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, although these purported refutations usually content themselves with showing that Christians or someone else were doing something worse, or that some document or other to which I refer in my books is held in no esteem by Muslims, 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 in secular societies, without trying to impose Sharia.
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. I'd like to see him explain exactly how he has betrayed it. "Imam Pleads Guilty in New York Subway Bomb Plot," from Reuters, March 4 (thanks to Twostellas):
NEW YORK (Reuters) - An imam accused of tipping off al Qaeda-trained militant Najibullah Zazi as he plotted to set off bombs in New York's subway system pleaded guilty on Thursday to lying to the FBI about his contact with Zazi.Ahmad Afzali, 38, an Afghan citizen, made the plea in Brooklyn federal court in a deal with prosecutors. The agreement saw him plead guilty to charges of lying and eliminated the more serious charge of obstructing a terrorism investigation.
"On September 11 (2009), I called Najibullah Zazi. ... During that conversation, I told Najibullah that law enforcement authorities had been to see me about him," Afzali, wearing a light gray suit, told the court in emotional remarks where he cried repeatedly....
Afzali said: "When I was asked (by the FBI) whether I had told Zazi about law enforcement being interested in him, I lied and said I did not. My intention was not to protect Zazi but to protect myself."
"In doing so, I failed to live up to my obligation to this country, my community, my family, and my religion. I am truly sorry," he said....
His religion. Ever with the sand in the eyes, eh, Afzali?
Afzali faces up to six months in prison when sentenced, set for April 8. Under the deal, he must leave the country within 90 days of finishing his sentence.Afzali pleaded not guilty to the charges of obstructing a terrorism investigation in November....
Zazi moved to the New York City borough of Queens as a teenager and went to school there. He attended a mosque led by Afzali, a self-proclaimed pro-American imam who cooperated with police in previous investigations.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/03/the-protocols-of-the-elders-of-mecca-the-final-word-on-the-pact-of-umar/
To Robert Spencer:
This is a challenge to a debate by loonwatch.com. I am not an administrator or contributor, but a faithful reader of the website. Please respond as soon as possible.
Its not so much that you are a misunderstander of Islam, mister Spencer. Its that you are radicalizing the moderate muslims because you drive them in the camp of the radicals by cherry picking the worst verses from the Koran and hadith to paint all muslims with one broad brush.
Now is that a real poncho or is that a Sears poncho?
This is a challenge to a debate by loonwatch.com.
That's so rich, I fell on the floor laughing...Debate loons about what, lunacy? The loons only deserve disgust, not debate. Looking at the site, and that looooong Islamic tripe,
it looks like lunacy to me...I wouldn't waste my time on lunar-tics...Of course dealing with lunar-tics was my specialty for a long time...That's how I know them, when I see them...
Im glad you think that way swami. plz read this if you think thats the case
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/12/spencer-on-the-ropes/
O/T
BREAKING NEWS 3 officers shot at the Pentagon ---NFI
No thanks, I just took a shower, I don't need another this soon...I have looked at that site once before and it doesn't pass the smell test...I never click on a link offered by Mahoundians or sympathizers...most of them have bugs that jump...You guys have no shred of credibility as far as I am concerned, on any subject...I doubt Spencer would even lower himself to address you, but if he chooses to that's his business...You have already worn out your welcome, get lost...
so the Muslims was lying to authorities who were trying to prevent murder....he was just practicing his religion...Ban Muslim Immigration.
Bob...'Get lost' is a little harsh, so 'please get lost...
for ur information, loonwatch actually won that debate against spencer. why do u refuse to read it?
and i refuse to "get lost", at least until spencer responds
I want everyone to know this, especially Robert! I live in Denver, and per the "Denver Post" they are putting on a show about terrorism. And, its supposed to be the only one in the country. The slogan "Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere" learn about terrorism. Its a total sham to bring attention away from Islamic terrorists. Please check it out and respond accordingly! You can access the information at www.thecell.org. Unbelievable!
