Robert,

You must be doing something right!

CAIR is having a cow!

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at August 21, 2006 10:43 AM

OT:

The sun goes down in Teheran in half an hour. I hope Israel has whatever anti-missile systems it might have turned on.

Posted by: surly at August 21, 2006 10:45 AM

Thanks for the C-span address, Robert, they'll be hearing from me on an ongoing basis - keep up the good work!

Posted by: oregonjack at August 21, 2006 10:51 AM

OT, but I feel potentially important!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/21/iran.inspectors.ap/index.html

Posted by: Uriel Septim at August 21, 2006 10:54 AM

C-SPAN is the one news channel (so far as I have seen) that merely presents the info, and lets the viewer decide. No wonder cair is upset. It would have been even better if you had been thrashing an apologist for islam in the same piece.

Good thing your interview was pre-recorded. I hope it run at the most judicious time.

nariz must be in a tizzy. Supporting the Author of a book that affirms the Christian POV...

Posted by: Gary at August 21, 2006 10:56 AM

OT: The City of Columbus Prosecutor has refused to press charges against the leader of CAIR in Ohio after he assaulted her during their "peaceful protest" in downtown Columbus. He claims there wasn't enough evidence to go forward with it. There is a link on littlegreenfootballs to e-mail him, but I can't find it right now:(. Being from Columbus,this makes me very angry and I have already sent him my thoughts.

Posted by: BIRDDDOG at August 21, 2006 11:04 AM

Best 1 hour of television I've seen in a while. That was reality tv at its finest. I'm sending c-span my email now...Hang on to your hats, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Posted by: eastcoastbuckeye at August 21, 2006 11:05 AM

Done, Robert.
Please everyone who reads this blog (I hate that word), email C-Span at viewer@c-span.org and tell them you appreciate them airing Robert's interview. CAIR will have the "zombies" writing for them, so we have to come out in equal numbers.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at August 21, 2006 11:06 AM

And also..Mr Spencer. That was great! I am looking forward to more of those interviews!!!!

Posted by: BIRDDDOG at August 21, 2006 11:13 AM

I just sent this letter to C-span:

Dear C-Span:

I applaud your showing of Robert Spencer on your network. The public debate about terrorism is very important and all sides of the debate need to be shown so viewers can evaulate the facts and decide for themselves. Scholars like Spencer should be allowed air time to explain the truth behind terrorism. If certain groups would like to label Mr Spencer as a bigot or hate monger, let them do so in an open debate capacity where both sides can air their views. I am sure Mr Spencer would gladly accept a debate with any leader from any organization with an opposing view. Additionally, this type of public discourse would make great television and solidify C-Span as a source for truth in a atmosphere wracked with propaganda.

Thanks Robert, for everything man...

Posted by: Tomilio at August 21, 2006 11:13 AM

Tomilio, i've just sent mine - wont put a copy of it on the website (well you never know whos reading and will cry about us being Roberts stooges...), but suffice to say the content is very much along the lines of your own email.

Every little helps!

Posted by: Uriel Septim at August 21, 2006 11:19 AM

Hi BIRDDOG, I posted that here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012783.php#c258881

Posted by: Carolyn2 at August 21, 2006 11:20 AM

Sorry...after he assaulted ciaospriit --the woman who was taping the event.

Posted by: BIRDDDOG at August 21, 2006 11:21 AM

Thank you Carolyn2!!

Posted by: BIRDDDOG at August 21, 2006 11:24 AM

CAIR wants ME to write to C-SPAN ?

Well, I did.

I added to my message the copied-pasted list of the propositions that CAIR couldn't attack in Court. That's a very nice eye-opener.

I am a good dhimmi, aren't I ?

:-)))

Posted by: POITIERS-LEPANTO at August 21, 2006 11:25 AM

Dear C-Span; Our family watched with great interest the interview with Robert Spencer last night, as well the interview with the Professor the week before. It was great TV. An open debate between the two sides is warranted.

Robert; your command of the subject is stunning. Thank you for representing us and for taking the risks that you do.

Posted by: limes at August 21, 2006 11:42 AM

I am sure there is plenty of hate mail and threats coming into C-Span today. So much for their extreme measures at "fairness" before, during and after they aired Mr. Spencer's interview. Live and learn, people at C-Span.

Posted by: Mary Rose at August 21, 2006 11:44 AM

Mr. Spencer,
Great interview, very impressive. I will fire off a noncritical email to cspan. What I saw was an interviewee who possessed a wealth of knowledge on the subject at hand, while the interviewer seemed clueless to what he is allegedly discussing. For instance, he was surprised to hear that you did not have more details on the documentary. However, he apparently doesn’t have even a rudimentary understanding of the Bible/Torah or of islam the koran and the hadith. Also, for no apparent reason he felt he needed to validate the discussion with a disclaimer “the opposing points of view will be aired on another program”. And what in the **** does where you live have to do with the subject? You should have asked him back, where do you live? He is still at the point where he thinks it is all too unbelievable to be true. But, we here all know that it is more incredible than anyone could imagine. In addition I was very impressed with the cuts of Mr. Shoebat.
Do you think the President would consider you for Secretary of State?

Posted by: tgusa at August 21, 2006 11:54 AM

Echoing tgusa; Lamb sure sounded like he was trying to paint the film as a Jewish conspiracy. Tired template.

Posted by: limes at August 21, 2006 11:58 AM

I watched C-Span. I kept waiting for an answer to what do we do now? Do we have to wipe out the Moslems? Is there any hope? Should I start memorizing the Koran? I didn't see where there was a hope for peace. Is this another World War?

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2006 12:04 PM

I email this thread , a very handy tool ,under the name Screw CAIR.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at August 21, 2006 12:04 PM

Good work Robert.

OT; heard from Rush story of marine corps installation in U.S., with taxpayers money, erecting a building to act as a mosque for moslim marines - there are 22 on the base and a total of about 400 in the whole corps.

Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad(insane).

Posted by: dgene at August 21, 2006 12:07 PM

Robert,

Thoroughly enjoyed the interview last night. I will be sending my comments to CSPAN also. I still don't understand why they won't just schedule a debate with Akmed and you at the same time. Obviously Akmed would be at a disadvantage but at least people could see through him in no uncertain terms.

Hoping this debate will happen soon,

Tom

Posted by: tblubrd at August 21, 2006 12:09 PM

seen you on c-span last night and it was very well done. I also am more convinced of the validity of my christian faith when i study the islamic faith. OT yesterday i came across a very interesting debate on reform and the views of a moderate muslim http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/19363 it is a very good read i wish mr ijaz luck. also is the documentary discussed on c-span going to be on google like obsession was?

Posted by: jimmytheclaw at August 21, 2006 12:09 PM

I just left comments on CSPAN telling them to continue with interviews from you and others who are informing us about what the Koran really says instead of CAIR's or others diversionary descriptions.
I didn't like the interviewer very much. He seemed to be prefacing his own COV, and tried to let Shoebat appear less credible than he really is by including the part about how he's not sincere in his conversion from terrorism.
That would be, OMG, like bashing someone for quitting a gang.
Hope to see your documentary soon.

Posted by: searsha at August 21, 2006 12:12 PM

Mr. Spencer:

I will write to CPAN and protest strongly what I see as unacceptable behavior.

Why did you feel it necessary to bring up "Watching Jihad Watch?" It is hardly worth a mention as it is unable to refute what you have stated about Islam. Islam is, after all, what we are discussing, isn't it? We may disagree about the remedies for dealing with Islam, but not the problems. By mentioning WJW, you seem to elevate it (and the positions the blogger takes) to a status it does not deserve.

Kafir

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at August 21, 2006 12:17 PM

Anyone here from the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines? Anyone now stationed in Iraq? Anyone who has returned from Iraq, still trying to make sense of why those Iraqis were so so ungrateful, so clammering for more and more and more American goodies for themselves and their family and their tribe, but not for "Iraq," anyone wondering why they were so eager to have the American soldiers take all the risks, do all the most important and dangerous tasks, whether the Shi'a government urging us to fight the Sunnis (or as they have been called, the "unsurgents") and the Sunnis now wanting us to protect them from the Shi'a, and even to see if they can inveigle us, the infinitely-foolable Infidels, into now fighting the Shi'a militias, then you will want to see this interview with Robert, in addition to, or preparatory to, reading his books, and finding out what the generals and civilian masters would not teach you, would prevent you from learning adequately about, lest it cause you to question all kinds of things, including the "forward strategy of freedom" that makes no sense.

