An exchange between Robert Spencer and Scott Shane of the New York Times

"Islam as a menace, or potential menace, to Western values"

Of course it is. That's a total no-brainer.

Islam is diametrically opposed to the Western values of Liberty, Democracy, Equality, Freedom of Speech and Press, and Women's Rights.

Both empirical and textual evidence proving the above abounds.

Of all the "journalists" that attempted to pin the blame for the Norway massacre on freedom-loving critics of the cult that is fundamentalist islam, I found this guy to be the most offensive, in large part because he writes for the New York Times, which apparently shields their "columnists" with a no-public-comment policy on their website.

Thank you, Robert, for completely dismantling this idiot. I'll be emailing him to reiterate your request for a column retracting his earlier statements about you and Pamela.

Their dishonesty is perpetual. Sometimes I think its become part of their DNA.

I don't understand this guy, is this what passes for journalism these days?

He had no refutation for any of your points whatsoever. His last correspondence seemed to be dismissive, hoping you'd go away.

If the NYT publish a retraction, or at least a clarification (ie that you are no more responsible for Breivik's massacre than etc etc...), I'll sell everything and become a monk in Mount Athos.

"Fair enough"

In other words, you caught me with my pants down, but if I look the other way it doesn't matter?

"Fair enough" is just a old-teenager saying "whatever", as in you have totally busted me and I have no defense so I'll just try and dismiss the whole thing with a back-hand wave.

NOT SO FAST.

Scott Shane, you are a bad journalist, since you just don''t care so much for the truth. You even admit that your blaming Robert was "unfair"!

In this case "Fair enough" means "I was wrong"; he forget his apology...

I give Shane a lot of credit for at least following up and trying again to contact Robert (even if he should have tried harder earlier, it appears). Many journalists would not; they are afraid to engage Robert at all and simply ignore him. I do hope he will write a follow-up piece that accurately reflects Robert's views, but I won't be holding my breath.

Never does it cease to amaze me that otherwise liberal media outlets like the NYT inevitably side with the world's most blatant and dangerous threats to women's rights, gays' rights, and civil rights generally like freedom of expression, worship, etc. I will never understand it.

Egad -- in e-mail #1 he establishes himself as a NOT investigative "journalist."

Shane, could you find no better ruse than all of that? You're a pest with a paycheck -- and a lazy one at that.

Would Scott Shane have Robert Spencer simply ignore what he has studied about Islam for well over 30 years and simply put it in a lock box?

Would Scott Shane ignore the real threat of Islamic jihad? Should we ignore the lessons of Turkey, and Lebanon among so many once proud Christian Nations?

Should we ignore the teachings of Sun Tsu that Generals like Douglas MacArthur followed in his training?

Should we ignore the real reasons Thomas Jefferson read the Quran And how it helped him to defeat the Barbary Pirates?

Should we have ignored Adolph Hitler and his book "Mein Kampf'?

Should we have ignored the false book "the Protocals of the Elders of Zion".

The world is replete with societies who ignored the threats of totalitarianism and paid the ultimate price for that ignorance.

There's no way Spencer would ever be living in Sherman Oaks, CA. lol. But besides that and not being able to find the contact us, Scott Shane seems incapable of making a simple deduction -- that after thousands of jihad attacks based on Islamic teachings there might be some connection worth investigating. Maybe “unwilling” is a better description since Shane comes across as being remarkably unwilling to learn. He stuck to his main argument which was that Robert was mentioned often by Breivik and that being critical of Islam incites people to violence. (I wonder how many readers of JihadWatch have attacked Muslims or are plotting attacks on our government?)

Meanwhile, Shane insists on looking the other way when numerous people blow themselves or commit murder while yelling allahu akbar and he refuses to consider the possible danger of Islamic fundamentalism taking root in the US.

Some also parse the words of CAIR leaders from some years ago for evidence of ill intent, but maybe that's as unfair as blaming you for Breivik!

That reads like an elegant variation on tu quoque, not that Mr.Shane understands what that informal fallacy means. Mr. Spencer, with Mr. Shane I think it's...Contra negantem principia non est disputandum - There is no arguing with one who denies first principles.

He's lost sir. Your e-mail exchange with him shows that well.

We knew you were not making things up.

Scott Shane is an embarrassment to himself, though I doubt he will ever realize this. What particularly rankles me about the Scott Shanes of this world is the double standard they employ.

As an example, I have no doubt that Shane would never hold Martin Luther King responsible for any violence in the 1960s committed by black radicals, for instance the Black Panthers or the many blacks in major Ameican cities who fostered and took advantage of riots in American urban centers. And yet Shane is only too ready to hold Robert Spencer at least indirectly culpable for violence, exceedingly rare as it is, committed by non-Muslims against Muslims, even though Spencer has been crystal clear, as was King, that non-violent methods to eradicate intolerance and hatred is the only way to proceed. Moreover, Shane will, guaranteed, overlook the over 17,000 documented Islamic terrorist attacks committed worldwide just since 9/11 and will focus on the almost phantom number of terrorist attacks committed against Muslims over the same course of time.

Finally, all those knowledgeable about Islam should reflect on the paucity of knowledge Shane has of this religion. Does he know that not a single school of Islamic theology, as examples the Shafi or Maliki school, to this day has repudiated the sentence of death for any Muslim who leaves Islam for another religion? Does he know that any criticism of Islam or Mohammed is to be met with death? Does he know that a woman's testimony in a court of Islamic law counts for only half that of a man's? How does Shane square the First Amendment of the American Constitution with Islam? I doubt exceedingly that this superficial thinker has ever reflected upon these realities.

"Fair Enough."

Reminds me of the final scene from the movie
The Fugitive, where Marshal Sam Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones)
finally captures Dr. Richard Kimball (Harrison Ford):

Kimball: I'm innocent, I didn't do it."

Gerard: "I know. I don't care..."

Shane: “I stupidly missed the contact link.”

Visuals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hfo954Ydwjo

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9142

I just sent him this:

Mr. Shane,

I just read your exchange with Robert Spencer and was struck, foremost, by how presumptuous you are to compare the "hate mail" you've received from his supporters with that he endures for the work he does. Did anyone threaten you? As you must know -- but perhaps sadly don't -- counter-jihadists like Spencer are invariably threatened, attacked, yes even killed in the West and around the world for courageously speaking out. Even joking ABOUT the subject of such threats can leave one seriously exposed. Molly Norris was forced to abandon her career and identity at the FBI's behest after trying to offer a little wan comic relief to support South Park's Parker and Stone when they had the temerity to put Muhammad in an episode or two. She went ghost and lives in fear of discovery. Others have been less fortunate.

So how about you, Mr. Shane? Do you risk anything at all exposing yourself to the ire of Spencer supporters like myself? Did someone swear at you perhaps? Call you names? Are you okay? You sure now?