Bob...I If I have told you once, I have told you a million times, you guys have no credibility, but you have bugs...
There is no natural law of the universe that says I have to believe a word you say...You seem to be a little... er, ah, bias...I bet your a Mahoundian...If not you are a kufr fool...
of course theres no law you have to believe in me. also, mahoundian is not a word, if your trying to be insulting, then i dont care.
oh theres also no law saying i have to get lost. and yes i am a "mahoundian" is that a bad thing?
Bob...oh theres also no law saying i have to get lost. and yes i am a "mahoundian" is that a bad thing?
I thought you said Mahoundian was not a word and now you admit to being one...Your cover is shot...
Bob...Mahoundian is a worshiper of Mahound, like Mohammadan...One of the many spellings of the Prophets(?) name...Sorry you are not up on such terminology...However, I don't really expect you to understand it since I am nearly the only one who uses it...But a Muslim by any other name is still a Mahoundian...Got it?...Now you know...any questions?
Say Bob...Was it you who bested Spencer in a debate or some other loon? Inquiring minds want to know...
No it wasnt me i said im a reader not an admin or contributer. also i have heard of the term Mahomet and mohomodden but i NEVER heard mahoundian. and i was being sarcastic when i said was was being mahoundian
And in fact i actually have to go. ill be checking for a response from spencer, but as a barbaric, idiotic muslim, i want to maintain my straight A average in high school and therefore have to do my homework.
Bob...And in fact i actually have to go. ill be checking for a response from spencer, but as a barbaric, idiotic muslim...
Well Bob you got that part right...High school huh...figures By the way...Spencer should be capitalized...I guess you were dozing in class and missed that lesson..See ya...
The loons are trying to set some kind of trap for Spencer...They send a high school kid to do their baiting for them...Watch out for snakes in the grass...Especially if they are loon snakes...
I too have read dave742's, I mean Danios' extended, perhaps overly extended book report.
Here is a something I tried post post at loonwatch, but for some reason was rejected.
This is part of Andrew Bostom's review of Mark Cohen's "Under Cresent and Cross".
There is more, but as they say at JihadWatch -- "Be sure to read it all".
http://www.amazon.com/Under-Crescent-Cross-Jews-Middle/product-reviews/0691139318/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar
Just a quick question for the loons @ loonwatch:
If Islam is so tolerant and peaceful then where are the Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Bahai and others today in lands that were invaded and conquered by the soldiers of allah?
And if the protection racket, (the jiziya and dhimmitude) is abolished, why do the ruling mohammedans demand it in Hamastan, Iraq and Pakistan?
And finally, pray tell: who did the abolishing and with what authority?
Does Inayat Bunglawala have any connection with loonwatch?
lol, the day RS responds to a Mohammedan/Apologist lunatic on their nutcase site will be the day Muslims finally admit that Mo was just a Warlord and allah just a pagan moon god.
IOW - Never.
"That's so rich, I fell on the floor laughing...Debate loons about what, lunacy?"
Ha-ha! That was funny swami, thanks for the laugh!
Hey loon boy.
Islam is a worldwide cancer.
We don't have to debate the supporters of worldwide cancer.
Lots of muslims don't support the worldwide cancer; we don't debate them,either.
A disease by any other name is still a disease.
When you digest all that, go away and try and take up something a little more useful than being a useful idiot.
Bob Laboo,
One cannot win nor lose a debate unless their words are posted side by side in respectful discourse for all who read to judge.
Posts on "Loonatic watch", which are unanswered and not refuted are not a suitable forum to declare a victor in any way, shape or form.
I, myself, have tried to post several comments on that abhorrent site, only to see absolutely none posted there. That is not a good foundation for a debate forum btw. If you can't beat me, then you should just offer Robert kudos, and offer to mow his lawn on the weekend, gratis.
Quit your Islamic crying and get that ass-hat Darius here, getting his "rebuttals" to Spencer publicly, here on this forum, without moderation, unlike Loonatic watch, if ye have any stones, which you clowns obviously don't.
