Come on and Sephardi now, everybody's learning how, come on and Sephardi with me...

Robert,

It just proves the axiom that when you speak the truth, a lot of people will hate you and want to block out what you have to say.

Well Robert, it seems you've found a real turkey today! ;)

"He is considered psychologically impotent..."
-- from the article above

Not the other kind?

I'm glad you've heard of the Beach Boys and apparently like them. I was wondering just how "conservative" you were. :-) (I doubt Santorum likes the Beach Boys, for example. And the Muslims certainly don't. A regular dose of silly, happy pop music helps ward off fanaticism.)

What is it with all the ad hominem slurs as a style of argument? Insulting someone will refute their arguments?

I am sure Robert will concur with the following sentiment:

Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me!

Nyah ... Nyah.

my goodness! that is the most illiterate rant I've seen on wikipedia in a while. must mean you're doing something right, robert.

Keep up the good work and lets get this site translated to other languages.

Try as they may.......the truth is being told, and the truthophobes can't stand it.....

He is considered psychologically impotent to be a scholar

I'm not exactly sure what they mean by "psychologically impotent". It seems to me a meaningless phase intended purely as slander. I would point out that a source which can be amended by anyone and isn't subject to rigorous, informed and impartial scrutiny is not exactly authoritative.

Worthless, more like

Come clean, Robert Ben Spencer. You certainly look Jewish, but not Sephardic.

I've never read that 'debate' with Schwartz before. He's obviously struggling with his new Muslim identity. Sometimes his analysis is instructive, usually his take on the Wahhabi influence in Islam. He underestimates it and seeks to alienate it from the 'real' Islam. Wahhabism is just Sunni Islam strictly interpreting the Koran with more hatred for other (non-conforming) Muslims. To a Wahhabi, innovation in Islam is the greatest evil.

On the other hand, in this debate, his new Muslim suprmacist identity showed through in all its glory. He's in the philosophical morass of Islam and can't make sense of it. His claims he speaks for Islam, and non-Muslims just don't get it, are the oldest deflection tricks in the taqiyya arsenal. But what choice does he have? Robert has the texts, arguments, and history to back up what he says.

Islam, theologically, is weak and brittle. Defending it is to admit it exists. The debate is lost through mere quotation of their texts. How does one spin dozens of overtly hostile, clearly expressed, exhortions to kill the infidel?

Islam, the military strategy, is powerful, deceptive, ruthless, and with enough technology from civilization, a serious threat to every free nation on Earth. The weak peaceful theology of Islam eventually leads the convert to find more use in Islamic dominance and supremacy, denying it all the while. Abrogation of the few peaceful suras allows a Muslim to trick the kuffar, while concealing a belief in the operative passages.

Don't worry, Robert. You're not the first person who stands up for the truth to be slandered like that on Wikipedia. Matt Slick, Christian apologist and founder of CARM, has been done the same way. And with the same amount of illiteracy. It's hilarious to me that yours, or Slicks, intelligence is insulted, when the writers of such garbage don't even know basic english. But it's all just a means of slander anyway. Since Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, it should not be taken as a source of scholarly authority, yet people will continually point to it like it's been writen by college professors or the like. Most articles on Wikipedia like that, done to slander those who stand for truth, and especially against islam, are writen by muslims (the illiteracy gives them away). My guess is by some small time lackeys who are hardcore followers of CAIR. But that's just a guess. It could have been done by anyone who's against truth for the sake of idiocy. Anyway, God bless, and keep up the good work.

Thank you: 202.5.154.7

Traced back to...

Pakistan
Sindh region
City of Karachi
Longitude: 67.050
Lattitude: 24.867

Wow... That's scary. I can trace this guy back to his house. Note to self: Switch computer labs every 3 months...

Here's another one.

62.253.166.234
United Kingdom
London
Longitude: -0.105
lattitude: 51.517

"It is generally agreed that his knowledge of Islam is generally suspect given the fact that he has no knowledge of classical Arabic and therefore his interpretation of Islamic text is heavily clouded by his own ultra right views."

Actually... I'm going to go back to being a lurker from now on...

furthermore...he has devil horns and drinks blood out of goat skulls.

