Spencer on Hannity on the Islamic supremacist Ground Zero Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

One thing about you Robert...You ask the right questions...
Michael Ghouse could not straight forward answer any without digging his hole deeper...It took a long time, but I think Hannity 'may' be coming around...

What Ghouse ended up saying, in effect, was that the "bridge building" that imam Rauf is allegedly doing was isHamas and their ilk.
Robert trounced Ghouse... well done!

You had him on the run, Robert, no doubt about it. But I would have liked to have heard him answer one question, at least, to demonstrate what a liar he is. It's fun to see them stammer and stutter, but one day I would like to see you pick a question (any question) and hammer your opponent with it.

All in all, it was some good, clean fun. Do you think Mr. Ghouse cried much, when the interview was over?

I have been over at loonwatch "posting with idiots" they are all moslems. But I did learn somthing. It is the ongoing joke over there that they are the ones responsible for changing RS wikipidia page.

I just called my US Senator to tell him I was appalled that an "Imam" who refused to condemn HAMAS a group that has committed mass murder and supports genocide is representing the US government in the Middle East.I told him I could not imagine that someone who refused to condemn the Klu Klux Klan would be allow to represent the US in any capacity.

These short debates are frustrating. You're a quick thinker, Robert, so you have the advantage. You were a bit too quick here. I would have liked your opponent to have explained his viewpoint more thoroughly.

But are you yourself so in favor of free speech? I bet you would also want to set limits on pornography, or at least some forms of pornogrpahy, for example.

Spencer made the other guest look like a fool. Asking pointed questions and letting the other side stammer, and hem & haw is the winning way in the media. I'd say Michael Ghouse has cognitive dissonance, but that would be admitting that Muslims have cognition, and that's assuming too much.

Oh I see! It's quite OK for Muslims to stand on the side of terrorists and for subversion of the country (sharia law) if they simply call themselves "bridge builders". Wow!

Spencer on Hannity on the Islamic supremacist Ground Zero Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
....................

One of the few times I've missed the show, too. Really, though, I'm glad to hear of Robert Spencer's appearance.

Hannity has actually been pretty stalwart about hammering the points that Imam Rauf refuses to condemn Hamas, and that he wants to see America more "Shari'ah compliant". I think he's been getting the word out, and Spencer's appearance—knowledgeable and erudite as always—can only have helped. Bravo!

Michael Ghouse needs to bone up on the practice of taquiya and kitman. Observant people who are becoming more aware of Islamic practices toward us infidels can see right through his charade as he attempts to speak with two tongues at the same time while trying to placate or marginalize Robert Spencer. Kudos also to Sean Hannity for also holding him to answering questions rather then trying to spin things all the way around the barn. This usually works for Muslims who openly practice deceit when speaking to us kafirs or infidels in English and then telling a completely different story in Farsi. Yassar Arafat did this during his entire career in the Palestinian terrortories.

The masterful charm offensive conducted by Iman Rauf obviously has worked well on both the Bush Administration, and the Obama Administration, though I believe Obama is a deliberate enabler of Islam while former President Bush was almost completely naive about the aggressive practices of Islam and sharia. Muslims are patient and it may take decades before they began to achieve their deeply entrenched goals of making the West sharia compliant.

The stealth jihad is very much alive and well in America and Iman Rauf is absolute proof of it. But there is still hope that Americans are slowly waking up to Islam as they see what is happening in the EU Countries.

I think Hannity and Robert can almost say; Don't try to out maneuver us because we read the dum bastards book!

Learn the TRUTH about how savage the Taliban are...
You absolutely MUST see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9aw6Cnw0hY

Same old song an' dance from Ghouse.

Robert, I like how you went for the throat on this liar.

Ahhh, so that is what was causing that burning smell last night. Another apologist/believer/liar going down in flames.

Another great job, Robert.

The double speak and tap dancing around the simple questions that you ask, are amazing to watch.

Ghouse loves free speech, and even calls Hamas a terrorist group.

But he cannot bring himself to denounce Rauf ( even though he is opposed to what Rauf believes ).

What a hypocrite !

And we have the State Department taking Rauf around on a giant taxpayer-funded HAWALA trip to drum up the rest of that funding he needs.

Whatever happened to that Con Ed story? Can anyone point me in the right direction?

You said it Robert Spencer !