Spencer, as even you in your shallow obliviousness must appreciate, will live the rest of his life watching his back and relying on awkward, expensive security to avoid being murdered by one or more of the many Muslims who've specifically threatened him so. He doesn't bitch about it, he doesn't complain. He's a man of principle and courage, committed to his brave campaign to defend truth and the liberties inherent in the non-Muslim world.

So, really, for you to compare yourself with him in this respect is particularly galling. All the more reason, I submit, that you should feel compelled to do the right thing and publish an apology. You vilified him and did so in the most unprofessional way, failing to provide him a chance to comment. Your weak excuse of not being able to reach him, even if true, is no excuse at all. Regardless, now you HAVE heard from him and on the lowest possible rung of the ladder of journalistic ethics, you owe him a proper balancing piece. Your conscience, my friend, should be ringing alarms right now. Is it?

Sincerely,

Jim Heller

This exchange from Shane shows how enormously ignorant he is about Islam:

"On the other point, that part of the article was about the Obama administration's promise to create a collection of vetted material for teaching law enforcement and other officials the basics of Islam and related topics. I think very few Muslims would accept your books, which frankly do come across to most people as hostile to Islam, as fair and appropriate material to teach about their religion. The FBI was clearly embarrassed by this particular PowerPoint and said it is no longer used"

Like no one has any right to be "hostile" to a 7th century Arabian mass-murder Jihad ideology disguised as a religion.
OK, well, then no one has any right to be "hostile" to Fascism or Nazism, either.

It's just so jaw-droppingly ignorant, a decade after 9/11.

Can you imagine the "vetted" materials?! What a joke! Showing LE and "other officials" Bozo the Clown videos would be more meaningful. And the FBI? "Embarrassed" by a PowerPoint that tells the truth about Islam? Some FBI. Wow, I feel really safe now since the FBI is so knowledgeable about Islam. Sarc on.

Of course Hussein will replace the essential and specific Arabic word "Jihad" with the generalized euphemism "man-caused disasters" in the "vetted" materials. What I said - a total joke. Bring on Bozo.

There is a "Contact Us" box on the right side of the Jihad Watch front page that goes right to me. [Actually, it's on the left side. Sorry, Scott. -- RS]

Why not make it easier to find? Why not put "Contact Us" on both the right and the left side? He has a point. No?

There's the bell! Spencer and Shane come out of their corners. They circle, and start to grapple! Shane tries a take down, but Spencer slips away, and now Spencer tries a take down, and Shane slips free! Wait, a feint from Spencer, Shane comes in, takes Spencer down! But wait, Spencer in a brilliant reversal! And now...Spencer is going for the armbar! He's going for the armbar! Uh oh, he's got him he's got him in the arm bar! Wait, wait, there it is, Shane is tapping the mat ("Fair enough")! It's over! It's over! Spencer, in one round!

Now, a word from our sponsor...

From the essay "Communism and Islam" in International Affairs, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Jan., 1954), pp. 1-12, here is Bernard Lewis on Islam's inherent totalitarianism:

I turn now from the accidental to the essential factors, to those deriving from the very nature of Islamic society, tradition, and thought. The first of these is the authoritarianism, perhaps we may even say the totalitarianism, of the Islamic political tradition...Many attempts have been made to show that Islam and democracy are identical -- attempts usually based on a misunderstanding of Islam or democracy or both...In point of fact, except for the early caliphate, when the anarchic individualism of tribal Arabia was still effective, the political history of Islam is one of almost unrelieved autocracy...[I]t was authoritarian, often arbitrary, sometimes tyrannical. There are no parliaments or representative assemblies of any kind, no councils or communes, no chambers of nobility or estates, no municipalities in the history of Islam; nothing but the sovereign power, to which the subject owed complete and unwavering obedience as a religious duty imposed by the Holy Law. In the great days of classical Islam this duty was only owed to the lawfully appointed caliph, as God's vicegerent on earth and head of the theocratic community, and then only for as long as he upheld the law; but with the decline of the caliphate and the growth of military dictatorship, Muslim jurists and theologians accommodated their teachings to the changed situation and extended the religious duty of obedience to any effective authority, however impious, however barbarous. For the last thousand years, the political thinking of Islam has been dominated by such maxims as "tyranny is better than anarchy" and "whose power is established, obedience to him is incumbent."
...Quite obviously, the Ulama of Islam are very different from the Communist Party. Nevertheless, on closer examination, we find certain uncomfortable resemblances. Both groups profess a totalitarian doctrine, with complete and final answers to all questions on heaven and earth; the answers are different in every respect, alike only in their finality and completeness, and in the contrast they offer with the eternal questioning of Western man. Both groups offer to their members and followers the agreeable sensation of belonging to a community of believers, who are always right, as against an outer world of unbelievers, who are always wrong. Both offer an exhilarating feeling of mission, of purpose, of being engaged in a collective adventure to accelerate the historically inevitable victory of the true faith over the infidel evil-doers. The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, two necessarily opposed groups, of which- the first has the collective obligation of perpetual struggle against the second, also has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. There again, the content of belief is utterly different, but the aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same. The humorist who summed up the Communist creed as "There is no God and Karl Marx is his Prophet!" was laying his finger on a real affinity. The call to a Communist Jihad, a Holy War for the faith -- a new faith, but against the self-same Western Christian enemy -- might well strike a responsive note.

An excellent exchange—on Mr. Spencer's part. too bad the readers of the NYT will never see it...

This (almost) reminds me of those WWII-era movies where the Nazi supporter privately admits to the hero—usually over a glass of brandy in his well-appointed library—that of course he is quite reasonable for considering the Fascists a threat, but that he will still continue to denounce him publicly.

Scott Shane,

I will apply your logic. Now, let's pretend that a serial killer is arrested and was keeping a diary. In it there was horrific details of the killings and also some comments about how much he was fascinated by the good writing of Scott Shane, a New-York Times journalist. So, if something like that happened to you, how would you like it to be associated to a criminal? Sadly the media would jump on the story and your name would raise suspicion and you would have to defend yourself that you had nothing to do with the sick individual. How would you take it Mr Shane? Give it some thoughts.

CLIMATE OF INTIMIDATION: ARE THE LIGHTS GOING OUT?

Here's a very incomplete list of organizations or people self-censoring, or hiring bodyguards, or going into hiding, or taking other precautions, and sometimes getting killed or wounded after receiving death threats and violence from Muslims following the example of Muhammad, who said there would be no punishment for murdering someone who had insulted him.

Yale University Press (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

Metropolitan Museum of Art (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

Hollywood (self-censors by canceling a movie project about Jews in Malmo, Sweden, after learning of frequent Muslim threats and acts of violence against Jews in Malmo);

National Archives of Canada (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

Director of the museum in the Hague, Wim van Krimpen (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

UK religious studies teacher Gary Smith (Muslims hit him over the head with an iron bar, fracturing his skull, hemmorhaging his brain, breaking his jaw, and slashing his face, for not teaching Islam as they deem apprpropriate)

Norwegian politicians (Iraqi-born cleric Mullah Krekar threatens politicians with death if he's deported from Norway).

