I have no idea how you can be so darned patient and calm ...

Posted by: drk at March 2, 2007 5:08 PM

Hey Robert,

You talk about argument by abuse? I have never abused you. You are talking about people and commentators who are co-bloggers on Dean's World and imputing their views to me.

You are wrong to say that you received from "you and your friends" character assasination. They may be my friends but *I* did not character assassinate you. If you feel that they did, I am sorry. You deserve better. I do recall Aziz apologizing for thinking that you did not know Arabic.

My response to you is on Eteraz.Org. That is my personal site.

Nor have I asked your opinion on the response by the Emory students. I want you to rebut MY post. Don't bring Esmay or Aziz or Matoko into it b/c they do not write for my site.

If your feelings are really hurt, Robert, why don't you read my post which contains a very nice pat to your back.

"Spencer is, unlike the average blog troll, actually aware of the juridical nature of Islam, and as such, a dialogue with him is not only possible, but refreshing. He recognizes that the best way of enunciating Islamic Law is to quote Islamic Jurists. For that much, he should be applauded."

Look, I am not going to assure you that if you talk to me other people whom I know are not going to abuse you. They might. Or they might not. However, that is only fair since I don't ask you to protect me from abuse from your commentators.

I look forward to your response and have a good flight.

I do have some suggestions on why Muslims have not engaged with you. But we can talk about that some other time.

Ali

Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com at March 2, 2007 5:12 PM

another correction robert. You just wrote:

"But the point is that you knew what you were doing was false and misleading when you did it, since I expect you know Arabic. Why did you abet this falsehood about how I wrote my name in Arabic? You must have known better. Did you want Dean and his friends to think I was stupid?"

I think you think that I made the joke about the Roobart Spunsar. It wasn't me. I repeat. I did not make the joke about Roobart Spunsar. My name is Ali Eteraz. Feel free to look up who did say it. It wont be Ali Eteraz.

I wasn't even a Dean's World frontpager at that time.

Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com at March 2, 2007 5:29 PM

eteraz: "I think you think that I made the joke..." Read the part you quoted again. "abet" means to aid not to originate.

Posted by: Brett_McS at March 2, 2007 5:37 PM

Anyone notice that this Islam is peace, islam is moderate "movement" amongst muslims was non-existent until 9/11, which potentially put muslims in the crosshairs of probably the most dominant military in the history of the world? If the stuff the muslim apologists put out was grounded in some sort of intellectual conviction, and was not taqquiya meant to prevent a robust response to muslim aggression, why weren't any of those type of Islam is peace comments being made by muslims before 9/11? Because international muslim terror predated 9/11, so again, if there was really was some sort of intellectual grounded sincere opposition to muslim terror by the ROPers, shouldn't they have been vocal inside the muslim community, speaking out and trying to teach their fellow muslims about how Islam is a religion of peace in order to stop the muslim terror? But notice, even now, virtually 100% of this type of rhetoric is directed to nonmuslims, not to the other muslims actually carrying out the attacks, and significantly, this Islam is peace rhetoric only ramped up after 9/11 when the jihadis picked a fight with a country that has the military capability to level the entire muslim world. 100% pure taquiya.

All I hear is muslim hysterical condemnations of certain people on the right, but I never hear similar sustained vicious ad hominem attacks on the actual muslim terrorists "hijacking" their religion like Osama or Arafat. Clearly, these guys seethe and moan with the best of them when someone on the right "misinterpets" their muslim religion, so where is the muslim rage and venom against those muslims such as Osama (or Hizbollah) who they claim are "hijacking" their great religion? I ain't seen any. I can definitely see it when "moderate" muslims seethe and rage when someone mentions Hirsi Ali, but whenever they mention Osama, they certainly hide their resentment of him very well, all they say when those names brought up is "those people aren't muslim" very calmly, end of topic, proceed to non-muslim victimization of muslim, and now they get upset and start to rage again.

My prediction - more robust US military action against muslims = more military defeats of muslims = more "moderate" muslims and a faster pace of muslim "reform".

Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at March 2, 2007 5:54 PM

Mr. Eteraz,
I believe that Robert's point is not that his feelings were hurt but that you are contemptible.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at March 2, 2007 6:00 PM

Minor quibble (but that's what I'm known for)

Don't bring Esmay or Aziz or Matoko into it b/c they do not write for my site.

Yes she does, under the pseudonym "shams"

BTW, I think Ali is too good for Dean's world (even though, like Dean, he has an ego the size of Alaska) Ali might be a little abusive at times but he is no where near the level of, say, Aziz Poonawalla. Aziz is a man who has blood-libeled Israel on a number times and never apologized for it. He is the very model of a model anti-semite.

Posted by: Scorpius at March 2, 2007 6:04 PM

in other words reform is real i welcome you to read our site where we catalogue and support such efforts i.e. the women's protection bill in pakistn and anti-stoning campaigns in iran and letters that support the right of muslim publishers to publish the danish cartoons Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com

This is taken from the last thread. While there are some in Pakistan who recognize the damage things like hudood laws, honor killings, child marrages do in Pakistan and therefore want to outlaw them, two facts remain:

• They are a tiny minority, and driven more by the pr disaster that it does to Pakistan's image, rather than any genuine desire to ease the status of women;
  
• Pak society at large still endorses these practices.
  
• The status of minorities in all Islamic countries is still nothing to write home about, and that isn't merely in comparison to the West. Even in comparison to non-Islamic third world countries, Muslim countries don't come out looking good at all.
  

How you treat your own people is one thing. What we resent is you exporting those problems to Infidel lands.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 2, 2007 6:04 PM

AnneCrockett said
>>
Mr. Eteraz,
I believe that Robert's point is not that his feelings were hurt but that you are contemptible.
>>

AnneCrockett, I prefer if Robert spoke for himself rather than an army of supporters "interpret" what he says.

Mr Eteraz appears interesting, he seems to have integrity. I wait to hear the interchange between himself and Robert.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at March 2, 2007 6:05 PM

"When I published my first book I thought there would be thoughtful Muslims who would be happy to engage me on the issues". -Robert

This is a hard lesson to learn re people. Only the strong get stronger as they grasp this unpleasant reality about people who think they are important. As Gandhi said, "there are truth seekers and power seekers" in politics and in things where politics are concerned, and he noted there are few truth seekers. In fact, people often are killed for telling the truth, by addressing substance on issues. You are the victim of character assassination, but they are capable of worse. When you realize that, a chill will go through you.

But remember Robert, Oriana is now an angel. She'll watch over you. Though I am a rationalist, I do believe in angels. They are probably relatives and friends who have crossed over. ("There are more things in heaven and on earth....")

Posted by: Frank at March 2, 2007 6:11 PM

Infidel Pride:

I endorse your concerns over Pakistan. Furthermore you can add the use of rape as a punishment betwen clans within Pakistan

On that last point:
>>
How you treat your own people is one thing. What we resent is you exporting those problems to Infidel lands.

I agree. But those "exported problems" arise from the legal and illegal Muslim migrants appearing in Western countries - they bring their unsavoury cultural practices with them.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at March 2, 2007 6:14 PM

"I do have some suggestions on why Muslims have not engaged with you. But we can talk about that some other time".

Ali Eteraz,

I think I know why Muslims don't engage Mr. Spencer in debate. Muslims are (rightfully) very afraid of this particular infidel. I think you are too.

Many (most) Muslims are intellectual cowards. Are you one of them?

I wager that in the past six years you have spent more time and energy attempting to debate the likes of Mr. Spencer then you have those within your own faith bent on bringing shari'a to the West. It's true what I say, isn't it? Do you know why? Because, sir, you too are a coward. You fear offending those within your own faith, but you do not fear offending the infidel.

You do not fear the infidel because the infidel does not kill when offended. The same cannot be said of every "offended" Muslim, can it?

I'm not here to defend Mr. Spencer. He does not need my help. He can take you down - intellectulaly - in any debate. But while he debates you, there are your co-relgionists who plot to take him down literally...physically. They do this because his arguments cannot be answered by Muslims or Islam.

I've noticed that many Muslims debate in the same way Muslims fight war. Muslim "warriors" never face the infidel (instead they hide behind women and children when not attacking the women and children. Muslims, when debating, never "face" the (substantive) argument of the infidel. Instead they hide behind the skirts of bogus ad hominem argument failing to address the issue. Muslims fail to address the infidel.

Posted by: omvi at March 2, 2007 6:14 PM

Ali Eteraz writes:

C. In Islam, there is no concept of Jihad (Qital to be more precise -- that is militant struggle in the way of Allah) or the implementation of punishments without the authority of the State.

SORRY,
Here's the correction:

In Islam, there is no concept of the "State" and certainly no authority given to any nation-state. The only proper Islamic entity is the Umma, the collective body of Islam, ruled by a sharia-imposing caliphate.

Another problem here:

Yet, on the basis of the fact that one jurist, from more than 600 years ago, is the "favorite" of Bin Laden, Spencer derives his conclusion that Jihad is a "constant" element of "mainstream Islamic theology." One scholar. 600 years removed. One Bin Laden.

SORRY,

Not one bin Laden, but a billion bin ladens! And their insidious inspiration Mohammad practiced Jihad (struggle) against his own clansmen from the get go. He thoroughly traumatized his own kith and kin. Threats, violence, intolerance are the sine qua non of Islam.

Posted by: ynkedoodl2 at March 2, 2007 6:17 PM

My prediction - more robust US military action against muslims = more military defeats of muslims = more "moderate" muslims and a faster pace of muslim "reform".
Posted by: godfreyofbouillon

and...

...this Islam is peace rhetoric only ramped up after 9/11 when the jihadis picked a fight with a country that has the military capability to level the entire muslim world. 100% pure taquiya.

Yes and Yesser! If ONLY our "leaders" had the stones to do what must be done.A few heavy hits ansd these demons will retreat back to their holes.

I really don't care if they are "moderate" or not - I'd simply rather not be around any moslems at all if I had my choice. That may make me a racist a bigot and a homophbe as per nice Lieberal double speak.. Oh, but the moslems themselves are racists bigots and homophobes. And they ACT on this daily. So you see how facts can get in the way of a simple argumentation. The evidence is all over the news and the internet.

Besides, THEY already HAVE a slew of countries where non-moslems are treated with violence and contempt. But THEy want US to treat THEM with velvet gloves. In other words they want us to accept their "superiority". WHAT A LAUGH!!

WE are the ones who need to wake up to what their real intentions are! And then ACT accordingly. The Borg can only be stoppped by use of overwhelming force. I hate to say these things but I follow my logic straight to the bitter conclusion.

moslems need to stop harrassing us for the need to rollback to cease to exist.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 2, 2007 6:19 PM

Anne Crockett --

While not disturbed in the slightest by your intervention on Robert Spencer's behalf, taking to task an eteraz (hetero- and heterae both come to mind), I cannot refrain from wondering about the obvious. Are you or have you ever been a descendant of Fess Parker?

