Robert, I want to thank you for what you are doing. You and I don't always sit exactly on the same side of the political spectrum, but alone the energy you invest in making facts and figures available to people who are working 10-14 hour days is a great service. At least your columns give me a starting point in order to dig further and more often that not, you have already done the lion's share of the digging for us.

Secondly, you are making it more and more clear to a vast array of readers that your cause here is not just food for the conservative track. I consider myself to be a very moderate democrat, known under the correct circumstances to vote for a moderate republican and also against a democrat I find not moderate enough. Personally I am extremely wary of the extremes on both sides, and have come to the conclusion that one does not need to be an extremist in order to fight the cause against the jihad tidal wave that is surely coming against the western world. I would bet that a large number of moderates have starting clicking on this website more and more often.

Whether it helps or not, just know that many people who have contributed greatly to public affairs have been slandered or pulled through the mud. Abraham Lincoln had to endure many dirty taunts and he stood above all of them with grace. So, follow his example and keep going.

However, I do hope you will encourage your readers more often to delve through the facts more on their own and to not let this barrage of facts lead them to hatred or generalization. I see a lot of generalized hatred against Europe at the moment, and this is disturbing and frankly, extremely dumb on the part of readers who feel the need to bash at something, to bash at anything in order to let off steam. Just a reminder: Europe will be directly at the border of the next big war, of this there can be no doubt. Physically speaking, Europe will still be the buffer between us and the mid-east and will probably take a lot of hits. The range of rockets will still play a major factor in the coming war and Europe is simply closer to the fray. Bad for them, good for us. For better or for worse, Europe is our ally, and although there are indeed a number of political idiots here and a great number of people with their heads stuck in the sand, it is impossible to generalize a Euro-Zone with 405,000,000 sharing one currency, just as it would be stupid and unfair to label all of the USA as NAZI just while a couple thousand loose nuts with stiff right arms are playing Hitler games at home...there are a helluva lot of upstanding Europeans who want to turn the tide here and could use the encouragement and help of americans and not their scorn.

And lastly, I want to thank you for your unswerving support of Eretz Israel. The world could learn about the word friendship by watching the ballgame between the USA and Israel. France could learn alot about friendship in general :) :)

best wishes, keep up the good work,

Mark Rosenthal
Bonn, Germany

Posted by: bonncaruso at May 20, 2006 6:47 AM

Maybe Mean Esmay is a "Nurse Ratched"-madhouse-Grand-Ayatollah-style power seeker and not a truth seeker? In the film One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Randall McMurphy (Nicholsen) makes the point that controling people like Ratched want "a rigged game." Ratched didn't like facts and honesty. Nurse Ratched crushed anyone who questioned her dogma (including McMurphy) and only the chief (who pretends to be deaf and dumb to avoid the clutches of Ratched) escapees the umma by finally pulling a water cooler from its foundation and useing it as a battering ram to smash down the walls of the umma-and at last escape to freedom.

McMurphy: Well, that f--kin' Nurse, man...She, uh, she ain't honest.
Dr. Spivey: Aw now, look. Miss Ratched's one of the finest nurses we've got in this institution.
McMurphy: Ha! Well I don't wanna break up the meeting or nothin', but she's somethin' of a c--t, ain't she, Doc?
Dr. Spivey: How do you mean that?
McMurphy: She likes a rigged game, you know what I mean?

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3DNurse%2BRatched%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dslv1-mdp%26x%3Dwrt&w=358&h=297&imgurl=www.littlereview.com%2Fgoddesslouise%2Fart%2Fcuckoo%2Fcuckoo12.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.littlereview.com%2Fgoddesslouise%2Fmovies%2Fcuckoo.htm&size=24.7kB&name=cuckoo12.jpg&p=Nurse+Ratched&type=jpeg&no=1&tt=79&ei=UTF-8

Posted by: Frank at May 20, 2006 7:35 AM

"Anybody seen Dean Esmay?"

Anybody looking for Dean Esmay?

Posted by: special_guest at May 20, 2006 10:01 AM

I wish I had wrote: "In the film One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Randall McMurphy (Nicholsen) makes the point that people such as Ratched, people that need to control other people, want "a rigged game."

Ayatollah Ratched-

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/khomeini_183.jpg

Posted by: Frank at May 20, 2006 10:07 AM

special_guest-

It's like looking for Elvis.

