s book.  I’m sure that they will both have an opportunity to get in a few anti-Muslim zingers in the course of this “debate”.  Let the bigots talk among themselves.

UPDATE 4/30/2012

Just when you thought things couldn’t get any more strange.  Robert Spencer just posted a new notice about tonights “debate”.  The debate is now to be between Spencer and Wood (on the same side) versus Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri.

Both Choudary and Bakri are part of the Muslim lunatic fringe.  Just type their names or the term lunatic fringe into our TAM search engine for more information on these disreputable folks.

I’m curious as to how Spencer is going to talk to Omar Bakri since the last I heard he had been denied re-entry to England, and arrested in Lebanon.

87 Comments For This Post

  1. IbnAbuTalib Says:

    A pseudo scholar tagging up with a man who tried to kill his own father against two repulsive Salafi clowns. Its like a reality show in hell.

  2. Arab Aetheist Says:

    I respect your confidence Danios. Your analyses are always scholarly in nature but you never claimed to be a scholar. I know the quran almost cover to cover and your writings make me feel I know so little :-)

  3. Danios Says:

    @ Arab Aetheist:

    Thank you.

    @ IbnAbuTalib:

    To be fair, even the Salafis strongly dislike them.

  4. Muezzin Says:

    IbnAbuTalib, I know that Anjum Choudry has had no Islamic schooling, he is self taught. He was a solicitor, then turned to publicity hounding. I’m not sure about the other guy. In this instance it’s a little unfair to blame salafism where Choudry is concerned. I think his prime motivation is money and fame. Check his Wikipedia profile. I also think that he may be a plant, helping M15 catch terrorists. Britian is far better at combating Muslim extremists because unlike the USA it works with Muslims. It is my belief that Anjum is helping M15 as all the trash terrorists will be attracted to him. I may be wrong, but why else would a solicitor be living of state benefits and doing what he does, and getting all the publicity. He must have help at the top, and probably to smoke out terrorists. In that respect he is helping us, if indeed that is the case.

    Don’t underestimate the British. They’re not like the Americans.

  5. mindy1 Says:

    Sheesh, this just gets weirder and weirder

  6. Abdul-Rahman Says:

    As for the “topic did Muhammad PBUH exist”, a good article on that topic showing that the Prophet Muhammad SAW certainly did exist (and is one of the most documented people in history) and even Western skeptic, orientalists who study Islam agree with this. http://muslim-responses.com/Historical_Existence/Historical_Existence_

    From the orientalist Patricia Crone;

    “There is no doubt that Mohammed existed, occasional attempts to deny it notwithstanding. His neighbours in Byzantine Syria got to hear of him within two years of his death at the latest; a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between 632 and 634 mentions that ‘a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens’ and dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come ‘with sword and chariot’. It thus conveys the impression that he was actually leading the invasions.”

    And Patricia Crone’s associate Dr. Michael Cook has stated the following;

    “What does this material tell us? We may begin with the major points on which it agrees with the Islamic tradition. It precludes any doubts as to whether Muhammad was a real person: he is named in a Syriac source that is likely to date from the time of the conquests, and there is a account of him in a Greek Source of the same period.” (Cook, 1996,Oxford Press, p.74)

    As for Omar Bakri and Anjem Choudary they have, as this article said, little support among the vast bulk of Muslims and Muslim communities. Anjem Choudary is certainly a favorite guest of the right wing television shows, makes me wonder if he’s on their payroll?!

  7. Hakeem Says:

    It’s painful to hear Omar Bakri.

  8. Sir David Illuminati membership number 16.69 Says:

    What a stunt ,I think I could do better than Anjem Choudry and I am not even muslim ;-)
    I doubt he can wash his hands with out Special Branch knowing ;-)
    Another cheap publicity stunt by the goons.

    I still dont know how spencer can get away with first writing a book that agrees that the prophet did exist but was ….( insert steriotype of choice ) now he states he never existed . Logically either
    a) one book is rubbish and the other correct
    b) both books are rubbish

    I’m leaning towards b ;-)

  9. Ali Says:

    Is Choudary an Islamic scholar whose views merit attention or consideration? No. Has he studied under leading Islamic scholars? Nope. Does he have any Islamic qualifications or credentials? None whatsoever. So what makes him representative of Islam? NOTHING

  10. rambo Says:

    did jesus exist?

    http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/7-earl-dohertys-response-to-bart-ehrmans-case-against-mythicism-telling-the-gospels-like-it-is/

  11. Truth Seeker Says:

    @ David P.b.u h: What are your credentials by the way?How many books have you ever written?What was your job in England?May be a road sweeper!!!Illuminate your self,sir david.You just sound a wind bag to me.An empty vessel making much noise to be praised by brainless Muslims.

  12. Sir David Illuminati membership number 16.69 Says:

    Truth seeker
    I have studied under as many leading scholars as Mr Choudrury and published the same number of peer reviewed articles as Robert Spencer . Good enough and the truth as well ;-)

  13. Jack Cope Says:

    I don’t think Mr Pork does irony or sarcasm Sir David… he’s funny though aren’t you Mr Pork?