" We don't want to give them any options at all ".

Bridges can NEVER be built between inimical cultures , set of beliefs whatever. Have we not heard this many times (sic)
" America created taliban ". Many indian dhimmis say that, including one Jagmohan.Look at the price we hindus are paying for trusting the untrustworthy. From Kashmir to Kerala.

Look at his veiled threat " if you push the terrorists..".

Engaging them in any kind of discussions only saps our energies. Let this Imam & daisy khan along with their apologists build as many mosques as they want in Iran , Saudi Arabia. Pakistan's heart bleeds non stop for the "financially asphyxiated muslims in India " & many dispossessed too. All of them can be accommodated in their mosques in Saudi Arabia & Pakistan.

India can also focus on governance proper for a change. By welcoming in our kindred natural allies like Jews & Americans.

Keeping them all tightly bound together in sharp permanent relief from America is the safest & best option.

Robert needs his own show. He's made for TV.

i sent to my representatives and the white house:

I am disgusted that tax payer's money is beign used by the State Department to send Mr Rauf on trips to the Middle East.

This is a man that has refused to condemn terrorist organizations such as Hamas. Hamas has committed mass murder and supports genocide.

Would the State Department send someone who has refused to condemn the KKK to represent the USA anywhere?

Please do anything in your power to stop the State Department from sending terrorist appeasers as representatives of the USA.

There is this famous parable of how a lost lion cub among a flock of sheep keeps meekly bleating till it is rescued by its mother & taught to "roar & conduct " itself like a lion.

Even a wee bit of this inter faith dialogues & assimmilation moves will turn us the well enfeebled Infidels into hopeless dhimmis. Good fences alone make good neighbours.

How many hindus are aware of the fact that Afghanis stomp & spit on the grave of Prithviraj Chauhan as their celebration of victory over an Infidel King even today.

His mistake was misplaced compassion shown towards the muslim adversary who he had conquered by pardoning & letting him go. And Prithviraj paid heavily by being held captive , getting his eyes blinded , denied water & food & painful death in Afghanistan.

A masterful job, Mr. Spencer.

I use to watch Bill all the time, now it's Hannity. I got tired of watching Bill with his finger in the wind.

Complete destruction by Robert Spencer of Michael Ghouse. I mean the guy was utterly annihilated by Spencer. And kudos to Sean Hannity too for having a debate like this on his show. Hannity may not yet fully grasp how wicked Islam itself is but he appears to be moving in the right direction. In any case, the more Muslims and Islam are exposed for what they really stand for, the more ordinary folks will come to realize that Islam is not just another religion and Muslims are not just another group of religious believers.

More from Glenn Beck, Fox News, on Ground Zero and 'tolerance': (video)

http://thewestislamandsharia.blogspot.com/2010/08/glenn-beck-on-ground-zero-mosque.html

Excellent statements from Robert Spencer :-)

I'm with 'Stormwarning'....it would have been nice if Michael were allowed to finish a single sentence. His treatment was hardly conducive to any sort of constructive dialogue. One could imagine fence-straddlers on the issue feeling at least a degree of sympathy for him. Had we been watching Olberman and a Muslim guest gang up on Robert and refuse to allow him to finish a sentence, we would have been outraged.

Having said all that, it's obvious Michael was full of shit and that his arguments lacked any real cohesion or validity. And knowing myself, I wouldn't have had the patience to sit there and let him spew his nonsense without speaking up out of turn.

So for me, this little encounter highlights the issue of form. On substance, Robert trumped him the equivalent of a 50-0 football game. But on form, it wasn't nearly so clean-cut.

The reason this point resonates with me is my own inability to discuss these issues with friends and family without getting "animated". I raise my voice, I interrupt...not because I'm angry per se, but because I feel so passionately, my thoughts are racing, and I usually hear something that - in my state of mind - demands immediate challenging.

Afterward, I always reflect with a degree of self-recrimination. Invariably, I win the argument...but at the cost of overwhelming and humiliating someone close to me...(and yes, there is a distinction here; Michael is not family or friend to Robert).

I'm just a firm believer in reciprocity. Michael sat patiently while Robert made his points. He should have been afforded the same courtesy. But looking at own methodologies of argument, I wish to hell I could practice what I preach.