State Senator Greg Ball (receives suspicious package with greeting "Asa Lamu Laikum Dead Man Walking," (the first part of which is Arabic for "peace be upon you") ;

2010 Tennessee candidate for Congress Lou Ann Zelenikj (death threats from Muslims);

Barrister Tom Zreika (seeks police protection after non-stop phone threats from Muslims);

Japanese translator of Rushdie, Hitoshi Igarashi (murdered);

Norwiegan translator of Rushdie, William Nygaard (shot);

Italian translator of Rushdie, Ettore Capriolo (knifed);

French singer Veronique Sanson (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

Artist Molly Norris (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats, changed name, went into hiding);

The producers of South Park (self-censor in response to Muslim death threats);

Journalist Lawrence O'Donnell (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

Cartoonist Lars Vilks (house firebombed);

Philosopher Robert Redeker (in hiding, under government protection);

Filmmaker Theo Van Gogh (murdered);

Author and former member of Dutch parliament Hirsi Ali (full-time bodyguards);

Author Salman Rushdie (in hiding, under UK govt. protection);

Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten (bodyguards hired);

And again Jyllands Posten (five jihadists discovered planning to shoot as many people as possible);

Atheist Sabri Husibi (death threats from Muslims);

Lyricist Javed Akhtar (death threats from Muslims);

Cartoonist Kurt Westergaard (almost killed by a Muslim with an axe);

Director of the film 2012; the comedian Penn Jillette; the British potter Grayson Perry (all three self-censor in response to Muslim death threats);

Lawyer Majed Moughni (death threat from Muslim);

Author Taslima Nasreen (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

Disc jockey/musician Jakub Rene Kosik (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

Coptic Orthodox priest Zakaria Botros (Al Qaeda bounty of $60 million on his head);

Pop star Deeyah (hires extra bodyguards);

Politician Shiria Khatun (forced by Muslim threats to her children to dress in a "less Western" manner);

Christian minister Dr. Peter Hammond (death threat from Muslim);

Actor Omar Sharif (Muslims call for his murder);

Artist Sooreh Hera (self-censors in response to Muslim threats and forced into hiding);

Artist Sarah Maple (gallery workers threatened, gallery window smashed, 24-hour police protection);

Beatle Paul McCartney (death threats from Muslims);

150 Austrian Coptic Christians (Austrian interior ministry found jihadist list targeting each of them for violent attack);

100+ Canadian-Arab Christians (each one targeted on an Al Qaeda website);

Volvo and Ikea (threatened by terrorist group);

UK Muslim scientist Usama Hasan (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

Islam expert Robert Spencer gets a death threat; and another death threat; and another death threat; and yet anoth...well, you get the idea.

Robert Spencer continues to speak out, but countless others are self-censoring in response to the climate of intimidation. The lights are going out. The growth of Islam means the death of civil liberties. It's time to resist.

I believe attack is the best defense.

If Scott Shane of the NYT was not impervious to reason he wouldn't be writing for a drecks-paper that brought us hard-core commie propagandists like Walter Duranty and present day Obama agit-prop Paul Krugman.

The slimes is stuffed with these types.

Ignorance, arrogance and a hardcore Marxism are a fundamental requirement for hiring.

The abandonment of reason is like a Bar Mitzvah to get a gig in this ivory tower of perverts and enemies of the US.

Shane: "[...] I was glad to find that you had addressed the Breivik manifesto issue on your site, and I quoted that and recycled the comment when I mentioned you in the second article."

Yes, Shane quoted the part where Spencer clearly denounced the violence, but in that same paragraph he had just referred to Spencer as "anti-Muslim." That's a personal judgment; it is erroneous and unduly hostile; and it cannot be excused by the haste to meet a deadline as Shane seems to imply. I've rebutted this "anti-Muslim" smear here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/08/white-house-new-york-times-dont-fight-jihad-it-will-only-provoke-more-jihad.html#comment-811441

As for Shane's "64" "quotes" nonsense, I still see no retraction and correction from him or the NYTimes. I've rebutted that superficial, misleading, erroneous claim here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/07/horowitz-the-character-assassination-of-robert-spencer.html#comment-807394

And aside from the substantive issue of the contents of those citations, can't these people count, or double-check, or what?

Thanks. I stupidly missed the contact link.

Yeah, that was stupid alright, if that's how it happened. One would think that a "reporter" would go to all primary sources, including Spencer, before imputing guilt in a terror mass murder operation.

Was it an honest mistake? Well, like Bill O'Reilly I have no choice but to give Shane the benefit of the doubt and take him at his word.

But, doubts remain. I saw the Contact Us box right away when I first graced this blogosphere pasture. Also, these NYT people are cut from the cloth, very smart, usually with the finest cachet in predigree prestige puppy mill diplomas.

Then how can I, with a mere Associates in Animal Management diploma from the local community college have seen the Contact Us box while an honest working stiff in the employ of the Ruling Elite have missed it?

Could this Shane fellow be lying? And, more important, was he sneering as he typed the words Thanks. I stupidly missed the contact link.? These are actual potential speculations to be taken on as theory in the Court of Public Opinion and...

*** 33:21 ***

Whoops. Forgot that the NY Times, the Gray Lady, is the paper of record in that court.

Robert needs NO exhonoration from Shane,the NY Times,or anybody else , it's THEY who are in NEED of exhonaration.
Robert is FORCE FOR RIGHT on the SIDE OF GOOD!
Robert KNOWS them and they KNOW Robert KNOWS THEM and that's why they LIBEL & SMEAR HIM, Alinsky style..

9. Scott Shane to Robert Spencer:

Fair enough.

10. Robert Spencer to Scott Shane:

Great. Thanks. I look forward to your New York Times article defending and exonerating me.

____________________________________________________________

Good luck with that. Make it easier to find contact information. I've had the same problem. It's on the right. No it's on the left......

Read the Quran chapter #9 and the secound last #8 War and Booty (why not peace?)

http://newstime.co.nz/video-on-the-radicalization-of-anders-behring-breivik.html
“Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil”

UK Article Nr. 32 / August 7th 2011
by Annemarie Heibrock

“…More important seems to be to strengthen civil society, to counteractive trends that exclude entire population groups (she means “Muslims” & Islam critical groups like Jihad Watch), to promote civil courage.

And in this we can learn from the Norwegians. After many reports on the mood of the country immediately after the cruel deeds one has the distinct impression that the Norwegians do not let take their love of freedom and tolerance. They trust in their open form of society ….”

