I don't think Koogler understands the meaning of the word "inherent" as in his own statement: "Citing harshly-worded parts of the Quran to suggest that Islam is inherently a religion of violence and oppression..."

Koogler also charges that Robert "used his appearance here at Brown to sharpen divisions and to perpetuate false and destructive stereotypes."

How could something be "false" and a "stereotype" if it is clearly written in the Quran that it is okay to stone women to death and to subjugate them and to slay non-believers? These beliefs are surely inherent in Islam.

Posted by: Rafa at November 1, 2007 12:06 PM

Yeah. Have you seen what the Bunglawala has on his blog?

"A recent weeklong campaign undertaken by anti-Arab, anti-Muslim racist David Horowitz in university campuses across the US was designed to intimidate and terrorize students and professors who do not share Mr. Horowitz's views when it comes to Israel....

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/islamophobia_and_self_hating_arabs/0014906

"Among those recruited to participate in Mr. Horowitz's hatred campaign is an Arab and former Muslim woman, named Nonie Darwish. Darwish is an Egyptian who is going around the country defending Israel's right to occupy Arab lands and kill Arabs. She is also speaking against Arab and Muslim Americans accusing them of supporting terrorism.

"As if it's not enough for Arab Americans and Muslims in this country to deal with bigots, racists and extremist pro-Israeli militants, they now have to deal with Nonie Darwish, who joins the racist cacophony in order to blemish the faith and culture of Arabs by falsely claiming Arabs and Muslims in America are about to or desire to 'declare war' on America."

These *%#@* live in lala-land. They are creating a reality of thir own. Unreal....

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 1, 2007 12:19 PM

"I strongly resent your condescending...."

I worry about the depth of your skin.

The kid is probably looking to understand what is and is not true. A positive or disinterested attitude about someone's phrasing is better than taking offense.

"I agree with you that we should strive to have a civil discourse...."

Posted by: StillBreathing at November 1, 2007 12:28 PM

"Does the use of Christian Scripture for bad purposes in the past free peaceful Muslims from any obligation to confront the use of Islamic Scripture for bad purposes today? Apparently, in his mind, it does. I respectfully disagree."

My argument is simply this: if you were on trial for murder, would saying "Well, Hitler killed millions!" make you suddenly innocent? The answer should obviously be NO!

So everytime someone brings up the misdeeds of other religions or violent passages in the Bible (and it happens *without fail* when discussing Islamo-fascism), I simply make like a lawyer and ask:

Relevance? How does that matter to what Islamo-Fascists are doing right now?

Posted by: Mo Foe at November 1, 2007 12:30 PM

StillBreathing:

Context is everything. We have been raked over the coals at Brown and elsewhere as racists, bigots, hatemongers, etc. Our message has been misrepresented, and we have been personally smeared. And then this guy comes along and piously asks me to refrain from personal attacks.

Thin-skinned? All right. Guilty as charged. But he has probably never been called out on his patent hypocrisy, and it needs to be done.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at November 1, 2007 12:31 PM

If I may do some editing:

"As if it's not enough for Americans and Christians in this country to deal with liars, name-callers and extremist pro-jihad abettors, they now have to deal with Inayat Bunglawala, who joins the lying cacophony of wannabe Quislings in order to tarnish the reputation and lie about the speeches of Robert Spencer and others by falsely claiming that they are racists and Muslim haters."

There.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 1, 2007 12:37 PM

Sorry if I was a bit snarky. The condescending tone of the Brown blogger was annoying. This was my comment in response to his oh-so-typical invocation of the Bible. Which, I hate to admit, I've still only mostly read. The Quran OTOH... If you want my attention you're going to have to threaten to kill me apparently.

Anyway, in case he deletes it:

-----
"Few would disagree, for instance, that the Bible contains many of the same intolerant elements that the Quran does."

Except those who have read both. Those people would recognize a typical appeal to popular misconception when they hear it. Violence in the Quran is normative. In the Bible it's nearly always descriptive or something which was ignored from the beginning.

I notice you simply don't bother listing any of the direct calls for violence in the Quran, like 2.191 et seq, 3.151, 8.012, 8.060, 9.005, 9.029, 9.111, 47.004 and so on, and so on. Not trying to be comprehensive, just hitting a few high points. Actually comparing would require critical thinking and would undo your preconceived conclusion.