Posted by: Frank at May 20, 2006 10:22 AM

Frank, maybe he's hanging out with Ali Ertaz. So I ask you all, Why the confusion?

Posted by: special_guest at May 20, 2006 10:27 AM

This was a sweet, if easy, victory for Robert, and a nasty spanking for Esmay. Everyone should read the debate they had a few days ago on JW. It is extremely interesting and educational.

Posted by: traeh at May 20, 2006 10:55 AM

Last I heard, The Dean of Esmay started reading the Hadiths and had a heart attack, then progressed to the suras and had a stroke.

Never could figure out what he meant by "traitors".

To what?

The Ummah?

Well, as Pink Floyd once sang:

Ummagumma!

(The only word mumbling Dean now appears able to say.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 20, 2006 11:44 AM

Oh Special, I wrote a lengthy response to some of your questions about one of my posts, late last night. And I tried to post it, but was told I had to sign in, and when I tried to do that, I lost everything that I typed.

And that was about 4:00 in the morning.

But I did try to respond. I'm sure those issues will probably come up again, and there will be more than enough opportunity to cover it all.

Your criticisms, your questions deserve a lengthy response, and it just might be better to slowly thrash out the issues, over the weeks and months to come.

BUT AS FOR ESMAY, there isn't any need to really go after the poor guy. It's as I said earlier, I think he rapidly learned he was way over his head, and Spencer rather brusquely made that known to him.

Remember, Spencer is trying to win over people, not just win arguments. It's possible to clearly win an argumennt, and leave nothing but bitterness behind. THAT'S not what Spencer wants to do. It's not just some vast ego trip for him, it's about the country, it's about the West, it's about the future.

So we should all recall that we are trying to persuade, not just demonstrate factual and logical superiority, though it's difficult to constantly bear that in mind, especially in the face of the criticism we get.

So go easy on Esmay, and people like Esmay. The tone should be one of confidence, coupled with a certain sadness, that it's up to us to break so many illusions.

Remember, before the bar of HISTORY, Churchill clearly got the better of his opponents in the well of the Commons, but he DIDN'T persuade, nor did he win allies.

We don't want to repeat his mistakes.

We don't want to deal with a fellow like Esmay in such a manner, that he is FOREVER pissed towards us, forever bitter about the thrashing he received.

Sure, it would be better if Esmay were to see the stakes involved, and put personal feelings aside. That's the ideal, but how many men fall short of that ideal. We must deal with the people around us, and they're driven by ego, by pride, desire for status, desire for respect. They might act like Fredo Corleone, but nonetheless, we need allies.

Posted by: Dan at May 20, 2006 1:05 PM

I would like to affirm and intensify Dan's comments. I think that language like:

"Dean, I'm starting to realize that you're just a cowardly smear artist, rather than a rational thinker or writer."

is unhelpful. Mr. Esmay evidently realizes that he is on the losing side of this argument, but is unwilling to admit that. That's unfortunate, but not unsurprising. Bloggers tend to think highly of their own opinions, and a public retreat is humiliating. He owes Robert an apology for calling him "traitor" and other things, and is not yet ready to do that. After being called a 'cowardly smear artist', he may never be willing to do that, and may never be willing to plainly face the evidence of the jihad. I've taken a peek at Esmay's site, and most of it seems sensible to me. He's not irrational, but he doesn't see everything clearly. Now that he has a grudge to nurse against the anti-jihadists, personified by Mr. Spencer, it may be harder than ever for him to clearly see what is happening.

Robert, you are engaged in a great work. It would be better not to stoop to trading insults with your detractors, even if you are certain that the insults are warranted. Better to dispassionately affirm what is relevant to the task, appeal to people to pay attention, and move on to the next item.

It says in the Proverbs that there is peril in both answering and ignoring a scoffer. Beware these perils.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at May 20, 2006 1:38 PM

With any luck, Esmay is holing out somewhere doing what I recommended he do--read a Kuran and learn what sort of ideology it is advocating (brutal).

Whatever he's doing, we can all hope the guy's getting smarter and better informed about Islam.

Posted by: pythagoras at May 20, 2006 1:52 PM

Okay, what is Pajamas Media, why is it important? I perused their website, but I didn't get a clue as to why they are so useful. Other than a whole bunch of links on their left panel.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 20, 2006 2:00 PM

Please, PLEASE kibosh the snide an-hominems towards Dean Esmay - a good man who is haunted by the legitmate fear that the enemy will be too broadly defined and that, as a result, there will be unnecessary suffering.