In the immortal words of Tommy Callahan;

"I swear of seen alot of stuff in my life but that... was... AWESOME!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2RiI9v3io4

ack! Let's try that again...

In the immortal words of Tommy Callahan;

"I swear I've seen alot of stuff in my life but that... was... AWESOME!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2RiI9v3io4

Robert and JW readers,

This interview is exactly the reason why not one of Robert's critics will ever debate him. When simple, straight-forward questions are asked, questions requiring simple yes or no answers, Muslims find themselves boxed in if they wish to give an answer that will appear reasonable enough to be "bought" by a Western audience. Such questions do not permit the endless equivocations so well practiced by Muslim spokesmen.

But, more and more, this so-called spokesmen are going to put on the spot. This whole GZ mosque stuff has riled the American public, and it is my impression that more and more Americans are asking questions and expecting better answers. And true to form, the Muslims are giving the usual, stock-in-trade answers which to their surprise is not longer cutting it.

Lets keep it up.

I finally watched the tape—masterful logic and moral clarity from Robert Spencer!

Only slightly off-topic—after some study, Glenn Beck has now come out firmly against the Ground Zero mosque, as well.

Robert -

Thank you for your words and actions. Please contact me as we work to offer an alternative to the Mosque. From:

Hi everyone!

Joe Worthing, who is the Executive Director of Project Moses and one of our guest speakers at Freedomstock on Sept. 11th, is trying to make a difference with regard to the Islamic center that has been proposed to be built at the site of Ground Zero in New York City.

Check out the article below, and please remember Joe in your prayers!
Dawn

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100810/NEWS01/708109901#alternative-to-nyc-islamic-center

LOL@"I'm plugging your book, Imam Rauf."

Great job exposing the taqiya-ist, Robert.

I often dislike Hannity, but he was good here.

I think Mr. Spencer has learned that, unless pinned and held, the islamic apologists will slither, squirm and ramble endlessly to deflect questions and muddy the issues. Getting these slippery fish into a corner and keeping them there requires a district attorney-like approach. Notice that Robert doesn't lose his cool, doesn't raise his voice, just demands answers and presses for those. It helps if the moderator allows this, and I thought Hannity was in Robert's corner on this one...

Robert--I could not stop laughing at the way you controlled this debate. As I have said before, you are America's torchbearer in stopping Islamic sharia coming to America. Thank you, and I wish I had your articulate mouth like you do in order to keep sharia out of America. God Bless!

I want [the terrorists] to stop doing what they're doing.

In addition to that, which would be a good first step, I want all Moslems to stop breeding. That way we can go back to enjoying life after a long hiatus.

I haven't posted on JW for over a year. I felt compelled to after watching this clip.

I am so pleased to have seen Robert so clearly express his opinions and arguments on the Hannity show without interruption....by Hannity. Hannity laughed at Steve Emerson once when Emerson pointed out the threats inside the Pentagon related to the Stephen Coughlin firing. For so many years I've become disgusted with the treatment of reputable anti-jihadist in both mainstream media and conservative tv/talk media. This was so refreshing.

Hannity is finally starting to use the correct vernacular and routinely attacks anyone in favor of sharia. I don't think Hannity knew what "sharia" was this time last year (if he did , he never used that term anytime I watched and I'm a Fox News hound). He is slowly learning about the real danger about the "religion of peace".

This clip restores some hope I had lost. Was great to see Robert and Hannity taking same side against "Michael".

Due to this excellent appearance by Robert, I expect to see
Robert called back frequently as a "go to" guy on these jihad related issues.

Thank You Robert.

That was the first time I heard you speak, I'm new to this forum. Let me just say BRAVO!!!!!!

Keep doing what you're doing Dr. Spencer!

Ghouse said we need to "understand and deal with" Hamas? OK, we understand that they are EVIL, and that they need to be STOPPED.

Excellent job, Robert!

I am impressed more with Hannity, he does get it!! he must a avid reader of JW!!!! And of course Robert knows how to ask direct questions and is cool as a cucumber!

I wonder if Daily Show will attack you again....

course, you can handle those clowns! ;)

I love you Robert. That was just tops.

Wonderful job of boxing in Gouse, he didn't have a chance.

And kudos to Hannity , who is turning out to be one of our supporters and one of the few TV personalities who's trying to help fight the good fight..