Normally when comparing two things, people who pretend to be academic give examples from both sides.
-----

Posted by: Beagle at November 1, 2007 12:46 PM

Robert Spencer writes:
"Thin-skinned? All right. Guilty as charged. But he has probably never been called out on his patent hypocrisy, and it needs to be done."

You're a paragon of equanimity. Don't let these
bastards wear you down.

Posted by: root_cause at November 1, 2007 1:00 PM

These people cannot digest written or enacted instruction from the Koran, nor see how it is all applied in the Muslim world, therefore, they can only 'make up' and publish what they 'wished' Spencer had said, rather than what he said.

Typical tactic of a leftoid.

Posted by: sounder at November 1, 2007 1:11 PM

I have never studied the Protestant Reformation as I have other historical events. A study of how Christianity has thrown off those insane teachings of Paul about women and passages by others about not associating with non-believers might be applicable to Islam so that Muslims can throw off the parts of the Quran that inspire jihad and intolerance.

Second John 1:10 is about not associating with non-believers; Timothy says that Christians should shun them. The New Testament does not actually endorse slavery, but it does not have anything that says it is wrong either. No Christian that I know harbors any of those beliefs.

If Christians can change their religious interpretations, Muslims can change theirs, assuming they want to. If they cannot change, maybe we will have to change things for them.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 1, 2007 1:18 PM

Mr. Spencer,

I am an Orthodox Jewish Zionist, and I also opposed Horowitz's week of action. It is not because of anything that was said. Of course, I am for ending Moslem oppression of women, blacks, Arabs. I am for human rights worldwide!

The problem is not that you drew attention to these issues. The problem is that, as far as I can tell, none of the speakers last week have actually done ANYTHING for human rights. If you are so concerned for the rights of Moslem women, why don't you collect funds for a women's school in Tehran? If you are so concerned about Moslem oppression, why aren't you using your prominent voice to support petitions to free political prisoners?

The most offensive part of this week is not you and Horowitz said, but what you didn't say. On Horowitz's website, he says that Jihad's immediate objective is the destruction of America. He also says that violent oppression of women is sanctioned in Sharia. But elsewhere, he states that "Islamofascists" support such things. This gives the lie to your claims of supporting "moderate" Moslems. If, by your logic, our "Islamofascist" enemies favor oppression and hate America, and if their actions are backed by Sharia and Jihad--embraced by all Moslems, many of whom will passionately disagree with your assessment--then which "moderate" Moslems are you supporting?

I am not sure how you will answer these questions. All I know is that my Moslem friends felt beseiged last week, and that even my secular Moslem friend from Turkey was distressed by your "Anti-Islamofascism". What would you have me tell her?

I'm eager for your response.

Shlomo

Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at November 1, 2007 1:22 PM

Why is it that these college educated "geniuses" appear to be utterly incapable of carefully reasoned analysis and critical, intellectually honest thinking?? And their parents are paying HOW MUCH?$?$
to have their spoiled rotten arrogant little brats
"educated"/brainwashed by Marxist imbecile college professors?

Posted by: One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left at November 1, 2007 1:25 PM

I responded to his post here

Posted by: Don Singleton at November 1, 2007 1:32 PM

Shlomo, I advise you that your beseiged and distressed Moslem friends are the ones that need to do what you have so haughtily told Spencer and others that they must do. If we non-Muslims have to fix their problem, it will get very, very ugly.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 1, 2007 1:38 PM

Mr. Koogler:

It really makes absolutely NO difference what anyone has to say about Islam! Not at all.

The facts remain the facts and are irrefutable indicators of the actual nature of Islam. Islam's links to terrorism are no one's OPINION. Islam's link to what we perceive as "terrorism" is FACTUAL. And yes--We CAN choose to ignore them! We can pretend that it is moral to do so. But is it REALLY?

PLEASE look at the facts of Islamic terrorism worldwide. Over 9800 lethal terrorism attacks in a mere 6 years, with tens of thousands dead across the globe; many thousands of others maimed for life and children left homeless. Economies ruined with millions forced into unemployment.

Look at the Kuran's teachings, Surah 9.5: "And when the forbidden months have passed, slay the unbelievers everywhere they are found; besiege them, capture them, torture them, prepare every stragem of war against them; levy the tax upon their convserion to the ways of allah." Doesn't the "slay the unbelievers" passage sound like first degree murder to you? If not, what WOULD you call it??