Posted by: Hugh at March 2, 2007 6:25 PM

One more point.. why should we care abotut whether they are "moderate" or not? Or why do they hate us? Who GIVES a rat's ass?

They simpply need to all pack up and leave and they can be moderate or radical or anything else AT HOME in their own lands!!

We don't have much use for one another - THAT MUCH IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR BY NOW.

We have nowhere to go back to - moslems have a slew of lovely countries ranging from Algeria via Iran and Syria to LiEbanon and SOWdi arabia.. UUUGGGGHHH!!!

But they have sharia there.. so GO THERE those of you who like to live by stoneage laws.

WE PREFER TO LIVE BY THE LAWS WE GOT RATHER THAN BY YOURS!!!

I find it offensie that we'd even have to discuss this! It just goes to show how disrespectful and presumptuous they are.

It implies we should accept "moderate" moslems and once we do that they try to define them all as the VAST MAJORITY of whom should be allowed to ppractice their dawa and their little jihad among us.

I SAY TO THIS - STOP!

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 2, 2007 6:26 PM

"Because international muslim terror predated 9/11, so again, if there was really was some sort of intellectual grounded sincere opposition to muslim terror by the ROPers, shouldn't they have been vocal inside the muslim community, speaking out and trying to teach their fellow muslims about how Islam is a religion of peace in order to stop the muslim terror?"

One would think so. Instead, the West has been treated to more than half a decade of deafening silence from the vast majority of Muslims regarding the illegitimacy of terrorism and violent conversion. Islam's near-total lack of migration away from advocacy of violence, routine violation of human rights and abject gender apartheid makes its own complaints regarding non-Muslim actions or characterizations absolutely irrelevant. The West is not obliged to clean Islam's house, however much it has had that exact role foisted upon it. That Islam continues to point fingers outside of its own unkempt realm can only signify a promise of more violence, more human rights abuse and the further institutionalized mistreatment of women.

"But notice, even now, virtually 100% of this type of rhetoric is directed to nonmuslims, not to the other muslims actually carrying out the attacks, and significantly, this Islam is peace rhetoric only ramped up after 9/11 when the jihadis picked a fight with a country that has the military capability to level the entire muslim world. 100% pure taquiya."

Islam's abject refusal to pursue genuine and authentic reformation provides some of the very strongest moral authority for those who are determined to dismantle the threat it now poses. That Muslims still disregard and even deny the validity of this only makes immediate neutralization of Islam that much more imperative.

Posted by: Zenster at March 2, 2007 6:26 PM

couple of things.

matoko - shams - issue.

she's a commentator

all commentators on my site can have reader diaries. we're set up like daily kos. or redstate. you can have a reader diary too scorpius.

however im the only one who speaks for the site. just like kos is the only one who speaks for daily kos.

i appreciate asking me what muslim activists have actually done.

well im the only person to get a hold of the women's protection bill of pakistan in english. this has allowed numerous other muslims to write about it and critique the pakistani government.

http://eteraz.org/story/2006/11/25/94826/058

i wrote a letter to the afghan government asking them to protect a female MP who had criticized the government. i got a response from the afghan government saying they would.

i have started the modernist quran distribution project to challenge saudi translated qurans infiltrating the united states and uk. do you want to donate?

http://eteraz.org/tag/quranproject

i've started the photography and poverty prjoect to get more muslims aware of the rampant poverty in the muslim world

http://eteraz.org/tag/ppp

i have publicized the work of authors critical of the saudi regime

http://eteraz.org/tag/MyFirstPoliceState

i've written letters to ayatollahs in iran asking them to repeal their fatwas against muslim publishers that published the danish cartoons

i launched an anti stoning campaign (in iran) that was picked up by 92 blogs including instapundit

i've promoted the work of authors who oppose the jihadist argument for killing israelis

http://eteraz.org/story/2006/11/15/173745/54

and most importantly i've gathered at eteraz.org a nice group of people, mostly muslim, who are willing to help me

and this is just some of the things i've done via my blog over the past 3 months

im also working on a bunch of other things which you'll see in time

for the most part, my project is not about interfaith yuppie love or apologetics. that might make cair happy but not me. i want to see positive change in the world, especially the muslim world. if you look at the latest essays section on our site you'll see most of them relate to muslim causes.

Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com at March 2, 2007 6:33 PM

@Ali Etererz

1) What was the first instance of "qitaal" (jihad) in Islam?

Hint: Jaw bone of a camel
Hint: Sad
Hint: Mohammad's companion
Hint: Mecca

2) Who were the first infidels to be targeted by Mohammad and how long had Islam been in existence when they were threatened.

Answer: The first infidels to be cursed and condemned and insulted and threatened by Mohammad were his own clansmen in Mecca. He created so much havoc and animosity, the leaders went to Abu Talib (M's uncle):

"Your nephew Mohammad has cursed our gods, condemned our religion, insulted our civilization,created wars in families and denegrated our ancestors and called them liars. You have to stop him."

The same old story.

Posted by: ynkedoodl2 at March 2, 2007 6:33 PM

". . . when you are not as busy hobnobbing with america's leading intellectuals . . . " - Ali quote from RS post above

I have never met Robert, I know him through reading two of his books, several televised appearances and from reading his posts here at JW for the past 8 months.

He's basically a cheerful, helpful, and regular guy-next-door -- free of postmodern irony; sickeningly sincere, and temperamentally optimistic considering the challenging nature of the subjects he addresses.

He seems like a thoroughly working class fellow who likes to roll up his sleeves and who's probably much more comfortable working in a supermarket than a faculty lounge hobnobbing with intellectuals and mental men, hyper-intellectuals and worldly aesthetes; the cynical and ironic; the high-brow and extremely cultured. You know the ones - a bit angry and alienated. Well Robert is none of those. For better or for worse, he calls it like he sees it. Bravo!

Posted by: Malinois at March 2, 2007 6:35 PM

Ali
I, for one, am left gaga over the bit (from the earlier thread) about allowing hymen reconstruction as a sign of reform in Islam.

Are you serious? Would you care to comment further? How did this come about? What's the source of the interdiction?

Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 2, 2007 6:39 PM

Hugh,
Like many in the 1930's, a combination of youthful idealism and the global Depression pushed me toward dabbling in being a descendent of Fess Parker (he was a child at the time). I later left the party and devoted myself to good works and a quiet life.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at March 2, 2007 6:42 PM

For Ali having a site, he invests a whole deal of time cluttering up this fine site with his 15 minutes of fame in more people read his twisted thoughts today here than on his blog.

Since we are dealing with names, the Ali EteRAZ appears more faithful to razzing Mr. Spencer in violation of the respect Islam is supposed to have we are told for others.

The reason Muslims refuse to debate Mr. Spencer is because Islam is a following of low self esteem psyche and dealing with Mr. Spencer would reveal their failures from which they hide.
The reason Ali is here as stated above is he actually has someone noticing him which he craves emotionally linked once again to low self esteem.

I realize Mr. Spencer is a great teacher, but he wastes a great deal of time with perpetual bigots with psychosis when they should just be ignored and deleted.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 2, 2007 6:47 PM

godfreyofbouillon & Zenster,

Anyone notice that this Islam is peace, islam is moderate "movement" amongst muslims was non-existent until 9/11, which potentially put muslims in the crosshairs of probably the most dominant military in the history of the world?... international muslim terror predated 9/11, so again, if there was really was some sort of intellectual grounded sincere opposition to muslim terror by the ROPers, shouldn't they have been vocal inside the muslim community, speaking out and trying to teach their fellow muslims about how Islam is a religion of peace in order to stop the muslim terror?

Muslims, when pressed, generally do a certain Two-Step:

1) First they either remain silent about Islamic terrorism or they reflexively object that there is not that much Islamic terrorism to worry about.

Then we present the massive mountain of evidence that proves otherwise.

2) Then Muslims concede (contradicting their First Step), but quickly add that Islamic terrorism is "a response to geopolitical instability and corrupt local leaders caused by the incompetent and/or evil policies of the modern West".

This Two-Step dance is virtually indistinguishable from the one Leftists engage in, eerily leading one to conclude that Muslims and Leftists have been reading the same memos.

Oh, and by the way, to spare people hundreds of hours of a wasted life: Muslims and Leftists will do this dance until the cows come home.

Posted by: remote_control at March 2, 2007 6:56 PM

P.S.: A variation on the Two-Step Dance noted above is the "public condemnation of terrorism" which Muslim "leaders" routinely trot out -- condemnations which, when one reads them carefully and intelligently, contain loopholes big enough to fly two passenger jets through.

Posted by: remote_control at March 2, 2007 7:01 PM

It's amazing to me that it's so difficult for so many people to face the simple truth that Islam divides the world into believers and unbelievers and advocates war against the latter.
Now I know what psychotherapists have to go through to get their patients to face things, only this is mass psychology.
Just admit there's a problem. That's the first step. My bill is in the mail.

Posted by: jewdog at March 2, 2007 7:17 PM

I've made good on my promise to create a video:

Foehammer Presents: Refuting Islam - In its own words - Part 1

It would seem I couldn't have finished my first flash video at a more opportune moment either, judging by this post today of Robert's. We all must never shirk from hammering away at the truth and if Muslims persist in denying their own cult to all of us in hopes that we will turn into good dhimmis one day, then they are in for a sad, shocking surprise. At least here in the United States, this fight has not even begun, and education is the key to preserving our future.

In that spirit, please share that link, watch the video yourselves (it's about 17 minutes long) and leave your comments, reactions and suggestions either on my site or via my comments page. All your help is necessary to make efforts like this have impact. We want converts, not just choir members, and I'm doing what I can to wake up more people to the real conflict at hand.

I can do a much better job with input from JW readers, of course, and I have the means and the ability to refine these videos until they have a sharp point and don't miss the mark!

I plan to go through the entire Qur'an in this manner and then enter the Hadith and other Islamic writings. I will be posting a true video (avi) version of this presentation to YouTube later this weekend. That should prove very interesting.

No matter what, they will always be available on my site: http://foehammer.net

Thank you all.

Foehammer

Posted by: Foehammer at March 2, 2007 7:35 PM

Don't all gang up on Eteraz, I think he comes around from time to time and says profound things that need to be said. For example:

Islam, like Judaism, is a juridical religion. The primary sources of Islam - the Quran and Sunnah - are pulled together to create religious law (Shariah) which provides guidance to Muslims. I was faced with the stark fact that there was no such thing as a "Progressive" Muslim jurisprudence, neither in theory nor practice; nor would there ever be one.

Sounds like something Roobart would say!

Also, there is his "Muslim legislation project." which is a great idea. We should support him on this effort at least.