I think he has gone way overboard in his reaction to those (including myself) who acknowledge the undeniable (at this point) fact that Islam has a wee bit of a violence problem, but he is not cruel or stupid. Just keep the discussion going and leave out the adolescent posturing and smearing (as he should do).

Honestly, it makes it harder to take YOU seriously (and I think you SHOULD be taken seriously) when you taunt a well-intentioned person who is more on your side than not in such a taunting and defensive manner.

WWBLD

(What would Bernard Lewis do?)

Posted by: Snippet at May 20, 2006 5:47 PM

Snippet,

What the hell's an, "an hominem?"

Love,

M-O-M

Posted by: Snippet at May 20, 2006 5:49 PM

Everyone:

This individual smeared me and my work, called me a traitor twice, and ran when I challenged him on the facts.

Dean Esmay is not in any way shape or form on my side, for he would not acknowledge that I am in any way shape or form on his.

When I call him a "cowardly smear artist," I am not taunting him or engaging in an ad hominem attack. A cowardly smear artist is what someone is who calls a man a traitor, does not retract or apologize, and does not take up his challenge for rational discussion. It is also a good appellation for someone who misreprents Charles Johnson's statement as wildly as Esmay did. When I call him this I am not engaging in argumentum ad hominem, which is argument by insult. That is what he is doing, but my characterization of him is abundantly supported by the facts of the case. I am just calling it as I see it.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 20, 2006 6:29 PM

Anything Dean Esmay had to say lost credibility with me when I read his reported response to Robert's challenge to debate , as "Nope, don't have to".. We can't tolerate trouble makers who will, as Robert says "smears" others without being prepared to debate the facts... its "just the facts" that are important isnt it?

Posted by: payingattention at May 20, 2006 7:25 PM

When Esmay said "Nope, don't have to," he confessed the last thing he wanted to do was be dragged into an intense discussion on the specifics of the Koran, and the scriptural exigesis of islam.

He really told us right then and there, that he was way over his head.

Political correctness can provide all you'll ever need to run with the herd, but it is poor preparation for dealing with a guy like Spencer. As Esmay recently found out, though he's not man enough to admit as much.

From the most recent posting by Spencer, we can tell he was pretty pissed off by some of the foolish and insulting things Esmay said. That's normal. He'd be some kind of superman to be impervious to all things said about him. And advising him to maintain an even keel and not unleash a broadside, is easy for us, not involved in the fray. And we feel for him, having to bear up under a hailstorm of criticism.

It's a tough road to follow, you have to win such clashes convincingly, but without leaving a blighted field behind.

Posted by: Dan at May 20, 2006 8:23 PM

I've been following this debate for a few days now and just want to say thank you to Robert and Hugh for their persistence on this crucial issue while remaining so civil.

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but there's an interesting essay by Raymond Ibrahim at Victor Davis Hanson's site that's right on point.

http://victorhanson.com/articles/ibrahim051806.html

May 18, 2006
What Would Mohammad Do?
by Raymond Ibrahim
Private Papers

We’ve all seen them — those little wristbands Christians sometimes wear, or put on bumper stickers, with the acronym “WWJD?” — What Would Jesus Do? A reminder for them to ask, in every situation they face, what their Lord would do, and to emulate Jesus’ teachings of divine compassion, love, patience, faith, hope, and charity.

What about Muslims? Muslims are clear that Mohammad is not divine. However, they are directed to follow their Prophet’s example [e.g. Koran 33:21] with literal devotion. [ . . . ]

Today, one wonders, What would Mohammed do? Would he smile upon “moderate” Muslims such as America’s “friends,” the many secular regimes who do not enforce Islamic law (which itself is based on his own commands) and who cooperate fully with the infidel West, or would he find favor in a man like Osama bin Laden, who defies the West? The answer to this question is easily found in the Koran and historical record of the Prophet.

There's a lot more, and it ties in well with many of the points that Robert has been making.

Posted by: Lynn B. at May 20, 2006 8:33 PM

I would send off the links of this little engagement to such websites as American Future, American Thinker, Polipundit, Michelle Malkin and National Review Online, and send it off too, to some of the radio talk shows, such as Laura Ingraham, Dennis Prager and Michael Medved. The radio hosts might offer Esmay a challenge to appear on their radio shows, with Spencer, and defend his position.