Look at the Islamic-perpetrated wars against non-Muslims being perpetrated throughout the African continent: 3 million dead in Sudan since 1983. Look at Algeria's war against its own 'moderate' Muslims since the 1990s more than 150,000 massacred. Look at Lebanon, where Palestinian, Iranian, and Syrian terrorism squads have slaughtered over 100,000 Maronite Christians.

Look at the oppression of women in Islamic societies. Look at the stonings, beheadings, etc. Why does this continue year after year in Islamic lands?

Look at the history of Islam: over 270 million murders worldwide since the seventh century AD (that we know of; doubtless there are many more).
Look at the destruction of Asia Minor's civilization by the Islamic armies of the Turks. Look at the hundreds of thousands of Greek and Armenian civilians brutally slaughtered at Smyrna in 1922. Look at the destruction of Persia, Hindustan, Syria, Egypt, and Nubia or the Gypsies' homeland in the Himalayas. Look at Arab collusion int he slave trade--which unlike the west, still continues to this day ("human trafficking", as it is referred to now).

During the twentieth century, over 50 million Christians were massacred in pogroms in Islamic nations. In 1948, over 750,000 Jews were forced to leave their homes in Arab lands. No doubt you believe that the Palestinian Arabs in Israel should be given a "right of return" to Israel.

Do you see any Islamic societies enjoying liberty anywhere? Why might it be that there are none? COuld you see the Ayatollahs of Iran drafting the MagnaCarta or the United States' Constitution? NO? Then contemplate as to why not.

Posted by: pythagoras at November 1, 2007 2:09 PM

Shlomo:

Read Pythagoras's excellent rebuttal above and learn from it!

Posted by: Rafa at November 1, 2007 2:14 PM

Hi Shlomo - I have found Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch to be instructive and interesting. I'm not Jewish, and do not regularly attend Christian services. Unlike many, more kindly readers, on this site, I really do not care what Muslims do in their own lands. I would not willingly send my kids to die for their liberty, nor am I willing to send money to keep their plague-ship ummah afloat. I am, however willing to sacrifce to protect the West and, what for purposes of convenience, I'll term traditional Western values. The imposition of Sharia which is a stated goal of many Islamic immigrants both in the U.S. and in Europe is unacceptable. Please continue to visit this site and take part in the conversation.

Posted by: MP at November 1, 2007 2:24 PM

Still Breathing, I don't think calling Mr. Spencer thin skinned is the right acronym. He doesn't like to be labeled a certain way or have people get the wrong idea about his message, so he feels the need to retort. He's a public persona now and can't have his message get distorted because he must have credibility for others to listen.

It appears these college students have put a preconceived label on him when entering his speeches, without ever really hearing what he has to say or stands for. Professors today all seem to be avid liberals indoctrinating our youths with falsehoods of their own agenda, spreading their liberal views which will weaken our country in the long run, especially if those being brainwashed become public officials.

Posted by: Bonniea at November 1, 2007 2:31 PM

Shlomo, I don't believe you. I won't call you a liar just yet, but something smells funny....

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 1, 2007 2:32 PM

Shlomo

Watch my speech at Dartmouth (the link is a few threads below) and tell me why your moderate Muslim friends should feel besieged by what I said, rather than joining the cause.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at November 1, 2007 3:24 PM

It's unfortunate that Muslim students must have negative emotions before they can either find a way out (by changing Islam or, more likely, by leaving it).

The distress will send some back to the loving arms of the ummah, but some will say, "Well, what is the truth here? What does Islam really mean? If I'm a descendant of people forced into this destructiveness, do I need to continue the tradition? What does Islam have to do with the Almighty? Could it be that Islam has only to do with Mohammed's preferences?"

It will take a lot of negative emotions for someone born into Islam to say, "Mohammed? What a lowly asshole to admire...."

Posted by: StillBreathing at November 1, 2007 3:27 PM

I still say that it's pointless to argue with people like Jeb Koogler, and those who think like him, on University campuses.

They're determined to ignore reality, no matter how much evidence they're presented with.

The only thing that can snap them out of their dream world, is a year at a Saudi university.

If they have to look directly in the face of an Islamic society, and be subject to its dydfunctional laws, it's not likely thay'll return to America in the same dream state they left in.

Posted by: rational at November 1, 2007 3:40 PM

While I generally find myself agreeing with Mr. Spencer, I have to take objection to several things in this particular post.