    On a side note, I’ve written books, does that make me a scholar too? Or just someone who can type big words coherently together with grammar unlike some people here…

  14. CriticalDragon1177 Says:

    @Danios

    At this rate you’ll be dead before Spencer debates you, and then Spencer will claim that you he would have debated Danios, but he never got the chance.

  15. Jinn Says:

    I just emailed Anjem Choudhary to NOT debate. I hope he listens to me. But I agree with Muezzin, he has to be on some kind of a set up by some agency or group. You cant hold such retarted views and speak for Muslim causes at the same time. Unless he is possessed by Robert Spencers Jinn – who knows.

  16. VRM Says:

    And sheila musaji, the hypocrite could never face Ali sina.
    LOL.
    Following loonwatch for a while has convinced me that it is a petro dollar funded site who is as coward as to refuse to accept even the most non offensive posts, only because they don’t support loonwatch point of view.
    Loonwatch is run by a bunch of loons sure.
    Learn to be democratic loonwatch.

  17. Elmo Says:

    anjem choudry and omer bakri are FOOLS for accepting their “challenge”, they will be doing more HARM than good.

  18. CriticalDragon1177 Says:

    @Jinn

    I doubt it, Anjem Choudhary craves attention, and I think he actually believes all the bigoted hate filled stuff he says, much like Robert Spnencer, so I don’t think it will change his mind. A better way to fight the negative impact this will have on Muslims, particularly the ones living in the west, will be to discredit the claim that people like Choudhary represents the majority of Muslims, especially British Muslims, since most likely we won’t be able to change him.

  19. Informer Says:

    IF THE PILLSBURY DOUGH BOY BECAME HUMAN, HE WOULD LOOK LIKE DAVID FOOD

  20. Ilisha Says:

    @VRM

    “…refuse to accept even the most non offensive posts..”

    I don’t know about some time in the past, but your recent comments have all been published. I went through the spam and trash folders, and there’s nothing in there from “VRM.”

  21. Jack Cope Says:

    Good luck Jinn but I think he’ll ignore you because frankly the dude is an attention whore who loves getting his face on TV. I’ve emailed the guy before, never got a response. Not sure if he is a set up or just out there filling a gap in the market for people to spout of crap on demand. Whatever he is though he is a fool and I feel sorry for him.

  22. Sir David Illuminati membership number 16.69 Says:

    Jack Cope ,that makes you a scholar and a gentleman ;-)
    Not sure about truthseeker/halal dork though. ;-(
    Depends which aproved school he went too :-)

  23. Ibn Mikael Says:

    Choudary is probably just trying to get money. He saw a niche in the Islamophobia market (ie pretending to be a radical) and exploited it. I wouldn’t be surprised if, 5 years from now, he comes out and writes a book about his “break” from radicalism and his acceptance of Western hedonism (which we all know he’s well acquainted with lol).

  24. JT Says:

    The only thing this debate between 4 fake scholars and frauds will resolve is the question of “who’s the looniest of them all”.

    Choudary is an idiotic extremist who loves to have his face in the newspapers but MI5 agent, really? Not everything is a conspiracy…

  25. truth Says:

    Lol

  26. khushboo Says:

    Anjem Choudary is satan’s gift to the haters. We don’t take him seriously but they really want us to. Only fools will believe he’s a rep. for Muslims.

  27. john spielman Says:

    Dear Danios: I’ve just recently come across your web site and have been reading some of your previous articles and think the one about “Jesus love His enemies then kills them” is very good even from a Christian viewpoint as it shows what will happen to the world when Jesus returns and puts and end to all evil in this world. Since He is GOD (for that is what we followers of Christ accept) none can oppose Him successfully. This the parable of Luke 19. Futher more, all punishment for breaking Gods laws( and the laws of Moses were fufilled by Jesus, according to His own words) is to be by Gods hand only. “Vengence is MINE I wiil repay” is from both old and new testaments. so Christians are not to punish adultery or child disobedience or homosexual offence by stoning ect. Paul the apostle sais to leave room for God ‘s wrath.

    My concern with Islam is that it allows people (Muslims) to carry out Allah’s laws and not wait for Allah to do it as if he is unable to punish on his own. Jesus said “let him who is without sin cast the first stone”

  28. ali Says:

    Did I tell you guys David wood blocked me from his blog for refuting him on honor killings? This guy doesn’t let Muslims on his blog unless they’re clueless or idiots like osama abdullah (creator of the hate site answering Christianity).

  29. Khalid Says:

    Man the Salafi’s are crazy , they are inspired by the Mulims Brotherhood which brought this salafist plague that barley counts as a “legitimate” school of though in Islam .
    These Christian loons are just as bad

  30. Sir David Illuminati membership number 16.69 Says:

    John
    “My concern with Islam is that it allows people (Muslims) to carry out Allah’s laws and not wait for Allah to do it as if he is unable to punish on his own. Jesus said “let him who is without sin cast the first stone”
    Firstly
    Where does it say that in the Quran? Although I am not a Muslim I have read large parts of the Quran and have not come across any such instruction.
    Secondly
    Do you draw a distinction between gods laws and state laws ? Muslims and Cristians are instructed to follow the states laws . Unfortunetly we still need the police though ;-)

  31. john spielman Says:

    Dear Sir David Illuminati: I am referring to incidents where repeat “homosexual offenders” are hanged in Iran by the govt or Saudi Arabia executing “witches” to villagers on advice of local sheiks in Pakisatan or Somalia stoning to death adulterers or hanging apostates (all of which have happened in the last 5 years). We don’t see govt sanctioned executions in the western countries for such offences. In fact with the exception of a few states in the USA, there are no executions even for premeditated murderers of children. But Sharia law allows for executions of apostacy(all 5 schools of sharia law). Why not let Allah punish apostates and homsexuals, witches etc himself rather than sinfull people doing his killing.