Happy Thanksgiving!

infidel...

That kind of criticism is pure gold.

You must be very proud Robert...it shows you are hitting a nerve.

At another website I recently posted a few comments and links I'd found interesting, regarding the truth about Islam.
I was amazed at how Islamic apologists came out of the woodwork to belittle me and do everything they could to get the webmaster to edit my posts and remove my links.
This shows me I am onto the truth about Islam.

Keep up the good work Robert...keep shining that light on Islam...it's fun to watch the bugs squirm in the light of truth.

Yeah... I noticed recently they had a not-biased-towards-Israel history of Israel and "palestine"... I was amazed at how non-biased it was. Then, I found it: the disclaimer that said the authenticity or propagandizing nature or something like that of the article was in question. Apparently, anyone can make an entry, and anyone else can edit an entry. So to prevent nazis and other conservatives from, for example, put up and article full of fawning praise for David Duke, they have a review process that lets entris be changed.

So if you go there to read about Mohammed and they make him out to be some kind of saint, make a complaint and demand and alteration...

Probably the entry about the recent history of Israel will be altered soon to "tell the palestinian side" of the story. I.e. a bunch of lies.

Hey, whadya want for nuthin'?

I was just there today and read an EXCELLENT article about Ludwig Wittgenstein. After the Nazi Anshluss (annexation of Austria) his family was actually able to qualify as being "only half-Jew" and buy their way to freedom. It cost them their personal stash of 1.7 TONS, yes, TONS! of gold. That was two percent of all the gold in Austria at the time; equivalent to over 20 MILLION dollars today. And that was just the gold they had to leave.

So everyone go read up on Ludwig Wittgenstein.

And read up on a decent, non-condemnatory history of Israel, before it gets changed. That's one of the great things about being a Muslim...if you are living on the dole (off the work of the idiot Dhimmis) or off your oil revenues; if you are a hijabbed woman in the west and aren't allowed to work outside of the home lest an infidel cajole you out of your modesty; if you are a poor, oppressed victim of Western racism and can't find a job with your foot-long beard, brimless hat that you never doff, and floor-length shirt; you can just sit around all day looking for histories to revise.

This is why college paper editorial pages are FULL of Islamic apoligia and Israel bashing... EVERY Muslim "brother" and "sister" write a letter to the editor of every local paper at least once a week. The professional newspaper editors recognize it for what it is; idiot college-kid newspaper editors see it as indicative of "the general campus consensus."

LOL... I swear to God (just kidding Isabella et al.) that I'll never forget the taqqiya crap I once read in the USF Oracle. Some li'l Mobot actually got his letter to the editor printed wherein he actually said--get this--"I know Allah wants us to love us because we are allowed to marry non-Muslims. How could we love our wives and hate their people?"

Oh goddam, what a bunch of CRAP. How does this jibe with the fact that Muslim women are ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN to marry non-Muslim men? How stupid can you be to let this propaganda get printed?

Then of course there's the never-ending parade of Muslim Awareness Month, then Ramadan Awareness Month, then Arab Awareness Month, then Palestinian Awareness Month...then comes the traveling professional Israel bashers, like Rachel Corrie's mom and dad, Amy Goodman, living ISM pawns, etc.

LOL... I distinctly remember one year, I think it was 2002. On Holocaust Memorial Day, the Li'l Mobots had their filthy little booth set up with the same dozen-or-so hijabbed losers milling around, smiling at nothing so as to keep up the myth that they are so happily liberated. They actually chose THAT DAY to display the crayoned pictures of the Star of David equalling the Swastika, and the phrases "Israel is Fascist", "Israel is an Apartheid Nation", "Zionism = Racism" and "Ariel Sharon = Hitler."

I handed it to them that day so long that I actually missed my class. I was really arguing with three or four of them at a time for over 90 minutes... and where was the Hillel group? Just down the way, standing by; saying NOTHING. Too polite I guess.