My opinion is that a lot of the animosity between Dr. Spencer and Ali has to do with bridges burned between Jihadwatch and Ali's friend Dean. Maybe some loyalty issues?

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at March 2, 2007 7:59 PM

The mentality of Islam in a quest to world domination is old, to say the least; but anyone can see the usage of the Internet "bloggs" in trying to persuade the unbelievers that they're right. Sorry, it won't work, and no matter how great Islam thinks it is, it'll never win over democracy. It'll never grow further then the caves of ignorance they now occupy. In fact, Islamic ignorance will eventually give way to understanding and intellectualism.

Welcome to the 21st Century !

Posted by: Jeff at March 2, 2007 8:01 PM

Bin Laden, the Saudis, the Iranian Mulahs, and the rest, looked over at the West as a sick man, ill with PC and denial and spoiled, and they decided to wage Jihad and stepped into his room and put a pillow over his face while he slept. But what they didn't count on was that some brave souls would gradually wake him up, assisting the groggy giant to catch onto the plans of the intruders and their strategies both forthright and hidden. And the intruders certainly didn't consider that their obsolete religion they brought as their weapon would be assailed and beaten about the room with the sick giant's diseases called Liberty and Free Speech, and be laid to waste in due time. Leaving the angry, awoken noble giant, a hundred times their size, to crush them.

Posted by: Abraham_Lincoln at March 2, 2007 8:05 PM

Take your time to read the full article.
Make time if you’re busy.

Read it, perhaps several times, for as long as it takes. Let it sink in. Print it out, make a few copies, distribute it and discuss it with friends. Here is somebody talking turkey, somebody making sense.

Dr. John Lewis spills the beans. He is clearly calling for what should have been done long ago. It is more than making sense. This article has everything our governments, our politicians lack: It is an action plan. The writer actually uses reason, logic and common sense on how to deal with our enemy.

Something we lack.

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/03/02/the-right-course-of-action/

'Catch the Fire-ministries' all over again: Shoot the messenger, or use the ridiculous racial vilification laws to stop the truth from coming out:

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/03/02/the-muslim-is-mandated-to-slay-the-infidels-apostate-sezwindsor-police-board-member-wants-anti-islam-lecturer-arrested/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 2, 2007 8:07 PM

addendum:

Ali's Muslim legislation Project, as I interpret it, includes Sharia, and Koranic laws which prevent the emergence of a progressive, tolerant form of Islam.

We should use the opportunity to compile legislation from Islamic countries that are derived from Sharia as written into the official statutes of their respective countries.

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at March 2, 2007 8:13 PM

Once, long ago, Americans used to elect people like Dr. John Lewis President.

Posted by: Abraham_Lincoln at March 2, 2007 8:15 PM

Jimmy,

The problem with Eteraz is that just a paragraph later he's writing:

Today, the "moderate majority" of North American Muslims flows freely through a number of popular channels, such as the website Eteraz.Org: States of Islam, which I launched, Islamica Magazine, and altmuslim.com, as well as the traditional organizations like MPAC and CAIR. Even former progressives have reconstituted themselves so that they no longer claim to speak for a Progressive version of Islam but for that other progressivism - the political one. I bolded the text.

I question anyone who thinks CAIR and MPAC are moderate. Plus, he has this nasty habit of tying any failures to the neocons. I think it is ridiculous to claim that because someone appears on Fox News, they have discredited themselves. He provides other non-neocon items, but this neocon thread runs through far too many of his postings.

Posted by: Terrahawk at March 2, 2007 8:24 PM

I don't know. I have three of Mr. Spencer's books and for the most part he is simply quoting out of the book, as are most of the murderers who are following their role model's example.

There are plenty of posters on here who come across as smug Christians with an obvious agenda, and I doubt I will be purchasing Mr. Spencer's next book, but the bottom line is that I don't read about Christians murdering and maiming men, women and children on a daily basis. All I seem to read as far as reactions by most Muslims with any clout at all is more defensive rhetoric.

You can argue until you are blue about what the text really means, but what matters to me is that a significant number of Muslims think it means to kill anyone who doesn't kow tow to their brand of ideology, which usually involves them taking over everything and ruling everyone around them.

Posted by: amana39 at March 2, 2007 8:27 PM

@amana39:

There's not much more you need to learn from this point. If you've gotten that message -- that "true Muslims" believe what the Qur'an says, and the Qur'an is no friend of the unbeliever -- you're ahead, way ahead, of the curve.

Posted by: Foehammer at March 2, 2007 8:30 PM

Ali Eteraz:

The flight was good. Thank you. I am here now but it doesn't look as if I will have the time to do this tonight. Tomorrow it is, then.

In passing, however: my post above was not about my feelings. My feelings don't matter. What matters is the more or less constant practice of those who respond to my work: to respond with abuse, rather than with substantive refutation of the points I have made. It is hard not to think that no such substantive refutation can be made.

As for you, I appreciate your kind response, but I must note that your contempt and derision were clear in your comments in the comments field on the D'Souza piece immediately below this one. Nor is this the first time you have written about me in this way: today it was scornful references to intellectuals and C-Span, as if I would consider you beneath me (when it is clearly the other way around), and here it was sneering at the fact that I have written New York Times bestsellers:

What Is NYT Best Selling Author Robert Spencer Saying Now? Ali Eteraz

Robert Spencer replies to my post from yesterday which offered an alternative legal argument for the hadith upon which the death penalty for apostasy is based. I'm glad for the discussion because some of the concerns he raised were also raised by another commentator. I respond at length on my blog.

You should read it because I am not a NYT best selling author.

That's from here: http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1163112049.shtml

Why the NYT bestselling author references? Did Dean Esmay perceive why when he immediately began compounding his vile slanders with charges that I am only in this to make a buck? As if I couldn't make a buck doing something that wouldn't get me on Al-Qaeda's hit list. And if you or Dean Esmay think that I would be saying anything different if 15 people bought my books, you are quite mistaken.

As for your abetting this "Roobart Sbunsar" business, the point is that it is not incorrect, you must have known it is not incorrect, but you knew your non-Arabic speaking audience would lap it up as evidence of what an ignoramus I am. Did you participate? Why, yes. I took your invitation to look it up, and found this:

Ali Eteraz (mail) (www): i'm starting to like robert spencer. it kind of started when he wrote his name out in arabic.

That's from here: http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1163112049.shtml#91683

In other words, "I'm starting to like Robert Spencer because he is showing what an idiot he is." Yet -- you must have known all along that there was nothing wrong with my Arabic.

Once again -- this is not about my feelings. This is about substance. You have engaged in ridicule on false pretenses as if it answered the substantive points I have made. You are not alone in doing this. I have asked repeatedly for dialogue with Muslim scholars, or any Muslims, and all I get is abuse. So what is this all about? It's this: do you really think no one sees through that? Do you really think thoughtful people are swayed by the spectacle of one party offering evidence to support various assertions, and the other party responding with abuse, lies, and contempt? Do you really think, above all, that you are building trust in the general population for your moderate Muslim enterprise, when you behave this way? Don't you realize that decent non-Muslims only get suspicious when they again and again see Muslims engaging in abuse and character assassination against people who are asking questions in good faith and being careful to document everything they say with scrupulous accuracy? Is that what you want?

That's all. I will address the substantive points you did raise tomorrow.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at March 2, 2007 8:56 PM

Robert,

Take as long as you need. You are a busy man.

As to your assertion about this comment I think you're totally wrong: "i'm starting to like robert spencer. it kind of started when he wrote his name out in arabic."

I said "I am starting to like robert spencer" - "it" [MEANING ME LIKING ROBERT SPENCER] started WHEN he wrote his NAME OUT IN ARABIC."

I hope you understand that. In other words: BECAUSE you put your name in Arabic I started LIKING you.

HOW is that character assassination? Or even abetting? I acually told the Dean's World audience that I liked you because you wrote your name in Arabic and yet you put the words Ali Eteraz and "argument by abuse" together. That is not fair, is it?

While getting all this mis communication has been good, I am looking forward to your response.

- Ali

ps - I love America. Not only that, but I have no problems with Americans talking openly about Islam. I can give examples of how welcome I have been. But for now, you and your readers can read this:

http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/03/23/open-letter-to-reformist-muslims/

Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com at March 2, 2007 9:08 PM

Dear Ali:

I have never claimed that you didn't love America.

Thanks for your explanation of your "Roobart" post (although it's interesting that you don't address the other points), but in the context of the near-constant defamation, slander, and ridicule to which I have been subjected at Esmay's site, and in light of the fact that much of it centered around my rendering of my name in Arabic, pardon me if I am skeptical. If you had even once bothered to correct Dean Esmay when he indulged in his moronic habit of calling me "Roobart" as if he had somehow thereby exposed me, I might be more inclined to believe you. But you didn't.

But here again: my feelings don't matter. I am not writing this because I am personally offended at you or Dean Esmay (although Esmay's fevered slanders and damning me to hell have not exactly endeared him to me). What matters is that defamation, slander, and ridicule are not refutations of arguments. I am by no means the only one to whom this happens. Then some Muslims in America, including those who engage in the defamation, slander, and ridicule or abet non-Muslims in doing so, profess to wonder why there is suspicion of them among non-Muslims. The reason why is staring them in the face.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at March 2, 2007 9:19 PM

Robert, I'm sorry that you have to undergo what you do. However, I don't do it so I can't really help you out. The best I can do is encourage a discourse of civility when I talk about you. Since the NYT Best Selling Author joke stings you, I'll foreswear it.

But really don't lose heart. Everyone who speaks about Islam these days gets treated like crap by one party or another. It's not right but it happens. I myself have been called a "shit weasel" by people who do not like Islam and a "sell out" and "apostate" by Muslims.

You should find out what happened to me when I was invited to the Ann Coulter Chat Forum.

http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/08/12/muslim-experience-at-ann-coulter-chat-forum/

Of course, unlike you, I'm just a regular person and I don't do lectures and such so I'm sure your experience is different than mine.

Now I'm off to see the Bourne Supremacy on TNT.

Ali

Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com at March 2, 2007 9:25 PM

"Ne osparivaj gluptsa."

Unless it is for pedagogic reasons.

Posted by: Hugh at March 2, 2007 9:34 PM

The non-arguments, the slander and the false accusations of Muhammedans are not only tiresome, they stink.

One of them (pretending to be a non-Muslim) recently attacked me over my Arab headdress, (perhaps he/she would have preferred a recent passport picture with my address in order to visit me) my paypal-link and the fact that I mention on my blog that recording costs money, a lot of money, which I wouldn't mind to recover some time.

SOS: If I had a profit motive I would do something different. As it is, I am neglecting my business, but that's okay. But if they don't engage in slander they go straight to threats...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 2, 2007 9:36 PM

Hmmm...

http://eteraz.org/story/2007/2/18/20273/4343

I've linked your new blog, Ali. I must say, as far as Muslims go, you are at least making some waves in a constructive manner, and that I can not condemn.