I'd ask what you and Darius the coward are afraid of, but you as a Mohammedan, already know. You can't refute Spencer in your own Islamic context. Tough luck kid.
Why would Robert Spencer ever give credence to a Muslim site that boasts of a 12 person readership?
Muslims are inherently cowardly...Arab Muslims, the most pronounced. That is indicative by the hundreds of millions Muslims destroyed by the US (and mostly, by other Muslims) since 2001.
Eat that shit sandwich, while you still can.
Looking forward to picking you out of my teeth after I eat your lunch, you bitches...
:)
Hi Robert:
Like so many others, I have learned a great deal from you over the years about the dark side of Islam (or, as you're more likely to see it, that Islam is just plain dark, period). You've directly and indirectly added to the discussion about the why for 9/11 and, as per Huntington, why Islam's borders are so bloody.
Not so long ago, most didn't know what to think. Not too many posters, even at FPM, saw any possibility that Islam might be fundamentally different than Judaism or Christianity. But now it's common opinion that Islam is uniquely violent, demanding that all followers do their violent, as need be, part in the global Jihad against unbelievers, until all the world submits to Sharia. You've clearly played a role in the dissemination of that perspective.
Of course, there are those who disagree, prominently, at the moment, Dr Tahir ul-Qadri.
But I digress. What I'd like to possess is a list of respected Islamic present day and past theologian/imam "misunderstanders," with references to their published work indicating their misunderstanding of their faith.
You've thematically presented such people and their work over the past year or so, but have you a compiled list others can reference? If not, you might consider that, as this line of reasoning has been very effective. Such a list would serve as an excellent resource for those wanting to refute or challenge others who insist Islam is nothing but a faith of peace and tolerance, misunderstood (that's the key word, isn't it?) by the few "extremists" (the other notable word).
Have you compiled such a list? If not, would you consider one?
"and i refuse to 'get lost', at least until spencer responds"
o dear gawd .....
Thousands and thousands of mullahs today misunderstand Islam!! After spending years and years of study...pffft!
Horrible! Is there no school that correctly teaches REAL ISLAM?
The modernist Muslims are so busy telling us how the Koran and Hadiths don't say what they say. Only the modernists understand Islam!
Mohammed's companions and the first several generations of Muslims MISUNDERSTOOD ISLAM TOO!
WOW!
Democracy first sez:
"Of course, there are those who disagree, prominently, at the moment, Dr Tahir ul-Qadri."
Not to be taken seriously:
http://sheikyermami.com/2010/03/05/azzam-tamimi-doesnt-buy-any-anti-jihad-fartwas/
The jihad continues....
Does anyone actually know what training and qualifications you need to become an "imam" or "an esteemed Islamic scholar"?
Clearly they are not doing a very good job with so many "misunderstanders of Islam" around. With "the unchanged word of Allah" and 1400 years of teaching to fall back on they should have got a clear understanding by now.
Does it require "on the job training" (e.g.stoning for beginners) and are their special study modules in "being offended"?.
RS respond to loonwatch? Why? Six months ago loonwatch barely registered on the web. Since then it seems to have picked up a bit, mostly I suspect because the owner is articulate and skilled in the art of verbal rope-de-dope, and therefore attracts Muslim apologists who otherwise only have shouting and bomb-tossing at their disposal to vent their displeasure about uppity infidels disrespecting their precious prophet.
To see which sites are drawing the traffic, one only has to consult the appropriate places where the metrics are recorded.