And for that matter, many others connected to the military should watch this video -- no, it shouldbe assigned. Do you now teach, or attend one of the service academies, or one of the ar colleges? Perhaps you are, say, a colleague of that nice Vali Nasr, the one who is the son of the famous apologist, and who has tried, out of belief and embarrassmetn and filial piety, to ignore so much of Islam in order to keep himself a Muslim, and whose current theme is that the American govenment should "seek to engage" (whole lot of "seek-to-engaging" going around -- its the fashion of the month, just the way that word "robust" is now the adjective of the month -- "a robust reponse" and a "robust" this and a "robust" that -- lemmings of language, and lemmings of thought). And so there he is, and he sounds plausible, and he tells you why it would make sense -- from his point of view it would -- to "engage the Shi'a" in dialogue. And back in Washington, Sunni Arab diplomats are explaining why we should take the side of the Sunnis in Iraq and, by the way, please do pressure Israel into that suicidal "two-state solution" stuff because you see, it will dampen the appeal of Iran and help relieve us, the Sunni Arab despots.

No, Vali Nasr, sweet as he is, is part of the problem -- as are all those sweet-and-reasonable Muslims who want us to do all kinds of things, but never to realize that Sunni and Shi'a alike, and all those who take the belief-system of Islam to heart, and the duty of Jihad, or who, even if they do not participate in Jihad, attempt to support or propmote it, or to hide its promptings in the immutable and canonical texts of islam, are part of the Camp of Islam that regards us, the Infidels, as the enemy. And if they regard us, and treat us, as the enemy, then it follows that they are, in turn, for us the enemy. We didn't cause it. We haven't been making war, all the Infidels in the world, on Muslims. We haven't moved by the tens of millions into Muslim lands, nor has the government of India treated its Muslims the way Hindus have been treated in Pakistan and Bangladesh, nor have Christians in the West treated Muslims with the same hostility and cruelty with which Muslims have for centuries treated Christians and other non-Muslims, and continue to do so today in any land where Muslims dominate and rule.

It is silly to study "counter-insurgency" techniques -- as all kinds of "experts" with campaigns of the British in post-war Greece and Malaya, and the Americans in Vietnam, in mind. Why? Because in all those cases the in surgencies were of two kinds. There were the insurgencies of those who simply wanted an overlord, a colonial master, out -- as in Kenya with Jomo Kenyatta's Mau Mau. But in the main, the post-World War II "insurgencies" have been those of Communists, or those claiming they were Communists, motivated by a desire for economic justice. This was the case in Greece, In Malaya, the Communist insurgency was directed at the rich, who also happened to consist mainly of the British. In Vietnam, the war against the French was a nationalist with a growing Communist flavor (certainly in what became North Vietnam), and the Vietnam War was a war motivated again by nationalism and the Communists who exploited both that and a desire for less miserable economic conditions. In each case, hearts and minds might somehow be won, just a little bit, by improvement in the economic wellbeing -- in other words, by making things better.

But that is not what the "insurgency" in Iraq is about. The war in Iraq is about who, within Iraq, is going to possess political powerna and therefore whatever wealth -- almost entirely oil wealth -- there is. It would not matter if the Americans tried to win Sunni hearts and minds or Shi'a hearts and miinds. They remain Infidels, the Sunnis and Shi'a will use them, as best they can, to promote their own quite different interests, but will never, can never, be truly grateful or for that matter even be friendly with American Infidels. It can't happen, and this is why all that advice from various "counter-insurgency experts" -- including the Australian who so impressed James Fallows (who consulted "sixty experts" to find out what he thinks he knows about how to deal with the Jihad), and in today's New Duranty Times, an article by "counter-insurgency expert" (from 40 years ago) Francis Daly, who does not mention Islam, who appears not to have any idea that just possibly the belief-system of Islam not only matters, but is indispensable for understanding what these so-called "insurgencies" in Iraq or elswhere are all about. They are about power, about power within the Camp of Islam, where ethnic and sectarian and economic differences do divide, and they are about all Muslims within the Camp of Islam, against the entire Camp, as they see it, of Non-Muslims. Not to be assuaged by the hearts-and-minds of lavishing economic development on anyone.

Indeed, the plutocrats of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikhdoms have used much of their wealth to pursue and promote the Jihad. The better off Muslims are, the more disguised Jizyah they receive in the form of foreign aid or directly, that manna from Allah known as oil revenues, the more powerful the forces of Jihad become. Prior to 1973 the doctrine and duty of Jihad existed, as it had existed, and had been acted upon, inspiring Muslims, for 1350 years. But it had fallen into seeming desuetude only because, in the past hundred years, the Western world had not only been more powerful but was seen to be obviously so. What changed everything was the OPEC oil money -- some ten trillion dollars since 1973 -- and the millions of Muslims permitted to live behind enemy lines, in Infidel nation-states, where they can and do cause all kinds of trouble, both in how it preserves its political and legal and social institutitions, and in how it attempts to exercise freedom of Infidel states to conduct their own foreign policy (the French government is backing out of Lebanon because it is terrified of the reaction of the Muslims within France, though no one has yet noted this).

Any "counter-insurgency" class in the American military, or in any Infidel military, that does not deal with Islam, with what is containted in the texts -- Qur'an, Hadith, and the biogrpahy of Muhammad the Perfect Man -- any course that presumes to pretend that an "insurgency" in a Muslim country is just like, say, an inurgency by Communists in post-war Greece or Malaya, or by the Mau Mau in Kenya, and can be dealt with using the same "hearts-and-minds" strategy supplementing military campaigns, will be false, will be missing the essential significance of Islam -- will be, in short, worthless.

It may be that "counter-insurgency" experts of an older generation will refuse to consider this -- after all, it puts a burden on them. It requires them to leaarn, and in detail, what Islam teaches. Not what "extremist" Islam teaches, but Islam tout court. It requires them to learn about the attitudes that arise in any society, or environment, suffused by Islam and its teachings -- for one need not be a mosque attender, need not have gone to a madrasa, need not even be very devout, to nonetheless exhibit all the features of the much more militant Muslim, such features as not owning up to the contents of Islam but offering that sly blend of taqiyya and tu-quoque argumentation that we are all so familiar with (google "Taqiyya and Tu-Quoque"). In other words, many lax or unobservant Muslims, as long as they continue to identify themselves as Muslims and hence, as members of the umma, will continue to defend Islam, and to support it by protecting it from inquiring Infidels, and in other, more dangerous ways as well. We Infidels simply have to rely on the historical evidence, on the evidence of our senses, and on the evidence of those Infidels who grew up in Muslim-dominated societies (Copts from Egypt, Maronites and other Christians from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Hindus and Chiinese from Malaysia or Indonesia)), or from societies where there is a Muslim population large enough to support activities threatening to the larger non-Muslim society (as in India), and finally, and perhaps must usefully, on the evidence provided by the "defectors" from Islam, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Irfan Khawaja, Azam Kamguian, Walid Shoebat, Nonie Darwish, and tens or hundreds of thousands of others, whose names are not household words, but whose private testimony is devastating.

Whatever "techniuqes of counter-insurgency" may work against those who are fighting for Communism and economic "justice," has no relevance at all to the problem of fighting the belief-system of Islam. That this has escaped so many of these counter-insurgency experts is not surprising. In the same way, those in the "spreading democracy" business -- who get governemnt and foundation money, of course -- will be the last ones to admit that the "all people want freedom" business is silly, dangerous, and fails to consider the nature of Islamic religio-political theory on the basis for any ruler's legitimacy. And those who are in the "moderate Muslims are the answer" racket, also to obtain still more, ever more, government and foundation grants and the contributions of individuals, willnot admit just how shaky, mutable, and unhelpful to Infidels reliance on that concept of "moderate Muslims" is, and how the supposed usefullness of "moderate Muslims" against the immodreate ones is no substitute for the real divisions within Islam -- sectarian, ethnic and economic -- that have been written about here at JihadWatch some 500 times. But of course, others have a market niche to protect, and if the money rolls in to support the idea of encouraging "moderate Muslims" and only worrying about those "Islamists," then "Moderate Muslims" (the "answer") versus "Islamists" will be the theme, as it will be the content of course, of the next grant application.

And finally, the experts in "counter-insurgency" in whose discussion of "Islamic insurgency" or "Shi'a insurgency" or "Sunni insurgency" always focus on that noun, that so-easy-to-deal0-with noun, and not with those pesky, but far more important, adjectives -- "Islamic," "Sunni" and "Shi'a."