This is some of the only concrete proof of an attempt at any reform of Islam that I have yet come across. Perhaps that is not even your intent, but I hope it is.

Otherwise, the inevitable outcome of all of this is going to force us all to put down our pens.

Posted by: Foehammer at March 2, 2007 9:45 PM

Ali E:

"I love America."

Do you love America when every time you step outside to go to school, or go to the post office, or go to the store, etc., you see young women wearing short skirts and showing off their bare thighs and calves and feet, and possibly also blouses that show their bare bellies and too much cleavage for your sensibilities?

Posted by: remote_control at March 2, 2007 9:56 PM

“i wrote a letter to the afghan government….”
“i have started the modernist quran distribution project…”
“i've started the photography and poverty project…”
“i have publicized the work of authors…”
“i've written letters to ayatollahs…”
“i launched an anti stoning campaign…”
“i've promoted the work of authors who oppose the jihadist argument…”

What did this get you Sir? Do imams seek you out? How many thousands rally your flag? You are no match for the machine, the grinder of bones called Islam. Your efforts are dust in the wind, destined to fall in still, quiet places.

Posted by: butterfly at March 2, 2007 10:05 PM

for the most part, my project is not about interfaith yuppie love or apologetics. that might make cair happy but not me. i want to see positive change in the world, especially the muslim world. if you look at the latest essays section on our site you'll see most of them relate to muslim causes.

eteraz.wordpress.com ok, ali, l have read enough of your posts to come up to the conclusions you like so many muslims do not want reform and try to fit in the 21 st century. In all your points, you never once say there is a need for reform, you place the blame on all others but the actual cause which is islam with its books the koran and hadiths. how can you mr ali
eteraz even think you can see positive changes in the world if you cannot even see the needs for change within islam?

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 2, 2007 10:12 PM

I readily admit that I don't have 1/1000th the knowledge of Islam that RS or HF possess. So take this opinion for what you will. As far as I can see, there's one teeny, tiny obstacle to reforming Islam. And it's Mohammed himself. Reforming Islam would mean accepting people of other faiths as your equals, equality between the sexes, accepting civil authority as distinct from, and superior to (at least here on earth), religious authority, just to name three. Each of these reforms, I believe, is contradicted by the deeds and pronouncements of M. himself. And since his actions and words were based directly on revelations from allah, these reforms would also contradict allah's will. So I say, "Good luck with your efforts to reform Islam." But I don't think they'll ever take hold."

Posted by: sheik yer booty at March 2, 2007 10:28 PM

Hi Roobart, get some well-deserved rest. For what it's worth I think Ali's tone is considerably more civil than your response would suggest, though I haven't yet scanned all his stuff, so let's call this a tentative assessment. He certainly isn't cut from the same cloth as most of the apologists who've taken swipes at you in the last couple of years, and actually has some things to say about the subject matter.

What with having to deal with the bait-and-switch tactics in the D'Souza debate rules I think you're jumping at shadows. Ali's jibes may have come at the wrong time for you but I they may not be signs of dealing in bad faith. I read them as debater's banter. The remark you report about thinking D'Souza KO'd you would have been gratuitously inflammatory though not falling out of the realm of ordinary informal discourse (lockerroom chitchat) among opponents.

I look forward to your exchange with him; I hope Ali is prepared to publish the full text on his site, as you have always shown yourself willing to do.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at March 2, 2007 10:32 PM

Ali Eteraz:

Your soothing words in the comments field here contrast rather sharply with your characterizations here:

http://www.eteraz.org/story/2007/3/2/141835/4181

It's also noteworthy that I have explained to you that the point I was making was not about my feelings, but about your credibility, and yet you ignore all that and say at your site that it was about my feelings.

You also neglected to mention that I told you I would respond to your substantive points as soon as possible, and probably tomorrow, and instead simply asserted flatly that I didn't respond to your substantive points.

A question: Do you consider all this honest dealing?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at March 2, 2007 10:34 PM

my movie is in commercials.

remote: your comment about women.

im muslim, not neutered.

many muslims themselves love women in the clothes you've described. have you heard of haifa wehbe? look her up. her name gets more hits on my site than "islam." and the next time you're in morroco, specifically agadir, and tunisia stop by the nude beaches if that's your thing.

muslims are more than just the beard growing thowb wearing types who throw up at the sight of a woman. gasp, there is even gay muslims, in palestine no less. a transexual individual hosts one of pakistan's most popular tv shows. all this is reported in the nyt. there are a lot of problems in the muslim world but that doesn't mean everyone acts alike.

zena: what are you talking about? are you sure you read anything? this is from the about ali eteraz page on my old blog. read the last sentence.

http://eteraz.wordpress.com/about/

I am an avowed Humanist. Sanctity for the life and dignity of all individuals trumps affiliation with ideologies, religions, or organizations. Nevertheless, I believe as a Muslim what I do not believe as a philosopher. In my private life I am a practicing Muslim and observe the best I can with a few notable hedonistic vices. I do not like being called a ‘moderate Muslim’ and I think you should reconsider your use of that term. Reformist, Liberal, Progressive, Humanist are OK.

Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com at March 2, 2007 10:35 PM

robert,

i had already made my post before i came here and started commenting.

when i made my post, before your clarifications here in the comments i did believe that you had misrepresented me (and i have subsequently shown that whereas you thought that i thought you were an idiot, i actually was telling people that i liked you b/c you wrote in arabic).

as you can see, i have updated it at the bottom and linked to all the comments here. you may recall, i try to be very good about linking to everything. so yes, i consider it honest dealing.

you don't have to find my words "soothing." i simply wanted to clarify that i was my own person independent of esmay and aziz. as to your position on islamic law, i agree with you vehemently. im sure you'll concur that my critique of your emory post is not "soothing" to you.

i have no problems being nice and normal with people with whom i have intellectual disagreements. you're correct in extolling me to lay off the needless jibes at you. i have told you that i will do so.

however, even muslim scholars whom i've disagreed with have suffered my jibes. do you suggest that i lay off the jibes at them, too?

http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/03/21/vampires-vengeance-a-retort-to-gf-haddad/

i think we've talked enough about me. in all this time we've been commenting back and forth you could have written your post, much of which im sure you could reply to from the top of your head.

Ali

Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com at March 2, 2007 10:44 PM

Ali,

Why, yes, I do. Substantive arguments are what is needed. Not jibes.

I am going to write the post when I am more awake, tomorrow.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at March 2, 2007 10:46 PM

well folks im going out now. have a good night. see you robert.

Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com at March 2, 2007 10:47 PM

Mr. Spencer;

History will view you well. Thank you again.

Very Respectfully;

Posted by: pez at March 2, 2007 10:47 PM

“Reformist, Liberal, Progressive, Humanist” are not words I associate with Muslims. They are certainly not words I associate with the Qur’an or Muhammad. In jest, I would say they describe democrats. Are you sure you’re not a moderate?

Posted by: butterfly at March 2, 2007 10:58 PM

From eteraz-link above

I had a short-lived career on the website and was dismissed when after a few anecdotal posts I tried to suggest that in addition to Muslim violence, this world also contains examples of Christian violence...

Now here is the evidence he gives to support this so-called “Christian violence”

While I had heard of the Lord's Resistance Army in bits and fragments, I was not aware of the details until a National Geographic magazine from last year informed me that the LRA has killed (not `is responsible for') 100,000 people.

I had to laugh, Joseph Kony is anything but a devout Christian.
Is Ali educated? Because I am just a high school educated country bumpkin, and I figured out this bold face lie in like three minutes, maybe two if I hadn’t had so much beer.

Posted by: BurgerBoy at March 2, 2007 11:05 PM

Of course this is not really a debate. Robert's "opponent" spends all his time avoiding Robert's arguments rather than engaging them, as would a real debating opponent. Lot of words, lots of hot air, but no answer to the actual points raised.

If nothing else it is a good illustration of the intelllectual level of Islam - and that may well be Robert's point.

Posted by: Brett_McS at March 2, 2007 11:16 PM

Ali E.

Do you support the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights 100%, without any reservations or loopholes? Yes or no.

I don't want to see a post with more than ONE WORD: "Yes", or "No".

Posted by: remote_control at March 2, 2007 11:20 PM

Don't confuse Ali with the other's at Dean Esmay's site. I may not always agree with him, but he is someone who discusses things like an adult, so lets not act like children and spit in his face. I'm sure Mr Spencer can stick up for himself.

Ali is at least trying to do something... isn't that what this site keeps calling for? How about we let this discussion happen...

or we can act like jerks and make noone (esp the muslims robert keeps calling for) want to talk about these important issues...

Posted by: DocT at March 2, 2007 11:28 PM

Am I the only one who thinks that adding a google search box right after Hugh's posts would be a good idea?

Posted by: deesine at March 2, 2007 11:37 PM

As an Eastern Rite Catholic, Roobart's family has undoubtedly been abused by some Muslims.

On the other hand, I draw no income whatsoever from analyzing why his religion is evil and violent.

I am raising both of my sons as Roman Catholics, and may myself soon be baptized in that faith.

No one pays me to write books about the evilness of Christianity, or Catholicism, or Orthodox Christianity. I draw no income whatsoever from my criticism.

No Think Tank pays me to keep up my writings. David Horowitz--whom I have frequently defended--pays me no tribute.

I just write what I think.

By the way, people have threatened me with death, too. I just don't pretend it makes me automatically morally correct.

Does your conscience ever bother you, Roob? Or is it all just an intellectual exercise for you?

No one ever paid me a speaker's fee to say what I say.

Posted by: Dean Esmay at March 2, 2007 11:56 PM

Ali Enteraz.

Ok I have read "Problems With Jihad Watch's Op-Ed In Emory Univ. Student Paper" and even though you are smooth in promoting the idea that the Islamic legal system is similar to ours and thus it can and will change based on as you state "jurists are bound by their context; the world around them." I see a few flaws in your logic.

You equate our secular law with that of Islamic law thus a legal interpretation can be changed. You give a very good example: John C. Calhoun and his views on race. I could give better example of "Plessy vs. Ferguson" which was overturned by "Brown vs. Kansas Board of Education". From what I gather your objection to Robert Spencer using jurist who lived 600 plus years ago such as Ibn Taymiya and Ibn Khaldun is that just like our American legal examples above they can be overturned and thus are not written in stone. That is a neat attempted analogy but it does not hold water.