  32. cl Says:

    robert spencer will only debate someone with a thick accent thus making him look smart

  33. mjasghar Says:

    Htf are these guys gonna be allowed in the USA in the first place?

  34. Sir David Illuminati membership number 16.69 Says:

    John John
    You asked that question before here in case you forgot
    http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/04/salah-al-nasrawi-a-lesson-from-iran-islamic-sharia-is-flexible-after-all/#comments

    The answer you recieved was complex , which is a polite way of saying that the muslims who post here could not agree on an answer. Incidently you forgot about capital punishment in Japan and other countries out east but that is neither here or there.

    You still seem to have a quaint child like approach to islam that all muslims are the same , when in reality they are complex as christians who also kill witches in Nigeria and Homosexuals in other parts of the world .
    Let him who is without sin cast the first stone indeed.

  35. Dawood Says:

    Wait… “Wood agrees with Choudary and Bakri’s view that Muhammad existed, but he doesn’t think that they will be able to make the convincing argument.”

    Wood agrees? Then why is he on the opposite side of the debate? Sounds simply like Spencer is trying to promote his new book and his new position that Muhammad never existed to me. I wonder if he will disavow all of his previous books that made such ingenious use of the Qur’an and hadith/sira to showcase Muhammad’s “skill in warfare” and so on…

  36. KnowingTheTruth Says:

    Jeez I wonder who is going to win this debate…sigh

    This shows how much of a coward Spencer is. Instead of debating a Muslim who is actually intelligent about Islam, no let’s get an idiot like Anjem Choudary who is a hateful person and a joke so yeah I’m not surprised why he would choose to debate him.

  37. KnowingTheTruth Says:

    BTW Loonwatch can you do a story about this bomb plot in Ohio by Non-Muslims

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/five-arrested-suspected-bridge-bombing-plot-near-cleveland-142203758.html

  38. john spielman Says:

    Dear “David Illuminati”: You miss my basic question to muslims. Why not let Allah himself punish people for transgressions of his laws rather than sinfull muslims? It seems that if Allah cannot defend his own laws and honour, then he is not worthy of praise.
    This is the problem with sharia law in muslim dominated counries, whether Iran or Saudi Arabia or any pure Islamic society. All “democratic” muslim majority counrties Like Egypt Indonesia Maylasia have pressure from hardline /radical Islamists to morph into more strict interpretations of Islam and inevitably I fear (like Ache province in Indonesia) become less secular and more dangerous for their nonmuslim minorities .

  39. Jinn Says:

    @ Khalid,

    I’m sure majority of Salafis dont agree with Anjem Choudhary. And more importantly, you cant generalize the Muslim Brotherhood as a pan salafi movement. Most of them oppose the Saudi salafi/wahabi movement.

  40. Sal Says:

    I have a suggestion for this dilemma that the author Danios bemoaned

    In that time, Spencer has furiously been generating excuse after excuse to avoid the debate

    Ask a third party media personality (maybe a TV or Satellite channel) to publicly invite Spencer to a debate, and record Spencer’s refusal or cop out.

  41. Ahmed Says:

    @Dawood,

    The reason why Spencer has now gone with this “Did Muhammad exist?” is because he knows that his initial books on Muhammad have been completely refuted, and so he has to find some other way to slur Islam.

  42. Hopper Says:

    Spencer doesn’t claim you’re a coward, Dani-Boy, he simply states the fact that you indeed are a coward. An intolerant coward who simply silences those who you cannot answer when they point out the many grand facets of Islam that tend to lead the more enthusiastic practitioners to barbaric acts of violence. Or maybe you’ve changed your cowardly stripes and will now tell your waiting legions why Hopper has not been heard from for a while, uh, Dani? Now, Dani, call over your censor, scratch him behind his little puppy dog ears, and have him obliterate this post.

  43. AJ Says:

    Anjem Choudhary is a porn addict and drinks beer. Bakri’s daughter is a pole dancer. I am sure when he is not fooling people with his beard and fatwas to incitement (and getting huge cash from the state – £300,000 so far and the daughter is still on welfare); he dances around some pole as well. Salafis? More like charlatans. When is this show going to end?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240691/Swilling-beer-smoking-dope–secret-past-hate-preacher-Anjem-Choudary.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1062375/Revealed-Radical-cleric-Bakris-pole-dancer-daughter.html

    Hey Grizzly (that’s my new name for him) why don’t you talk to some real Muslims instead of all these imposters? Too afraid, huh?

  44. Dawood Says:

    @Ahmed: Of course, but he’s still flogging them on his own site though, which shows how he’s simply in it for the money. My point was that Wood is hardly a good debating partner for Spencer considering that he believes Muhammad existed (and presumably, Spencer doesn’t). It’s nothing but marketing promotion for Spencer’s new book.