The next year, I wrote a letter to the president of the University apprising her as to the goings-on of the proceding year. I told her that hate speech had no place on a public university, that the Muslim kids had their own private school not five miles north of campus (the one started by Al-Aryan) where they could lie about non-Muslims in general and Israeli Jews in particalar to their hearts' content. If the campus professional victims wanted to lie about Jews, especially on Shoah Remembrance Day, they could damn well go start their own university.

I didn't insult her, the Mobots, the tenure system, multiculturalism, politcal correctness, or western secularism.

I'll never know if my letter had any impact on any decision she did or didn't make. But I do know one thing: that year on Holocaust Memorial Day, not only did the Junior Jihadis not set up a bunch of lying propaganda about Israel, they didn't even set up their Dawa booth at all.

I'd like to think that my letter had some impact... and by the way, not only did I write the letter, I hand-delivered it to her office. I didn't just drop it off, either; I handed it to her personal secretary, and got an authorization letter saying that she had received it.

Gary, Carolyn, et al.: THIS is the way you respectfully, rationally, and politely deal with Islamic propaganda on our campuses.

The pervasive Hate-Israel-ization of our college campuses is living proof that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. But the moral works both ways.

Write to you alma maters, or your local colleges, or your kids' colleges. Write to the president, the Dean(s), the Board Of Regents. You don't have to insult them. Like the case of the schools out in California... if you wrote them, don't say "I'm sure that if Christians were trying to come in here and get kids to pretend to observe Lent and say the Our Father or Hail Mary, you'd crap your pants." Say, "I don't want kids being indroctinated into a religion on MY dime; I don't care how nice the Muslim "missionairies" were; unless you're going to give reply time to ALL other religions, you shouldn't favor any particular one."

Sorry, I just popped a couple of Baby Blue Oxys...I meant to say

LOL... I swear to God (just kidding Isabella et al.) that I'll never forget the taqqiya crap I once read in the USF Oracle. Some li'l Mobot actually got his letter to the editor printed wherein he actually said--get this--"I know Allah wants us to love others because we are allowed to marry non-Muslims. How could we love our wives and hate their people?"

Sorry... when you do a lot, you forgot a lot. The Wikipedia article on Israel isn't being challenged, it's the entry on Zionism.

Half-way thourgh it, there's a banner with the following disclaimer:

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.

Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

So Spencer, go back to your entry and dispute the factual accuracy.

Opinion piece here about mayor of london embracing jihadists compared to mayor of Rome who stands up to them:

A tale of two cities

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3172684,00.html

"This, then, is a tale of two cities, London and Rome, facing a similar threat from the direction of Islamic terror but being led in radically different directions. London, a rich multi-cultural metropolis, is being betrayed by a mayor in deep embrace with dubious and sinister figures, entrenched in the camp of the most radical fundamentalist movement of the 21st century."

Robert,

I'd been maintaining your article on wikipedia until this June when i was impeached as Wiki Admin for "racist bias" and "unnecessarily putting up NPOV notices on Islamic articles". Wikipedia is a sham. Though some of its articles are excellent, radical Islam has been humanised. For examplethey state how Pakistan lies in Greater Middle East, how Wahhabism is "misunderstood", how Sri Lankan Muslims are decendants of Arabs. 10000 words have been devoted to persecution of Muslims by Hindus but my article on Persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh was deleted. Editing Wikipedia is frustrating and not worth the time. There always gonna be some loony who'd put up Islamic propoganda there. Some of the adjectives given to Mr.Spencer on Wikipedia include "imbelice bigot","Chritian fundamentalist" etc. (Check the history section of the Edit Page of articles. Wikipedia has been extensively parodied at: www.uncyclopedia.org

sheik yer'mami

Wikipedia is not an entity, but its a non-profit organistaion run by an out-of-work programmer "King Jimbo".

you can tag Wiki articles by putting {{NPOV}} on the article's edit page.

kj~ First: no one of us here insults Any accadhimmi, hate-the-west teacher. They do that to themselves simply by speaking out in class, when they should be teaching the subject listed in the program.

Second: writing letters to the campus will be Much more effective if the Parents have some clue about what is going on there, yes?

Which is why information from JW/DW, FrontPage, TownHall, etc, is so vital.