The explanation for people like Scott Shane is simple.
He is a Liberal. Liberals have been defending dictatorships since the Soviet Union was created.
Since the Soviet Union no longer exists this means the Liberals had to find a new dictatorship to worship and it appears to have found one with the muslims and their so-called religion .
This means that Scott, Useful Idiot that he is, will defend them no matter what.
Obama as well has the Liberal disease which is very serious for America and the free world.

http://newstime.co.nz/annemarie-heibrock.html

Touché..Mr Spencer. Think you won that one. :)

Political Islam – The Annihilation of Civilizations “…Islam is at war with Kafirs, and Kafirs are trying to “nice” their way out of destruction. Islam is at war, we are at nice. Mohammed has a dream that is coming true while we sleep.”

Book 52 "Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad)"

The Prophet called, "War (i.e. jihad) is deceit"
Bukhari Vol. 4, Book 52, #267

“I have been made victorious with terror”
Bukhari Vol. 4, Book 52, #220

8:12 "...I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers" 8:60 "...to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah (i.e. "Unbelievers" 8:59) strike off their heads & finger-tips"

"I think very few Muslims would accept your books, which frankly do come across to most people as hostile to Islam, as fair and appropriate material to teach about their religion. "

Well of course if one exposes the extreme intolerance of Islam, its extreme animus toward Christians, toward infidels in general and especially Jews, and the willful intent to do violence to bring the world under submission, all by quoting from the Quran and other respected Muslim sources & from accepted history, then the writing naturally will seem hostile. And then are Muslims the appropriate judge of what is appropriate and fair about the expose`? And if they don't like it then it is therefore mere hostility? This is just stupid criticism by Shane. Stupid willful blindness.

If I criticized Hitler's Mein Kampf, Shane might just as well say that "frankly I do come across as hostile" and that neo-Nazis view me as unfair, and if any crazy psychopath reads my critique and goes off and shoots a bunch of Germans then I can consider myself partly responsible.

How does the MSM get such anemic minds writing for them?

The greatest catastrophe in history is the invention of Islam.

The second greatest catastrophe is the spread of Islam.

Islam - a plague on the world for 1400 years.

Well, I will give Scott Shane credit for recognizing that he overstepped somewhat. Still, I'll add my voice to those that say they've never read anything by Spencer that advocates violence against Muslims.

But here, after having had a go-round with other posters on other threads about the just war theory and the like, I am going to advocate defensive violence against portions of the Ummah--stress on _defensive_, and under certain conditions.

Noting that there are now serious riots by "Yoots" over in Britain, and the threat of such over much of Europe, we need to re-iterate support of 2d Amendment rights for law-abiding Americans and LPR (hats off to the Korean-American and not-yet-naturalized shopkeepers in LA who successfully defended their business against rioters during the Rodney King riots a few years ago). Further, we should make it clear that if some coalition of Islamic states or organizations engage in violence against the USA, the USA will respond with, in the case of state-sponsored attacks, Congressional declaration of War in accord with Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, which should be prosecuted with every means at our disposal. Perhaps it would also behoove us to let Iran know that we will hold it responsible for any actions of its Hamas and Hizbollah proxies for any terrorist attack on US soil.

Yet this being said, let us also make it clear that if you don't tread on us, we won't bite you.

These guys have no idea what they are up against when they take on Robert armed with only their false assumptions about him, a result of their never having read a word written by him.

One of the most serious problems Americans have is putting way to much faith in journalists who write stories about a subject they really have no working knowledge of.

You simply cannot be an objective reporter if you don't have some important and substantial clear and working knowledge of your subject.

It is like giving over the pulpit to someone in your local church who has not read the Bible.

It is like asking someone to act as a lifeguard at the local pool when they don't even know how to swim.

Almost everyone in public life is extremely guarded about negative comments on Islam and choses his few words carefully, if compelled to, in some rare circumstances. On the other hand, those defending Islam, Muslims, or even the Jihadis, have no problem in speaking out loud, clear and often.

The reason is that there are consequences, negative, at times fatal, if one criticies Islam and Muslims. The critic tends to be ostracised, even in his own community, as an insensitive bringer of bad news to people who would rather not hear anything about Islam and the dangers it poses, as it disturbs their equanimity and smug belief in the similar, rational, loving nature of all human beings. They are so completely unable to comprehend a belief system devoid of love, tolerance and even the basic ethics that charaterise humanity, that they are prepared to condemn the messengers and the alarm raisers as the real culprits and hate mongers.

On the other hand, defending Islam and Islamists has only positive consequences. There is praise for being a liberal and a defender of freedom and modernity, a warm welcome into all communities of Muslims, Marxists, Academics, Liberals, you name them. There's good money too from publications and academia that want to promote the good news about Islam, for these very reasons. And then, if you are lucky, there are all those rich Middle Eastern foundations financed by oil money, that can seriously impact your fortunes for the better.

It's a no contest, as things stand.

What a fascinating dialogue. I am surprised that Scott Shane participated in it. I do not misinterpret his willingness to do so as an act of courage. Clearly he thought Robert would be a pushover, but after a few exchanges he realized that this was not the case, and then gave up. Robert is such a professional. While always remains civil, he never backs down. Robert never gives an inch where the truth is concerned. Thank you for suffering these fools, Robert.

Great riposte, Fearless Leader.

Scott Shane might have realized through this brief discourse that Robert Spencer has been unfairly maligned, but acknowledging as much in print would bring down the wrath of his colleagues and put him in the position - probably for the first time in his life - of being politically incorrect. Conscience and courage have no place in such a world...(or perhaps Scott, this is precisely where when and where they are needed most).

"Trust me, if I had found dozens of approving citations of Al Sharpton or Glenn Greenwald or Karl Marx, I would have reported that." - Shane

Is Scott Shane obfuscating the issue with 'moral' equivalence of Jihad to other ideologies? There is virtually no comparison to anything else on Earth.

As I wrote earlier in answer to Jason:

"Robert Spencer for president!"

Lovely sentiment, Jason. But until the enemy shows a solid front, we are battling shadows. I believe it was Hesperado (banned from JW sometime ago) who advocated that Islam should have its Caliphate, because then they would present a solid and identifiable enemy. But probably this will not happen. They can't come together enough, as sectarian violence in all Islamic lands shows. Islam is actually in its last days death throes, and it is determined to not go quietly into the dust of history. It will kick up as much trouble as it can going, though it too knows it is an archaic anachronism in the modern age, unconvincing no matter how much deceit dawas, death threats, death and destruction it can cause. It is dying.