The reason is our legal system was based off a combination of enlightenment thinking, old English law, and some Judaic/Christian morals which came together in the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is a secular creation with some religious roots and is not perfect as you pointed out. All of our laws and jurist rulings are (or should be) based on the constitution however. That is not the case for Islamic law which must be based on the Qur'an which is viewed as perfect and unchanging by Muslims. Thus the differences are:

(1) U.S. Law is based off an imperfect document called the U.S. Constitution that can be changed

(2) Islamic law is based off a perfect book called the Quran that cannot be changed

Thus any improvement in Islamic law must somehow either ignore those passages in the Quran that are troubling or the perfect document itself must be changed. Also note that neither Judaic nor Christian (you claim Christianity has no legal system which is a debate for another time) holy books make up the finial legal framework for U.S. Law. We do not consult the bible to make a legal ruling but Islamic jurist do with the Quran.

I also disagree with another notion you make:

“So, how do we know that most Muslim people do not, and are not, listening to the edicts of jurists from 600 years ago? Well, most Muslim nations are not at war with non-Muslim nations, and where there are tensions these are not on the basis of anyone's religiosity (most are land disputes). The only "Muslim" parties today who engage in killing on the basis of someone being non-Muslim are jihadists; not the "mainstream of Islamic theology."”

This is just patently false on many fronts. Are you telling me that Pakistan is at war just over land and not religion with India? Are you telling me all the various breakaway movements are just over land in places like Thailand and Chechnya? The truth is most conflicts on this earth involve Muslims fighting somebody. I can only name a few conflict zones that Muslims are not involved in. It is clear that something is causing a Muslim in Thailand to fight and I tell you it is not American imperialism, Israel, Robert Spencer or Britney Spears. Also most of the Muslim jihadist are supported by those Muslim countries you say are not at war thus in truth the jihadist are fighting a proxy war for that nation and the nation in question is at war with some non-Muslim nation like India or Thailand.

“For the most part, jihadists are prosecuted as criminals all around the Muslim world (the Pakistani military has lost close to 2000 men in hunting Al-Qaeda), and jihadist methods and approaches are rejected by Muslims universally; not to mention giving rise to anti-jihadist fatwas.”

Somehow those words just don’t ring true to me after all the full name of Pakistan is:
“Islamic Republic of Pakistan”. Pakistan just like Saudi Arabia is not a true ally of the west. They are funding the very jihadist you claim to despise in places like Kashmir, Palestine, Lebanon, Sudan, Thailand etc.

Of course there are many other things I could go on about but it is late. The only real reforming that can occur in majority Muslim nations is the separation of mosque (thus Quran) and state and acceptance of at least some kind of enlightenment and secular law code that protects minorities from majorities. The chief document for the framework of the legal system cannot be a religious book or war will be the finial outcome with the west.

Anything short of that is not acceptable to me or most westerners because it is clear that Muslim nations are waging a war of worldwide aggression to impose their legal system on us westerners. Unless Muslim nations can be happy with the land they have now no peace can be made.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 3, 2007 12:04 AM

As utterly riveting as this back and forth between Roobart and Ali Eteraz, I thought Hugh's question to Anne Crockett was the high point of the thread.

DEAN ESMAY: "No one ever paid me a speaker's fee to say what I say."

RESPONSE: That's because you're full of shit.

Posted by: Cornelius at March 3, 2007 12:17 AM

No one ever paid me a speaker's fee to say what I say.

The free market is a rough place to live Dean. I'd advise taking on global warming.

Regards;

Posted by: pez at March 3, 2007 12:19 AM

Perhaps the poster just above could explain what it is that kept and keeps so many others at this site, whom he cannot accuse of war-profiteering (no books, no lectures) attempting, each in his own way, the same act of pedgagogy which Robert Spencer started long ago, before the events of 2001, and is hardly today making the kind of hand-over-fist money that, for example, one Dinesh D'Souza is making. Nor does one find the Foundations handing out grant money to every Brave Muslim Reformer who comes along with some scheme to do what has not been done in the past 1350 years, and cannot be done -- foundations such as the Carnegie under Vartan Gregorian -- interested in supporting either Spencer or others who offer similar, straightforward analyses of Islam.

And what does that poster think motivates those who, in some cases, are subject to death threats, or have been killed -- does he really think that Pim Fortuyn (killed) and Theo van Gogh (killed), and Geert Wilders (under a death threat, and constantly having to move from place to place) acted and thought and wrote as they did because they were "in it for the money"? Does he think that Ibn Warraq, in his outrage over the Rushdie fatwa and the willingness of so many in the Western world to see the Islamic Republic's point of view in putting out that contract on Rushdie's life, sat down and wrote "Why I Am Not a Muslim" because he was "doing it for the money"? Does he think that that Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan and Nonie Darwish, would willingly lead the lives they must, enduring all kinds of threats that some, including the poster just above, apparently regard as a big joke, perhaps even made up by the intended targets to garnder sympathy or publicity (the extent of his viciousness is scarcely to be believed) -- in order to make money? Really?

And what of Bat Ye'or, who charges nothing for her appearances, and who in fact was supported by no one except her family during her long years of research, was doing it for the money? Is Andrew Bostom, the compiler of the valuable material collected in "The Legacy of Jihad" doing it for the money -- I know he has spent large sums in paying for his own translations, and in other ways as well.

The notion that anyone would willingly endure the kinds of things one must accept if one is to write truthfully about the belief-system of Islam, write not what one would wish to be true but what all the Western scholars of Islam in the period 1860-1960, when truths could be told and no one had to worry about offending Muslims, or Muslim colleagues in academic departments, long before the Islamintern International, so well-financed and determined and relentless, had crept into positions of influence, from the U.N. to the E.U., from journslism to academic life, and has been aided by an army of Western hirelings, who as ex-diplomats, ex-intelligence agents, journalists, businessmen (with contracts dangled before them) and professors have virtually taken over very large parts of opinion-making, with the results, in energy policy (failure of), in Middle Eastern policy (failure of), and in widespread understanding of the nature of Islam, both in doctrine and practice (failure of), we all see.

There is plenty of money to be made by those who write about Islam in a certain way. Ask John Esposito, ask Yvonne Haddad, ask John Voll. Ask the boys at that other Georgetown Center, the one for "Contemporary Arab Studies." Ask the King Abdul Aziz Professor at U.S.C.,, or the Two Noble Sanctuaries Adjunct Professor of Islamic Law at Harvard Law School, or those at Durham or Exeter, in England, with those two Saudi-funded and Muslim-monitored "centers."

There's money to be made, all right. But it is not to be made by Robert Spencer or those who, either because of him, or independently, have reached certain conclusions about Islam, and are unafraid to voice them. It is, rather, to be made mostly by those who are either outright apologists for Islam, or whose message is so muted and contorted that they do not clearly state the unpleasant and disturbing truths, and so remain acceptable to some kind of mainstream that remains wilfully ignorant of Islam on purpose. To find out too much is to be unsettled, and being unsettled, to have to think about, and then arrive, at certain conclusions that most people simply don't want to have to be made to think about. So they won't begin to find out, or think about what they find out, if it promies that unsettlement, that disturbance.

Meanwhile, let us call keep firmly in mind the examples of Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Anwar Shaikh, Wafa Sultan, and others such as Magdi Allam (another commentator who is forced to live and work surrounded by bodyguards in Italy), who understand exactly, disagree not in the slightest, from what is offered at this website, and some have communicated this directly.

Posted by: Hugh at March 3, 2007 12:21 AM

Dean,

Perhaps if you had more faith in your own convictions...

Just an observation.

Foehammer

Posted by: Foehammer at March 3, 2007 12:22 AM

Dear Deannio "You're a traitor if you disagree with me!!!!" Esmay,

some things you said in your always ignorant posting:

Roobart

Robert already demolished you on this one as it is the correct way to pronounce his name in arabic; heck even Al Jazeera spells it that way, I checked. Jesus, man, don't you know that different languages have different vowel and consonant combos? For example, your name in Japanese would be pronounced "Din Esumeyu" maybe that's what we should call you from now on.

I know, it was brought to your attention by that deceitful, blood-libel spewing wretch Aziz Poonawalla and since, in his typical fashion, he never apologizes for misrepresenting the facts or libeling people you think it's still a valid insult.

On the other hand, I draw no income whatsoever from analyzing why his religion is evil and violent.

You don't get any money from your fiction either. What is your book somewhere close to 2 million on Amazon's ranking system?

No one pays me to write books about the evilness of Christianity, or Catholicism, or Orthodox Christianity. I draw no income whatsoever from my criticism.

No Think Tank pays me to keep up my writings. David Horowitz--whom I have frequently defended--pays me no tribute.

that's because you are a small-time blogger with apparent mental problems whom no one pays attention to who has delusions of grandeur while Robert is a scholar, an accomplished writer and recognized expert on Islam.

Dean, go home, you're embarrassing yourself.

Posted by: Scorpius at March 3, 2007 12:49 AM

Heh,

Matoko/shams/jinderella just said that Robert is the "intellectual peer" of UBL. I guess by her (il)logic Winston Churchill was the intellectual peer of Hitler as he was saying for years "you know those nazis and how they are all about using war so that the Aryan race will dominate, well they mean it"

Posted by: Scorpius at March 3, 2007 1:37 AM

Robert:

You definitely had a challenging day, but everything I saw looked good. Your demeanor in the face of such repeated stupidities is very impressive and as effective as can be in the circumstances.

Thanks and keep up the good work.

Posted by: JSobieski at March 3, 2007 2:00 AM

Ali-
please do yourself and us a favor: your "discussion" with Robert is so, well, let's say childish that I am looking forward to a less tiring and more substantial exchange with Robert. Just cut out the gibberish and get down to business. Refute Robert (if you can). Then again, we all know the outcome.

Posted by: Eurodhimmi at March 3, 2007 2:29 AM

No Think Tank pays me to keep up my writings. David Horowitz--whom I have frequently defended--pays me no tribute.

I just write what I think.

By the way, people have threatened me with death, too. I just don't pretend it makes me automatically morally correct.

Does your conscience ever bother you, Roob? Or is it all just an intellectual exercise for you?

No one ever paid me a speaker's fee to say what I say.
Posted by: Dean Esmay

That's because most of what you write is actually worth way less than what one pays to read it. Nor does that really make you unique - most of us have other day jobs in no way connected to Islam, and don't get anything in return for posting here. We don't get paid for slamming Islam (if only we were), and neither are we sock puppets or apologists who must find ways to triangulate islam from the activities of Jihad. And regardless of whether or not you get paid, unlike you, most of us don't have a compelling urge to sugarcoat today's (and yesterday's) Nazism, and try de-coupling that vile ideology from the identity of our enemies.

I read your memo on your blog stating that one could be on your site, or one could be an 'Islamophobe', but not both. Guess what, Benedict - that sentiment is mutual, and we don't want you here any more than you want us there. Just crawl back under that 7th century rock that you crept out off, and make sure that there are no used pebbles as you slither under. On second thoughts, don't bother checking.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 3, 2007 3:16 AM

Ali Eteraz gushed

Take as long as you need. You are a busy man [...] BECAUSE you put your name in Arabic I started LIKING you. [...] I love America.