First, a few of the giants among the anti-jihadists
jihadwatch
http://mostpopularwebsites.net/www.jihadwatch.org/#TRAFFIC
atlasshrugs
http://mostpopularwebsites.net/www.atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/#TRAFFIC
gatesofvienna
http://mostpopularwebsites.net/www.gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/#TRAFFIC
faithfreedom
http://mostpopularwebsites.net/www.faithfreedom.org/#TRAFFIC
In comparison to these, loonwatch hardly registers
loonwatch
http://mostpopularwebsites.net/www.loonwatch.com/#TRAFFIC
As a side note, it's interesting to watch the slow expiration of Charles Johnson, whose traffic appears to have fallen below even that of loonwatch.
littlegreenfootballs
http://mostpopularwebsites.net/www.littlegreenfootballs.com/#TRAFFIC
Conclusion: In my opinion, loonwatch's "challenge" to RS is a publicity stunt to get attention by someone whose reach exceeds his grasp, and should be ignored.
Bob Laboo,
I like to paint the big picture to you. The 5 billion or more humans who are not Muslim are either ignorant of Islam or consider it of Human-origine, whereas Muslims consider it of Divine Origine.
If Islam is of human origine, and that is the natural explanation, whereas the burden of proof is on those who claim that is of divine origine, it must of necessity be imperfect, with flaws, faults, shortcomings. And it should allow itself to be modernized regularly, which it refuses, due to not wanting to change Allah's literal words.
In my opinion Islam's main opponent is not Christianity any more, but Democracy, with its values and rules, system, man-made, evolving, changing.
There are now 2 kinds of experts (at least) about Islam and its interpretations and implementations, the Divine-Origine ones and the Human-Origine ones. And they are both as (dis)honorable and both very knowledgeable and should be regarded with equal respect by the world-public. And equal respect and attention is all we ask for.
What Robert Spencer is doing is perfectly natural, being suspicious of manmade Islam as it looks counter-democratic and a threat. He explains, as an expert, Islamic teachings. He monitors the interpretations and behavior of Muslims across history and the world and compares it with democratic humans beliefs and behavior. He shows the world the faults/ flaws and shortcomings of manmade Islam and favors democracy over it.
By all means refute and debate him, whether or not he responds. But remember, the Islamic side no longer has monopoly on Islam. The Human-Origine of Islam-side is also very knowledgeable. Just because one is a believer in a Divine Origine of Islam it does not follow that that person understands Islam better than a Human-origine-of Islam-person.
It is shown that the Muslims are heavily divided on Islam-interpretations and practices and that none have anywhere near overall authority to speak for Islam. This very unclarity and division of Muslims strengthen the side of the Human-Origine-of-Islam experts.
From post above...I too have read dave742's, I mean Danios' extended, perhaps overly extended book report.
I didn't realize that looong 'book report' was from Dave742...Good for him, he finally found a site that really suits him...loonwatch...
The high school kid did not show up and challenge Spencer to a debate, he was sent by Dave or some other loon...Bob's whole challenge is based on the idea of 'lets you and him fight'...Clever, but not quite clever enough...
Other posters above have noted that they tried to post on Loonwatch, but their posts were not published. I've had the same experience, so I quickly gave up wasting time there. A limited number of critical posts do get through, but many, possibly most, do not.
They, at Loonwatch, publish some apparently naive people's views in the comments section, people who sometimes include nothing in their post other than praise of the authors for their articles, but they block a good deal of critical commentary. The articles are full of holes, obvious fallacies, amateur errors, limitations, and subjectivity, but good luck trying to get on there to make any criticisms or rebuttals.
-----------------
Bob Laboo,
If you really are a high school student, you are probably new to this debate, so I would caution you to use critical judgment in evaluating the claims on Loonwatch. You might also want to ask why the folks at Loonwatch never get around to identifying any criticisms of Islam that they find acceptable. Could it be that they believe that Islam is perfect, that the Quran is perfect, and that Muhammad is an excellent example to be followed?
Why don't the authors at Loonwatch try to refute the claim that the Quran and Sunnah permit the rape of non-Muslim female slaves and captives?
Why won't Loonwatch publish statistics on the percentage of Muslims who want sharia law?
Why won't Loonwatch issue a clear statement about it's own authors' apparent support for sharia law?
Why won't Loonwatch publish statistics on Muslims' views on the apostasy penalties?