I think the answer isn't to respond to insults, at least to the extent that you can avoid doing so. But to try to kick it up a notch, go to the next level, and look to create as sizable an audience as you can for an engagement.

Esmay dodged you. But imagine if a radio show was saying "We have Robert Spencer live, he of Jihad Watch, and we hoped to have a Mr. Esmay, who recently wrote some not very nice things about Mr. Spencer, and his website. It's sad that Mr. Esmay didn't feel that he could defend himself today...." You get the idea.

PUT AN ESMAY ON THE SPOT, and expose the fact that his political correctness is a poor subsitute for an exacting knowledge of the Koran, of the Sunna, the haddith, and the major schools of islamic jurisprudence.

Prager and Medved might definitely go for such a thing.

Especially Medved.

And doesn't Spencer know those guys.

Posted by: Dan at May 20, 2006 8:34 PM

Snippet-

Why would a "good man" irresponsibly call someone a "traitor"?

(And a "traitor" to what, exactly? The fact of jihad? The myth of the "religion of peace"? Or the fatuous fabulism of a "noble" Koran -[ SEE sura 9:29-30, etc.]?)

What part of that is "good"?

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 20, 2006 8:37 PM

Because the good man in question is frustrated and overly vested in the idea that candidness about Islam is dangerous.

Posted by: Snippet at May 20, 2006 9:12 PM

I still think that there is room for a wise restraint --- riposte may be permissible, but it is not mandatory, which leaves room for reflection on which is best. Robert had already convincingly won the contest before this last post. And Esmay had already embarrassed himself in the sight of everyone who is alert enough to understand the exchange. That is better than any number of in print put-downs, no matter how accurate, well-deserved or sincerely intended. And it may be that this parting post will have the effect of converting an opportunistic critic into a confirmed enemy. I hope not.

A corollary of Paul Weyrich's counsel to make common cause with whomever one can might be to seek to avoid inflaming the hostilities of one's enemies if that is possible at small cost.

And I think that it is possible to make a distinction between what a detractor **has done** and what a detractor **is**. Esmay's comments bear the marks of a cowardly smear job. It is no insult to call bad work bad, particularly when one explains what it is about the bad work that is bad, as Robert has done (and as Esmay didn't do in his own "critique"). But to affirm that Esmay **is** a cowardly smear artist is to affirm something quite broad about his character that perhaps is not warranted on the basis of such a short acquaintance. Does he treat every dissenter in this way or is this an aberration? What I have glanced at on his site aside from this particular exchange does not look to be of the same deplorable character, but my acquaintance is also too brief to affirm that he is a person of good character. Perhaps others know him better. In this situation, it seems to me best to not generalize from so little evidence. Of course, as Dan noted, that is easier to say from the sidelines.

I think that there is a way to make the point, if one insists on the harsh language, that is equally sharp but still less wounding and inflaming if in fact the other is not evil as one thinks him to be: "In this exchange, you have behaved like a cowardly smear artist." Completely true about the behavior, but leaves open the possibility that he is in fact a better man than that, and implicitly invites him to show that.

One could cite Jesus "you shall know them by their fruits"; Esmay has not produced good fruit in this exchange. That would suggest a warrant for an angry riposte. But Jesus also said, "Rejoice when men shall speak evil of you on my account, rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for so their forefathers treated the prophets." There are people whose hostility is a badge of honor to those who experience it. Perhaps Mr. Esmay is one of them.

Robert's work resembles a "prophetic ministry"; perhaps this is part of the job description. I do think that restraint in such a situation can shed honor on the anti-jihad movement in the sight of undecided people who are on the sidelines. Anger is not attractive, at least not in the West. That is something that we can all be mindful of.

But this is a tempest in a teapot, isn't it?

I thank Robert for his outstanding work. I think that he is making a difference.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at May 20, 2006 9:38 PM

Esmay claim to be preparing to respond:

"But I haven't forgotten to respond directly to Robert Spencer. I plan to soon."

...from his website today.

Posted by: Obelisk1 at May 20, 2006 9:53 PM

That's great! The "conversation", such as it is, is not ended just yet. Let Esmay disgrace himself, and Robert graciously hand him his head. Perhaps the onlookers on Esmay's side will be persuaded to take the work of JihadWatch seriously.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at May 20, 2006 10:19 PM

If he is planning to respond "soon," that means that he knows he's over his head, and he's rushing off for some help in dealing with Spencer. It also indicates that he's trolling for dirt on Spencer, to try to back up his scurrilous acusations. Spencer should heed my earlier advice, and try to get this issue taken up by Prager, or Medved.