Posted by: Hugh at August 21, 2006 12:17 PM

Anyone at JW from the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines? Anyone now stationed in Iraq? Anyone who has returned from Iraq, still trying to make sense of why those Iraqis were so so ungrateful, so clammering for more and more and more American goodies for themselves and their family and their tribe, but not for "Iraq," anyone wondering why they were so eager to have the American soldiers take all the risks, do all the most important and dangerous tasks, whether the Shi'a government urging us to fight the Sunnis (or as they have been called, the "unsurgents") and the Sunnis now wanting us to protect them from the Shi'a, and even to see if they can inveigle us, the infinitely-foolable Infidels, into now fighting the Shi'a militias, then you will want to see this interview with Robert, in addition to, or preparatory to, reading his books, and finding out what the generals and civilian masters would not teach you, would prevent you from learning adequately about, lest it cause you to question all kinds of things, including the "forward strategy of freedom" that makes no sense.

And for that matter, many others connected to the military should watch this video -- no, it shouldbe assigned. Do you now teach, or attend one of the service academies, or one of the ar colleges? Perhaps you are, say, a colleague of that nice Vali Nasr, the one who is the son of the famous apologist, and who has tried, out of belief and embarrassmetn and filial piety, to ignore so much of Islam in order to keep himself a Muslim, and whose current theme is that the American govenment should "seek to engage" (whole lot of "seek-to-engaging" going around -- its the fashion of the month, just the way that word "robust" is now the adjective of the month -- "a robust reponse" and a "robust" this and a "robust" that -- lemmings of language, and lemmings of thought). And so there he is, and he sounds plausible, and he tells you why it would make sense -- from his point of view it would -- to "engage the Shi'a" in dialogue. And back in Washington, Sunni Arab diplomats are explaining why we should take the side of the Sunnis in Iraq and, by the way, please do pressure Israel into that suicidal "two-state solution" stuff because you see, it will dampen the appeal of Iran and help relieve us, the Sunni Arab despots.

No, Vali Nasr, sweet as he is, is part of the problem -- as are all those sweet-and-reasonable Muslims who want us to do all kinds of things, but never to realize that Sunni and Shi'a alike, and all those who take the belief-system of Islam to heart, and the duty of Jihad, or who, even if they do not participate in Jihad, attempt to support or propmote it, or to hide its promptings in the immutable and canonical texts of islam, are part of the Camp of Islam that regards us, the Infidels, as the enemy. And if they regard us, and treat us, as the enemy, then it follows that they are, in turn, for us the enemy. We didn't cause it. We haven't been making war, all the Infidels in the world, on Muslims. We haven't moved by the tens of millions into Muslim lands, nor has the government of India treated its Muslims the way Hindus have been treated in Pakistan and Bangladesh, nor have Christians in the West treated Muslims with the same hostility and cruelty with which Muslims have for centuries treated Christians and other non-Muslims, and continue to do so today in any land where Muslims dominate and rule.

It is silly to study "counter-insurgency" techniques -- as all kinds of "experts" with campaigns of the British in post-war Greece and Malaya, and the Americans in Vietnam, in mind. Why? Because in all those cases the in surgencies were of two kinds. There were the insurgencies of those who simply wanted an overlord, a colonial master, out -- as in Kenya with Jomo Kenyatta's Mau Mau. But in the main, the post-World War II "insurgencies" have been those of Communists, or those claiming they were Communists, motivated by a desire for economic justice. This was the case in Greece, In Malaya, the Communist insurgency was directed at the rich, who also happened to consist mainly of the British. In Vietnam, the war against the French was a nationalist with a growing Communist flavor (certainly in what became North Vietnam), and the Vietnam War was a war motivated again by nationalism and the Communists who exploited both that and a desire for less miserable economic conditions. In each case, hearts and minds might somehow be won, just a little bit, by improvement in the economic wellbeing -- in other words, by making things better.

But that is not what the "insurgency" in Iraq is about. The war in Iraq is about who, within Iraq, is going to possess political powerna and therefore whatever wealth -- almost entirely oil wealth -- there is. It would not matter if the Americans tried to win Sunni hearts and minds or Shi'a hearts and miinds. They remain Infidels, the Sunnis and Shi'a will use them, as best they can, to promote their own quite different interests, but will never, can never, be truly grateful or for that matter even be friendly with American Infidels. It can't happen, and this is why all that advice from various "counter-insurgency experts" -- including the Australian who so impressed James Fallows (who consulted "sixty experts" to find out what he thinks he knows about how to deal with the Jihad), and in today's New Duranty Times, an article by "counter-insurgency expert" (from 40 years ago) Francis Daly, who does not mention Islam, who appears not to have any idea that just possibly the belief-system of Islam not only matters, but is indispensable for understanding what these so-called "insurgencies" in Iraq or elswhere are all about. They are about power, about power within the Camp of Islam, where ethnic and sectarian and economic differences do divide, and they are about all Muslims within the Camp of Islam, against the entire Camp, as they see it, of Non-Muslims. Not to be assuaged by the hearts-and-minds of lavishing economic development on anyone.

Indeed, the plutocrats of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikhdoms have used much of their wealth to pursue and promote the Jihad. The better off Muslims are, the more disguised Jizyah they receive in the form of foreign aid or directly, that manna from Allah known as oil revenues, the more powerful the forces of Jihad become. Prior to 1973 the doctrine and duty of Jihad existed, as it had existed, and had been acted upon, inspiring Muslims, for 1350 years. But it had fallen into seeming desuetude only because, in the past hundred years, the Western world had not only been more powerful but was seen to be obviously so. What changed everything was the OPEC oil money -- some ten trillion dollars since 1973 -- and the millions of Muslims permitted to live behind enemy lines, in Infidel nation-states, where they can and do cause all kinds of trouble, both in how it preserves its political and legal and social institutitions, and in how it attempts to exercise freedom of Infidel states to conduct their own foreign policy (the French government is backing out of Lebanon because it is terrified of the reaction of the Muslims within France, though no one has yet noted this).

Any "counter-insurgency" class in the American military, or in any Infidel military, that does not deal with Islam, with what is containted in the texts -- Qur'an, Hadith, and the biogrpahy of Muhammad the Perfect Man -- any course that presumes to pretend that an "insurgency" in a Muslim country is just like, say, an inurgency by Communists in post-war Greece or Malaya, or by the Mau Mau in Kenya, and can be dealt with using the same "hearts-and-minds" strategy supplementing military campaigns, will be false, will be missing the essential significance of Islam -- will be, in short, worthless.

It may be that "counter-insurgency" experts of an older generation will refuse to consider this -- after all, it puts a burden on them. It requires them to leaarn, and in detail, what Islam teaches. Not what "extremist" Islam teaches, but Islam tout court. It requires them to learn about the attitudes that arise in any society, or environment, suffused by Islam and its teachings -- for one need not be a mosque attender, need not have gone to a madrasa, need not even be very devout, to nonetheless exhibit all the features of the much more militant Muslim, such features as not owning up to the contents of Islam but offering that sly blend of taqiyya and tu-quoque argumentation that we are all so familiar with (google "Taqiyya and Tu-Quoque"). In other words, many lax or unobservant Muslims, as long as they continue to identify themselves as Muslims and hence, as members of the umma, will continue to defend Islam, and to support it by protecting it from inquiring Infidels, and in other, more dangerous ways as well. We Infidels simply have to rely on the historical evidence, on the evidence of our senses, and on the evidence of those Infidels who grew up in Muslim-dominated societies (Copts from Egypt, Maronites and other Christians from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Hindus and Chiinese from Malaysia or Indonesia)), or from societies where there is a Muslim population large enough to support activities threatening to the larger non-Muslim society (as in India), and finally, and perhaps must usefully, on the evidence provided by the "defectors" from Islam, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Irfan Khawaja, Azam Kamguian, Walid Shoebat, Nonie Darwish, and tens or hundreds of thousands of others, whose names are not household words, but whose private testimony is devastating.

Whatever "techniuqes of counter-insurgency" may work against those who are fighting for Communism and economic "justice," has no relevance at all to the problem of fighting the belief-system of Islam. That this has escaped so many of these counter-insurgency experts is not surprising. In the same way, those in the "spreading democracy" business -- who get governemnt and foundation money, of course -- will be the last ones to admit that the "all people want freedom" business is silly, dangerous, and fails to consider the nature of Islamic religio-political theory on the basis for any ruler's legitimacy. And those who are in the "moderate Muslims are the answer" racket, also to obtain still more, ever more, government and foundation grants and the contributions of individuals, willnot admit just how shaky, mutable, and unhelpful to Infidels reliance on that concept of "moderate Muslims" is, and how the supposed usefullness of "moderate Muslims" against the immodreate ones is no substitute for the real divisions within Islam -- sectarian, ethnic and economic -- that have been written about here at JihadWatch some 500 times. But of course, others have a market niche to protect, and if the money rolls in to support the idea of encouraging "moderate Muslims" and only worrying about those "Islamists," then "Moderate Muslims" (the "answer") versus "Islamists" will be the theme, as it will be the content of course, of the next grant application.

