
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…”
Really?
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 FuckAllah.com and FuckIslam.com 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."






































Take a look at the comments section as well which Spencer claims is moderated. It shows the deep Islamophobia that is instilled in the hearts of Spencer’s followers and echo’s sentiments that Spencer himself holds but won’t dare to verbalize. According to them this is all “taqiyyah,” “stealth Jihad,” “fake.”
Some of the comments by luminaries on JihadWatch:
For so many reasons and for so many years Muslims have made me so deeply skeptical of Islam that I can’t help but look upon this relief effort as being prompted first and foremost not by noble compassion but rather by the desire to insure conversion. If this sounds too cynical, I plead innocent here and direct guilt towards the Islamic world, whose motives no person of sense should ever trust.
Taqiyya at best, looks like humanitarian aid, but disguised as making over the world for Allah’s supremacy and Sharia. Beware of Islamics bearing gifts. Cynical with cause.
Muslims dont help = Evil Muslims
Muslims help = Evil Muslims
A day or two ago, I mentioned that if Muslims were finally going to help with the relief effort in Haiti, then good for them.
I’m not usually so clueless—not anymore, anyway—but I have to admit, this being an opportunity for Da’wa did not really occur to me at the time.
Here’s a generally good article on the subject from Debbie Schlussel:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/15625/haiti-islamic-relief-the-scientologists/
There is, however, a fair bit of silly moral equivalence between Islam and Scientology presented here. I *am not* a fan of Scientology, but there’s no death for apostasy with them if you decide you no longer want to hang out with Tom Cruise. I wish I could say the same about Islam.
From Hermit, above:
In my city in England, squads of muslims with islamic posters are out in force - stading outside shopping centres with buckets collecting for Haiti.
………………
I wonder how much of that money is actually going to Haiti, and how much will just be considered “Zakat”, and go for whatever Muslim cause—including Jihad—that the “charities” see fit?
Off you go back to Iran parasite, and stop sponging off us, workshy Mohammedan troll.
“Off you go back to Iran parasite, and stop sponging off us, workshy Mohammedan troll.”
Its good to see you disagree with what I said, so you think the Muslims who are helping haitians are not evil and are doing it out of the goodness of their heart, right?
I dont expect you to be able to put together a proper coherent reply which doesnt involve ad hominems and strange assumptions about my birthplace…but what the hell?
It just goes to show that charity is not a primary virtue.
It may be a secondary or tertiary virtue, or perhaps a value, but not a primary virtue as such.
Thugs and thieves are often fond of charitable giving as a way of making a respectable face in public and/or providing themselves with some ego grats for their material magnanimity.
In this particular case, Haiti is an open wound for the maggots to dig into and feed on.
By the way, why aren’t those bastards being run off?
Oh, oh … I forgot. Our Dear Leader, Red Hussein, has made a comittment to combating negative stereotypes of mohammedanism.
What do you want to be that he knows about this and possibly even had a hand in it.
Well, what do you expect? Followers of any totalitarian ideology when they are seemingly showing compassion should never be taken by sensible people as engaging in only charitable behavior. Sensible people know that ideologues (and yes, Muslims are as much ideologues as Marxists and Neo-Nazis) most always are motivated by a hidden agenda, i.e., the promotion of their belief system. Hey, this ain’t rocket science, just simple math, like your equations in your 12:16 P.M. post.
They are collecting in my city in England too. Same buckets and posters.
I wonder if they have registered with the UK authorities as a “charity”? Fake “charities” occur all the time. Perish the thought that those whom the Qur’an describes as the “best of people” would even think of doing such a thing.
I too, wonder where the money is actually going. Buckets with cash in them would be just too easy to “divert” to another cause.
“Hey, this ain’t rocket science, just simple math, like your equations in your 12:16 P.M. post.”
Exactly, if Muslims hadnt sent money they would have been trashed on here as evil Muslims and now that they have sent money they are trashed on here as evil muslims.
You are determined to remain clueless, aren’t you? Endeavor next time taking my full comment into account before commenting on it. Go ahead, try and rip my ENTIRE 3:37 P.M. post apart. Address all of it, not just a portion of it.
What’s so humorous here is that the equations you put forward are valid but you think they confirm narrow-mindedness by those who despise Islam, when, in fact, it is you who is the intellecutally diminutive one possessed of an insouciance that is risible in the first degree. My strong guess is that you’ll never get it. You haven’t to date, now have you?