From Tabari VII:100

Every time I opened a door, I shut it behind me from the inside, saying to myself, ‘If they become aware, they will not have time to stop me from killing him.’ When I reached Rafi, he was in a dark room with his family. As I did not know where he was in the room, I said, ‘O Abu Rafi.’ When he replied, I proceeded toward the voice and gave him a blow with my sword. He shouted and I came back, pretending to be a helper. I said, ‘O Abu,’ changing the tone of my voice. He asked me, ‘I don’t know who came to strike me with his sword.’ Then I drove my sword into his belly and pushed it forcibly till it touched the bone. I hit him again and covered him with wounds, but I could not kill him, so I thrust the point of my sword into his stomach until it came out through his back. At that, I knew that I had killed him [in front of his wife and children].

If Ali Eteraz wants to write his little blog, saying "wouldn't it be nice if...", and building his own Private Islam in the Sky, well that's simply fabulous. It may be necessary, but it is lightyears from being sufficient. It is amazingly far from what will actually be required.

Forgive me for saying so, but there is a small issue of trust, or lack thereof.

Posted by: special_guest at March 3, 2007 3:24 AM

So that's Dean Esmay? Nice post. Comes across like an infantile twit with an ego the size of Texas.

Posted by: Brett_McS at March 3, 2007 5:37 AM

Mr. Esmay:

Welcome, and thank you for providing a fresh illustration of the points I made above.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at March 3, 2007 6:53 AM

Good morning, Robert ...

Sounds like you've made some tremendously impactful comments of late. Looky, looky! Both Esmay and Ali on the board try to bash, smooth-talk, manipulate, cajole, and sleaze their way out of what you've said. And, when Anne Crockett defends you, what do they tell the little woman to do? Well, "shut up", of course.

Note to Esmay and Ali: "Repeat after me, here in the United States, that din in inquity, we let everybody speak." I know, I know, it's that tawdry decadence again where we don't properly respect our "betters". Yes, suh, massahs, we all gwina shut up nah and be good little dhummis cuz you de massahs!"

They just keep proving your points, Robert.

Glad you're home ... be well.

Cheers,
Morgaan

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 3, 2007 7:13 AM

Robert ...

I know you likely won't do this, but I think i'll ask anyway.

I'd like you to ban Esmay and Ali from the site. I think they're scrounging publicity and attention. I think they realize that if D'Souza can get a lot of face time by debating you, maybe they can, too.

If they want to write, they can do it on their own sites and in their own writings. At least they have to pay for the bandwidth over there.

Also, I think they're trying to tie up your time to shut you up.

Just thoughts. I know you are generally averse to such an action. I've only ever seen JW ban someone when they have actually slurred Muslims, which you have not done.

But just give my suggestion some thought, please. With both of them, it's a manipulation not a conversation, and I REALLY think they are trying to tie up your time.

Cheers,
Morgaan

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 3, 2007 7:21 AM

oh mr. Dean Esmay l feel sorry for your sons. They have such a loser for a father.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 3, 2007 7:41 AM

Scorpius--

Here it is:

ディーン エスメイ

Though Dean could also be "Deenu"-- most Jim`s here are "Jimu" (James Dean is rendered as you suggest -- Din)

But I think Esmay is fine as "Esumayi."

Since we are talking names and the insufficiency of various writing systems.

Posted by: tokyobk at March 3, 2007 8:21 AM

Dear Eteraz and Esmay ...

Since you're here until I can hopefully get you banned, I will now challenge you. And I do this from the point of view of having had Muslim friends for 35 years and also from being a STAUNCH supporter of moderate Muslims.

First, some really obvious things:

(1) Americans were attacked on 9/11 by radical Islamists quoting us the Qur'an.

(2) Radical Islamists, quoting the Qur'an have terrorist cells in 60 countries.

(3) Muslims quoting the Qur'an blew up a train in Spain and attacked buses and trains in London, set up massive bombs in Bangladesh, beheaded and burned civilians in Thailand, bombed a night club in Bali and burned 202 people to death, routinely carry out suicide attacks on Israelis, routinely bury IEDs while hiding behind children. Of the 16,990 civilian deaths in Iraq this year, 16,719 were the result of "insurgency" (read: terrorist) bombings of civilian market targets or "collaborators" (people who dont' want their country taken over by terrorists). The other 271 were collateral damage of American RESPONSE to those attacks or the deliberate killing of terrorists (thank you, GIs!).

(4) The general habit of Muslims, who believe THEY are superior because they believe their religion is superior, is not ever to criticize each other publicly. This does NOT hold true for brilliant Islamic theorists like Mustafa Akyol. This also does not hold true for Sheikh Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, the bravest man in Iraq, who is a Sunni tribal leader fighting the Saudi/Syrian Sunni "Insurgency" (read: terrorist war) in Iraq. However, it DOES hold true for virtually all of the Muslim "pundits" in America.

(5) My theory is that the Muslim "pundits" in America are actually (a) cowards and (b) opportunists and (3) supremacist manipulators. Why do I say that? Because America isn't the enemy of its Muslim population. It protects its Muslim population. The real enemy of Islam -- which cowardly Muslims are too spineless to right -- is the radical ulema in the United States bought and paid for by the Saudis for the 28 years. But you guys try to find a way to ex-communicate those guys or get the eight madabhib to set standards that exclude -- standards that would quite obviously exclude from the Qur'an those verses that are inimical to those of other religions, that create a Dar-al-Islam vs. a Dar-al-Harb, that are inimical to women's full rights in Islam and Islamic countries, that call for the dhimmitude or murder of non-Muslims, that incorporate desert tribalist hudud punishments (amputations and stonings) for criminal and non-criminal acts.

(6) Meanwhile, the opportunism runs on: Instead of solving these problems, American Muslism set up US Airways to try to get profiling stopped. Profiling will stop (or should stop) only when the next bomb that goes off doesn't have a Qur'anic attached to it by people you will not throw out of your religion. The British did not bring Gerry Adams to the table by strip-searching Norwegian grandmothers at the airport as an attempt to prove they were not "profiling". Of course they're profiling. And it's working, because there hasn't been a major attack in this country since 9/11.

(7) The bottom line is that it is NOT our reponsibility to listen to your endless whining that you're not being treated "good enough." It is not our responsibility to take care of your every whining alleged grievance -- which are actually GRIEVANCES THAT YOU ARE NOT BEING TREATED AS SUPERIOR BEINGS. No sale.

(8) It is a testament to the undying willingness of Americans to try to be fair that they give a hearing to this crap, but even that needs to stop. Put up or shut up. In fact, this is your SOFT TERRORISM -- the use of Americans' goodnesses and fears to try to carve out in America special privileges, a relativist subculture over which you have control above the reach of US law (in your treatment of Muslim women, for example), using US civil codes to protect the hate speech and incitement to war and violence that goes on in US mosques, and to bully the US government and US businesses into giving you special treatment that now Christian, Jew, Hindu, Jain, Confucian, Buddhist, native American Great Spiritualist, or New Age metaphysician could get. You don't want equality. You want to be BETTER THAN, which is the whole problem here.

(9) And you blew the choice. You had a choice to stand up against the terrorists and win. You could have won in a WEEK had you put 3 million Muslims on the National Mall to decry Al Qaeda and Radical Islamism. Had American Muslims done that, it would have echoed the 100,000 Iranian citizens who went into the street with candles in the night to tell Americans how sorry they were that the attacks had occurred. And these are people who are flayed to death for standing up to the mullahs in the country where the live. American Muslims could have done what Queen Rania did when she hit the streets of Amman, Jordan, in blue jeans and a sweat shirt with 80,000 Jordanians to protest the attempted chemical attack on the Jordanian capital several years ago. It so angered Al-Zarqawi that he sent attackers from Iraq to punish the Jordanian people -- Hashemite Sunnis for whom the Wahhabis have no love as they fear they will again rule Mecca and Medina (and dear God I do hope so!) -- for standing up against terrorism. But you have never followed these examples, nor the examples of the Bangladeshis who writing hilarious letters to the editor ridiculing the very people who threaten to bomb them, calling them "space aliens" for their little Wahhabi hats and their drag-the-ground Wahhabi beards, which even Azzam the American has made a valiant attempt to grow. We'll have you know that it appears he's making progress, but his brain is still melting.

So you blew it. Instead of being the brave Muslims we see standing up as they can in some of the most dangerous place in the world -- and DYING FOR IT -- you do nothing but try to manipulate the American people into backing down because "you feel insulted."

Well, get this: I don't give a damn if you feel insulted. YOU are insulting. YOUR game is insulting. The only Muslim I know who has a kid if Iraq fighting the Sunni terrorist war is Ali Alyami, the Saudi Ismaeli dissident who gets his life routinely threatened. You guys can't even stand up for fellow Muslims like Zudhi Jasser when he speaks out SOLIDLY that Islamic terrorism has to go, and says that shari'a law must NEVER replace civil law in any country. What happens when he says that. The little Wahhabi rats' nests and anthills down in Arizona treat him and his family to accusations of apostasy and blasphemy, signals in the open press that they are fair game to be murdered by Muslim radicals.

So, in whose hands was the end of Islamic terrorist -- the revitalization of interpretation that would have thrown out the hadith, ALL highly spurious "attestations" that the Prophet said this or that, highly suspect as being politically motivated (certainly the fantastic Ayesha tale made up to buttress Sunni claims over Shi'a claims for the rule of Islam) -- the revitalization of interpretation that would have relegated the hateful verses to historical context only (as Mustafa Akyol suggests) and would have reversed the weight of interpretation to favor the PURELY TRANSCENDENTAL, SPIRITUAL VERSES OF THE QUR'AN TO SOLE IMPORTANCE AND GOT RID OF THE REST.

But that's too gutsy for you guys. Then again, protecting Islam from being destroyed by the people of the Nejd (as prophesied in the Qur'an) is not your issue. Your issue is seeing how much pity you can get, how many special treatments you carve out of American culture -- this is the ego of manipulation, the game being to prove you are smarter than Americans by constantly getting them to kowtow to you and back off their criticism of the way you behave and what you preach -- AND GET ATTENTION. SO MUCH OF THIS CRAP IS ABOUT GETTING FACE TIME ON TV.

And D'Souza last manipulation is the most disgusting of all.

D'Souza is trying to placing himself upon the moral high ground by claiming American culture is decadent and that the reason we got attacked is that Al Qaeda was disgusted by our immortal behavior.