  45. yourKinFolk Says:

    @spielman

    by that last token, for thousands of years the god of the bible wasnt worthy of praise because he set up laws and judges and a system of punishment to be done by his worshipers. if God’s sudden change of heart in the writings of the new testament abolished this previous system, by your statement, at that point he became worthy of praise. from my understanding of islam, which may be wrong, God indeed does punish man for their crimes in this world and the next. now how does god punish? it could be by famine. or he can drop a meteor on the offenders head. and on top of that he can also set up a legal system that punishes criminals on this level of existence. if he does indeed set up a legal system, which you may believe he did at a point in time because i imagine you believe in the validity of the old testament, that is god directly punishing people for their transgression through the law’s he has given man.

    at the very least, that is my understanding of it.

  46. CriticalDragon1177 Says:

    @AJ

    If anyone said Anjem Choudary is not a hypocrite, he’d be wrong, and obviously Omar Bakri isn’t happy with what his daughter’s doing.

  47. dan15 Says:

    I still wonder why Hezbollah came to the defence of Omar Bakri in Lebanon, considering his ridiculous credentials.

  48. Believing Atheist Says:

    I have three tips for LW but I don’t know where to put these tips. Hopefully it gets published. All three tips are about Kamal Saleem the fake terrorist.

    Kamal Saleem Uncovers Plot to Use Roe v. Wade to Bring in Sharia Law
    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/kamal-saleem-uncovers-plot-use-roe-v-wade-bring-sharia-law

    Kamal Saleem Says ‘Terrorism Will Be Legal’ if Immigration Reform Passes; ‘We’ll be Wearing Ragheads’
    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/saleem-terrorism-will-be-legal-immigration-reform-wearing-ragheads

    Kamal Saleem Suggests Obama is a Muslim, Imposing Islamic ‘Fascist Religion’
    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/kamal-saleem-obama-muslim-fascist

  49. AJ Says:

    @Dragon, I am thinking more in terms of what Muezzin said at the top.

  50. Sir David : Man on a phone with a french spell check Says:

    Dear John
    So you are saying that in democratic countries its wrong for religions to try to influence debates on moral issues? If you believe in democracy the people Will make choices that others do
    not agree with. For instance the debate on abortion in the USA.
    In Égypt it was obvious that people would vote for the MB the fact that you dont like this is frankly irrelevent And none of your or mine biz

  51. Sir David : Man on a phone with a french spell check Says:

    John
    I seem to remember that the Quran does have some verses equiverlent to the Bibles ” be not over vexed by wrong doers , as vengence is mine sayeth the Lord”
    Maybe someone could help me out here as i cannot recall where in the Quran i read this.
    ( it would be very funny if Robert Spencer could point out the verse for us :-) )

  52. Sal Says:

    AJ, Bakri’s daughter’s pole dancing has nothing to do with him, unless you are saying he put her up to it. Smears.

  53. fox news Says:

    Muslims should protests and prevent the debate. That will expose both as fraud dramatists having nothing to do with Islam.

  54. Franczeska Says:

    And “Hopper” is still Barry Sommer.

  55. HGG Says:

    Jeez..Spencer posted the video of the debate and it’s part of his new ABN monthly show called, unsurprisingly, Jihadwatch.

  56. DrM Says:

    Ah yes, Andy Choudary at it again. Spencer sure loves a phoney debate.

  57. JD Says:

    FBI watched as 5 men planned Ohio bridge bomb plot

    http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-watched-5-men-planned-ohio-bridge-bomb-064311480.html

    CLEVELAND (AP) — After unknowingly working with an FBI informant for months, five men have been charged with plotting to bomb an Ohio bridge linking two wealthy Cleveland suburbs.

    Federal authorities Tuesday described the men as anarchists who are angry with corporate America and the government. They say the alleged plotters researched explosives and obtained what they thought was C-4 explosives. The material, in fact, was harmless and the public was never at risk because the men got it from the informant, officials said.

    Their arrests Monday night marked the latest case in which FBI agents planned fake terrorism plots alongside targeted suspects, an indication it continues to be a top strategy for the government in preventing terrorism.

    ======

    Well at least this time it made the front page on yahoo.com if its buried under text section and 3 story above it

    http://justpaste.it/files/justpaste/d3/a875844/ScreenHunter_gif.gif

  58. Jan Says:

    Danios, I would be ashamed to be as dishonest as you are. You know very well Mr. Spencer agreed to debate you. All you had to do was to drop the silly anonymity pose ( it’s Mr. Spencer receiving the death threats, not you), book a university, and a moderator, and bob would have been your uncle.

    ”On a related note, Loonwatch’s chief figure, “Danios,” has just passed up no fewer than four separate opportunities to debate me — three hosted at universities and one on ABN — despite his years of bravado and false claims that I was ducking him. He claimed he wanted to debate the laughable thesis that Judaism and Christianity are just as violent as Islam — as if armed terror groups worldwide were justifying killing people by quoting the words of Moses and Jesus, killing apostates from Judaism and Christianity, boasting about the imminent conquest and subjugation of non-Jewish and non-Christian lands, etc.

