| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Robert Spencer of 1984 says, Not so fast, Umar
The Muslim American Society has declared victory in a piece by Umar Lee that characterizes Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week as a "week of incitement." That's a neatly deceptive label for an efforts that features a series of speakers and programs designed to draw attention to the deprivation under Sharia of the human rights of women, religious minorities, and homosexuals, and even Muslims whom the jihadists deem to be insufficiently orthodox.
We have thus focused on the Left's pet causes and thereby exposed its hypocrisy. All that Leftists and their allies have done in response -- and all they apparently can do -- is attack us personally and attribute to us, without a shred of evidence, all sorts of sinister motives and intentions, while simultaneously claiming that no one is paying attention to us anyway. Umar Lee is a case in point: he has never hesitated to engage in the most vile defamation of me and others, and appears incapable of holding a civil, rational discussion with those with whom he disagrees or arguing his case solely on its merits. His new MAS piece is more of the same. He wants his hapless readers to believe that we're engaging in incitement -- thus diverting their attention away from the fact that we're calling attention to oppression, and he is by his opposition to us aiding and abetting that oppression. He combines this with a bit of chest-thumping:
As the week of incitement began one of the biggest critics of Islam, Robert Spencer, gave a speech at DePaul University in Chicago and was greeted by more people in opposition to his message than supporters and from the reports that I am getting on most campuses turnout is very light for these events and in many cases those coming out to counter the event are outnumbering those in support of it.
Maybe so. But Lee may be premature in declaring victory. When I myself was in college, I held views very different from those I hold now. I would have opposed Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, had such an event existed. But the force of events and continued study over the years led me to change my views.
Most of all, however, I believe Umar Lee's crowing is premature for one primary reason: we are telling the truth, and he and his cohorts aren't. Monday night at DePaul a questioner referred to my invoking Sahih Muslim 4294, the hadith in which Muhammad tells his followers to offer unbelievers conversion, subjugation, or war. Then he asked, "What qualifies you to speak about the contents of Islamic texts?" I answered, "I can read."
And so can a lot of other people -- unfortunately for Umar Lee.
UPDATE: Several people have notified me that the MAS has pulled this article. What's the matter, Umar? Too many people able to read?
Posted by Robert at October 24, 2007 7:42 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Way back then, Robert talked with Jimmy the dhimmi about something he recently characterized as "embarrassing". I've wondered ever since what it might be.
Care to share oh fearless leader?
Posted by: Cornelius![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 24, 2007 8:00 AM
Cornelius
No.
Suffice it to say that it was a conversation marked by my expression of views that I no longer hold, and discarded, actually, quite soon after this meeting.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at October 24, 2007 8:09 AM
--Monday night at DePaul a questioner referred to my invoking Sahih Muslim 4294, the hadith in which Muhammad tells his followers to offer unbelievers conversion, subjugation, or war. Then he asked, "What qualifies you to speak about the contents of Islamic texts?" I answered, "I can read."
Probably the one thing Islamists hate most about us infidels - our ability to read, learn, understand, and reason. No doubt, this is one reason radical muslims try to keep women uneducated. They can't question what they don't know.
at October 24, 2007 8:09 AM
Robert:
Did the meeting contribute to the change in views?
Posted by: JSobieski at October 24, 2007 8:13 AM
"Probably the one thing Islamists hate most about us infidels - our ability to read, learn, understand, and reason. No doubt, this is one reason radical muslims try to keep women uneducated. They can't question what they don't know."
Probably one of the truest statements I've heard in a long time!
at October 24, 2007 8:26 AM
JSobieski,
Not really, but at the time of the meeting the change had already begun.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at October 24, 2007 8:30 AM
Mr. Spencer,
I suspect that some of us are going to be suitably irritated if your trial under some bogust 'hate speech' law ends up displacing the Scopes Monkey trial in the annals of history. :-)
We have one tremendous advantage on our side that the jihadists do not - the human reason inherent in all human beings that Islam tries so desperately to crush.
yours Sincerely,
Fanusi Khiyal
Posted by: Fanusi Khiyal at October 24, 2007 8:31 AM
Umar's bravado comes through in his writing more often than not. He also stated that the "prayers of the believers" were answered by the recent HLF mistrial, whatever that means.
He can downplay this week's event all he wants. It doesn't however, make it true simply because he says so.
Just look at the traffic at his site as compared to JW. Apparently, inspite of Umar's protests, some appear to be paying attention here.
Posted by: awake at October 24, 2007 8:39 AM
Off subject some, but:
I'm discouraged that my local (suburban Philadelphia) paper has carried nothing about the Week even though I clued them into it.
However, was thrilled to see a photo of First Lady Laura Bush sans veil in a photo from Saudi Arabia at a breast cancer clinic. The other two women (I guess, who can tell?) were in full black burqa. Of course we all remember Lady Pelosi in veil visiting with our enemies not so long ago.
Keep uo the great work!