For president? Even if Winston Churchill were alive today, he could not run on a counter-Jihad platform without alienating the vote. Islam is a shadow, it is a malevolent ideology of total mind-body-soul control established to glorify conquest and booty, especially women slaves. But it has no common solid front against which to launch an attack, and it dissolves as quickly as it forms; just like those 'youths' rioting and looting in London who run into the shadows when pursued, which is a frustration to police actions; or any military action. Remember it was born out of primitive Pagan Arab 'Allah' worship, with human sacrifice in some cases, and is totally suited to the hit and run attacks of caravan raiding bandits. The first Caliphs tried to organize it and put a legitimate face on their war doctrines, and these bandits of the desert, so they cobbled together an ideology today called Islam, and its offspring Sharia. That is the real enemy we are fighting, those desert bandits who strike and then flee, and their evil ideologies to urge them on, and never present a military target against them. Why not? Because they don't really have one, and so must live in the shadows from which they strike. They can't even trust each other. Remember their alleged (maybe fictitious) founder's claim: "'I have been made victorious with terror.'" in his own words. (Read the Book!)

I would be alarmed by these developments of modern Islam raising once more its ugly snout, but I also see quite clearly that the efforts of anti-Jjihadists like Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Pat Condell, Mark Steyn, Adrew Bostom, Hugh Fitzgerald, Nonie Darwish, Pam Geller, Sam Harris, and a growing list of people worldwide (including bloggers here) understanding what this is all about, and their pointed critiques, insights, and dissemination of knowledge are making their mark. Hence, education, commentary, reading, references, history, blogs and chatrooms are all knowledge and commnications to destroy that shadowy Islam that would rob us. Our freedoms are at stake, and more and more people are coming to understand this, so discussing Islam publicly has lost its stigma, and now I hear it vocalized surprisingly in social settings, whereas years ago it was spoken in hushed whispers. That is the real change taking place, OIC be damned, and that is what is killing Islam. Anti-Sharia state legislation is another manifestation of this. Shine bright lights on Islam, the Koran, its Sharia, and keep up the pressure, and the dark shadows of Islam melt away.

The trouble is, because it appeals to the lowest base nature in man, Islam has a strong atavistic survival instinct, just as the first Caliphs designed it to have. The warrior jihadis were designed to not fear death and attack no matter the odds. They often succeeded against lesser, primitive peoples. But they are up against a powerful world civilization who knows its value; it no doubt amazes them how resilient we can be in defense of our modern freedoms. But this works both for and against Islam: first, it is hard to kill; but second, it is hard to die, so we'll be fighting shadows for a bit longer than we would like. Don't let the boogy man frighten you, death threats, riots, public torture and beheadings, and all vile aspects of this misanthropic 'religion', it is formidable only if we let it be. Whether it dies quickly in a matter of decades, or it takes centuries is up to our fight. But in the end is the same prophecy: Islam dies. This is truly Islam's "last days".

My suspicion is that some of these ‘wonderful’ writers and broadcasters of the MSN are just children, or at worse, people that their only dream in their life is the 'end of month' - for the pay-cheque;

The FBI Training Manual:

In my view, except if the United States government wants to remain in its coma state as the fall-guy for Islam, Robert Spencers books and or, power point should not only be paid-for by the FBI, but should be developed as companion text books; for use in junior schools.

After-all, the amount of undiluted education, the kind that the types of Scot Shane and some helpful Politicians are now receiving from this site is all-ready too much for a price.

"While the Hindu elaborates his argument, the Moslem sharpens his sword."
-Winston Churchill

Many of us Indians think you've done a great job in elaborating your arguments, Robert. Your words are more powerful than any explosives or bullets. Keep fighting the good fight.

Once again, in a fair debate you trounce your liberal opponents who denounce any criticism of fundamentalist Islam.

That was especially painful to read when he tried to compare you to Awlaki and then you cited how the NYT had praised him.

What a gut punch.

No wonder they won't debate you, Robert.

You're smarter than they are and you have the truth on your side.

The more they demonize you, the more publicity you'll get. And thus the more web traffic you'll get.

Once people come to your blog or read your books hoping to confirm that you're some demented hate monger, they'll learn things about the world of jihad that the liberal media doesn't want people to know.

So please, keep chasing Robert with pitchforks and torches in the press. You'll only be further exposing your own deranged islamist apologist worldview.

Well Robert, you gave him a thorough beating. But, I wouldn't hold my breath that he changes course. He is going to keep on slandering you because he hates with the same passion as the mujahidin who blow themselves up.

But,for anyone who reads this e-mail exchange with a clear mind, this is clear evidence of irrational media bias and propaganda.

The best thing about this exchange is that a seed of doubt has been planted in Scott Shane's mind. Every time there is another terrorist outrage inspired by Islam, the memory of this exchange will tweak his conscience.

He knows he's wrong, but won't admit it, yet! But the defeat he suffered in the exchange of e-mails will eat away at him.

My low opinion of Scott Shane has gone up considerably after this. He has been unfailingly courteous, willing to acknowledge his half-heartedness in contacting Robert, and most importantly, he has been amenable to reason.
It would be naive to expect an apology or a retraction, but we can certainly hope to have a better informed journalist and more balanced reporting from him in future.

Scott Shane [my notes]: "...that part of the article was about the Obama administration's promise to create a collection of vetted [1] material for teaching law enforcement and other officials the basics of Islam and related topics. I think very few Muslims would accept your books, which frankly do come across to most [2] people as hostile to Islam, as fair and appropriate material to teach about their religion. The FBI was clearly embarrassed [3] by this particular PowerPoint [4] and said it is no longer used."

[1]. The idea that Muslim believers would have to approve all the reading materials and other sources on the basics of Islam and related topics to the FBI, which is responsible for the safety and security for approximately 300,000,000 Americans, is a breathtakingly naive proposal coming from someone who purports to be a journalist. What about objectivity? What about critical perspective? Even uneducated common sense would suggest that one would not turn over complete or even substantial amounts of control of the presentation of the facts about an ideology to the partisan proponents of that ideology. If we did, there would be little but sunshine-and-roses Disney-style presentation of Islam.

So if we had a major problem with Church of Scientology terrorists killing and plotting to kill American civilians, Scott Shane would insist that only pro-Scientology partisans would be permitted to present or vet such information, to security, FBI, etc. (since critics who report any of the negative things about Scientology are regarded by Scientologists as "hostile")? Is it really necessary to explain how stupid this is?

Of course, one might reasonably want to include some information by pro-Islamic sources, to be balanced by more critical perspectives. But the idea that we should turn over any (more) significant amount of control over such information to partisan pro-Islamic sources is utterly absurd. The partisan Islamic propaganda groups already have way too much influence in this area anyways.

[2] Shane presents no evidence to support this assertion. Secondly, if it is perceived to be "hostile" to criticize an ideology that has, to say the least, some rather serious problems, perhaps the perception of hostility is (a) not something that can be avoided if one wants to present the facts about those problems, and (b) the lesser of our concerns which include the lives, safety, and security of innocent civilians.

[3] Shane presents no evidence that the FBI was embarrassed or removed material or no longer used it because it was embarrassed.