    But although I was agreeable and he was full of false bluster about how I was avoiding debating him, ultimately he was too afraid to step up and actually agree to a debate. And I don’t really mind, for while it would have been satisfying to defeat him, I doubt anyone would have been enlightened by a couple of hours of him calling me fat, ugly, stupid, and evil, which Reza Aslan-like spittle is essentially all that he and his site can muster in response to the truths I present. They can’t actually refute them.”

    By the way, what happened to my post on the Jessica Mokdad thread, pointing out guests were required to register in advance, and no muslims chose to do so ? It’s no wonder lefty tools and islam have such an affinity. Both will tell any lies, and suppress any truths, in order to advance their agenda. And no doubt *this* comment will fall through the loonwatch black hole, whilst ‘awaiting moderation.’ Coward.

  59. Ilisha Says:

    @Jan

    There isn’t a single comment from you in the trash folder.

  60. Jan Says:

    @ Ilisha.

    My apologies. I mistook the thread. It was this one.

    ”AAI leads “Rejecting Islamophobia” event to counter Geller-Spencer hate-fest.”

  61. From the wastelands.... Says:

    @ Danios – I know you are not running from a debate, you just are not the type to milk the “I wanna be a victim” cow, but I think it’s high time that the loons are outed for what they are, bigoted, hateful and blind. I could recommend a good location for the debate, and honestly, it’s time for someone who is not a tool to step up.

  62. Ahmed Says:

    @Jan,

    You’re talking nonsense. The fact is, Danios has destroyed so much of what Spencer wrote. Danios is Spencer’s main critic on the Internet. Therefore, if Spencer really believes that Danios is full of lies and that he can beat him in a debate, he would agree to do a debate with him regardless of the fact Danios is anonymous. I mean, seriously, what has the actual identity of someone got to do with anything? We all know it is an excuse.

  63. JD Says:

    History of the he Spencer vs Danios debate saga and Spencer running away and making excuses over and over and over and over again

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/01/danios-vs-spencer-18-months-and-spencer-still-avoiding-a-debate/

  64. Jan Says:

    @ Ahmed.

    You said:

    ”I mean, seriously, what has the actual identity of someone got to do with anything? We all know it is an excuse”

    If you *really* think this is a viable argument, then it simply underlines the fact that islam and the left are strangers to democratic values. I, and most other intelligent people, have nothing but contempt for those who hide behind a cloak of anonymity for no reason that they are prepared to disclose. Your little ‘Danios’ expects Mr. Spencer to debate a person who refuses to disclose their identity, and presumably their ‘qualifications’ ( and please don’t cite the mutual admiration ‘brass crescent’ or whatever it is) and yet has the monumental cheek to deride Mr. Spencer for not having a Ph.d in islamic studies ?

    I would accept that argument if Mr. Spencer challenged Stephen Dawking to a debate on the quantum theory, or any of the other *sciences*.

    One does not require specialist knowledge to debate religion or the humanities. One only needs to be literate, intelligent, open minded, ( and by that I don’t mean the false moral/cultural equivalence espoused by leftists, and muslims when it suits them) and willing to read widely.

    Equally, considering the mutually masturbatory state of academia in the 21st Century, where if an academic doesn’t spout the required leftist party line they can forget about a Chair, or being published, I would suggest that ‘academic’ qualifications simply mean one doesn’t question the PC/MC meme.

  65. Jan Says:

    Oops. meant ‘Hawking’, not ‘Dawking.’

  66. JD Says:

    Jan How do you know Dan is not getting treats Go read the comments on BareNakedIslam and tell us there is nothing to worry about…

    also

    If that is true then tell us who is Fitzgerald, the Vice President of JihadWatch. That not his real name also anonymous pseudonym Read my link

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/01/danios-vs-spencer-18-months-and-spencer-still-avoiding-a-debate/

    It’s Spencer who has backed out every time from Danios Anon to not doing a debate on the radio. Please tell us why does he refuse a radio interview with D but was him self more then happy to jump in on the debate between
    Eric Allen Bell and Nadir Ahmed over the phone and still got his butt handed to him

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/03/jihadwatch-zombie-eric-allen-bell-and-glazov-gang-lose-debate-with-nadir-ahmed-want-rematch/

  67. IbnAbuTalib Says:

    Jan: One does not require specialist knowledge to debate religion or the humanities. One only needs to be literate, intelligent, open minded, ( and by that I don’t mean the false moral/cultural equivalence espoused by leftists, and muslims when it suits them) and willing to read widely.

    Are the people in academia who reject Spencer as a worthless phony lacking in literacy, intelligence, open-mindedness? Let me ask you this: Take the likes of Watt Montgomery and Kenneth Cragg, both notable Evangelical scholars of Islam. When you compare their conclusions about Islam with those of Spencer’s, who comes out as literate, intelligent and open minded?