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/profile.asp

Stephen Schwartz and I Had a Similar Conversation
Comment: The following is my final reply to him in an email conversation shortly after his "coming out" party as the new voice of "moderate Islam" and his introduction of "Reformation through Obsfucation". I find it very interesting that his unimaginative and unsophistacted as his responses to Mr. Spencer. It seems this guy is a "one trick pony".

Here is the last of my emails to him before he was urged to stop responding lest he further discredit himself...

We were discussing his assertion that the text of the Quran is perfect and does not need revision in light of this quote:

Quran 033.050"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee..."

----------------------------------------------------------------

Schwartz: And you still haven't offered any explanation for why I should pay any more attention to you than to any other anonymous nobody.
Here's a lesson in logic: Qur'an is not in need of revision because the debate over its meaning allows for multiple interpretations, thus obviating the need for a revision. A revision would establish one interpretation as the sole authoritative one (which is what the Wahhabis do) and would either repress discussion or foster more conflict.

Trupolitik: To use your own example, the US Constitution has been revised many times and is still subject to interpretation. Therefore, Your logic fails both in theory and in practice.

Schwartz: Slavery existed among the Jews at the time of the Torah and among the Christians until the 19th century in the U.S. So what? Slavery exists in less than a handful of Muslim countries today. Does that not tell you something?

Trupolitik: Yes. It tells me you not only like to compare apples and oranges (Past Western Practices with Current Muslim ones), you tend to excuse bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior. However, I am very glad you brought up slavery in the US and 3/5 vote. Because what happened was REFORM. The People realized the atrocity in the founding document and CHANGED IT accordingly. This is precisely the example the Quran should follow. But in order to make this change, Muslims must first recognize the problem, something you have yet to do, but instead muddy the waters with "there are many interpretations" obsfucation tactic. As I explained, there are many interpretations of the US Constitution over the years, and yet changes were "amended" without chilling the discussion of it or killing further interpretation.

Schwartz: Did you know that in traditional Islam if a slave became a Muslim that person could not be held as a slave thereafter?

Trupolitik: Yes, I did. What is more I know that Muhammad did make efforts to limit slavery in his time. However, we do not live in his time. We live in a day where Slavery is recognized as a violation of human rights in all its forms. Once again, that is why the US Constitution truly reformed, by changing the document itself. What is more, what better way to force conversion of a captive population than giving them "freedom" if the "submit" to the conquering religion? The methodology is quite simple. Declare a population an enemy of Islam, defeat them through the ordained use of force when a population attacks Islam, Hold them as slaves as ordained and then promise them "freedom" if they "submit" to Islam. Its called Subjugation.

Schwartz: There is slavery and peonage right here in the Christian U.S. and in Latin America.

Trupolitik: They are not exactly the same thing but I agree there are gross violations of human rights, and just as I argue against this atrocity I argue against it in it Islamic form. Once again you are trying to justify bad behavior with other bad behavior. A person who consistently wants to champion the rights of all people, would condemn both the "peonage" in practice in Latin America today as well as those words that ordain outright ownership of human beings in the Quran. I can condemn both, can you?

Schwartz: As I said, your questions about Qur'an are not of a nature that I would dignify with an answer.

Trupolitik: If you had the answer it would seem much easier to demonstrate how Slavery is NOT ordained by the Quran and therefore compatible with the UDHR than to once again try to obsfucate the issue by bringing in other atrocious behavior, or just refuse because of your delicate sensibilities. You obviously have the time and inclination to have this discussion, why not actually address the issue instead of feigning indignation? If you do indeed have an answer I would sincerely love to hear it and would consider it as I would any other idea. But even as I have been patient and tenacious in seeking an answer from a learned muslim, you have been a name caller and retreater from the question. I will anxiously await an honest explanation from you.

Schwartz: I owe you nothing, I don't report to you, and debating with you serves no purpose than to magnify your petty ego.

Trupolitik: You are right. You owe me nothing, not even civility it would appear. However, debating with me does serve a purpose if in fact that was what you were doing. However, up to this point all of your responses have not directly addressed the question. Furthermore, it is quite apparent that the ego boosting going on has been by you. Your constant demeaning of my position, typing errors, coupled with your name dropping ("well I have talked to this scholar and this one...why should I waste my time on a nobody?") kind of talk reveals a kind of intellectual elitism bound up in ego, which is quite common among people who have a high degree of self-importance.