And finally, the experts in "counter-insurgency" in whose discussion of "Islamic insurgency" or "Shi'a insurgency" or "Sunni insurgency" always focus on that noun, that so-easy-to-deal0-with noun, and not with those pesky, but far more important, adjectives -- "Islamic," "Sunni" and "Shi'a."

Posted by: Hugh at August 21, 2006 12:17 PM

Looks like Robert is gonnna be on Dennis Prager show in a bit

http://krla870.com/

Posted by: Tomilio at August 21, 2006 12:24 PM

As others have mentioned before (but it was my first time seeing it), Robert is as well-spoken and authoritative in a live setting as he is in his writings. If anyone ever takes him up on his offer to debate about the tenets of Islam, he'll do well. His mastery of the subject of Islam is most impressive.

Three comments on Brian Lamb's questioning: first, he asked about Robert's religious background (which would be irrelevant to what he is saying about Islam, but there it is). If Robert's goal were to proselytize for the Melkite Greek Orthodox Church, he's doing a very poor job of it (on the other hand, he may be an excellent example of how even-handed the Melkites are, which makes me curious to learn more). As an atheist, I feel as welcome reading JW/DW as, I presume, Jews or Hindus or Bahais or Sikhs or secular Moslems do. This is not Christianity versus Islam, it is Islam versus all non-Muslims.

Second, Brian Lamb asked if Robert was paid by the makers of the "Islam: What the World Needs to Know" movie, and if his speaking engagements have increased since 9/11. If Robert was in this for the money, the other side, Saudi pro-Wahhabist lobbying, pays much better, they are the ones with billions to spend. This was a movie that played in only a few theaters in a few cities. Who is making more lucre from representing their respective viewpoint on Islam: Bush/Clinton, or Spencer/Fitzgerald?

Other than the ad hominen parts, Brian Lamb asked very cogent and direct questions on Islam, and allowed Robert to answer them without interruption or comment. He seems to be a fairly open minded person. At the very least, Robert may have opened his mind to the possibility of what the Religion of Peace (tm) really teaches.

Overall, I am not happy with the way CSPAN constructed the "debate" with Akbar Ahmed, but I think Robert did an excellent job of presenting the case against the "tiny minority of violent extremist individuals who just happen to be Muslims".

Posted by: special_guest at August 21, 2006 12:33 PM

curious said

I watched C-Span. I kept waiting for an answer to what do we do now? Do we have to wipe out the Moslems? Is there any hope? Should I start memorizing the Koran? I didn't see where there was a hope for peace. Is this another World War?

See below. No. Yes. Perhaps the relevant parts. Yes.

Please search for "Posted by: Hugh" and "What should we do" at your favorite search engine. You will find links to such gems as this, this, or this.

Think of the decades' long Cold War, and then multiply that by a factor of 100 or so.

It is nice to think that there will be a jump in JW/DW readership after the C-Span interview.

Posted by: special_guest at August 21, 2006 12:49 PM

americaningermany,
Given the fact that islam is all encompassing even to the point of determining which way your toilet faces, I would love to hear an argument of how islam is not in violation of the I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X amendments of the Bill of Rights. I will make it easy for them, pick one and prove me wrong.

Posted by: tgusa at August 21, 2006 12:53 PM

Cair is upset? HA HA HA HA

Here is my letter I just sent to C-span.

Dear C-span,

THANK YOU for interviewing Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch. Most of the media are afraid to put him in front of the public.

I have been visiting the Jihad Watch website recently and have learned a great deal about the tactics of Islam. Those who post on the board in opposition to what is said about Islam do so in an intolerant manner. They never demonstrate that anything said is false. They simply ignore what they cannot argue and make hateful remarks which only serve to prove that Islam is NOT a religion of peace.

Today, i became aware of the alert by CAIR -their attempt to bully C-Span and silence Robert Spencer by asking Muslims to write in protest.

Please do not be moved by their threats without asking that they DISPROVE what Robert Spencer has said in your interview and/or in a debate.

There are very few people in our media that are intelligent enough to question the 'peacefulness' of Islam.

Keep up the good work! I for one respect what you have done. I am emailing the link for this interview to everyone I know so that they too can learn about the danger of a religion whose goal is to violently force its beliefs on others and to overthrow our country and way of life.

Reminds me of Hitler.

Posted by: The Goobs at August 21, 2006 1:07 PM

Islamofascist CAIR Doesn't Like the Term "Islamic Fascist": FNC video, 8/14/6 http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/videos/FN081406.php

CAIR Terrorist Apologist Blames Israel, FNC video, 8/12/6 http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/videos/BG081206-2.php

Free Patriotic Corner Banners: http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/cb/

Posted by: Terror-Free Oil at August 21, 2006 1:08 PM

When the Boy Scouts found out that there were homosexuals in their organization, all Hell broke loose. Homosexuals. This was an outrage!! We must root them out for the sake of our children. Heaven forbid those boys might be turned into homosexuals by being around a homosexual. The Boy Scouts don't condone homosexuality, there just happens to have been a few leaders in it.

Now, we have CAIR. They've had KNOWN terrorists in their org. and they condone the koran, which in turn promotes terrorism and murder. Why is there not an outrage in the public about this organization? Why do we continue to put up with these muslims?

Hmmm. Just thinking.

Posted by: freewoman at August 21, 2006 1:10 PM

CAIR has ALREADY been 100 % proven to be inextricably linked to Islamic terrorism networks including al-Qaeda. In addition, this organization also has been proved to be engaged in collusion with other Islamists to remove the United States' constitution-- and replace it with the "glorious Kuran." CAIR is part of worldwide Islamic plots to destroy America and establish a global caliphate. Personally, I think CAIR was part of the 9-11 conspiracy to terrorize Americans that day and this above article about CAIR's latest shenanigans strengthens my suspicions.

The only reason CAIR and its board of terrorism-mongering thugs remain free in America is due to the blindness and cowardice of those entrusted with the job of defending the United States of America.

There are so many VALID (and truly horrifying) things to condemn in Islam there is absolutely NO NEED AT ALL to 'bash' Islam. Just ask India's Hindus (who suffered yet another vicious bombing at the hands of the Muhammedans last month killing at least 200...and, just what does CAIR have to say about that--oh, never mind). Islam's doctrines are violent and brutal--they are the wellspring of terrorists and terrorism as we know it. Islam's ideology of violence has bred societies that are equally violent--I mean just look st what Muslims are doing to defenseless civilian populations in Sudan or in the Balkans over the past 800 years??? Look at the huge numbers of mujahih armies in the Middle East. Why should ANYONE 'tolerate' that?? Why should anyone even give such an ideology a chance to set up shop on their soil? Who in their right mind would knowingly invite trouble of such magnitude?

Islam literally constitutes conspiracy to commit repeated homicides which is a capital crime in the United States. Islam therefore is clearly in violation of American law-- which warrants removal of this excessively violent cult from American soil. Islam's answer to this: destroy Americans' freedoms and political identity and turn the United States into an Islamic theocracy (which also happens to be Communist world's wet dream come true). There are many valid reasons to eliminate Islam from the United States of America we should not be shy about addressing them and eliminating Islam from our land--after all, we were targeted by these people, not the other way around.

CAIR's press attack on Jihad Watch can be seen as part of a a stealth assault on America's freedoms...This is the real (and ominous) meaning of CAIR's coming after Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch--and CAIR knows it!!! This has not ended and CAIR will pull at least a few more legal rabbits out of its hat and we must monitor it. Even if CAIR is disbanded (whcih would be a pleasure to see happen), other Islamic political pressure groups will emerge to take its place and continue its attack on America.

Beware of CAIR. And deliver us all from Islam!!!!

Posted by: pythagoras at August 21, 2006 1:13 PM

I emailed c-span approving your appearance and asking for more.