What everybody is missing is that this claim is as supremacist coming from D'Souza as any I have ever heard. Because ... D'Souza's unspoken fiat is that MUSLIMS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CREATE AN INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS POLICE FORCE AND PUNISH THOSE WHO BREAK THE "RULES" THAT ISLAM HAS SET FOR THEM. THEREFORE, ARGUES D'SOUZA, YOU AMERICANS BROUGHT THIS ON YOURSELF.

NO, YOUR PHILOSOPHY BROUGHT IT ON US, AND IT QUOTES QUR'ANIC VERSES while it beheads, burns, rapes, tortures, incarcerates, stones, and cross-amputates those Muslims and non-Muslims who do not accept the SELF-STATE AUTHORITY OF SUPREMACIST MUSLIMS TO CREATE THE RULES FOR ALL HUMANITY AND ENFORCE THEM ACROSS THE LINES OF SOVREIGN NATIONS ALL OVER THE WORLD.

You're right. I don't accept your "SELF-DECLARED AUTHORITY" DO ANY SUCH THING.

And I find D'Souza "moral superiority" ludicrous and his preaching to the choir -- AMERICAN CULTURAL MODERATES AND CONSERVATIVES ALREADY KNOW THIS, FOR HEAVEN SAKE -- spineless as per usual.

Want to compare?

Americans, due to their civil rights laws defending free speech -- which Muslims routinely use to whine about ALLEGED grievances -- are the same ones that free speech extremists use to defend porn on the internet, in the movies, and in local clubs. Half of the US Congress is trying to deal with the intricacies of protecting freedom of thought, word, and harmless deed while setting rational limits on the rest. But you don't even don't even stand up against the incitement of violence towards Christians and Jews in your own mosques.

But compare the record of America to that of Islam:

(1) Countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran stand in violation of every international human rights agreements on the treatment of women and children.

(2) Hudud punishments of amputation, stoning, beheading and sometimes burning and castration (see Saudi prisons on this) have been banned worldwide as inhumane, yet they routinely carried out by Islamic countries and pan-state terrorists.

(3) Women who are raped are stoned to death for adultery.

(4) Women who are raped must present two to four witnesses to defend themselves -- four in Iran. That is why the gang rape packs move in threes.

(5) Women in Islamic countries are subject to forced marriage to men much older, a form of slavery banned in the Qur'an. But Muslims worldwide do nothing.

(6) Women in Islamic countries are denied education, independent travel and work.

(7) Women in Islamic countries are considered property to be traded for gambling or other debts, a form of slavery.

(8) Temporary marriages allow Muslim men to use women as prostitutes without civil protection for themselves or their children.

OK, it's a partial list, but I have work to do. Others may want to complete this list!

The number of the times the word "women" is used above is an indication of how much radical Islamism is about controlling women for sex and service. Qubt and al-Banna went CRAZY that Egyptian women got rights-- based on the work of an enlightened imam doing enlightened hermeneutics on the PURELY TRANSCENDENTAL VERSES OF THE QUR'AN -- rights to vote, rights to education, rights to property and children. And then, one brave women let herself be photographed without a veil. And it was uphill from there.

Qubt was an obviously sexually neurotic man who claimed he never married because he couldn't find a woman "pure enough." Oh yeah, right. He was a very sick man. Al-banna on the other hand was a violent control freak.

Do I hear you guys railing about this violence in Islamic countries, this inhumanity, this enslave of women and children?

No, I hear you whining about whether you can have special privileges at an airport in the Midwest or whether you can set up US Airways and then sue them, shake-down style, for money and laws that make Americans ignore the IEDs Muslim terrorists set off in markets full of women and children and your crafty little shoe bombs and the bomb-belts Palestinians place as toys around the waists of Muslim toddlers in the Gaza Strip.

And why do you do this? Like Bill Clinton, "becuase I could get away with it."

While the world burns down with Muslim violence, American Muslims play dirty little manipulation games as acts of soft terrorism -- which they know they can only effect because standing behind them is a terrorist who may enforce their demands with debased violence.

American Muslim manipulation runs on the veiled threat (pun intended) that if we do as you demand -- and listen to your insufferable and utterly specious moral preaching when Muslims violence has taken moral breach down to a level unknown since the Gestapo -- there will be more violence. You preach appeasement to us and you get it to fly because when we see good people like Daniel Pearl beheaded on television, when we see a woman stoned or shot in the head for being raped, WE ARE STILL NORMAL ENOUGH TO RECOIL IN DISGUST AND EMPATHETIC PAIN. Momentarily we lose our ability to close a fist and say, "Fuck you, you despicable animals!"

And that may be a fault of ours, but know this: Not all of us have lost the ability, and America's slumber won't last forever on this one.

Meanwhile, what do our Muslim American compatriots do? They whine about their civil rights. They assert their self-proclaimed "moral supremacy." Don't make me laugh.

What is really going on with you guys is the most egregious mass act of opportunism in the history of the United States. You whine about "racial incidents" when more racial incidents occur against WASPS than any other group in America (per capita percentage), with the Jews coming a close second. As Stephen Schwartz -- Muslim -- has pointed out, anti-Muslim incidents are so far down the list as to be negligible.

You strut around campuses pretending to be victimized. You whine and bitch and piss and moan constantly, while American service people overseas try to straighten out the mess made by Islamic radicalism on the one hand and Islamic cowardice on the other.

And it's spineless yellow-bellied cowardice. And why? For the same reason human rights organizations decry American rights abuses -- which they should where they exist -- but never mention the torture and gang rapes in Saudi prisons, the torture and rape and amputations carried out in Iran, the beheadings and live burnings and breast amputations (for not wearing cover) that occurred in Muslim-on-Muslim violence in Fallujah before the US went in and cleaned out the cockroaches that had taken over the city.

Why don't they? Because when you whine to an American about your ALLEGED "disenfranchisement" Americans give you a lolly pop, put their arm around your shoulder, and try to make it all better.

When you complain to a Muslim publicly about his violence toward his own or others, he kills YOU, your family, and your friends. Or he kidnaps your daughter and rapes her.

You're cowards. And you're dirty opportunists. You're the best-educated, richest, most powerful group of Muslims in the world, and you could FORCE the ulema to deal with this problem and you will not.

Instead, when people like Zudhi Jasser, Mustafa Akyol, and others point out the problems and LAY OUT THE SOLUTIONS, they are attacked.

And those of you who claim to be the "peaceful" Muslims REALLY following Islam don't defend those guys. You do not defend Muslim women becuase you tacitly agree with the position they should keep the place desert tribalist crafted for them. And when women start talking to you on boards -- Anne Crockett comes to mind -- you tell her to shut up, but you don't say that to men on this board, do you?

YOU WILL NOT DECIDE FOR ME WHAT MODERATE ISLAM IS. YOU WILL NOT DECIDE FOR ME OR MY COUNTRY WHAT A MODERATE MUSLIM IS.

NOW THAT MUSLIMS HAVE ATTACKED US, CONTINUE TO ATTACK US, PROMISE TO ATTACK US, DEMAND THAT OTHER MUSLIMS ATTACK US, I WILL MAKE THAT DECISION FOR MYSELF, BECAUSE I MUST THE DECISION ABOUT WHAT MUSLIMS I WILL AND WILL NOT SUPPORT.

So you claims that you will do it for me fall on dear ears. D'Souza's claims that he will be the moderator of American morality BECAUSE HE IS A MUSLIM AND MUSLIMS HAVE THE RIGHT TO POLICE MORALITY FOR ALL THE WORLD falls on deaf ears over here.

FOR ME ...

A MODERATE MUSLIM IS A PERSON WHO BELIEEVES IN THE EQUALITY OF ALL HUMANITY, FOR ALL RELIGIONS, AND FOR MEN AND WOMEN AND *** STANDS UP FOR THOSE RIGHTS ***. As do, I point out, American Christians and Jews.

A MODERATE MUSLIM IS A PERSON WHO OPPOSES THE IMPOSITION OF ANY FORM OF SHARI'A LAW ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD SO LONG AS SHARI'A EMPLOYS HUDUD PUNISHMENTS AND BEARS ENMITY AGAINST THOSE NOT OF ITS RELIGION AND NOT MALE.

A MODERATE MUSLIM IS A PERSON WHO FIGHTS ISLAMIC TERRORISM OPENLY AND PUBLICLY.

A MODERATE MUSLIM IS A PERSON WHO FIGHTS TERRORIST HATE SPEECH AND INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE AND WAR IN HIS OR HER MOSQUE.

A MODERATE AMERICAN MUSLIM IS A PERSON WHO DEFENDS THE LAWS OF AMERICA IN PUBLIC AND IN PRIVATE.

Truncated list, but hey, duty calls.

To sum up here, Muslims are failing Islam and will be the reason it is destroyed. While you posture and do your little moral preaching numbers to people who frankly don't need, Islamic terrorists and mantling biological, nuclear and chemical weapons. The next time they pull a big one, my guess is that it's going to be "all she wrote." All over the world, Muslims who have a spine (that would not be you guys) are voting Islamists out of office -- with GAM prime minister elected in Aceh, with Badawi elected in Indonesia, with that dirty, lying, sleaze-bag Mahathir thrown out in Malaysia. The Iranians would do it if they could. Abdullah would get rid of the Wahhabis if he could. In Nigeria, extreme shari'a wasn't voted in, it was AMPUTATED in. Etc. Etc. Etc.

It's AMERICAN Muslims who HAVE NO SPINE AND PLAY THESE GAMES.

And what don't you like about Robert? He keeps quoting THE SAME QUR'ANIC VERSES THAT BIN LADEN DOES.

He doesn't agree with Bin Laden. What Robert is saying is that until you deal with these verses a "peaceful" Islam that IGNORES them is not enough. You have to get rid of them, becuase over and over again in your history those verses -- ON WHICH AN UN-ELECTED BIN LADEN RUNS A WAR, ON WHICH THE UN-ELECTED SALAFISTS RUN A WAR, ON WHICH THE UN-ELECTED TALEBAN RUN A WAR must be changed -- have led to war against and enslavement of all Muslims you do not agree with and all non-Muslims period.

Now, either you have the spine to deal with the REAL PROBLEM -- which is NOT alcohol in a cab in Minneapolis -- or you don't.

And so far, you don't.

That is why Robert Spencer et al. have to be the ones who do your job for you. And what do you do?

You whine that he is insulting you.

Oh, poorest possible you! Oh, poor little kids! They want another lolly pop.

No. Get off your fat, rich, spoiled American opportunist asses and get your butts overseas and solve these problems. And if you're spineless and whiny for that, at least support the Muslims who DO have the spine and stop playing games that embarrass and destroy the religion you say you love.

Grow up. And stop manipulating.

And what does Al Qaeda say when they read your next vitriolic little rant of "blasphemy" screed?

They just say, "Attaboy, Eteraz. Attaboy, Esmay."