Again, all of this could be settled by your patient and thoughtful explanation to my question. Something you seem (with all your education) to be unable to do.

Please. explain how the Quran does not ordain slavery, and is not deserving of revision?

Trupolitik -- you may find of interest the "Weiss-Schwartz Syndrome," a recently-recognized ailment, first described at JW. Simply google "Weiss-Schwartz" and "Jihad Watch."

Thank you VERY much Hugh. This part is ESPECIALLY crucial to understand. As I told Pipes himself (although I cant say he took it well), without a true accounting of the founding documents and ideology, Jihad will ALWAYS resurface at a later date... a sneakier, more infiltrated Jihad.

The Rand Method is a recipe for long term defeat. Lets hope and Pray the "power that be" realize this before it is too late.

-----------------------------------------

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008503.php

Politics makes strange bedfellows, even or perhaps especially when the sheets are by Porthault or Bassetti. Who could be stranger than a sufferer from Weiss-Schwartz Syndrome, put in charge of a made-up group of "moderate" Muslims who are supposed to lead the effort by "moderate Muslims" against the "immoderate" Muslims. Though Pipes is aware of some of the difficulties in defining a "moderate" Muslim, the basic problem is his refusal to see that if all the perfectly reasonable demands to be made on Muslims for them to earn that slippery sobriquet "moderate" were to be met, this still would not deal with the "Hawash" problem of the "moderate" who out of any of the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to, changes from outwardly well-integrated "moderate" Muslim into the other kind, and furthermore, the potentially even larger problem of, down the line, those children and grandchildren of the plausible and smiling "moderates" who might not, and have proven again and again in France, Germany, England, and Spain that they might not, remain as "moderate" as those who came mainly as economic migrants.

I view this as simply another example of the poor quality of the islamic mind

Mr. Spencer, s'iz shver tsu zayn a Yid. Oops, sorry- you wouldn't understand, being a Sephardi and all. Too, too funny.

kj~ First: no one of us here insults Any accadhimmi, hate-the-west teacher. They do that to themselves simply by speaking out in class, when they should be teaching the subject listed in the program.

Merely classifying them AS hate-the-west and acadhimmi is could be considered insulting. Don't get me wrong; you know how I feel about Juan Cole, Eddie Said, et al.

Second: writing letters to the campus will be Much more effective if the Parents have some clue about what is going on there, yes?

YES, and writing polite (or if you prefer, politically correct letters will be even more effective.

Which is why information from JW/DW, FrontPage, TownHall, etc, is so vital.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why I BEG, with no self-respect at all, for us all to please tone down the vitriol handed the Left because any Leftist that did come here for the first time to learn the TRUTH about Islam, Jihad, Sharia, Dhimmitude, etc. could get the idea that Right-ers hate Liberals and Muslims, so why should the Left help the Right?

This is especially germian for the case of that impressionable young lad who is still undecided about what to think about Islam. He' had his eye on a hot, vegan, little braless "human rights enthusiast" (you know they always have the killer-est pot) on campus who likes to sport her (extra tight and threadbare) "FREE PALESTINE" t-shirt.

Just put yourself in his shoes--er, sandals. [Mr. Spencer, THIS is an example of where the strikethough-for-sarcasm feature would have worked GREAT] Could this page be the one that sends him to The Dark Side?

And if he visits Frontpagemag or townhall, forget him. He's going to be a "Islam-is-okay-but-misunderstood-and-how-about-the-Crusades-and-Leviticus" dupe for the rest of his life. He'll still be a liberal democrat so that's fine with me. I just don't want to see him become an Israel-bashing, Islam-loving dhimmi.

Gary, the simple way to sum all of this up is to say, "We can do more if we work together."

Or, as Benjamin Franklin said, "If we don't hang together, we will hang separately."

Your fellow JW-er,

kj

Excellent attempt, Trupolitik. I'm surprised you even got that much out of him. Someone that doesn't have truth on their side can always fall back on "I'm not going to dignify that with an answer," Lord knows it's happened to me a time or two (right Cornelius? LOL.)