[4] Speaking of provocative materials, as I recall one of Qutb's [i.e., a highly influential Islamist's] works was shown in that presentation. Interesting that Shane seems to be more worked up over Robert Spencer's books than Qutb's. Has Shane even read any of Spencer's books?

Scott Shane: "I'm sure it must have been unpleasant to discover that you were cited so frequently in Breivik's manifesto.[1] But it was also, in my view, clearly newsworthy that your work and that of other American "counter-jihad" bloggers and writers appear to have influenced him [2] so significantly."

[1] Cited frequently by Fjordman, who is pasted in frequently by Breivik. Fjordman, btw, hasn't recommended violence against anyone, and, in any case, Fjordman's views differ from Robert's in some key respects.

[2] It also "appears" that Breivik is just using Spencer and others superficially, because Breivik seems to have formed his own views about Islam and Muslims and the left, and so on, long before Spencer had ever published his books and articles on these topics. For Spencer to have influenced Breivik, he would have to be capable of time travel, for starters. Yet if he had influenced Breivik to any significant extent, I'm quite sure that Breivik would not have killed anyone and would not have been recommending that we scrap democracy, shut down freedom of expression, force people to "convert" to Christianity, abolish equal rights and freedoms for women, cooperate with Al Qaeda, kill European civilians, adopt some kind of white nationalism, and so on--all things that Spencer clearly rejects.

I think the only reasons it "appears" to Scott Shane that Spencer influenced Breivik is because Shane hasn't read Robert's work and hasn't read Breivik's damn "manifesto". (And, of course, because Shane seems to have a pre-set bias, a kind of tunnel vision, and perhaps a projectively-based inflated sense of how much influence media sources have as compared to lived experiences, e.g., Breivik's experiences with Muslims, the assaults, their anti-western views, etc.). Even in the case of Fjordman, Breivik's views seem to have been formed before Fjordman had even published anything about Islamization in Europe. If we take what Breivik claims in the manifesto seriously, his views on all of these matters, and about what he ought to do about them, were formed before any of these anti-jihad bloggers and writers appeared.

It seems to me Breivik was using these various writers and bloggers to try, at least from his own rather warped perspective, to add credibility and more popular appeal to his proposed movement. (His comments on the use of propaganda techniques to reach wider audiences, and so forth, suggests this. That is, there are important major differences between Breivik's views and those of Spencer et al., but Breivik, in what he calls his pragmatic approach to forming a movement with mass appeal, tried to cloak himself in all of these other sources to make his proposed movement.

Imagine, for example, a jihadist somewhere right now is plotting to kill Spencer. (This is not far-fetched). Suppose the jihadist reads all of the viciously-hostile press directed at Robert Spencer over the past couple of weeks, and puts together a "manifesto" which he believes builds upon his case against Robert Spencer. He cites Scott Shane of the NYTimes, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, and so on, all "respectable" writers from all kinds of mainstream media, who've accused Robert Spencer of hating Muslims, waging war against Islam, and so on. He then publishes his manifesto and then assassinates Robert Spencer. Some pundits then seize upon the fact that people like Scott Shane are cited numerous times in the jihadist's manifesto, and charge that, therefore, these cited persons must have influenced the jihadist, inspired him, motivated him, to kill Spencer. Yet, the jihadist, being a jihadist, was already prepared intellectually and otherwise to kill someone in the name of defending Islam.

Scott Shane: "Thanks, interesting video, though the smirking tone doesn't appeal to me."

Any excuse to avoid the substance of the utterly solid and sensible, well-supported case that David Wood lays out.

Scott Shane: "I do think a fair reading of Breivik's manifesto shows that he had embraced the view of Islam as a menace, or potential menace, to Western values that you and many others have also embraced."

Many others? Do you mean the pluralities to majorities of ordinary European citizens who see increasing Islamization as a threat to Western values? Do you mean the overwhelming majorities of ordinary citizens who reject sharia?

Scott Shane: "Obama, Locke, Jefferson and Darwin were cited, of course, but not nearly as often or as centrally as your work. Trust me, if I had found dozens of approving citations of Al Sharpton or Glenn Greenwald or Karl Marx, I would have reported that."

We don't trust you Scott, because there are other sources and influences cited in the manifesto, more often and more centrally and more relevant, which you don't mention at all.

Why is Scott Shane, after all of this, still unable to provide any quote from Robert Spencer that shows a substantive, meaningful connection to Breivik's views? Could it be that Scott Shane realizes his case will be seen to unravel as soon as he starts quoting what Spencer actually has said?

Meanwhile, in another country, another continent, the police are hounding the courageous "Fjordman", whose identity has been compromised and who has been forced to go into hiding.
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10089390
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/08/08/fjordman-raises-anonymity-issues/

I like Ann Coulter's headline:

"New York Times Reader Kills Dozens in Norway"

I see that those of us who have taken the time and effort to educate ourselves about Islam are derogated as "fans".

As far as I'm concerned, if he hasn't read "Sharia the Threat", he isn't qualified to report on Muslim issues.

Don´t bother by these idiots Robert. They are in every society. You these liberals,will be cleaned up first if Islam comes to power in US(God forbid). They have no idea that Muslims in power don't like any other ideology than Islam. Liberals my foot!!!

Perhaps we will make a counter-jihadist of Scott Shane yet!

What a dishonourable propaganda rag the New York Times has become when it employs these kind of unprofessional journalists "I couldn't see your prominently displayed contact address". Defaming those who defend the USA to serve those who kill America's best and bravest!

Sue them Robert, sue them!

@traeh - your list would make a great start to a new website tracking the people who live under threat of violence from religious nut cases in a database.

I'm sure, Robert, that you won't be holding your breath on the chances of a proper apology from NYT; its political agenda is set.

The New York Times has an ombudsman aka public editor, Arthur Brisbane, whose job it is to rebuke the ethics and practices of the paper when he judges rebuke to be deserved. For example:

http://thestatsblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/new-york-times-ombudsman-rebukes-his-own-paper-for-reporting-lapses-on-natural-gas/

Maybe it would be worth it for Robert or one of his professional allies to write to public editor Brisbane, cite the two smear articles by Shane, Shane's unethical failure to contact Spencer (are we supposed to believe that elite NYT reporter Shane doesn't know how to use a search box to find the word "contact" in three seconds flat?) and Shane's conduct in the above interchange.

Shane is very polite and I honestly didn't expect someone who supports an evil ideology to be open to an exchange with someone who he thinks is evil. Maybe he will change his stance after the exchange but probably not. Those whom we have done injustice we never forgive, is a very strong sentiment in weak people. And weak Shane is.

The tide in Germany is turning. It is slow but it is turning. Who would have thought so five years ago?

Thank you Robert for your relentless sacrifice.

Unfortunately I suspect that not one word would have resonated with Shane.

They are self ordained demigod demagogues entombed in a world of their own making and nothing will shake the fantasy.