Posted by: mary at October 24, 2007 8:49 AM
Isn't it ironic that Dhimmi Carter accuses Israel of "apartheid". Meanwhile Laura Bush is touring the Saudi-gas-station where human rights (especially-non-Arab-rights and non-believer rights) are routinely violated. The racial and ethnic apartheid of "guest workers" in Saudi Arabia and their exploitation is an open secret that Amnesty International has attempted to bring to worldwide attention. I guess in each case gas is more valuable than truth.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071024/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_laura_bush_4
Posted by: Frank at October 24, 2007 9:08 AM
This umar lee makes the bogus argument that one of the main reason for these anti islamo fascism events is to support the current actions in Iraq. Well I would like to tell this moron that it hasn't convinced me that whatever we are doing there right now is for the good. I don't see much support for the current actions on thios site nor with Robert Spencer. For me the war ended with the capture of Saddam. The rest is our attempts at making the shias and Sunnis somehow love each other. They have been at each other's throats for centuries but somehow bushie wants them to hold hands and sing kambhya. And this al Qaeda is not a finite number of extremists. Their recruits come from ordinary young Muslims who are just following Islam.
Our only goal in Iraq should have been to eliminate saddam as leader. Not to rid Iraq of the secular Baath party and the whole secular government.
at October 24, 2007 9:09 AM
I can read too. And my reading started here. After the Danish cartoon brouhaha. I was looking for a site where I could view them, wondering how on earth mere cartoons could cause such tumult, and was lead here. And I've been coming here ever since. What an education I've received. Many thanks to Robert, Hugh, Greg and Marisol. My eyes are wide open now.
Posted by: j_not_a at October 24, 2007 9:10 AM
Keep in mind you're not dealing with rational people, Robert.
Appeals to reason and common sense are like pissing in the wind...
*
Turkey is a lost cause
* Victor Davis Hanson still has hope. But its time for contingency plans:
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/10/24/turkey-is-a-lost-cause/
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 24, 2007 9:14 AM
Keep in mind you're not dealing with rational people, Robert.-sheik
You bet. It's creepy. This guy Robert has to have a cast-iron gut to deal with this crap. Only someone who has a personal obligation (maybe one of his ancestors in Turkey were killed or injured by these nuts) would stay the course so bravely.
You are so right, Sheik-they are not rational.
Posted by: Frank at October 24, 2007 9:20 AM
"I can read."
Robert, that's a beautiful and pithy summation.
To cut throught the deceptive and flowery bullcrap.
How often does one have to say: read the koran yourself and recognize it for what it is.
Posted by: dgene at October 24, 2007 9:27 AM
OMG that picture is just mind bottling .
Drinks on the house!
at October 24, 2007 9:40 AM
Ya, Robert, I guess you must have had different views in college...for the picture is proof that you were further left than Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: angryeagle at October 24, 2007 10:03 AM
Kudos Mr. Spencer.
"I can read."
is Jeffersonian in its acuity.
Calling on the students to trust their own intellects, instead of allowing some phony appeal to authority, is essential in this fight for the preservation of our Civilization.
One where we are all equal in inherent rights and freedoms.
Which begin with:
"I can read."
Posted by: profitsbeard at October 24, 2007 10:14 AM
"I can read." --Robert Spencer
Great! LOL! Yes, it never ceases to amaze me how the Mohammedans think we can't read, and then draw conclusions from what we've read!
Their grandiosity is of pathological proportions.
Posted by: darcy at October 24, 2007 11:31 AM
"Ya, Robert, I guess you must have had different views in college...for the picture is proof that you were further left than Jimmy Carter."
What the heck is that supposed to mean?
Posted by: Foehammer at October 24, 2007 11:44 AM
The Randall Todd Royer apologist, Umar "rope-a-dope" Lee, is really reaching here. It is not his detractors that he hopes can't read (or more importantly perform due diligence) but his illiterate fans.
I really wish the debate between Lee and yourself would've worked out on the local St. Louis radio station a while back. Of course he would've avoided staying on point in order to sound like he was in control but the St. Louis audience to 97.1 is not that gullible a crowd.
I also find it interesting that he lists "Narnia" as a favorite book on his webpage. Another sign of his laziness to interpret what he wants, how he wants rather than pursue the truth.
-XRDC
Posted by: XRDC at October 24, 2007 12:40 PM
"What the heck is that supposed to mean?"
Look at the photo at the top of the post.
He is standing far to Jimmah's left.
Heh.
Posted by: Kristopher at October 24, 2007 12:45 PM
"....I answered, "I can read."
Apparently Umar Lee cannot.
at October 24, 2007 1:03 PM
Mohammads, 'Umar' was a brute. As were the rest of his companions. Reading between the lines of a few Hadith, I get the impression that Mohammad was afraid of Umar. Gave him whatever he wanted. That may be because Umar was 'on to' Mohammad, and just went along for the benefits.
