Lipstick? Eye shadow? You be the judge
Islamic supremacists are wholly intellectually bereft. They cannot answer the arguments of anti-jihadists, since anti-jihadists in general simply explicate what is in the Qur'an and Sunnah, and show how jihadists act upon these texts and teachings. So since they cannot engage their opponents on the level of ideas, they instead try to bludgeon them into silence. They do this either by ignoring us altogether, or by engaging in the Alinsky tactic of ridicule -- which allows them to adopt a posture of superiority, but only reveals their utter intellectual exhaustion and desperation.
Examples of this abound. Most recently, Islamic supremacist metrosexual Ahmed Rehab of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group with numerous ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, has responded to my pointing out a lie he told about never ducking debate with adolescent ridicule and abuse rather than substance.
Rehab's refusal to engage his opposition's arguments is a sign that he feels keenly his own intellectual vacuity. He knows that in light of it he can do nothing but ignore, mock, or try to bully people who speak the truth. Even the Soviet Union under Stalin was confident enough that its own people were sufficiently cowed, and that it had enough useful idiots among the intelligentsia abroad, that it was able to mount high-profile show trials of dissenters and Stalin's political rivals in the 1930s.
But by the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviet regime had grown sclerotic, and had lost the assurance that its own people were still terrorized enough to keep silent, or that it could still count on a foreign intelligentsia willfully blind enough to defend the regime. And so instead of mounting flashy show trials, it packed off its opponents to mental hospitals under the cover of darkness. They simply didn't exist any longer. It was an effective tactic in the short run, as it certainly silenced their opponents of the day; in the long run, however, it was an expression of exhaustion, an admission of defeat.
But as Rehab, his fellow Islamic supremacist metrosexual Reza Aslan, and others practice these tactics, the implicit admission rings louder and clearer all the time: they have no arguments. They can't really explain away what's in the Qur'an and Sunnah -- the long-winded "refutations" and "proofs" that Islam is really a Religion of Peace™ are rendered hollow every day by the jihad news worldwide: if "Islamophobes" are really misunderstanding the peaceful teachings of Islam, then coincidence of coincidences, so are innumerable Muslims, including Islamic clerics and scholars, in exactly the same way.
Aslan, a Board member of a group that is often described as an apologist for Iran's bloody Islamic regime, has to lie about what I say in order to mount even the semblance of an argument. And Rehab in this piece has to bluster and sneer, because it is all that he can do.
They are cornered. They know it. They just hope you don't notice.
Ridicule, of course, is not always a sign of intellectual bankruptcy. Rehab and Aslan are ridiculous, and in their self-righteous posturing, preening self-importance, and fronting for moral evil, they richly deserve lampooning. Also, in their self-inflated pomposity, they cannot endure to be mocked. The difference is in whether or not one has substance to back up the ridicule. Aslan offers lies. Rehab offers bluster. There is virtually nothing of substance in Rehab's screed, but he does say: "Spencer, I never agreed to debate you in the first place, and it is highly unlikely that I ever will." Of course, I never said that he agreed to debate me; I merely pointed out that the ALA invited him to do so, and he refused -- as he himself admits here.
Rehab also complains about how I have ridiculed him, claiming that I have made "an allegation" that he wears "lipstick and eyeshadow." Actually, as you can see above, it's not an allegation, it's a photograph, taken undoctored from Rehab's website by Joe Kaufman. Lipstick? Eyeshadow? Looks like it to me.
Remember also that Rehab is a front man for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several of its former officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. Two of its other officials have made Islamic supremacist statements. CAIR also was involved in the Flying Imams' intimidation suit against the passengers who reported their suspicious behavior.
CAIR has attempted to intimidate the FBI and JTTF and dictate their choice of speakers, and in doing so retailed numerous false charges, defamation, distortions, and outright lies about me, SIOA, and Pamela Geller.
CAIR has a long record of duplicity and deception. Although it has received millions of dollars in donations from foreign Islamic entities, it has not registered as a foreign agent as required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), despite spreading Islamic supremacist propaganda within the United States.
Although it presents itself as a civil rights group, CAIR actually has numerous links to Islamic supremacist and jihad groups. CAIR founders Omar Ahmad and Niwad Awad (who still serves as CAIR's executive director) were present at a Hamas planning meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 where they and other Hamas operatives conspired to raise funds for Hamas and to promote jihad in the Middle East. CAIR has steadfastly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups.
Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror:
* Ghassan Elashi, founder of CAIR's Texas chapter, in 2009 received a 65-year prison sentence for funneling over $12 million from the Islamic charity known as the Holy Land Foundation to the jihad terrorist group Hamas, which is responsible for murdering hundreds of Israeli civilians
* Mousa Abu Marzook, a former CAIR official, was in 1995 designated by the U.S. government in 1995 as a "terrorist and Hamas leader." He now is a Hamas leader in Syria.
* Randall Royer, CAIR's former civil rights coordinator, in 2004 began serving a 20-year prison sentence for aiding al-Qaida and the Taliban against American troops in Afghanistan and recruiting for Lashkar e-Taiba, the jihadist group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai jihad massacres.
* Bassem Khafagi, CAIR's former community relations director, was arrested for involvement with the Islamic Assembly of North America, which was linked to al-Qaida. After pleading guilty to visa and bank fraud charges, Khafagi was deported.
* Rabih Haddad, a former CAIR fundraiser, was deported for his work with the Global Relief Foundation (which he co-founded), a terror-financing organization.
In 1998 Omar Ahmad, CAIR's co-founder and longtime Board Chairman, said: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
After he received unwelcome publicity as a result of this statement, Ahmad denied saying it, several years after the fact. However, the original reporter, Lisa Gardiner of the Fremont Argus, stands by her story.
CAIR's spokesman Ibrahim Hooper once said: "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future."
That's the group Rehab is connected with, and yet he adopts a posture of moral superiority. Only Leftist dupes will be fooled.
And finally, Rehab concludes:
And now for some irony. Spencer, you are claiming you are ready to debate anyone but that alas no one wants to debate you because no one can. But, is this actually true? Does the name Danios of Loonwatch ring a bell Spencer? You may be burying your head in the sand hoping no one will notice, but a simple Google search on "Robert Spencer debate" reveals your hypocrisy. How come you are ignoring an invitation from another blogger who has challenged you numerous times and whose articles shredding your arguments to pieces are all over the web without a peep of a rebuttal from you? Are you conceding defeat? Are you "running away?"
Sorry, I don't debate fictional characters or pseudonyms. "Danios of Loonwatch" can go debate Scot Harvath or Harold Robbins. I use my real name, have received numerous death threats, and cannot appear in public without guards, because so many coreligionists of "Danios of Loonwatch" misunderstand the teachings of his peaceful religion. What is "Danios of Loonwatch" afraid of? He knows that Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore can appear in public with no concern whatsoever, so why does he cower in the shadows?
In any case, "Danios of Loonwatch" has already discredited himself with his windy tu-quoque arguments about Christian doctrines that never existed and that no one has ever heard of, his defamation and outright lies about my owning domain names I never knew existed until he made the charge, and his refusal to acknowledge or correct false information he has posted. Debating such a compromised and dishonest individual would be a waste of time, but nonetheless, since Rehab invokes him and others have referred to his site recently, I am willing: if "Danios of Loonwatch" reveals his real name, finds a university willing to host the debate and contracts an impartial moderator, I'm ready when he is. But I won't be holding my breath.
And as for Rehab, he will no doubt continue to flail. And I will continue to shine the light of truth on him, Reza Aslan, and their unsavory and thuggish associates.