Why won't Loonwatch publish statistics on Muslims' views regarding punishment of Islam critics and those who "insult" Islam?
As far as I can tell, the folks at Loonwatch do not consider any criticism of Islam made by non-Muslims to be legitimate.
Livingengine,
If you have strong evidence that "Danios" is the poster dave742, please present it.
You may recall that dave742 had a Hezbullah flag avatar during the "IntenseDebate" period at JW.
Democracy First,
You cite ul-Qadri as though he were a moderate.
"Of course, there are those who disagree, prominently, at the moment, Dr Tahir ul-Qadri."
Qadri is partly responsible for the implementation of the harsh Islamic blasphemy punishments in Pakistan, which have resulted in the killing or imprisonment of many non-Muslims unfortunate enough to have been born in Pakistan. After the "cartoon crisis," Qadri called for blasphemy laws in the U.K. and throughout the West, whereby those who criticize or "insult" Islam or Muhammad would be criminally prosecuted and punished. (In this, he is in agreement with the majority of Muslims in the U.K., who want Islamic critics and cartoonists to be criminally prosecuted and punished).
Regardless of what Qadri may say in his public statements about "terrorism," he does share at least some goals of the Islamic terrorists, including the imposition of Islamic sharia blasphemy laws.
I do not have proof that Danios is Dave742.
I am going by his writing style, and presence of other commenters there.
He might not be Dave742, but he writes very much like him.
Compare the work of Danios with that of Dave742's "Gates of Ijtihad, and the End of Islam". http://www.scribd.com/doc/20753339/Gates-of-Ijtihad
I find there are many similarities in methodology, style, tone, etc.
Livingengine,
I'm not familiar enough with either Danios' or dave742's writing to give an informed opinion. Both of them come across as angry and arrogant, both attack non-Muslim religions, both engage in lengthy and highly selective Islam apologetics, both of them are obsessed with Robert Spencer. However, there are many Muslim writers like this.
Danios seems to have adopted a more careful presentation, careful to avoid appearing to be militant or extremist, careful to avoid giving clear opinions on certain issues, careful to avoid answering certain questions, obfuscating some simple issues, meticulously editing out posts that he doesn't want to appear or which he cannot refute, etc. Danios seems to be somewhat media-savvy and has some clue about what should, and should not, appear in his articles which I believe are primarily intended for non-Muslim audiences (e.g., see the Daily KOS connection).
Dave742, on the other hand, openly espouses conspiracy theories such as that the West is trying to "end Islam" (see pp. 111-112 in the lengthy document you cited--which admittedly I only skimmed), and as we've seen he appears to endorse Hezbullah. Dave742 doesn't seem to have the same concern about appealing to a mainstream audience; he is pretty much a straight-up jihad and sharia apologist.
One similarity between the two is that they both cited the Ottoman Empire, in example, pertaining to the apostasy issue, which is kind of unusual and not exactly an important piece of information when introducing the topic (i.e., it is at best a subtopic of historical interest and tangential). It seems Danios, subsequently, altered his apostasy article to remove much of the material about the Ottomans, on the grounds that it was not relevant to his main argument that the Quran and Sunnah do not give permission to kill mere apostates. Danios seems to be presenting his "own private Islam" (Hugh's phrase) as though it were a normative modern Islamic view, whereas dave742 doesn't seem to be trying to appear to be such a reformist.
Imad/Bob Laboo,
People on this thread say they've had problems posting on Loonwatch - I also wrote a second reply to Danios on March 3. Guess what- Nothing to be seen. And it's not the first time. If your website wants a debate, then how about allowing people to criticise it freely? And not just after 2 hours of checking if it looks silly enough to be posted.
And, btw - yes I do think Robert should reply. Loonwatch are there to beaten on this, just as much as everything else they've posted on!
Eastview,
Why, I wonder, does the link for lgf go straight to lgf instead of it's ratings? Hmmmm. I smell a Charles Johnson mouse. He's too much of a putz to be a rat!