However, although not strictly along the Islamic strand of this site a good few fantasies are being shaken back here as England burns and along with it the multicultural shibboleths.

Vigilante groups are now being formed in loose collectives as decent law abiders watch as the police stand by and in turn, watch businesses looted and burned to the ground.

Normally our Gov and authority would condemn and actually crack down on these defenders but its gone way past that now.

The old order of the culturally relative marxist left is being rattled as never before and the public mood is enough.

One or two of the less brain endowed Labour MPs are attempting the old immigrant deprivation two step but it's clear by the contempt being shown to these opportunists who never let a good old tragedy go to waste that we're having none of it.

We've had enough is the clear message and so far its gaining a modicum of traction.

If and when our Muslim population try this violence on they'll receive short shrift from a public whose patience is fast running out.

The worm is turning and about time too.

PS

Our Guardian is, as you already know stuffed with many mini Shanes and their first editorials did attempt to lay blame on the Tory cuts.

Not anymore as general reaction to this idiotic scattershot is firmly on the side of law and order.

The Guardian also shares a plummeting circulation with the NYT which surely tells us that not all is well in the land of the uber politically correct.

The wall of lies is breached as the armies of truth infiltrate and bit by bit destroy the canards, falsehoods and calumnies of a rapacious left.

Keep it up, Robert. What was that about nothing to fear but fear itself?

Cutting some slack is one thing but cutting one's head off to accommodate anything is plain absurd and it's something that Journalists like Scott should be able to differentiate! I'm not sure of whether he read Robert's books or has heard of Islam's track record throughout history(also how it maintains its stride to this date with Jihad) and on the same note I won't budge in saying that he could be biased for earning popularity points amongst politically correct 'pseudo-intellectuals', Ignorant population and Muslim supremacist. It doesn't matter to such journalists whether their expressed views match truth in length & breadth or if it is a well investigated! Their motto is to catch any popular train that chugs with the steam of 'misplaced righteousness', completely ignorant of whether the destination is a suicide mission or whatever! 'Hey, they all like this view, so I joined it too!' Almost like a teenager following a fashion trend no matter how absurd or almost naked it is or say a blind faith in a cosmetic advertisement boasting of making a 57 year old woman look like 17 without surgery! Not to mention, there are and would be thousands who would jump for any absurd advertisement or claims without investigating them!

Breivik, Breivik and more Breivik! They are associating his ideology with Robert's and making a willful effort to just about find Any way in associating the two and the one feverish chant which is a must from such quarters- "He mentioned you in his manifesto! O he did, O he did!" Why don't they make a musical out of it because this is stupid and hilarious altogether?! Time after time, Robert has reiterated and Challenged these accusers to find anything that advocates Violence in his writings or runs parallel to Breivik's manifesto but these folks fail to find anything because there isn't any!!! And this also goes on to show the lackadaisical attitude the mainstream media celebrates as they not only wish to be suicidal in politically correctness, they are willfully aligned to character assassinate anybody who stands to speak the truth! Media is an official Liar nowadays! Shame on You Liars because the position you hold is for speaking the truth and not for lying, maligning others! Responsible journalism is one thing and an outright bias is something else and what Scott has managed to do till now is Biased Journalism laced with Lies!
And he should have apologised to Robert rather than giving a well revealing "Fair Enough" as a reply! Get your act together Scott!

SPENCER KICKED SCOTT 'SHAME''S BUTT AND ONLY REINFORCES WHAT MANY KNOW - THAT THE NY TIMES NEWSPAPER IS A BIASED PIECE OF CRAP LIVING OFF A REPUTATION THEY GOT DECADES AGO...the NY Times people are from Pluto while the rest of us live on planet Earth - but as Spencer pointed out - they would be the last to accept such views as ours...my Mother used to say (from Bible) that pride goes before destruction - look at Newsweek bankrupt and now struggling - like the NT Times - imagine that - who would have thought it?!

Will NYT blame those political commentators who defend the rioters in Britain (who have killed people now) for those deaths?

Robert, I'm in the same spot here in canada because the Human Right Commission and the Bank Of Montreal seems to think it's a human right to Fund a public event that endorses Child-abuse,pedophilia, and a Pro-hamas group while it's known for a fact the hamas murder gays in public.

Barbara Hall has been obsessed with gay rights to the point where she allows children to be tossed to the pedophiles in public because naked males use the PRIDE parade to expose the penis at little girls. Barbara Hall is also tell canadians that Shariah law is not a threat and Muslims have Rights too.
Mini-Mosques in Businesses , Mosques now in Public schools, Madrassa's hidden in "Islamic Centre's" as Quranic Educations, Mosques I found that refuse non-Muslims entry until they are vetted,Mosques with female-Entrances and gender-aparteid, Halal demands in Lunchroom for non-muslim business , foot baths on Campus with a tax-fund mosque,and on and on.

Since 2009 the Bank Of Montreal posted their BMO-PRIDE policy that forces all workers to morally and financial support the child-abuse and hamas murders of gays in gaza . BMO does this by making the employment Contract tied to accepting a Special Dept. for all non-STR8's , and workers are forced to march in the Parade as seen in Google searches for BMO pride 2010-2011. BMO also had a trans-gender employee from their gay Village Branch make a comment in 2009 on a radi oshow that "Christians would be happy until all the homosexual are killed".

BMO did squat, Barbara Hall stayed mute, the CRTC let it go, and yet Ezra levant and Mark Styne go through hell beause one Muslim had hurt feels and wanted to enforce Shariah Law in canada under the Blasphemy rules to be punished for attack islam or Muhammed.
Basically, the world is upside down and the useful idiots in the MSM are either lazy or too stupid to read the quran or actual learn that Muhammad DID marry a 6 year old girl and raped her at age 9.

Pedophiles have it good in Toronto, and Hamas has a friend at the Human Rights Commission that is so gutless she pretends that gaza is a paradise for gays and jews.
The good news is that the Islamic supremcy thugs will behead Hall first when she's invited into the slaughter house ( Mosque) by the taqqiyah crumbs of Peace that islam and Muhammad doesn ot teach violence.

BTW
Even though CAIR and Dr.Sheema Khan have now been tied to Terrorism funding via the 2007 HLF FBI trial, the CBC has no interest in calling her back to the set to answer for her links to Hamas, Maher Arar,Nihad Awad, CAIR-USA, shariah law crusade,and her Lawfare Suits to silence David Frum and david Harris that told the truth over her ties to diverting candian Zakat funds to the USA CAIR and then the HLF.
These fools in the media make it pointless to debate them, there's a better chance of seeing Mr.PotatoHead win the big prize on Jeopardy .

You handed Shane his a** on a silver platter, Robert.

Shane - "... though the smirking tone doesn't appeal to me ".