  68. Géji Says:

    john spielman Says: “been reading some of your previous articles and think the one about “Jesus love His enemies then kills them” is very good even from a Christian viewpoint as it shows what will happen to the world when Jesus returns and puts and end to all evil in this world. Since He is GOD (for that is what we followers of Christ accept) none can oppose Him successfully”

    @Mr john spielman, lets cut the bull-crap and be honest for once shall we. I mean, since you’re the one that keeps-on bringing this subject implying “my religion is better than your” crap, in every thread you post, then at least lets be honest about it. And if you’re claiming to be one of ‘followers of Christ’, then hypocrisy is a major sin am I right? Less you prove to be from one of those fanatic, hypocrite ‘followers’ that keeps on throwing weak pebbles at others, that actually become rocks when easily thrown-back only to end-up hurting those that throwed-first . You can’t have-it both ways.

    (Speaking of Jesus) You claimed – “He is GOD (for that is what we followers of Christ accept)” – right? If Jesus is “GOD” as you said, in Biblical term ‘YHWH’, then the God of all prophets in the Bible, right? Thus in accordance, Jesus-a.k.a-Yhwh of the Bible, the-sender-down of Biblical *divine* ‘laws/instructions’ as guidance that ordered his Biblical prophets and their followers to follow and carry-out, right?

    You also claimed – “the laws of Moses were fufilled by Jesus, according to His own words” – That is when he came to earth as human-being, right? — So if we go by, not only did he -”since He is GOD”- sent-down those Biblical laws/instructions that ordered his prophets and their followers to follow and carry-out, but he actually “fulfilled” them once he became human being on earth, so far so good.

    So therefore, then how do you explain the fact that not only as “GOD” he is the one that ordered those Biblical laws/instructions such as Example – Those ordering to carry-out genocidal warfares that eliminates everything that breaths & Those ordering on women & Those ordering stoning even those that curse him and his kings ect .. & Brief *all* Biblical divine laws/instructions his prophets and their followed-through and carried – BUT then he as “GOD”/man actually “fulfilled” once he came to earth? –Cause that makes him the “GOD” of the Bible that not only ordered those “laws/instructions”, but actually fulfilled them in person, right?

  69. MrIslamAnswersBack Says:

    @ John Spielman you seem to have overlooked the fact that in Luke 19:27 Jesus orders his followers to bring those who refuse his rule and kill them in front of Jesus. So Jesus wont do it himself, he will have his followers bring people in front of Him and Kill them while he (Jesus) watches. Thus you should have a problem with your own Christianity. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible states :The Saviour whom they have slighted will stand by and see them slain, and not interpose on their behalf.So your own bible interpreters agree this is what it means.

    @ Geiji You are absolutely correct. John seems to forget that Yhwh ordered his prophets and followers to carry out His laws and punishments instead of Him (God) doing it himself.

  70. Ahmed Says:

    If you *really* think this is a viable argument, then it simply underlines the fact that islam and the left are strangers to democratic values. I, and most other intelligent people, have nothing but contempt for those who hide behind a cloak of anonymity for no reason that they are prepared to disclose

    Actually, an intelligent person would not have contempt for someone who likes anonymity – they would respect their choice.

    Anyway, one of JihadWatch’s leading members posts anonymously. So, do you and the “intelligent” Robert Spencer have “nothing but contempt” for him? If so, why does Spencer not kick him off JihadWatch?

    I’ll tell you why – because you, Spencer, and I all know that Spencer is scared of a debate, and so he comes up with this anonymity excuse.

  71. fox news Says:

    Any debate by Danios should be planned along with his book release refuting Spencer and Co.

  72. CriticalDragon1177 Says:

    @fox news

    Only problem with your idea, is that it looks like Spencer won’t debate Danios unless its at gun point. Spencer obviously doesn’t want to do it, so whats the point of planing something ahead of time, if most likely he won’t show up? Plus I think Danios should focus more on his book, since that will really help discredit Spencer, plus he might be able to raise some money for Loon Watch.

  73. Muneeb Says:

    It seems like Mr Spencer wrote this in his new book:
    The Arabian conquests are a historical fact; that the Arabian conquerors actually came out of Arabia inspired by the Qur’an and Muhammad is less certain.
    So from now on, he must stop claiming that the Quran inspire muslims to conquer Europe and USA.

  74. Michael Elwood Says:

    @Muneeb

    “It seems like Mr Spencer wrote this in his new book:
    The Arabian conquests are a historical fact; that the Arabian conquerors actually came out of Arabia inspired by the Qur’an and Muhammad is less certain.”

    Spencer is wrong about the historicity of the Arabian conquests. Some conquest by Arabs did happen, but not to the extent that the pseudo-scholar Spencer assumes. Dr Daniel W. Brown pointed this out in his book “A New Introduction to Islam” (scroll down to the section titled “The ‘Invisible’ Conquests”):

    http://books.google.com/books?id=ViTmBB8DQNcC&lpg=PA109&ots=E70Hix6sGt&dq=daniel%20w.%20brown%20the%20invisible%20conquest&pg=PA109#v=onepage&q&f=false

    However, he is right that the Arabian conqueror weren’t inspired by the Quran. But not because Muhammad and the Quran didn’t exist. The Quran says:

    2:190 You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you,
    but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors

    4:94 O you who believe, if you strike in the cause of GOD, you shall
    be absolutely sure. Do not say to one who offers you peace, “You are
    not a believer,” seeking the spoils of this world. For GOD possesses
    infinite spoils. Remember that you used to be like them, and GOD
    blessed you. Therefore, you shall be absolutely sure (before you
    strike). GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you do.