Posted by: bkngbl at August 21, 2006 1:15 PM

I sent my e-mails to c-span and cair, here it is...
I think Robert Spencer has a wonderful and clear understanding of Islam, if I may quote.
"Islam is the only religion in the world that has a developed doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates violence against unbelievers and mandates that Muslims must wage war in order to establish the hegemony of the Islamic social order all over the world."
Robert Spencer's work explains perfectly to me why the majority of Muslims I meet have a superiority complex and behave in ways that are downright anti-social when challenging their belief, or dillusion as I would like to put it. I have driven taxis in Australia for 20 years and have witnessed many Muslims implode with indignation at the very questions of their belief and or violent nature of Islam. I would like to thank Mr Spencer for enlightening me on this belief system known as Islam...
=====

I always spell DILLusion this way. People downunder are waking up and those prepared to listen get the JW & islamundressed sites to explore, everytime...

Posted by: eloivsdiablo at August 21, 2006 1:22 PM

I cant find the vid on c-span wonder if they took it down. Will be emailing them next. More power to your elbow Robert cair are smelling a change in the wind and they dont like it :).
I wonder if anyone has the interview so I can download it

Posted by: ANonnyMouse at August 21, 2006 1:35 PM

OT:

Looks like Timmini is at it again, now openly supporting suicide bombings. And CAIR claims Robert is the hateful one... ridiculous.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=401481&in_page_id=1770

Posted by: SENATOR at August 21, 2006 1:38 PM

Copy of my email to CSPAN:

I would like to say that I have read three books by Mr Spencer and could not for the life of me find anything like bigotry or hate speech anywhere in his writing. I did however, find his books educational and more than a little revealing.

I did enjoy listening to Mr Spencer on CSPAN. I know that I would like to see Mr Andrew Bostom and Mr Daniel Pipes on CSPAN as well.

A debate on CSPAN between Mr Hooper of CAIR and Mr Spencer would be most interesting. Perhaps a debate would reveal who the true bigots are.

Posted by: a10billr at August 21, 2006 1:43 PM

tgusa writes:

"I would love to hear an argument of how islam is not in violation of the I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X amendments of the Bill of Rights. I will make it easy for them, pick one and prove me wrong."

Well, the poster "Naseem" once said that the U.S. Constitution will need to be "modified" (her word) someday to better accommodate Islam and Muslims.

Some changes are obvious: In order to criminalize apostasy and blasphemy, the First Amendment and the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto law will have to be done away with. If any JW folks have children in high school or college who are looking for a topic to write a term paper or thesis about, a complete comparison of Islam and sharia versus the U.S. constitution would be a great topic.

Posted by: Steven L. at August 21, 2006 1:44 PM

My email to C-SPAN and CAIR:

Dear C-SPAN

[See:
http://www.cair.com/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=452&theType=AA ]
CAIR, an organization with known ties to terrorist groups*, wants me to complain about Robert Spencer telling the truth about Islam on your Q&A show. (SEE: http://www.q-and-a.org/Program/?ProgramID=1086)

Their "Action Alert" gives me no argument in their favor. They are seemingly unable to refute his claims about passages in the Koran and other Islamic texts. They simply want to censor his comments, and to keep Americans from hearing any viewpoint other than their own.

If they can quote their own scripture to show that Spencer is making inaccurate statements /about/ their own scripture, then I'll be happy to ask that Spencer's comments be edited with rebuttals, and that you not use him in further shows.

Until then, I am delighted to ask for more Robert Spencer, and others like him (though there are few of his scholarship and rationality); and to ask that your commentators and interviewers press Islamic apologists to either answer his claims, or acknowledge that the Koran does indeed exhort the followers of Mohammed to convert, enslave, or kill unbelievers.

I am copying this message to CAIR itself. I hesitate to do this because, frankly, they scare the pants off of me, but the time has come to stand up against those who would tear down Western Civilization and return us to the Middle Ages under a tyrannical Caliphate enforcing an utterly intolerant Sharia law. I'll note, in this vein, that Spencer refuses in the interview to say where he lives because he receives death threats. Spencer is doing us a very big favor at considerable personal risk, and deserves your
support and airtime.

Dave Moore
*CAIR was recently forced to drop a lawsuit against someone making these allegations:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22144

Posted by: refugee at August 21, 2006 1:52 PM

freewoman asks:

"CAIR. They've had KNOWN terrorists in their org. and they condone the koran, which in turn promotes terrorism and murder. Why is there not an outrage in the public about this organization?"

I'll bet that the vast majority of Americans know little about the organization, and many Americans have never even heard of it. It masquerades as just one of many activist groups claiming to fight for the rights of minorities, and only political junkies care to keep track of all those. And it's been less violent than, say, the Black Panthers of the 1960's, who were openly carrying guns and committing acts of violence. It's violence that brings the publicity, both positive and negative.

In America, if your organization wraps itself in the cloak of minority rights (especially for "people of color"), claiming to peacefully and legally fight "discrimination" against minorities, you get the presumption of moral worth from the liberals who dominate the media and academia. It takes a lot of research work to get behind the shining slogans and see the lies underneath.

Posted by: Steven L. at August 21, 2006 1:58 PM

We all think alike here, and more important, we act and re-act alike! That makes me very happy indeed.

I also forwarded some kind words to viewer@c-span.org and thought I might as well let C-SPAN know what is going on:

I would like to thank C-SPAN for presenting its Q&A interview with Robert Spencer, director of jihadwatch.com.

I would also like to point out that C.A.I.R. is attempting an organized e-mail protest, informing its members to "contact C-SPAN to express your concerns about the network's decision to provide air-time to someone whose website promotes bigotry and hatred."

http://www.cair.com/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=452&theType=AA

Please do not give in to such bully tactics. As an American, proud of the value we have to express ourselves and speak freely, I thank you for continuing to present both sides of issues in the impartial C-SPAN tradition. Please continue to present all sides of issues, despite the protest of intolerant, one-sided organizations.

Thank you.

Posted by: GreatShaitan at August 21, 2006 1:59 PM

For this posting, I'm not going to waste time on CAIR - they are as much a distraction as Mohammedan trolls we've had here on J/W, except that they haven't been banned. I do hope a day will come when they are all rounded up as traitors, and purged, gulag style - regardless of their race.

For those who couldn't watch it, a transcript of this program is available. Despite the disclaimer that

Uncorrected transcript provided by Morningside Partners.
C-SPAN uses its best efforts to provide accurate transcripts of its programs, but it can not be held liable for mistakes such as omitted words, punctuation, spelling, mistakes that change meaning, etc.

it is poorly transcribed. For instance, whoever transcribed it doesn't recognize by site Tony Blair, Condi Rice, Harry Reid and Richard Boucher (the State Department spokesperson, who may not be a household name, but one would think the wonks at C-Span would know who he is?) I'll fill in that section below:

LAMB: They’ve given us permission to use excerpts from it.

First, just to set up what it looked like, here – just tiny excerpts of the way – what you see when the documentary opens.

TONY BLAIR, PRIME MINISTER, UNITED KINGDOM: Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion and the acts of these people are wholly contrary to the teachings of the Koran.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It’s practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends.

Its teachings are good and peaceful. And those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: No religion condones the murder of innocent men, women and children. But actions were aimed at fanatics and killers who wrap murder in the cloak of righteousness and in so doing profane the great religion in whose name they claim to act.

CONDOLEEZA RICE, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: This is a war against people who in many ways pervert what Islam stands for. Islam stands for peace and stands for non-violence and he wanted to make that very, very clear.

HARRY REID, SENATE DEMOCRAT LEADER: I think that the power of this religion and the power of the people in this religion will overcome these evil people who are using this fine religion to do bad things to innocent people.

RICHARD BOUCHER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE SPOKESPERSON: The true faith of Islam we believe is a religion of peace and we intend to work with them in that regard.

Also, below, in several cases, the UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT was very obviously Shoebat, for anybody who had been watching this.

Also, in several sections below, where it says an UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: (SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE), what the persons in question - a 12-year old caller to an Arab call-in program in the first case, and a Baghdad Imam in the second, although they were talking in Arabic, the captions of what they were saying was clearly run while they were speaking, and what the transcriber had to do was pause these segments, and copy them, and (s)he would have filled up the blanks. That aside, a lot of the spellings of terms used were wrong, even though, in some cases, all that needed to be done was copy the sections that were put on screen.

Conclusion: if you can see this 57 minute section live on Realplayer, go ahead and do it. Maybe I'm overly critical, but while the transcript gives you a good idea of what's covered, it leaves quite a bit to be desired. I'll comment on some of the contents of the interview separately.