“A few on the fringes” are all it takes.
“Well, what do you expect? Followers of any totalitarian ideology when they are seemingly showing compassion should never be taken by sensible people as engaging in only charitable behavior.”
Muslims, as followers of a totalitarian ideology, cannot be expected to exhibit purely altruistic behaviors.
“Sensible people know that ideologues (and yes, Muslims are as much ideologues as Marxists and Neo-Nazis) most always are motivated by a hidden agenda, i.e., the promotion of their belief system.”
Muslims. as ideologues, are assumed to be motivated by proselytism, including in instance when they exhibit altruistic behavior.
What’s the deal with the Pepsi and Guinness banners?
Thank you for confirming my overall point which is that any Muslim generosity to non-Muslims is not motivated by a kind of Mother Teresa love but rather by an agenda. See why Islam is becoming more and more despised by more and more non-Muslims with each passing year?
Islam has had a run of it for a few decades now, whereby most ordinary Western folk were prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt, but those days are almost over (even a majority of the extremely tolerant Dutch are sick of Islam). 9/11, tedious Muslim arguments about the importance of “context,” Muslim word games with terms like “innocent,” actual reading of the Koran by non-believers (which has not only putrid sentiments in it but clearly erroneous ones such as Alexander the Great living to an old age (Sura 18) and the Jews believing that Ezra is the Messiah (Sura 9), Muslim terrorism worldwide on virtually a daily basis, and revelation of just how psychopathic and sexually perverted Mohammed actually was (confirmed by Muslim sources which stupidly brag about it) have all insured with each passing year that more millions of non-Muslims are aware of just how fucked up Islam really is.
And that’s why I think that Islam is eventually headed to oblivion, but not before it does a lot more damage, just as other totalitarian ideologies have before they have finally become the stuff for fringe human beings and for no one else. Islam’s final legacy is to be assigned to that collection pile which contains the greatest and stupidest of human errors. It’s so deserved.
After the initial earthquake in Haiti i’m not sure which of the two following aftershocks were the more harrowing for the survivors.
The inevitable : Part 1
The luminaries of Film, Stage, Music rush forward to the first available TV network and tell us unaffected lay-abouts that we aren’t doing enough to help the poor souls of Hawaii (or where ever that AWFUL thing happened) so give money and lots of it and you might save many floundering careers into the bargin.
Have these people never heard of anonymous donations ? - Of course not !
The inevitable : Part 2
The luminaries of the Muslim world, albeit slow off the mark, get in on the act by swapping bottles of water in return for a quick lecture as to why infidels have been so misguided all these years.
Stepping on and over females to find a nice area to pray in, one does ask, who’s water were they giving out anyway ?
Some of them must have been watching the news, oh yea ! and the Jihadist’s.
Sorry, i forgot, a special thanks to Islamic Relief USA for the quite deliberate extended footage of the Guinness Beer Tent amidst the carnage.
“Islam doesn’t have a ghost of a chance establishing itself
in the Caribbean.The Christian faith goes too deep.
Maybe a few on the fringes may be persuaded.”
I would not be so quick to think that the scourge of Islam could not gain a strong foot hold in Haiti.
The Nation of Haiti has been infected with other demonic teachings, Voodoo.
An estimated 80 percent of Haiti’s 8.8 million people practice Voodoo to some extent, including many who claim to be Catholic or another religion.
“Muslims noticeable in cities”
“But followers of Islam have recently stepped into the
public eye. Muslim men distinctive in their kufi
headwear and finely groomed beards, and women in
traditional scarves, are now seen on the streets of
several cities.”
“Nawoon Marcellus, who comes from the northern city of
San Raphael, recently became the first Muslim elected
to the Chamber of Deputies, Haiti’s lower house of
parliament.”
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nygus/3684374231/
http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/voodoo/islam.htm
http://www.islamawareness.net/Fastest/haiti.html
Voodoo and Islam both originate from the same source, the Devil himself.
baest wrote:
What’s the deal with the Pepsi and Guinness banners?
……………………..
A lot of companies helping with the relief effort have sent tents and trucks and other items emblazoned with their logos. Some people consider this a bit tacky, but it doesn’t really bother me that much. It’s not as though they are only helping victims who have been past customers or anything.