It's not Robert who is doing Al Qaeda's work -- if he were it's unlikely that Azzam the American would have "invited" (ha!) him to convert to Islam with a copy of "The Truth about Muhammad" in his hand, don't you think?

It's YOU who are doing Al Qaeda's work, though I'd agree it's not because you necessarily want to be a terrorist. You just want to be important.

So be important. Transform Islam into TRANSCENDENTAL SPIRITUAL ISLAM. That's your job. Get about doing it.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 3, 2007 8:55 AM

All I have to say on the subject of ertraz is, this is the person who caused the schizm at Ann Coulter's site during the recent Israeli-Hamass fracas and it looks like hes trying the same thing here.

As to Esmay, pft, nothing more than a foul wind blowing. Just spray a little air-freshener and forget about him.

Rowane
الاسلام يجب ان يموت حتى يعيش العالم!

Posted by: Rowane at March 3, 2007 9:20 AM

Morgaan Sinclair, l have learned from this site, is that there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate islam. A pious Muslims can become a terrorists as it is allowed in the koran. so in effect, l understand islam has to be banned outlawed and destroyed, if We the People want to live a a free just world.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 3, 2007 9:31 AM

Rowane ...

Yup, I think Esmay and Esteraz are attacking the site and Robert specifically ... and trying to use the site to get more "AIR TIME AND FACE TIME" with the American public.

Of course, they want to shut Robert up. He exposes something they really don't want exposed and are too spineless to deal with.

It's just general guerilla warfare tactics. Try to appropriate the adversaries energy (in whatever form) and use it against him.

I've asked Robert to ban them. If enough people ask maybe JW will do it "by popular demand". I doubt it will happen, but it's worth a try.

I think they are DEFINITELY trying to absorb as much of Robert's time as they can to try to wear him down and wear him out.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 3, 2007 9:34 AM

I finally checked out Dean Esmay's site. The headline proudly proclaims that he is 'defending the liberal tradition'. Unfortunately, what he seems to be defending is contemporary liberalism, which is distinguished more by its solipsism and sanctimony than by any virtues.

Posted by: Darryl Harb at March 3, 2007 9:37 AM

ZenaWarriorPrincess ...

It's simple really. All Muslims have to do to create a peaceful Islam is FORMALLY THROW OUT all the verses by which they have not been living and CREATE a formal human rights statement that is utterly equal to be applied to all Muslims and non-Muslims. That is, of course, the formal creation of a schism.

But that's what Islam needs. It needs a REAL SCHISM.

That's going to be very, very difficult.

But short of that coming, moderate Muslims can openly decry violence, apartheid, subjugation of women, hudud punishments, suicide bombings, beheadings, burnings, amputations. You know, the stock in trade of radical Islam.

If they don't do that, I don't call them moderates.

Because SILENCE GIVES CONSENT.

So what real moderates need to do is FORMALLY and OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGE that they will not practice according to violent and subjugative hadith and Medinan verses, will not tolerate hate-preaching in the mosque, etc.

Otherwise, they can jabber to hear the sounds of their own voices as much as they like, but they're abetting the violence, because ...

SILENCE GIVES CONSENT.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 3, 2007 9:44 AM

So what real moderates need to do is FORMALLY and OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGE that they will not practice according to violent and subjugative hadith and Medinan verses, will not tolerate hate-preaching in the mosque, etc.

Morgane l agree with you a hundred percent, but most so called "moderate muslims cannot even acknowledge that is even one violent passage without babbling that you are taking it out of context, or "cherry picking". l am putting together a reply to the local paper where a so called moderate muslims scored a Baptist preacher locally for allowing an ex Muslim to speak up against the violence perpetuated by the koran. It seems these so called "moderate muslims" are either so brain washed into thinking that the koran really preaches peace, and or they are doing the typical double speak.
another point these so called "moderate muslims" like to point are similiarities in the Bible towards violence and then say the Koran is not that violent after all. But as l heard enough over the time, the proof is in the pudding. Look at all the muslim countries, they are basket cases, no human rights to speak of, women rights are downright degraded. Your right to accuse thess
highly educated Ameri. muslims of cowardice, they cannot compare to Muslims fighting for human rights in muslim countries such as in iraq. so in the end, islam has got to go.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 3, 2007 9:55 AM

Zena ...

If the Muslims in your area are assaulting the preacher -- and his MUSLIM GUEST -- they are not moderates. But then the only country other than Saudi Arabia that has a Wahhabi Muslim majority is the United States. Even Qatar backed off Wahhabism as their state religion because of the violence associated with it -- most Hanbalis disclaim Wahhabism as part of their general sect, and they are the most conservative.

But not the American Muslims ....... nooooooooooo! They attack every Muslim in their midst that speaks out against violence ... usually with public accusations of blasphemy and apostasy that can get them and their families killed.

That's not moderate Islam you're dealing with.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 3, 2007 10:00 AM

Mr. Spencer,

I absolutely agree with M. Sinclair.

That pathetic-duo does exactly what Moslems do when cornered in a discussion; if they can’t send someone to cut your throat, as their ogre-prophet liked to do to his critics, they will sabotage the discussion by either slander, derision, lies, or tantrums.
If that, too, is exposed exactly as “slander, derision, lies, or tantrums” they will try to tie up your time to shut you up. Islam can’t endure truth just as Dracula could not stand sun-light. Truth kills Islam.

Really, Mr. Spencer, don’t you think you have paid much too much attention to these two punks?

I see that one of them presents himself as a soon-to-be Christian - he even rants about raising his children in the catholic faith. So bloody what? As far as Catholics are concerned he may just as well go ahead and change his sex. Who cares? How does it add honour to his vomit?

Mr. Ali avers that he "loves America". Oh really? What is next? Will he one day make it public that the feeling is mutual?!

I suggest that Mr. Spencer ignores the punk until he does just that.

Posted by: thomas. h at March 3, 2007 10:26 AM

Morgaan Sinclair said

I'd like you to ban Esmay and Ali from the site.

If memory serves, you started out as a blogger at Esmay's site, who learned of JW through Esmay, and you were a fierce critic of Robert and JW...until you found out who he really was, and what JW actually says. If you can now write long and excellent postings as you did above, then perhaps other Esmay and Eteraz readers will become curious about Robert and JW and come here to find out for themselves, too. That would be a good thing.

I don't see any need to ban them; they haven't used x-rated language, or advocated genocide. They may make fools of themselves, but they're not the only ones (myself included). I think they act as excellent examples of the best and brightest and most moderate adherents that Islam and its apologists can provide. Of course they are trying to capitalize on JW's large readership. But I seriously doubt that many would be swayed by their arguments. If so, that's fine too; the response should not be to ban their ideas, the response should be another persuasive article by Robert or Hugh. When I read Esmay and Eteraz' writings, it only makes me more sure that Robert and Hugh are right, it convinces me more that this jihad cannot and will not be ended through open and honest dialogue or compromise.

I don't see any need to ban them, but I'd be happy with a few less articles devoted to them. But they are good icons of a certain mindset, and they do have an audience, so what the hey.

Posted by: special_guest at March 3, 2007 12:28 PM

"Ali Eteraz" is but a troll.

Posted by: anonymous at March 3, 2007 1:43 PM

special_guest said

When I read Esmay and Eteraz' writings, it only makes me more sure that Robert and Hugh are right, it convinces me more that this jihad cannot and will not be ended through open and honest dialogue or compromise.

For the record, I did not mean that Robert and/or Hugh said or think that "the jihad cannot and will not be ended through compromise", that is my opinion, not theirs. My opinion is based on what Robert and Hugh said, and watching how Muslims and their apologists like Esmay and Ali respond, and by reading the Qur'an and the hadiths myself.

Posted by: special_guest at March 3, 2007 3:35 PM

"Dr. John Lewis spills the beans. He is clearly calling for what should have been done long ago. It is more than making sense. This article has everything our governments, our politicians lack: It is an action plan. The writer actually uses reason, logic and common sense on how to deal with our enemy."

sheik yer'mami, it pleases me no end to see you extol in such glowing terms Dr. Lewis' recent article. It is simply one of the most cogent and concisely written pieces regarding America's priorities with respect to the MME (Muslim Middle East).

For those of you who have yet to read this superlative essay, here it the URL:

“No Substitute for Victory” — The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism
John Lewis

(Link: www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp )

Lewis' arguments are factually based, logically sound and backed with well-documented historical examples. For anyone who is concerned about the deterioration of both regional stability in the MME and its implications for global security, this one article makes crystal clear the measures required.

I am obliged to Madduck for having directed my attention to this particular work. Dr. Lewis also has compiled a superior chronology of Islamic terrorist attacks at this URL:

(Link: www.classicalideals.com/chronology.htm )

"the jihad cannot and will not be ended through compromise"

I doubt you are the only who thinks that, special_guest.

Posted by: Zenster at March 3, 2007 8:20 PM

I've read many of Ali's posts and I don't think he is as humanist, liberal, or progressive and he portrays himself to be. Perhaps I'm wrong.

The real question is this: "Why would anyone knowledgeable of Muhammad's crimes and bizarre statements follow such an evil man?"

www.answering-islam.org

Posted by: silas333 at March 3, 2007 10:39 PM

I am raising both of my sons as Roman Catholics, and may myself soon be baptized in that faith.

Why? I have read your columns about Christianity, I thought you hated Christianity.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 3, 2007 11:34 PM

Does your conscience ever bother you, Roob? Or is it all just an intellectual exercise for you?

For telling the truth?

Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 3, 2007 11:36 PM

Eteraz and Esmay:

You guys make me think back to my days as a young lawyer. I was so impressed with those big names down at the courthouse, that I hardly slept for three days before a trial against one of them. Frightened to the point of nausea.

But my case was better than his. I had the facts on my side. I whipped the pants off of him, and his client left the courtroom in tears. I got everything I asked for.

And it was so simple. I had to ask myself about my opponent: Is that all there is?? Since then I have often found that those big names are nothing but hot air and good publicity. Most of them are intellectual lightweights.

SO NOW I HAVE SEEN THE GREAT ETERAZ AND THE GREAT ESMAY.

Is that all there is?

You guys are a waste of time. Both of you are intellectual lightweights, and, as Morgann Sinclair and others point out above, you are also cowards.

Moral cowards. Your "efforts" are nothing but crap. Your arguments are high-school level, or worse. Frankly, I'd like to see a good lawyer get your expert asses on the witness stand and make sausage out of you.

Hell, I'd like to do it myself. Maybe someday I'll have the chance.

Both of you are conceited little pseudo-intellectuals. Neither one of you can answer Robert's simple questions. That's why your expertise will evaporate, along with your over-blown reputations, with about fifteen minutes of well-planned cross-examination.

If either of you is ever going to be put in that position, let me know. I would like to attend.

Because, well, that's all there is to you.

Posted by: texan at March 4, 2007 1:55 AM