Any idea whether the others - Trivkovoc, Shoebat, et al, will be appearing on Q-and-A for this series?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 21, 2006 1:59 PM

FYI for those whould not find it, the video of the interview is still there at C-SPAN

http://www.q-and-a.org/Program/?ProgramID=1086

Posted by: GreatShaitan at August 21, 2006 2:04 PM

I copied the CAIR "call for Action" and pasted it into my response. Thanking them for having Robert on. I ended it with: The Freedom of the Press and the Freedom of Speech should not be muffled by Terrorist.

This is the reply I got back:
> Thank you for your inquiry to C-SPAN,
>
> Due to the large amount of e-mail C-SPAN receives each day we are unable to answer all inquiries personally. Please be assured that all comments and suggestions are recorded and reviewed by our producers and staff.

Posted by: KnightHawk at August 21, 2006 2:11 PM

Here is how I thanked C-SPAN:

Dear C-SPAN,

Thank you for airing the segment 'Robert Spencer: What the West needs to know about Islam'. It was a very enlightning, informative and an educative segment about one of the most troubling challanges of our time: International Terror and it's relations to Islam. As Robert Spencer quotes (chapter 9 and it's various verses), terror is rooted in the texts of Qur'an, the immutable word of Allah. This is further demonstrated by Muhommad, the prophet's wars as documented in the Hadiths. This is an EXTREMELY TROUBLING aspect of International terror, which has a distinct Islamic background, as revealed by this excellent segment, rooted deep within the texts, practices and doctrines of Islam, wherein, non-muslims have three choices:
1. Convert to Islam.
2. Live as oppressed section fo Islamic socirty, under Islamic law.
3. Die.
With these troubling revelatins, how can the West afford to remain ill-informed?

I request C-SPAN, to initiate debate on the subject of Islam for non-muslims, at an early, rather than a later date.

Again, thank you for the enlightning, informative and educative segment, inviting a scholar of Islam for musmils & non-muslims alike, Robert Spencer.

PS: C.A.I.R., which has intimidated many commentators, recently dropped it's law-suit againrst Andrew Whitehead ( http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22144 ) , has, on it's web-site has asked to denounce Robert Spencer by writing to C-SPAN Q & A ( http://www.cair.com/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=452&theType=AA ). This raises doubts about CAIR's support for US Constitution of 'Freedom of Speech', in light of which, it is of paramount importance to conduct an open and honest debate about terror and it's roots in Islam, also documented by Stephen Swartz, in his book: 'Two faces of Islam-From Tradition to Terror' ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385506929/002-4386006-6261666?v=glance&n=283155 ).

Suggested panel:

Robert Spencer.
Dr. Daniel Pipes.
Dr. Walid Phares.
Bat Yeor

I look forward to an open and an honest debate on C-SPAN, on this vital subject in near future.

Thank you.

Posted by: Alert at August 21, 2006 2:15 PM

Robert

I just sent a very polite (I am british) email to viewer@c-span.org in your support - everyone here should send one to show that we have substantial support and can mobilise too when required.

Posted by: johnmac at August 21, 2006 2:19 PM

sent:

Thank you for including Robert Spencer in your broadcasts. I gather that folks at CAIR have objected.

Many folks who do not see danger in Islamic power and immigration have a true prejudice, as the word "prejudice" means "a preconceived preference or idea."

I hope you will allow a full airing of Spencer's views, especially when they come under fire, and that you will provide extensive opportunity for him to rebut objections to his work.

Regards, StillBreathing

Posted by: StillBreathing at August 21, 2006 2:24 PM

To: viewer@c-span.org

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for broadcasting the Q&A Interview with Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch on Sunday, August 20th. I believe that Robert Spencer is correct in his assessment of the dangerous situation we face.

I realize that any religion can be manipulated to justify oppression or atrocities. But, there seems to be something different about Islam that I don't quite know how to articulate. Perhaps it is because Muslims have a deeply entrenched infrastructure that supports murder. Their system rewards suicide bombers, denigrates women, and kills other Muslims, Apostates, and non-believers.

To the best of my knowledge I see no counter-balancing force against the mind-set that encourages terrorist activities. For example, regarding a segment in last night's broadcast, it was chilling to watch that Cleric praise a 12 year old boy who believes the highest possible achievement in his life would be to die as a "martyr." I guess living a long life as a happy, productive member of society simply isn't an option.

It's great when CAIR or other "moderate Muslim" voices say they practice a "Religion of Peace." However, the events of September 11th in New York, Washington, and the skies of Pennsylvania, July 7th in London, the Bali bombings, etc., would seem to suggest otherwise. Therefore, the words and ideas of jihadists require monitoring, and Jihad Watch is one of the tools that I use. Just like the Anti-Defamation League monitors hate speech to fight Anti-Semitism, I believe that Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch help to shed light on the people who are trying so very hard to kill us. I'm not looking forward to the day when America becomes an Islamic Theocracy.

Once again, thank you for airing Robert Spencer's interview. I would also ask you to consider having Londonistan author Melanie Phillips (http://www.melaniephillips.com/) as a guest. She seems to understand how Islam is undermining Britain.

Posted by: Lysistrata at August 21, 2006 2:30 PM

The thing the muslims fear the most is the truth. That is why they hate this site and you, Robert. Tell the truth and shame the muslim devils!

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at August 21, 2006 2:47 PM

I did'nt get to see it. Will it be shown again? When?

Posted by: alaskan1000 at August 21, 2006 3:00 PM

I just sent a brief e-mail to C-span, and urge other to as well, but Lysistrata's letter (posted at 2:30, above) is a great "form" letter for others to forward on, if Lysistrata permits.

Lysistrata, what say you?

Jihad Watch: Keep on Rocking in the Free World (and keep rocking the boat of the rest of it)!

Bruce W.

Posted by: Bruce Wechsler at August 21, 2006 3:28 PM

Here's the letter I wrote.

Dear C-Span
Thank you for airing your interview with Robert Spencer re: Islam - what the West needs to know. First of all, I rarely watch C-Span, but for events like this, that cover people who are unafraid of telling the truth about Islam, without cowering at the thought of 'disrespecting a religion', I am happy to alter my viewing habits whenever this happens.
I recognize that as a non-partisan entity, C-Span strives to fairly show all sides of an issue (and you do a fine job of it, I might add). That said, whenever you have people from the Islamic side defending their faith, I'd appreciate if Brian Lamb, or whoever is engaging them, challenges them to actually disprove the various salient points outlined in the movie, by Walid Shoebat in particular. Include for instance, questions such as whenter Shariah law of Islam doesn't contradict the US constitution, such as Amendments I, IV, V, X of the constitution. Better still, have such Islamic spokesmen actually spell out the meanings of terms like 'Justice', 'Disbelief', 'Mischief', et al. Or about the references to the Quran of verses that describe Jews and Christians as apes and pigs. If you want to prepare such questions, you can read up various portions of the Quran from this site:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
Pick any of the topics on the right - Injustice, Cruelty & Violence, Intolerance, pick any verse listed under these sections, and ask your Muslim spokesperson about how they are to be interpreted with reference, in particular to Infidels. These are the questions that need to be answered, rather than blanket condemnations of Robert Spencer or Walid Shoebat.
I also hope that in this series, you'll invite the other spokespeople in this film - Walid Shoebat, Serge Trifkovic, Bat Yeor, as well as (if possible) other acclaimed experts on Islam, such as Ali Sina. That would serve a tremendous public service to not just the US, but the world at large (for people throughout the globe who can see this over the Internet). Other things aside, this is more useful even to C-Span, because if the US ever gets even a Muslim plurality, Shariah will take hold, and once Shariah takes hold, C-Span wouldn't be able to broadcast anything other than pro-Islamic viewpoints. In other words, it would be a clone of al Jazeera, or any Quranic channel.
I also know that CAIR has been campaigning against this program on their website - see below
http://www.cair.com/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=452&theType=AA
Please note that CAIR has already implicitly conceded, in court, as an out-of-court settlement of a lawsuit they had filed against Anti-CAIR, that they have ties to Hamas. Any complaints from them about anybody should be treated with the contempt it deserves. The last I looked, the US is not an Islamic country, and therefore, criticism of any belief, including Islam, is perfectly legal and not forbidden under blasphemy laws as it is in OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) member countries.
Regards

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 21, 2006 3:31 PM

Here's what I sent to C-Span (and all may copy and paste at will):

THANK YOU very much for the Robert Spencer program!!

Do not be deterred or intimidated by the CAIR-organized letter campaign.

CAIR doesn't want the public to know what the public NEEDS to know.

Keep that upper lip stiff and thanks for the programming.