First off, it is not true that "I do not engage in personal attacks, and challenge you to produce a scrap of evidence to the contrary." I can quote the post in which you refer to Dean Esmay as "a yapping chihuahua," or the one in which you call Jimmy Carter "a sanctimonious windbag." I have little affection for either of these individuals, but your claim of never resorting to personal attacks is untrue.

Secondly, I have to agree with StillBreathing--at times you do seem to have a thin skin. It is also rather hypocritical for you to accuse your opponent of being condescending when you yourself often adopt a condescending tone--referring to your opponents by their first names, for instance, and generally speaking as if you are hectoring an unruly child. Frankly, the tone you adopt often borders on disrespectful, not to mention immature, and it does a disservice to the validity of your message.

Thirdly, I must bring up something that has bothered me as of late, though it is not related to this particular post. Ann Coulter. Her name appears on the front cover of your most recent book. Surely you know of the recent comments she made about Jews. Why have you not addressed these comments in any way?

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 1, 2007 3:42 PM

Many of the posters on JW may not have been on an actual college campus in many years, but for a real treat take a look at what our neo-Marxist "code speech" wizards have cooked up at the University of Delaware.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/30/fire-university-of-delaware-student-indoctrination-teaches-that-all-white-people-are-racist/

And no, this is not The Onion. Be sure to scroll down and see the University's "Reeducation" wepage (yes, they actually use the term "reeducation" just as Pol Pot once did!)

For starters, this official University sponsored mandatory "reeducation" program for all residence hall students actually contains the proclamation that "all white people are racists."

Really. Take the blood pressure medicine, make sure you've digested your lunch...this is the WORST load of crap I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of loads of crap.

Posted by: JohnAdams at November 1, 2007 3:54 PM

"The university suggests that at one-on-one sessions with students, RAs should ask intrusive personal questions such as “When did you discover your sexual identity?” Students who express discomfort with this type of questioning often meet with disapproval from their RAs, who write reports on these one-on-one sessions and deliver these reports to their superiors. One student identified in a write-up as an RA’s “worst” one-on-one session was a young woman who stated that she was tired of having “diversity shoved down her throat.”

Wow. Just...wow.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 1, 2007 3:57 PM

This hot pig of a topic was being kicked around all day yesterday in the blogosphere. When I checked the U of D student newspaper there was nary a sniff. I wonder if they realize what a laughingstock their school has been found out to be.

An excerpt from the University of Delaware's mandatory (although now of course they claim it's not) diversity training document:

“A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination. (This does not deny the existence of such prejudices, hostilities, acts of rage or discrimination.)” - Page 3

—–

“REVERSE RACISM: A term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege. Those in denial use the term reverse racism to refer to hostile behavior by people of color toward whites, and to affirmative action policies, which allegedly give ‘preferential treatment’ to people of color over whites. In the U.S., there is no such thing as ‘reverse racism.’” - Page 3

—–

“A NON-RACIST: A non-term. The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called “blaming the victim”). Responsibility for perpetuating and legitimizing a racist system rests both on those who actively maintain it, and on those who refuse to challenge it. Silence is consent.” - Page 3

—–

“Have you ever heard a well-meaning white person say, ‘I’m not a member of any race except the human race?’ What she usually means by this statement is that she doesn’t want to perpetuate racial categories by acknowledging that she is white. This is an evasion of responsibility for her participation in a system based on supremacy for white people.” - Page 8

Posted by: JohnAdams at November 1, 2007 4:10 PM

I've never even heard of the University of Delaware before--or maybe in passing. All kinds of fungus can breed in these places when sunlight (i.e. attention) doesn't shine on them. I went to a fairly liberal school (Umass-Amherst) and consider myself to be on the left of the political spectrum, but this kind of stuff is too much. "Stupidity" doesn't begin to cover it.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 1, 2007 4:12 PM

Roobart Sbunsar:

The name you have adopted indicates abundantly where you're coming from, but I'll answer you anyway.

In the first place, if you do a Google search for روبرت سبنسر, you'll find that it is the commonplace rendering of "Robert Spencer" in Arabic, and is used by virtually all the Arabic-language news services to refer to me, or to the prosecutor who worked on the Moussaoui case -- a man with whom I share a name. In other words, the entire edifice of ridicule that Dean Esmay and his friends constructed around my usage of Arabic in this case was based on false pretenses, and relied on their readers' ignorance of Arabic.