Love your work Robert, Awesome!!!
Amongst other things, I've been studying your speeches and media appearances so that I can hopefully wield the power too :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BRv9wGf5pk

I haven't been able to watch this tape until presently. I will see if it's worthy of all the encomiums above. I have grown accustomed to being skeptical of Jihad Watchers and their ability to discern genuine progress along the learning curve, as opposed to being desperately grateful for crumbs: hence their praise of Hannity. Secondly, they sometimes seem to have an imprecisely labile sense of what constitutes an effective anti-Islamic parry: hence their praise here of Spencer.

Here goes...

Ok, my impression:

For the most part, Hannity only showed himself to be progressive on the learning curve negatively -- i.e., by not chiming in with the usual PC MC axioms, and by not interrupting Spencer's presentation. Indeed, Hannity actually effectively allowed Spencer to commandeer the debate and turn it into an inquisitive interview helmed by Spencer. One nice exception was when Hannity interrupted Ghouse's characterization of Rauf as a "bridge-builder" with a sarcastic and rude -- but refreshingly appropriate -- impatience with "bridge-building".

I tend to agree with those above who would have wished Spencer would have allowed Ghouse to give himself more rope by which to more clearly hang himself. As it was, the presentation was more a rhetorical presentation by Spencer, than a refutation of Ghouse, and much of Ghouse's hemming and hawing was due to being repeatedly interrupted: it's not always the case that a person who hems and haws in that kind of situation is prevaricating: sometimes even an honest and sincere good guy may lack the telegenic facility for thinking on their feet enough to deliver the cogently simplex sound-bite that will nail their answer to a hostile question. On the other hand, there was likely not enough time to allow Spencer to coax Ghouse into drawing his own noose out further, and Spencer may well have been savvy enough to know that, and to do the best he could under the circumstances. In that case, the fault lies with FOX and with Hannity for not allowing more time to such a debate.

Both Spencer and Hannity would not allow this fellow to answer the important questions they were asking. Why constantly interrupt and badger the interview subject? He was, after all, on the same side of the fence as Spencer and (I think) Hannity -- the free-speech issues, HAMAS, etc. Above all, Spencer's unchecked arrogance is stunning. The look on Hannity's face after Spencer finishes his attack-mode interview says it all -- as in, let's move on...quickly.

Kudos to Robert and also Hannity. He's one of the very few MSM host's willing to give Robert & Pamela air time. He's new to this game but is at least trying to educate himself. I count him a warrior in the good fight and each one is precious to the cause.

The guest did look like a fool, which is probably why Fox News would put him on. Spencer's question about "Will you condemn Hamas" is turned back on him and he is made to look the fool if you only have someone semi-competent on.

I will be happy to condemn Hamas, Robert, if you will likewise criticize Likud and Labor (the Israeli political parties) as terrorist organizations. Their terrorism makes the terrorism of Hamas pale.

I would bring charts like the following:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/children.html

And I would ask Spencer to likewise condemn Israel as a terrorist state if he wants me to condemn Hamas.

IN CORE ISLAMIC TEXTS, WE LEARN THAT MUHAMMAD ALLOWED HIS MEN TO RAPE THEIR CAPTIVE WOMEN:

From Sahih Muslim, one of the canonical hadith collections:
Book 008, Number 3371:

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger [Muhammad] (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Notice that Muhammad did not say, "do not rape your captive women." He merely says it does not matter if his soldiers withdraw before ejaculation, because souls destined by Allah to be born will be born regardless.

From Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection:
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459:

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:
I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle [Muhammad] who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."

Thus we find that Muhammad has led a raid on a tribe from which women were captured. Again notice that, in answer to his soldiers' queries Muhammad doesn't say "You must not force your captives to have intercourse with you." He says only that coitus interruptus, withdrawing prior to ejaculation, is pointless, because souls predestined to exist will exist regardless.

Again in Sahih Bukhari:
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle [Muhammad] about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."

Thus Muhammad does not forbid his men to rape their captives, but merely says that it's better not to do coitus interruptus. His men should keep going till coitus is complete.

In the Qur'an "Allah" says at least 25 times that Muhammad is to be obeyed. That is one reason why the vast majority of Muslim scholars accept the Bukhari hadiths and a few other hadith collections as authoritative for Muslims: canonical hadiths show what Muhammad did and said, permitted and forbade.