Bruce Wechsler
USA

Posted by: Bruce Wechsler at August 21, 2006 3:37 PM

C-SPAN has the interview for purchase, DVD or VHS..

http://www.c-spanstore.org/shop/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=193778-1

You could follow CAIRs advice, and write them to purchase a copy.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at August 21, 2006 3:38 PM

Uh oh, Robert, somebody's nerve ends are fraying......Those poor women over at CAIR....Lobbyists for a cause that is so unappealing, so outdated, and so 7th century retro. What punks they are. All of them.

Posted by: DCWatson at August 21, 2006 3:42 PM

Folks, please DO NOT copy others' emails and just sign your own name--that is the type of thing members of CAIR would do. I have friends who've worked in US senators' offices, etc., and they will tell you that "form emails" start to be recognized very quickly and, thus, ignored. I know we are all busy, and some of us may feel less confident about our grammar skills or eloquence than others, but take a few minutes to compose your own message. It will make a better and greater impression.

Posted by: kaffirchick at August 21, 2006 3:53 PM

If it hadn't been for the CAIR action alert, I never would have written to C-SPAN.

In my letter, I thanked C-SPAN for presenting Robert Spencer in the Q & A program. I found it extraordinarily informative. All the details presented in the program are readily verifiable.

C-SPAN's interview with Mr. Spencer was tied to the movie "Islam, What the West Needs to Know", which is not currently showing in any theatres. So, in my letter I requested that C-SPAN continue the series with further interviews of Bat Ye'or, Serge Trifkovic and Walid Shoebat.

Perhaps I should also send a note to CAIR thanking them for encouraging me to express my support for Robert Spencer as well.

Posted by: miira at August 21, 2006 4:27 PM

what makes me laugh is when some muslims defend the RoP by using 5.32 out of context.

many a time have i seen this defence used as proof to islam being peaceful.

only part of the ayat is used when they do this:

http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=307

“….it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole of mankind.” [Al-Qur’an 5:32]

note the "... at the start.

even C.A.I.R. get in on the act, tut tut ...

http://www.cair-net.org/

http://www.cair-net.org/FatwaJuly2005.pdf

"whoever kills a person (unjustly)... it is though he has killed all mankind.and whoever saves a life,it is though he has saved all mankind (qur'an, 5.32)

why don't they quote it in full,give it some context:

[5.32] For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.

or better still,why not quote the following ayat in full as well to make their case even stronger then everyone will know the peace of the RoP:

[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,

there, that's much better.

C.A.IR. change the wording of the fatwa on your site use the full ayat or take it down, stop being dishonest.

Posted by: kasper1062 at August 21, 2006 4:28 PM

I just wrote this to C-Span

Dear C-Span,

I understand that CAIR is involved in a effort to "poison the well" with Robert Spencer by defaming him and attacking him so that his reputation will be tarnished and no one will listen to him at C-Span. Please note that Robert is a Joe Friday type ("just the facts ma'am, sir") who should be heard. He does not appeal to emotion, nor engage in deception, and has invited CAIR people to debate the issues re Islam's intolerance, and the role of violent jihad as crucial to Islamic doctrine. They don't want to debate, but instead engage in the logical fallacy of "poison the well", and other propaganda-fallacies of reason. I hope you will listen to his voice of reason and not listen to lies re him, or allow logical fallacies to prevail. It appears CAIR will do anything to stop Robert from presenting the facts. Please do not silence him.

Respectfully,

Frank J.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_poisoningwell.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Posted by: Frank at August 21, 2006 4:32 PM

I watched the Cspan interview and it was excellent.

I also watched Mr. Nihad Awad's interview and it was interesting to see him somehow dodge and fudge the difficult questions. Specifically one question talking about the Quran and its attitude towards Jews - pigs and apes and talking trees, which he so very conveniently forgot to answer.

All the same, I have emailed CSPAN thanking them for carrying the interview.

Posted by: Sanwin at August 21, 2006 4:32 PM

Bruce W. Wrote: I just sent a brief e-mail to C-span, and urge other to as well, but Lysistrata's letter (posted at 2:30, above) is a great "form" letter for others to forward on, if Lysistrata permits.

Lysistrata replies: I agree with what Kaffirchick posted at 3:53. Rather than a form letter, it is much more powerful to write your own reply.

Posted by: Lysistrata at August 21, 2006 4:32 PM

http://www.q-and-a.org/Program/?ProgramID=1086

Posted by: Frank at August 21, 2006 4:35 PM

http://www.q-and-a.org/Program/?ProgramID=1086

Posted by: Frank at August 21, 2006 4:36 PM

kasper1062,

Re 5:32, you may be interested in this article (rather long, but exposes the whole thing).
http://www.islam-watch.org/Archemedez/KillingInKoran.htm

Posted by: Archimedes at August 21, 2006 4:52 PM

I hope that I am not repeating someone else's post - I haven't read them all. I noticed that CAIR wanted a CC of the e-mail sent to C-Span. I would not do that for one million bucks - well maybe. CAIR would love to get a copy that was extremely negative regarding Islam and use the IP address to cause trouble with the sender.

Posted by: Pelayo at August 21, 2006 4:55 PM

GreatShaitan;
Cheers for posting the link.

Posted by: ANonnyMouse at August 21, 2006 5:04 PM

[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement, Posted by: kasper1062

kasper1062

Re-reading the quotes of Walid Shoebat last night, as excerpted from the film, you bring back to mind some compelling questions. Maybe our in house expert Archimedes can answer this, or someone else who knows better.

I know that the various people who have translated the Quran did the best they could, but looking at it, they all look more like a literal, rather than a contextual translation. For instance, when one hears the word 'mischief', what exactly rings in one's mind? To me, if my kid climbed onto the kitchen countertop, opened the butter case, took the salt-shaker, and poured as much salt as she could on top of the butter, that would be mischief. The last thing that I think of when I hear the word 'mischief' is my or anybody else's refusal to acknowledge the divinity of Mohammed.

Similarly, the term 'hypocrite' means somebody with a favorable set of rules for oneself, and a less favorable set of rules, under the same circumstances, for others (e.g. Shariah law). It does not mean refusal to acknowledge the divinity or piety of somebody, or one's message. Similarly, the terms above, like 'disgrace', or 'chastisement', in no way mean the same thing in the Quran as they do in everyday English - be it American, British, Australian, Canadian, Indian, NZ,... Maybe Muslim apologists are right when they argue that the Quran hasn't been cleanly translated from Arabic, although not in the way they mean?

Does anybody know of any Quran translations that plainly spell out what the passages mean (no, I'm not looking for Tafseers here), as opposed to such literal translations as above that are essentially meaningless, if read in the way one would read, say, this posting?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 21, 2006 5:11 PM

Here's a copy of my email to C-Span

Dear Sir:

I want to thank you for having Robert Spencer on your program Q&A to discuss Islam. I found the interview interesting and informative. We live in a time when terrorist attacks primarily by Muslims are taking place around the world, from Russia to Israel to Iraq to the United States. With lives on the line it is important to learn as much as possible about the ideology that is fueling these attacks. Free speech and the free exchange of ideas is needed now more then ever before.

I also want to comment on the recent appearance of Nihad Awad from CAIR.Mr Awad questioned the accuracy of information on Robert Spencer's Jihadwatch website yet he offered no specifics.Mr Spencer has offered to debate critics who question his views about Islam. Let Mr. Awad debate Mr. Spencer or present specific information of inaccurate information posted by Robert Spencer at Jihadwatch. Otherwise Mr. Awad's criticism has no merit. I would also suggest that the next time Nihad Awad is on C-Span that he be asked about his public support for the Hamas movement. As I question the peaceful intentions of any organization that would support a terrorist group such as Hamas.Thank you for your time and attention and your dedication to free speech.

Posted by: Roxane at August 21, 2006 5:26 PM

nariz must be in a tizzy. Supporting the Author of a book that affirms the Christian POV... Posted by: Gary

Grow up Gary, your snide remarks are self denigrating and childish..how old are you? 12? 13?

I'm a huge fan of Mr Spencers regardless of his religious persuasion, and FYI, I was, at one time, a Roman Catholic, and not just a Catholic but a traditionalist of the Catholic Truth, Piux XII persuasion.

I take my lead from Oriana Fallaci and consider myself a christian atheist.., however I am a man of reason and intellect and cannot accept any religion as THE truth, and the only truth.

And I know legions of Christians who are as miserable, scarey, self righteous, intolerant and threatening as Muslims.. so there you be.