I don't suppose that Umar Lee had any choice in his name, but to be named after a murderous brute, only happens in Islam, where many muslims are named after murderous brutes...I don't know that Umar Lee is a murderous brute, but he is every bit as nasty, his murders are called 'character assassinations'. The weapon of choice...deliberate lies.
There are a lot of 'Umars' running around, some are American leftists. A new name for the Islamic supporting left...Umararians...the supporters of outright lies, prevarications, untruths, and dishonesty. The real Umar would be proud...
at October 24, 2007 1:38 PM
To me, the best part of the response, "I can read" is that it appeals to traditional academic freedom. Sadly, academic freedom these days gets a bad wrap because Leftists misuse it but I've taught at two US universities [physics specifically]. Academic freedom really means freedom of enquiry referring to research; in other words the freedom to genuinely question and investigate anything openly and fairly. If one's conclusions are not supported by the evidence, the idea is that colleagues will pull one back to reality by asking questions. Sadly, this no longer happens in disciplines where politics is allowed to take over. For undergraduates, academic freedom filters down in that a university instructor's job is to teach students how to think, not what to think. Again sadly this is is also no longer the case in many departments. Yet, in theory that ideal remains. Thus, the implicit message "Read for yourself and think about what you read for yourself," will be powerful with anyone who holds up that ideal.
Posted by: MosheC at October 24, 2007 1:55 PM
duh_swami,
Umar Lee is a convert, err, or revert. His Muslim name was chosen, not given.
Posted by: awake at October 24, 2007 1:59 PM
ROBERT: "Suffice it to say that it was a conversation marked by my expression of views that I no longer hold, and discarded, actually, quite soon after this meeting."
RESPONSE: That's fair Robert.
If I were a betting man, judging by the year, I'd wager the conversation was about the Cold War.
Wanted to congratulate you on the fine speech given at Brussels. Listened to it in its entirety last night. It was you at your extemporaneous best....(the battle with the mic was both irritating and hilarious).
Posted by: Cornelius at October 24, 2007 2:03 PM
The Muslim American Society has declared victory in a piece by Umar Lee that characterizes Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week as a "week of incitement."
The link "a piece by Umar Lee" come up;
Article #4478 not found in the database.
What's up with that?
Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA at October 24, 2007 2:51 PM
Robert:
I believe the more appropriate term is "scrutinize":
as in "too many people able to scrutinize"
...because when the public does, they reach a far different conclusion than umar lee would like.
lol
at October 24, 2007 7:05 PM
"When I myself was in college, I held views very different from those I hold now. I would have opposed Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, had such an event existed. But the force of events and continued study over the years led me to change my views."
I can completely understand this, Robert. Even a year ago I would've thought all of this was crazy or a lie. I thought Allah = God and that Islam = Religion of Peace (that's what we are constantly told, right?) and that the terrorists were all extremists.
Then I started reading the Quran early this year (from the USC MSA web site). I started with chapter 4 since it is the chapter on women (somewhat) and I am very much concerned about women's rights. It didn't take me long to have my first WTF moment ... 4:3. It is ideal for a man to have 2-4 wives, but he is allowed to only have 1 if he can't treat 2+ "justly" (4:34 taught me what that was). Of course, 4:24 allows for sex slaves in addition to 2-4 wives.
Doing some simple math (I can do that as well as read) shows the Muslim male population is, ideally, 33.3% to 20%. The only rationale I've been able to come up with thus far to explain how the ideal Muslim male population can be so far removed from ~50% is that the Muslim male population will be thinned out by warfare plus the accumulation of infidel women as war booty.
Reading even more in the Quran and Hadith uncovers further nightmares. I'm still a social liberal, but not nearly as naive now as I used to be. For those here that like to "admonish" the left, I understand your frustration, but it might be more productive to use an issue your left-leaning friends find dear, such as women's rights, gay rights, human rights, freedom, etc, and get them to read the cancer in the Quran that aims to destroy these values.
I now know the terrorists are the pious Muslims. The moderate/peaceful Muslims are the radicals. There is no God in Islam. Allah destroys what God creates.
Mary/etc, here is the picture of Laura Bush with the breast cancer survivors:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44190000/jpg/_44190722_416_2abudhabi_afp.jpg
[Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7056351.stm with caption "US First Lady Laura Bush joins breast cancer survivors at the Pink Majlis in Abu Dhabi as part of a week-long tour of the Middle East to raise awareness of breast cancer."]
I just have to wonder if those ladies smiled for the camera ...
at October 24, 2007 7:44 PM
Never mind wondering if those ladies smiled for the camera ..I'm wondering why even have a picture taken at all..
.
Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA at October 25, 2007 1:58 AM
Don't those morons realize that (hey, they're obsessed with PR so this applies), putting a rag over a womans face here in the west is considered as insulting as putting a BAG over a womans face???
I mean...I know of male chauvanists that wouldn't even do THAT!...if durkadurkaland is trying to score PR points, they actually attained the opposite.
Posted by: jcom972 at October 25, 2007 9:04 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)