    Let my just say, in case I haven’t said it before, or often enough, that I think Spencer is a big, fat, sophist. In a previous debate called “A Fictional Muhammad,” Spencer took the exact opposite position that he did in this recent debate:

    http://19.org/1045/robert-spencer-bill-warner/

    Either he doesn’t credit his groupies with enough intelligence to see that he takes two mutually exclusive positions, or he’s so confident in his sophistry that he thinks that no one will notice.

  75. Abdullah67 Says:

    Please don’t call these bozos “Salafis”. They’re not. They are Takfiris and Kharajites…Their inspiration is not from the Book and the Sunnah or The Salaf, but from the 20th/21st century political movements/ideologues. They are blowhards who need to heed the advice of the Ulema.

  76. dan15 Says:

    “Please don’t call these bozos “Salafis”. They’re not. They are Takfiris and Kharajites…Their inspiration is not from the Book and the Sunnah or The Salaf, but from the 20th/21st century political movements/ideologues. They are blowhards who need to heed the advice of the Ulema.”

    A lot of Salafis have more in common with Choudary and Bakri than you are afraid to admit. Given that the Salafis have no problem beating women in Tunisia or attempt to destroy Egypt pre-Islamic heritage or slaughtering women and children in Algeria’s civil war, is it so hard to believe that a lot of Salafis who themselves want to declare EVERYTHING bidah would come to the defense of Choudary and Bakri? After all, don’t they, in spite of all the mischief they cause, consider them to be brothers in Islam as opposed to liberal Muslims whom they regard as murtads and worthy of execution?

  77. rookie Says:

    Truth Seeker say:
    “A lot of Salafis have more in common with Choudary and Bakri than you are afraid to admit.”

    Oh dear, this moron ir right again.
    They all have beards.

  78. rookie Says:

    The “Debate”:

    ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmZe6Y-RXfc&feature=player_embedded

  79. flow Says:

    Some people so hate salafis that they boil with rage. They then try to sound as if they have something to say. They dont!
    http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=8&Topic=10142
    http://www.takfiris.com/takfir/articles/heigk-the-cult-of-omar-bakri-operating-within-the-united-kingdom-and-faking-attachment-to-salafiyyah.cfm
    Here is a taste:
    “Anjem Choudary is a Hardcore Takfiri.He makes
    Takfir of the Muslim Rulers. He even made Takfir of Sheikh Bin Baaz
    (RahimaHullah). (I personally heard him say that
    he believes that Sheikh Bin Baaz is a Kafir.
    (Wa’iyyadu’billah- We seek refuge in Allah). He is very Jaahil with regards to the Deen.”
    “… then when you criticize these people, and
    describe them as they are, it is as if you are an
    enemy of Islam and the Muslims, as if these
    people represent Islam and the Muslims in the first place. They only represent their own groups,
    and their own agendas and their own partisanship and their own innovated methodologies.”
    “…….attempting to deceive other
    muslims with their claimed attachment to the
    way of the Salaf.”
    Basic lesson: Do not let your hatred of a person or group of people turn u away from being just.

  80. khushboo Says:

    How about Wajahat Ali vs. Spencer? He’s not anonymous and could easily bring him down to his knees!

  81. CriticalDragon1177 Says:

    @khushboo,

    I don’t I’ve heard of him until now. Is this guy you’re talking about?

    Wajahat Ali
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wajahat-ali

  82. CriticalDragon1177 Says:

    @khushboo

    Actually I take it back, I have heard of him, in fact Loon Watch featured something written by him awhile back. I had just forgotten the name of the guy who wrote this article that Ilisha linked to originally.

    Goat Milk: Death by tweet? How Hamza Kashgari’s fate will shape the face of Islam today
    http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/03/goat-milk-death-by-tweet-how-hamza-kashgaris-fate-will-shape-the-face-of-islam-today/

  83. john spielman Says:

    Dear Geji; Sorry to be late in responding to you, but I didn’t see your last post til now.
    As far as Jesus is God, this is the core belief in Christianity because not only did the disciples affirm this in their writings to the early church (John’s, Peter’s Paul’s epistles or letters but Jesus Himself confirmed this fact as recorded in the gospel accounts and proven by His miracles of walking on water, multiplying the loaves and fishes, healing the blind deaf and dumb, and raising the dead and finally by His resurrection from the dead after His crucifiction.
    So Jesus with the Fatherand Holy Spirit (one GOD -the Hebrew iterm is Ehad I believe) created the heave and earth (John 1). He gave the law to the Israelites and He spoke through the prophets. He fufilled the entire sacrifical and judicial system on the cross (Matthew 5:17-18 an many otrher passages)so now we are in a age of grace where our sins don’t always result in immediate punioshment by God.