Posted by: Nariz at August 21, 2006 5:36 PM

Here's my letter to C-Span:

Hi C-Span,

I was somewhat shocked to see Robert Spencer being advertised on your website, so I turned on my TV last night and watched his Q&A with Mr. Lamb. Spencer isn't scholarship, he's advocacy and I would have preferred C-SPAN live up to it's reputation for intellectual honesty by presenting him as such. Mr. Lamb's been around a while, so I would hope that he'd recognize a guy with an axe to grind. Spenser is not only a "Know-Nothing Hater" of Islam, but he's so outside any mainstream that one wonders what's the benefit to C-SPAN having him on at all. He wasn't even honest on why most Muslims won't debate him. He claimed it's because they fear his knowledge, while he actually knows that it's because his views are so conclusively bigoted towards the whole religion of Islam that it makes no sense to discuss anything about Islam with such a closed-minded guy. He's so married to his perspective that 1/5th of humanity is following an evil cult, that one wonders what kind of intellectual dialogue was C-SPAN hoping to ever motivate with such an interview. Spenser seems so far gone that he can't even figure out that the reason most Americans won't have anything to do with his bigoted views is not because of Political Correctness (PC), but civility and the way we were raised to treat others as we'd like to be treated ourselves.

Peace,

Posted by: enlightener at August 21, 2006 5:38 PM

I sent mine in, CC'd to CAIR as well. My subject header was 'Please do not support bigotry and racism'. I then proceeded to ask them to allow Mr. Spencer and Nihad Awad the opportunity to debate on air, and gave a list of reasons why I consider CAIR to be a racist and terrorist organization. I wonder if Nihad Awad will send me a birthday card this year?
;)

Posted by: libbysmom at August 21, 2006 5:45 PM

Mohammed

I can bet that you have no answers to any of the questions about the Quran, and its contexts, raised above?

To compliment your debating style, what say you about your threat to stuff a banana in someone's car muffler?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 21, 2006 5:49 PM

Now that I've dispensed with that infant Gary, on a positive note. I recorded Mr Spencer's interview.

I felt that Mr Lamb was covertly hostile and tried to set him up, however kudo's to Mr Spencer, he is probably the best guest I've ever seen on TV, totally unflappable,..and I understand now why ANY muslim lacks the cajones to appear opposite him, unless they can control the debate. Formidable, and frankly I was totally impressed with his ability to reel off verse after verse of the Qur'an, sira and Sunnah, then explain them in various renditions.

As I said, it is no wonder that Ibrahaim Hooper, Mahdi Bray or any other Muslim will refuse to appear opposite him, and now I understand why Paula Zahn cancelled the debate twixt him and Mahdi Bray.. CAIR called up, obviously, fretted, stomped their feet and threatened, and the producers of Paula caved and gave Ibrahaim Hooper an unchallenged soundbite.

It doesn't help that CAIR, the AMS, the Muslim American Society have friends (Grover Abdullah Norquist and the Saudis) in the west house.

Posted by: Nariz at August 21, 2006 5:50 PM

I have written to C-SPAN to applaud them for inviting Mr. Spencer, and I have cc'ed CAIR. I hope both parties will "get the message."

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at August 21, 2006 5:51 PM

My, but isn't this 'enlightener' so enlightened?

"Spenser [sic] seems so far gone that he can't even figure out that the reason most Americans won't have anything to do with his bigoted views is not because of Political Correctness (PC), but civility and the way we were raised to treat others as we'd like to be treated ourselves."

Too bad muslims don't share your 'enlightened' viewpoint.

Posted by: Rick at August 21, 2006 5:53 PM

This might get me flamed, but I used to be a member of CAIR. Comming from left of center there are some beliefs we shar in common. However; I eventually had to leave because they became too anti-semetic and we're pro-illegal immagration, two things I'm not. Just seems to me that everything now a days is getting hijacked by extremist.

Posted by: oldschoolliberal at August 21, 2006 5:55 PM

Enlightener,
Go ahead and open your mind and then lose you head. Just don’t expect the rest of us to follow you along your merry road to death. I don’t believe for a minute that you are an American, oh that’s right, we have been allowing all manner of riff raff into the country as of late so I guess it is possible. We will fix that down the road with targeted deportations. You don’t really think they will pay any attention to your angry rant do you? BTW you don’t speak for Mainstream America you presumptuous fool.

Posted by: tgusa at August 21, 2006 5:58 PM

Infidel Pride

the link provided by Archimedes covers the glossary for 5.32 and 5.33

here it is:

http://www.islam-watch.org/Archemedez/KillingInKoran.htm

Posted by: kasper1062 at August 21, 2006 6:01 PM

Infidel Pride

the link provided by Archimedes covers the glossary for 5.32 and 5.33

here it is:

http://www.islam-watch.org/Archemedez/KillingInKoran.htm

Posted by: kasper1062 at August 21, 2006 6:01 PM

Infidel Pride,

Now don't misquote me, I never said I'd "stuff" anything up anyone's anything. That was Rod's misdirection so that he doesn't have to answer the points in my argument. That's why I posted my full dialogue with him on this blog among others.

After Rod made a big what to do about the "bananagate" incident I recommended he contact the fbi and sent him the contact info, then I sent them the whole history of email correspondences on the issue. Guess they were too busy with real cases to care about to Opinion Pundits/Columnists calling each other out in public.

Now about the Quran stuff, you know I don't debate that stuff with folks here. I respect my faith enough to not run it through the mud slinging. Islam is not on trial, contrary to what anyone here would like to see. I've debated Islamic doctrine keeping nothing off the table with Christian Seminary students, interfaith meetings as well as lecture halls whether Muslim or non. I'll debate anything and always be honest to give my true opinion, been doing that for over a decade and a half but always with the respect all the Abrahamic religions and texts inspired by our Lord deserve.

By the way I saw a bumper sticker that reminded me of this blog yesterday. Little Chevy Prism with a sticker that read “Proud to be an Infidel”. Couldn’t help but see the irony in this dhemmi want-a-be just awaiting a master to walk up and claim him.

Salaam,

Posted by: enlightener at August 21, 2006 6:06 PM

tgusa,

It would seem to any rational individual looking at polls that my viewpoints are quite mainstream. You can rant all you want on a blog behind some computer terminal, while my viewpoint is espoused by mainstream folks (Muslim and non) in all aspects of American society. What does that say?

I'll simplify it for you, it takes 2 to tango. You might want a religious/civilizational war and classify everyone not buying where you draw the line as un-American, but Muslims will never bite your bait so you're left dancing your tune all alone. :-(

Give me a call when you're ready to enter the "civilized world".

Salaam,

Posted by: enlightener at August 21, 2006 6:41 PM

enlightener said

Little Chevy Prism with a sticker that read “Proud to be an Infidel”. Couldn’t help but see the irony in this dhemmi want-a-be just awaiting a master to walk up and claim him.

Wow, a tough-talking Muslim troll, who is too busy to respond to comments about Islam, and who apparently drives a monster-truck. Impressive.

Posted by: special_guest at August 21, 2006 6:42 PM

enlightener

"I'll debate anything and always be honest to give my true opinion, been doing that for over a decade and a half BUT"... not today.

shame that,it would have been nice to hear your opinion on why 5.32 is "cropped" when it is used to show the peace of islam.

Posted by: kasper1062 at August 21, 2006 6:43 PM

Give me a call when you're ready to enter the "civilized world". Salaam, Posted by: enlightener

Given the bloody history of Islam, from Mohammed to Nasrallah, I wouldn't exactly characterize the world that way if I were you.

Mainstream? Opinion polls in the US and Germany to date, by different news organizations, seem to show that over 70% of people view Islam as an evil religion. It's just that the ruling elites haven't caught on, but if the boycott threats in Spain to refuse to board if Muslims were present is any indication, that's about to change.

After all, as you point out, the MSM isn't giving our viewpoint a sympathetic hearing, so when random people about to take a flight respond like this, it's because your brothers have done a very good job of doing something that we have failed to do - so far.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 21, 2006 6:56 PM

Others and I have said it many times; the truth will destroy islam. No matter who spins it or how. You just can’t justify a death cult. By their own choice they want to enslave their own daughters, kill anyone who can stand up to them in the most horrific methods they can think of. Read a book which teaches them to trick, kill and or enslave anyone who doesn’t follow their so called religion. All you have to do to discredit islam is read, read to the liberals who think it is just another religion. Ask them to explain which of their neighbors they would pick to be raped and which have to die. Ask them how many muslim babies they are willing to let their daughters carry to ensu