First off, it is not true that "I do not engage in personal attacks, and challenge you to produce a scrap of evidence to the contrary." I can quote the post in which you refer to Dean Esmay as "a yapping chihuahua," or the one in which you call Jimmy Carter "a sanctimonious windbag." I have little affection for either of these individuals, but your claim of never resorting to personal attacks is untrue.

I meant that in regard to Islamo-Fascism Week and my appearance at Brown, I was engaged in substantive arguments, not personal attacks, and so it was insulting for Mr. Koobler to suggest otherwise. As for Esmay and Carter, you give no indication of being aware that I gave numerous substantive replies to both here; instead, you give the impression that all I did was indulge in name-calling. Now, why is that?

Any neutral observer, meanwhile, is invited to search for "Esmay" and "Carter" at Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch, and see if substantive arguments were made, or if it was all just name-calling.

Secondly, I have to agree with StillBreathing--at times you do seem to have a thin skin. It is also rather hypocritical for you to accuse your opponent of being condescending when you yourself often adopt a condescending tone--referring to your opponents by their first names, for instance, and generally speaking as if you are hectoring an unruly child. Frankly, the tone you adopt often borders on disrespectful, not to mention immature, and it does a disservice to the validity of your message.

I don't claim to be a perfect human being, and I have answered in the tone in which I have been addressed on more than one occasion. However, I am sorry you offered no examples of your assertions here, as it gives me no recourse and no way to explain whether I thought the tone adopted was justified in a particular case or not. Also, I can't help but notice that John Derbyshire seems to disagree with you:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018636.php

Thirdly, I must bring up something that has bothered me as of late, though it is not related to this particular post. Ann Coulter. Her name appears on the front cover of your most recent book. Surely you know of the recent comments she made about Jews. Why have you not addressed these comments in any way?

Because Ann Coulter's endorsement of my book doesn't mean that I am responsible for everything she says, or must answer for it, and because her remarks had nothing to do with jihad or Islamic supremacism, which is what I speak about in public.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at November 1, 2007 4:21 PM

Shlomo_Michael

"The problem is that, as far as I can tell, none of the speakers last week have actually done ANYTHING for human rights. If you are so concerned for the rights of Moslem women, why don't you collect funds for a women's school in Tehran? If you are so concerned about Moslem oppression, why aren't you using your prominent voice to support petitions to free political prisoners?"

Oh but he has and it is called www.jihadwatch.org

Collecting funds for a Women's school in Tehran won't change the outcome of this conflict unless you point out the root causes of why women are being oppressed in the Islamic world in the first place.

You are putting the cart before the horse..

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at November 1, 2007 4:28 PM

Thank you Mr. Spencer, appreciate the info. I've seen several of your clips on Hot Air and likewise checked out your site and several of its claims. Having a couple of copies of the Koran "interpreted" in English I've also read some of that as well as checking out other facts from some sites in Iraq and I've read Orianna Falaci's books as well. Nothing I've seen takes away from what you've repeatedly said.
Therefore continue on good sir, continue on
VR

Posted by: Ret7army at November 1, 2007 4:31 PM

"In the first place, if you do a Google search for روبرت سبنسر, you'll find that it is the commonplace rendering of "Robert Spencer" in Arabic, and is used by virtually all the Arabic-language news services to refer to me, or to the prosecutor who worked on the Moussaoui case -- a man with whom I share a name. In other words, the entire edifice of ridicule that Dean Esmay and his friends constructed around my usage of Arabic in this case was based on false pretenses, and relied on their readers' ignorance of Arabic."

...did I miss something? What does ANY of this have to do with my post?

"Because Ann Coulter's endorsement of my book doesn't mean that I am responsible for everything she says, or must answer for it, and because her remarks had nothing to do with jihad or Islamic supremacism, which is what I speak about in public."

I disagree--very, very strongly. Jews have been on the forefront of the struggle against jihad. Israel today confronts threats to its very existence (which you know well). Jews have, historically, been on the receiving end of mind-boggling violence at the hands of jihadists. So yes, it DOES have a lot to do with jihad. The fact that a person WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON YOUR BOOK said something so degrading would surely be a factor of very high importance for you. The fact that it isn't is, quite frankly, baffling. The only logical explanation (to this, and to the fact that you permitted her name to appear on your book in the first place) is that you agree with her views. If not, perhaps you can explain otherwise, but I cannot.