I have said many times, and will say it againg for the benefit of you newbies, that one effective way to get these Muslim-loving professors to debate would be to scrounge up a couple-thousand bucks, send someone to his college, and put fliers up all over campus that a one- or two-semester, (or even a four-year, depending on the cost of tuition and how much cash you have; at Al-Aryan's USF you'd need $15K for four years; that's one semester at Harvard)....anyway, promise a nice scholarship to any student that convinces the good teacher in question to debate our delegate (Hugh, Pipes, Dershowitz, Horowitz, Spencer, etc.)

I got this idea while reading (liberal) Alan Dershowitz' excellent defense of Israel in his book "The Case For Israel." In it, he describes a "debate" he attempted to have with an Israel-bashing professor who refused to show up for the debate. (Maybe he said that he was't going to "dignify" Dershowitz' arguments with answers or somesuch.)

I have done this on a minor level at USF. Some little Israel basher decided to start his own 12-page weekly paper, "The Senatchie" or whatever it was called. After five issues, I emailed him and told him that I bet him 100 dollars to his favorite charity that I could find 10 biased opinions against the University president for firing Al-Aryan, Israel, and Jews.... AND 10 biased opinions for Al-Aryan, Islam, and Muslims....in any five issues of his magazine, and HE could pick the issues I was to use. I emailed it to him several times (he was anonymous, of course, lest the Zionists have him assassinated, LOL) so all I could really do was email.

I told him that if I win, all he has to do is publish an admission of bias. And if I lose, I'd send a 100-dollar money order to the charity of his choice, even if it was Hezbollah or Al-Aryan's defense fund.

AND he never found the time to "dignify my challenge" with a response.

Seriously, friends. A little money to back up a challenge goes a long way. Just look at the $50k challenge over at faithfreedom.org . Where does the money come from? You'll have to figure that one out.

Post a one, two, or eight-semester tuition scholarship on a campus as I described above, and get thousands of college kids on our side. Think about it.

Oops!

I think that page just changed. Go see if you can spot the changes. It's even sourced! I wonder who this "P.Gf" guy is. He seems so smart.

Prophet Geoff

Whoops! The main islam page just changed too.

See the section on apostates, and the end of the first paragraph on "Demographics".

Geoff

What have we here? An incoherent rant about Jews and impotence coming from Karachi Pakistan? Sounds to me like its OBL himself. He's probably fulminating in some mud/camel dung hut.

We even have his coordinates. Quick - send out the predator drones- take him out now!

Hey! This is neat. I just went to Wikipedia and edited the Criticism section. I change the entry where CAIR declares the JW is an "Internet hate site" to read: "...Internet site, (a site considered a "hate site" by CAIR),..."

Just keeping them honest.

Previous:
** [http://www.cair-california.org/ CAIR-LA] has learned that Robert Spencer, who operates the “Jihad Watch” Internet hate site, spoke at Temple Shalom for the Arts during a Yom Kippur event.

Current:
** [http://www.cair-california.org/ CAIR-LA] has learned that Robert Spencer, who operates the “Jihad Watch” Internet site, (a site considered a "hate site" by CAIR), spoke at Temple Shalom for the Arts during a Yom Kippur event.

Robert Spencer, who operates the “Jihad Watch” Internet site, (a site considered a "hate site" by CAIR)...

You should include the note that this appears at wikipedia (a site considered an "encyclopedia" by gullible Internet users).

I stopped reading wikipedia 2 years ago, after I saw an article there that described Salafi Islam as "moderate".

A veritable coven.

Kj! Must have been a huge turkey dinner, you seem in a mild mood :P

We really are on the same page on this. Just some of the particulars, ya know?
We'll get by.

Say, do you use a sage stuffing? (Darn it! The best puns Always pop up without trying!)

I'll be curious to hear who bagged what this weekend. Deer in the US, turkeys in Iraq...

The more they protest about Robert Spencer, the more curious people will be about him and his books! keep the controls of the internet away from the UN and truth will be there for those who want it!