How was he able to hijack it? Unless he's a part of that site's admins, or able to hack it. Any Web-gurus care to comment?
لن استسلم
ABS
It is so obvious to me that islum wants to do the same mass murdering of non-islamics in the west just as it does in its own decrepit native territories. Also, although the Arabic culture might at one time have made some noteworthy contributions to civilization, it no longer does. Nor has it for centuries. The bottom line is that evolved thinking and barbarism can't coexist anywhere.
JW readers,
Loonwatch has just posted an article addressed to its readers titled: Do You Love LoonWatch? If So, Do Your Part (March 6 2010)
In it, they claim they are too busy to refute the "Islamophobes" (i.e., apparently anyone who disagrees with any of their Islam apologetics and polemics) who try to post in their comments section. They then call upon readers to take up the task of refuting "Islamophobes" in their comments section. They indicate that they want their comment threads dominated by sympathetic and supportive views; they even urge readers to post compliments.
It seems that the writers and/or administrators at Loonwatch can't handle the prospect of a democratic and open comments section. It seems they can't allow some critical comments to be posted, unless they ensure that there are a greater number of supportive comments there. (Even then, some strong and valid criticisms may simply not be published at all--I think this is what happened when they refused to publish one of my posts, which was intelligently worded, polite, etc., and which drew attention to some major limitations in the target article). What if one or more of their articles is truly flawed and on the balance erroneous? Will such an article be followed by a majority of favorable comments, regardless of the strength or weakness of the article posted?
Given Loonwatch's policy of not publishing some critical comments (the percentage of critical comments that don't get through is unknown) and encouraging sympathetic readers to become volunteer activists in support of the Loonwatch POV in the comments section, it is reasonable to conclude that what one reads in the comments section there is not representative of the full readership (which also includes people who are critical of Islam).
Loonwatch apparently wants to protect itself in a kind of bubble, safe from critical commentary and feedback.
Incidentally, the little popularity that Loonwatch has developed is probably to a significant degree comprised of Islam critics checking out what sort of Islam apologetics are being posted there, or indeed whether comments "awaiting moderation" ever actually appear.
...also note what Loonwatch did not ask of its readership: To provide critical commentary correcting any errors or problems, with the aim of improving the accuracy of the articles. Instead of asking for a kind of informal peer review, they are asking for what amounts to cheerleading.
Bob Laboo,
If you look up "Mahound," you will see that it is a term used historically by some European writers to refer to Muhammad. The term is widely regarded as insulting. You will note that Robert does not use that term. Nor do I (except in describing its use). Nor do the vast majority of posters on this site.
Salman Rushdie used the term "Mahound" in the context of his novel The Satanic Verses, though I do not believe he was advocating the use of the term generally.
You may notice that on Loonwatch, criticisms made by a non-Muslim, regarding any aspect of Islam, are characterized as an "attack" on "all Muslims," made by "Islamophobes." What do you suppose we should infer from this characterization? Perhaps that Loonwatch writers cannot address the substance of the criticisms, and thus have to resort to name-calling and mischaracterization of the critics? Or perhaps they are too "busy" to do all the actual work of research, and so the quick-and-easy superficial route employing logical fallacies (e.g., ad hominem, etc.) works better for them. Or perhaps, like many people, they are too proud and too stubborn to admit when they are wrong?
In fact, when I criticized an aspect of the Quran in the Loonwatch comments section, the Loonwatch author accused me of "attacking" "all Muslims." This was obviously not the case, from my post. Subsequently, I attempted to post that I was not attacking all Muslims, but Loonwatch blocked my subsequent post and refused to publish it. Thus, they try to create the impression to their readership that a criticism is an attack on "all Muslims," and once they've made the accusation, the accused is not permitted to point out the falsity of the accusation.
This is partly why I believe that at least some of its authors are dishonest and that they will engage in underhanded tactics to, in their minds, defend Islam. Their main method of 'defending' Islam is to go on the attack against the critics (most of whom are carefully-chosen American right-wingers).