I can easily imagine the left wing " journalist " smear machine, " smirking ", every time they hit a key when writing about Spencer.

Spencer - " Great. Thanks. I look forward to your New York Times article defending and exonerating me ".

Checkmate, Shane.

If that ever happens, I would actually buy that issue of the Times.

But I have a feeling that something like that, wouldn't be fit to print...

Alright! We ALL know that the NYT isn't going to publish this email exchange. But another thing about the NYT that we know is they are in financial trouble (as are all print newspapers). Why don't we find out how much it costs to take out a FULL PAGE AD somewhere very near the cover and PRINT THIS EXCHANGE!

Advertising dollars are taken no matter what the topic, product or issue. I see ads on Fox all the time that are completely contrary to conservative thinking! Money talks!

The logical conclusion, when one honestly and thoroughly researches the Islamic doctrine, with substantiation from Muslims through their own words and actions, historically and as of today, is that Islam is indeed a menace, (especially to all things and persons non-islamic), with little to no redeeming qualities contained therein.

That unfortunate reality, which is so uncomfortable to the sentient mind due to the sheer number of potential threats in the pool of Muslims globally, generally creates an impasse where an emotional plea, borne out of desire, replaces all empirical evidence to the contrary.

In that regard, Scott Shane, though routinely egregious, is wholly unremarkable.

Robert Spencer on the otherhand, with his intrepid reporting and exhaustive research in continuing to speak the truth about Islam, specifically the divine mandate of jihad and the Islamic duty on Muslims to promote and impose world-wide sharia, and in spite of overwhelming emotive, yet baseless protests to remain silent, is quite remarkable.

All without a net, to boot!

Positively brilliant, Robert!

And I must say, my opinion of Shane is a bit higher since he did in fact have a constructive discussion with you and conceded the main point.

Whether this will change his public face or lead to a public apology are different questions.

Greetings,

While people might disagree on some of Mr. Shane's Comments at least he kept engaged in the process and seemed to learn something along the way. I hope there can be further and more meaningful dialogs with him and others in the future.

Respectfully, TS

they attack again and again in the same old fashion and they are seen off again and again in the same old fashion and yet they still come , i have to admit i never get tired of this show

Excellent checkmate. Reminds me of the 1980s movie War Games, where at the end of the film, the computer had to try every pre-programmed variation thousands of times before learning.

Now just repeat this entire sequence of emails with minor variations all over again 10 million times and maybe Scott Shane will see Islam for what it is.

Scott:
"I think very few Muslims would accept your books, which frankly do come across to most people as hostile to Islam, as fair and appropriate material to teach about their religion."

As I see it, the FBI has no business other than security, guarding America against dangers, dangerous people and ideologies. And only for protection of Muslim Americans the FBI should indeed know what their precise religion is.

But then both the tenets of Islam AND the threat that Muslims-inspired-by-Islam should be taught. In a case of danger, it is no longer first priority to treat suspects as innocent until proven guilty, but as dangerous until proven harmless, IMO. Even without overwhelming evidence and with only the possibility, let alone in this case with the mountains of evidence and clues of the mentioned threat.

Scott:
"Thanks, interesting video, though the smirking tone doesn't appeal to me. I do think a fair reading of Breivik's manifesto shows that he had embraced the view of Islam as a menace, or potential menace, to Western values that you and many others have also embraced."

Here a political-correct journalist cares again about the tone! He will deny it, but that alone might be his excuse not to agree with it. The tone! He probably also is against everything sounding hate-ful, fear-causing, hostile, disrespecting and that acts with him as a stopper to listening to the contents, to debate any further. He probably would object likewise when someone used the wrong tone about a meteor on a collision-course with planet Earth.

And that Breivik "embraced this view of Islam" is not disputed, as Scott could have learned, had he not been turned off by the "smirky tone", from David Wood in the video.

The issue is about the solution to the mentioned problem-view. Where Breivik and Spencer so differed. It is even the issue that NOT responding flexible and openly and patiently to counterjihadists and their arguments and pleas, like Scott Shane is NOT responding thus, that that was what PROVOKED Breivik (in his own words) to act as he did.

Did Shane read any of Spencer's books? Someone should send him a copy and ask for his feedback. Send it registered mail and bring it up to the media. Send it out as a challenge.

I am very curious whether the number of subscribers has gone up since the Norway murders? As they say no publicity is bad publicity (?)

I think very few Muslims would accept your books, which frankly do come across to most people as hostile to Islam, as fair and appropriate material to teach about their religion.

Why are muslims opposed to Mr.Spencer's books when they simply condense and simplify islamic doctrine as written in the qur'an and hadiths, making it easy for non-muslims to understand? I doubt if Mr. Spencer writes his books for muslims because they already know what islam teaches, or they should. Mr. Spencer presents islam as it is understood and practiced by the most authoritative islamic scholars; he quotes the most respected muslim authorities and sources on islamic law and doctrine, and he provides excruciatingly detailed references to back up his work. The only reason muslims could possibly be offended is because they find their own religion offensive.

Muslims hate Mr. Spencer's books because they explain islamic doctrine in a direct, simple format that anyone can understand. Most people who attempt to read the qur'an and hadiths never finish because they are scathing screeds of gratuitous violence, muslim supremacy, perpetual war, misogyny, sexual perversions, and obsessive hatred toward non-muslims. They are very difficult to read and muslims will always assume non-muslims have not read them, allowing them to 'explain' the barbarism, blood lust, and pure evil, always taken 'out of context' by stupid kafirs. When muslims see their obscene religion exposed by a non-muslim, they get angry and defensive. They hear the same message in their imams' sermons but they believe islam is only for muslims to understand, and our ignorance is imperative for their agenda to succeed. If the truth becomes common knowledge, their gig is up. Spencer's books are not 'hostile' to islam unless the truth is hostile to islam, and that seems to be the muslim consensus.

I wonder has the New York times always been this bad in it's reporting? I also read articles from there from time to time that just contain mistake on mistake.While people often cite bias I think it's just a case of poor quality journalism and lazy reporting.Shoe string budgets? Commercial pressures? Who knows?

Hi Robert, Im a bit late in responding but still hope you'll read this. I think you missed something here with reference to the following passage: "teaching law enforcement and other officials the basics of Islam and related topics. I think very few Muslims would accept your books, which frankly do come across to most people as hostile to Islam, as fair and appropriate material to teach about their religion" What you missed here is that the FBI should not be taught what muslims want them to know about Islam (as Scott Shane seems to imply) but what is closest to the truth about Islam if they want to understand the "enemy".

By Scott Shane's logic, he (Shane) is promoting and inspiring deadly terrorist attacks against American civilians with articles like these:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/world/asia/04drones.html?ref=asia

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/world/asia/12drones.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Also see the NYTimes editorial, which by Shane's logic is also inspiring deadly terrorist attacks against American civilians:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/world/asia/12drones.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all