But that Esmay is looking for help means that Spencer is now dealing with Esmay, and a veiled cohort of the politically correct, who prefer to remain behind the scenes.

Esmay's first essay against Spencer bespoke a wildness, a grasping towards the emotional. It surely didn't indicate a close argumentation, minor and major premises inexorably leading towards conclusions.

He noted that certain Muslims fought alongside us, ergo ipso facto, they must be fighting for the same things as we do, or at the very least, they must evidence a "moderate" islam.

Of course, this is nonsense.

The Soviet Union fought alongside the allied powers in the Second World War, did that fact mean that Stalin and the Politburo saw eye to eye on the Four Freedoms, and the Atlantic Charter? Did that mean that the Soviets were as committed to democracy and freedom as the United States, and Great Britain. Or did the Soviet presence in the war alongside the great democracies evidence that Stalin was a "moderate" Communist, or a moderate totalitarian for that matter?

Good grief.

If that's the best that he has to offer, no wonder he's been trying to keep a low profile of late.

Somebody should clue Esmay in, there may be muslims fighting alongside us, for reasons of their own, which have nothing to do with the purported existence of a "moderate" islam. It may be that there are mohammedans fighting because they want a representative democracy, that they want the type of lifestyle enjoyed by Americans. That may be true. But the sheer fact that there are muslims fighting alongside us, in and of itself, proves nothing.

Being generous, it might be relevant, and it should count as one factor, AMONG OTHERS, that lead us all towards the conclusions that Esmay wants.

But in and of itself.............

Esmay really jumped in the deep end of the pool, and now he's clearly scrambling to preserve his credibility.

Spencer should contact Prager and Medved, and get Esmay to truly expose himself.

Posted by: Dan at May 20, 2006 10:34 PM

How true. A more recent example is the mujahids fighting the Soviets as our proxies, supplied and funded by us, in the 1980s in Afghanistan. In retrospect, that does not seem to have been such a bright idea. We didn't understand why they were fighting at all.

But making this a big public scene, involving Prager and Medved, might not have the desired effect. Is the goal to humiliate Esmay? He won't risk that, will he? That might shut him up, and if that is the aim, then proceed. But these debates could be useful if they discredit Esmay's position and burnish JihadWatch, and for that it may be better for them to continue. It is even possible that Esmay may discover that his position is mistaken, or even better, that his readers discover that he is mistaken. If the effort is not oppressive, the "conversation" could be useful. And if Esmay is persuadable, he would be better a persuaded ex-detractor than an aggrieved, humiliated enemy.

If he does insist on a dirty fight, as you have warned, then that is the time to hammer him with the highly public humiliation. A further Weyrichian collary might be to do no more harm to an adversary than is necessary to accomplish the essential objectives.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at May 20, 2006 10:49 PM

Mark Rosenthal

I live in the UK and it must be a 2 way street with respect and not insulting. I have never heard Americans put down my country when I go to there. Here we do it on television and when an American comes here, some how we entice them to bash their own.

Mark, it would be a good idea if you tell the Europeans to stop bashing America, like you said, we will get the first blows of the next war and they (Americans) will have to come to our rescue once again.

We have many problems with Muslims in our country and throughout Europe. We need a strong leader to either start kicking their bums out and changing the laws to prevent all this hate they produce against us. If a Muslims says anything horrible about us, it is fine. If we state the truth about their hate for us, we go to jail. I have lost my rights here and Muslims have gained their rights to hate, bash us and threaten our lives.

I’m moving to America the Land of the Free.

Posted by: herself at May 21, 2006 12:25 PM

I’m moving to America the Land of the Free.

Posted by: herself at May 21, 2006 12:25 PM

We'll be glad to have you and rest assured, most Americans are not self-hating recreants like those easily cowed to self-deprecation by arrogant Europeans. I haven't been to Europe since 9-11 but the last time I was there, nobody bashed America and the radio reception in our rented car was so lousy, I didn't get to listen to the BBC's insulting tirades. The closest thing to an insult came from what appeared to be a drunk or mentally impaired gentleman who was crossing the street the same time we were. He began pointing at us as he staggered to catch up, calling us "CIA." That was funny!

Posted by: Susanp at May 24, 2006 1:11 AM