And lastly, "The name you have adopted indicates abundantly where you're coming from, but I'll answer you anyway."

...and what exactly do you know of where I am coming from, Sir? For the record, I picked it because I found Esmay's attacks on you to be ridiculous to the point of being rather humorous. The quick way in which you make assumptions shows you to be jumpy and, as I said earlier, rather thin-skinned--much to your discredit.

I don't expect to last long on this site now, since people who are not worshipping the ground you tread on seem to get banned in quick fashion. At least I got to express my concerns.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 1, 2007 4:36 PM

RoobartSbunsar

"I don't expect to last long on this site now, since people who are not worshipping the ground you tread on seem to get banned in quick fashion. At least I got to express my concerns."

Not really...

Example A: Naseem..

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at November 1, 2007 4:42 PM

I find it odd when the left equates the existence of slavery with Muslim practices today.

1.) Radical Islam is still in the slave trade.

2.) I vaguely recall the poor theology of the slave holding South being corrected by a bloody war, inspired by the Christian abolitionists from the North. Even as Lincoln has commented, we paid a horrible blood debt to purge this national sin. To date, we have not seen this level of commitment from "Moderate Muslims" to purge the slave trade in Africa or even the death of innocent Muslims at the hands of Islamofacists!

Posted by: Jay the Janitor at November 1, 2007 4:46 PM

And just to clarify lest more accusations are made (to the effect of "you left-wing troll"), I am a supporter of the anti-jihad effort, else I would not bother coming to this website in the first place. My objections are not to these efforts, but rather to what I believe to be some inconsistencies in the things Mr. Spencer says and does. I believe I have the right to air these concerns, but I guess some might disagree, which is fine. I have few expectations beyond someone reading my posts and agreeing or disagreeing with them.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 1, 2007 4:46 PM

Roob:

...and what exactly do you know of where I am coming from, Sir? [...] I don't expect to last long on this site now, since people who are not worshipping the ground you tread on seem to get banned in quick fashion. At least I got to express my concerns.

I believe you have just proven my point about knowing where you're coming from. In reality, no one is banned for disagreeing with me, or thinking ill of me. Some self-righteous pests have been banned for being self-righteous pests, but that is a different thing.

Maybe you will turn out to be another self-righteous pest, and Hugh or Marisol will decide to ban you -- I don't generally do that myself. But just hectoring me about being thin-skinned (still without examples, alas) will not do the trick.

In regard to Coulter: the whole thing has been blown out of proportion by the Leftist smear machine, and I refuse to play along. She didn't call for genocide, and she didn't say anything remotely like the virulently anti-Semitic statements made routinely in the Islamic world, about which the mainstream media says not a peep. She did express, clumsily, the universalism of Christianity -- are you suggesting that because Christians believe that Christ is the Savior of the whole world that they are inherently antisemitic, or hateful? With respect, I reject that idea.

Also, the fact that you'd be concerned about this statement of Coulter's at all regarding me, besides its obvious unfairness, indicates either that you've never noticed the consistently strong pro-Israel, pro-Zionist stance I've taken here, or that you assume that it is insincere and/or motivated by a desire to affect Jewish conversion to Christianity. Those assumptions, whether or not you hold them, are false.

Now why don't you run along and pester Ann Coulter to declare herself on various statements that I have made.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at November 1, 2007 4:47 PM

"Now why don't you run along and ask Ann Coulter to declare herself on various statements that I have made."

Thank you for proving my point about your immaturity.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 1, 2007 4:50 PM

Why, Roob?

Why is asking me about what Coulter says responsible, but asking Coulter about what I say is immature?

Explain, please.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at November 1, 2007 4:54 PM

It's immature to say to someone, "why don't you run along and..." Once again, your tone is suitable to someone hectoring a wayward child, but not one adult addressing another. If you do not see that, then this entire debate is meaningless.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 1, 2007 4:56 PM

Yes, Roob. You're quite right. In fact, I was going to write, "Now, in the spirit of someone who is hectoring a wayward child, why don't you run along and..."

But I decided against it. However, you're quite right. The tone was intentional.

I wonder if you can step outside your own assumptions for a moment and consider how you would react if someone came up to you and said, "You know, you really are a jerk sometimes," and you responded, "Oh really? Such as when?" But the first speaker in reply to you offered you no examples, instead saying "And your friend So-and-So is an even bigger jerk, where do you stand on what she said about an unrelated issue? Oh, and you'll probably ban me for asking this, since you're such a jerk."