  84. john spielman Says:

    cont’d. Now the old testament tells us why God “gave” the land of Canan to Israel, it was because the Cananites were so evil (practicing idol worship and engaing in child sacrifice to Molech) Deuteronomy9:5. The penalty of sinning against God was terrible for the Cananites and later for Israel when they turned from God and were nearly wiped out as a people by the Babylonians as God had revealed by the prophets.But now we the world are in an age of Grace (undeserves love and mercy of God)
    As followers of Christ we are not allowed to exact punishment in His name. Vengence belongs to the LORD as we are unqualified to punish (Let him who is without sin cast the first stone). Luke 19 parable is about the end of this age when Christ returns as King of king and Lord of lords. We will not be carrying out His opunishments as it will be Jesus Himself with His holy angels (see Revelation 19 and 2 Thessalonians)

  85. Sir David Illuminati membership number 16.69 Says:

    His holy angels …. MMMMM sounds like drones to me
    No change there then

  86. Géji Says:

    @john spielman Says: “Dear Geji; Sorry to be late in responding to you, but I didn’t see your last post til now”

    Oh yes you saw-it, even before I reminded you on the other thread. But chosen to ignore-it cause as I suspected you had no logical answer to provide refuting my yet very simple questions you brought upon yourself, other than coming back with nonsensical rants that beats-around-the-bushes when you could have been just as easily shortened- to answer yes or no.

    > “As far as Jesus is God, this is the core belief in Christianity because not only did the disciples affirm this in their writings to the early church (John’s, Peter’s Paul’s epistles or letters but Jesus Himself confirmed this fact as recorded in the gospel accounts and proven by His miracles of walking on water, multiplying the loaves and fishes, healing the blind deaf and dumb, and raising the dead and finally by His resurrection from the dead after His crucifiction”

    Funny, cause even with all “His miracles”, I thought a large section of -”the core belief in Christianity” – was that Jesus was only the 2th person of trinity as son of God, and not God the father himself.

    > “So Jesus with the Fatherand Holy Spirit (one GOD -the Hebrew iterm is Ehad I believe) created the heave and earth (John 1). He gave the law to the Israelites and He spoke through the prophets.”

    So you see, when I’m saying you’re beating around the bushes for no reason, when a simple YES would have suffice to answer my whole question, i.e., — Is Jesus as “GOD” the one who gave the laws/instrustions to the Bible prophets and their followers to carry-out his orders such as ~ him ordering to carry-out genocidal warfares that eliminates everything that breaths & Those ordering on women & Those ordering stoning even those that curse him and his kings? — Thus, YES Géji it is Jesus that did that, would have sufficed and would had save you lots of time typing as well. —— So thus as far it is official! -(according to you) Jesus as “GOD” ordered those punishments to be carried-out by his believers. Therefore, He didn’t did-it himself did he? but ordered others to do it for him isn’t.

    > “As followers of Christ we are not allowed to exact punishment in His name. Vengence belongs to the LORD as we are unqualified to punish”

    Let’s drop the hypocritical cop-out and be consistent shall we. And remember that we already establish it’s your Jesus-(again according to your own words “GOD”)- that “HE gave” the laws/instructions that ordered the punishments his Biblical prophets and their “Israelites” followers carried-out and applied against those infidel sinners such the “evil” Cananites ordering that annihilated them t’ill the last one that breaths including their farm animals, and the stoning of those that curses him and his kings.

    So then why are you contradicting yourself a minute later by saying – “As followers of Christ we are not allowed to exact punishment in His name” – Didn’t you said by the same token that he (Jesus) actually fulfilled the Biblical laws/instructions the prophets carried-out punishing infidels when he came to earth as God/man?

    So by contradicting yourself, you’re either proving your Jesus “GOD” is very contradictory, he’s one thing one moment and different thing the other, by extension proving he is not “GOD” at all as you says he is, thus fake. Or you have to admit since according to you his “GOD”, he did did ordered such cruel punishments in the Bible for his prophets and their followers to carry-out against infidels. He did not did-it himself, but ordered others to do it. Which makes your whole assertion of quote – “As followers of Christ we are not allowed to exact punishment in His name” – FALSE.

    ————————————-

    Sir David: “His holy angels …. MMMMM sounds like drones to me
    No change there then”

    Oh yes ‘dear’ Sir David, I see you too are smelling from miles-away the usual hypocrisy of our dear Mr john spielman . He first claimed Jesus-(“GOD” according to him) will have no help whatsoever carrying-out the delightful job at slaughtering infidels, but then he(Jesus) somehow now a minute latter he’ll have “His holy angels” as helpers? I wonder if john spielman think George W Bush is one of those “holy angels”, since Bush precisely stated such when he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan with the “holy” blessing of Jesus the warrior “GOD”.

  87. Hass Says:

    Spencer will try to look good in front of the audience by PICKING TO CHOOSE THE ONES WHO AREN’T EVEN SCHOLARS i.e. Choudhary.

    Sorry Spencer, your bleak attempt to win a debate has been found out. And your marketing attempts to promote your book are quite open too… it doesn’t take a genius to figure out your petty strategies.

2 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Robert Spencer to Debate Achmed the Dead Terrorist and The Dictator | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper Says:

    [...] Robert Spencer to Debate Achmed the Dead Terrorist and The Dictator [...]

  2. Robert Spencer to Debate Achmed the Dead Terrorist and The Dictator | Spencer Watch Says:

    [...] The American Muslim (TAM) has been keeping a close eye on the loons who write for Jihad Watch.  The chief loon of JW, Robert Spencer, had initially been slated to debate David Wood, another Christian [...]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here
Advertise Here