Often these are already existing items—like the tents—that the companies normally use for concerts and festivals.
“Voodoo and Islam both originate from the same source, the Devil himself.”
Agreed, CS.
Here is an interesting article concerning Haiti and voodoo.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message965211/pg1
Islamic Rituals Voodoo
By Abul Kasem
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message493957/pg1
For some reason the previous post with this link has a problem.
This one should be ok
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message493957/pg1
“When Muhammad finished ablution, Gabriel sprinkled water on Muhammad’s private parts.”
Yeah, in your DREAMS I did that, Muhammad!!
Angrily,
Gabriel
He should have sprinkled hydrochloric acid.
That would have ended Mohammed’s career as a child raping pedophile.
There is nothing untoward about criticizing Islamist groups using disaster relief to their own advantage.
Many have commented on this in the past.
Other concerns include: recruiting orphans for the jihad, weapons smuggling, misallocation of funds, money laundering, and harassment of other relief workers.
This is a feature of Islamist operations that has been remarked on by the former President of Pakistan, among many others, but you, mp11, don’t know about it?
Twit. Muslims are there to spread Islam, not help. The only thing they’re supplying is Korans. Nothing else. They’re trying to spread the wicked teachings of Islam to Haiti and create there the sort of Saudi or Pakistani society you’d obviously like to see in the West. So off you go to Pakistan, Sharia-loving barbarian d**khead.
http://www.avraidire.eu/2010/01/fitna-version-francaise-geert-wilders-part-12/
Fitna, version française Geert Wilders part 1/2
sITE EVANGELIQUE FRANCOPHONE VIDEO
At least you undertsand.
Muslims going in to “hekp” while promoting Islam are like the Ku Klux Klan going in to “help” wearing hoods and brandishing burning crosses.
Indeed! …lol
Avraidire wrote:
Fitna, version française Geert Wilders part 1/2
……………….
It’s good to know that Fitna is now available in French.
Avraidire, Robert Spencer is currently having his “Blogging the Qu’ran” series translated into Spanish. Perhaps you—or someone you know—could have the series translated into French?
Izloom’s propagation and proliferation strategy makes perfect sense, logistically. If there is one thing that these a-holes can think clearly about its about how to spread there message of submission to an ideology of barbarism.This might sound perverse but when these barbarians try to procreate with the Haitian natives they will be easy candidates for HIV themselves. This is the only redeeming quality to this invasion.
BTW, I personally do not subscribe to the theory that Voodoo is about the “Devil”; the religion is not about this, but the bottom line here is that the “Devil” is a Christian concept so that negates the understanding that followers of voodoo are conjuring the “Devil”. I would say that if there is anything inherently “evil” about Haiti it is the evil of believing that political demagogues will somehow save the masses from their wretched lives. I would say that Haiti’s lack of up-to-par civilized modes of existence has to do with its subscribing to a belief system that says it is OK to be continually at the mercy of leaders whose only purpose is to use them as scapegoats and pawns for their own agendas. Now, izloom will be the next group of con-artists and whore-masters.
Christian Soldier, thanks for the above. I pasted it into the comments section of one of “Hijab” Heageny’s articles about Rifqa over at the Columbus Dispatch online. One guy already red it and thanked me for it. If we can expose the idiocy and super control of Islam in a way that makes people laugh, we may be onto something. This was superb. Again, thank you.
As you can see being a Muslim is not so easy. Many intricate rules to follow.
Except for bathing. Some simple dirt will do just fine.
“In Islam, it is not compulsory to bathe every day. It is quite all right not to bathe for the six days of a week. The only recommended bath is the bathing on Fridays, to attend the juma prayer, although a perfect ablution might do, in case there is shortage of water, or due to inconvenience. When no water is available tayammum will do. This procedure (tayammum) consists of rinsing oneself with dirt or dust. Imam Nasai (1.316) writes that a Muslim can bathe in dirt and dust simply by rolling his body as a camel or a beast does.”
For all the liberals out there that keeping saying “Islam is a religion of peace”, let us look at that peaceful book the Qur’an:
Sura 7:166 “When in their insolence they transgressed all prohibitions, we said the them “be ye apes, despised and rejected” the “religion of peace” speaking about Jewish people
Sura 2:65 “And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.” again, the “religion of peace” speaking about Jewish people
You Muslims are out of God’s will. May you come to know the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior. Your “friendly” Allah, will not and never will save ANYONE..