It would be hard, I suggest, for you at that point to continue to take the speaker seriously as one who was dealing honestly with the issues.

But one more try: I've answered you about Coulter, Esmay, and Carter. I've explained to you why I think your question about Coulter was out of order, but I answered it anyway. I've asked you for examples of my inappropriate tone, and gotten no response except for a false charge that I ban dissenters here.

Now: is there anything you actually wish to discuss? Or are you just interested in hectoring me yourself?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at November 1, 2007 5:05 PM

I DID provide an example of your inappropriate tone--telling me to "run along and play," essentially. But if you want an example, look back on your exchange with Khaleel Mohammed. You repeatedly refer to him as Khaleel and adress him much in the same way as you just addressed me. As far as I know, you and he are not on a first-name basis; in such a case, calling someone by their first name is a sign of disdain and disrespect. That's just one example, but it typifies what I objected to. I can list more. (lest you accuse me of agreeing with Khaleel Mohammed: I don't. I found his labeling of al-Ghazzali as a "moderate" to be beyond ridiculous). But there are respectful ways to indicate your disagreement with someone--and, in my opinion, yours wasn't.

That's the crux of everything I've been getting at. If you feel I'm being deliberately disrespectful and picking a fight over nothing, so be it. (I'd add that I have high respect for you and your work, but in the past you've always replied to this by ridiculing your opponent's perceived hypocricy, so I won't. )

Maybe I'm over-sensitive about issues of respect. So be it.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 1, 2007 5:13 PM

Roob,

You're probably right. Khaleel Mohammed attacked me gratuitously and lied about me, saying that I fabricated Qur'an verses etc. I asked him to back that statement up with examples -- even one example -- or retract it, and he responded with contempt and more false charges.

If, under those circumstances, I was less polite to him than I should have been, I apologize.

Cordially
Robert

Posted by: jihadwatch at November 1, 2007 5:16 PM

Oh memory lane...for all those who do not remember:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011704.php

Night of the Chihuahua II

Rated "E" which means a Dean Esmay production.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at November 1, 2007 5:20 PM

Mr. Spencer, our disagreement basically seems to come down to a disagreement on whether it's appropriate to respond to someone's remarks in kind. I believe it is better to take "the high road," so to speak, when dealing with people like Khaleel Mohammed, rather than lowering oneself to their level (if jihadists employ insulting and debasing rhetoric, must we really respond in the same way?) You clearly disagree, but you're under no obligation to believe what I believe.

I guess we won't see eye-to-eye on this issue. At the very least we see eye-to-eye on the dangers of jihad and the need to combat it. I can assure you that this will not change, regardless of whether I disagree with you on other issues.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 1, 2007 5:21 PM

Actually, Roob, I answered Khaleel Mohammed point-by-point.

If calling a man who has just libeled me by his first name is so heinous that it causes you to miss the substantive points I raised in response to his libels and abuse, again, I apologize. But I disagree with you.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at November 1, 2007 5:24 PM

Mr. Spencer, I most assuredly did -NOT- miss the points of your exchange with him. I read it in great detail (I was hoping my remark on the al-Ghazzali case would indicate that). Please re-read my prior post. I am not isolating parts of your remarks that I find objectionable to the exclusion of the points you make. You are assuming I am ignorant of the underlying issues, which I am not--not in the slightest. My objection was to the tone you took, not to the points you make (which were rightly successful in making Khaleel Mohammed seem ridiculous). I did find his smear attempts objectionable to the highest possible extent. As I said, the point where you and I disagree is that I believe it's not worth it to stoop to his level and address him disrespectfully (or do do the same with the many other people you've debated). You disagree. I guess it will remain there.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 1, 2007 5:33 PM

Roob,

Actually, I do make every effort to address everyone respectfully.

As I said above, I am not a perfect human being. I am not always successful, particularly when it comes to people who are not just disagreeing with me, like John Derbyshire, but are defaming me and trying to destroy my reputation by lying about me, like Khaleel Mohammed. But I do always try.

Cordially
Robert

Posted by: jihadwatch at November 1, 2007 5:37 PM

Mr. Spencer,

Thank you for answering my questions--you did so honestly, which I appreciate. I still disagree, but I'd rather have someone answer my concerns frankly than not--every time.

Rest assured that I will continue doing my part to combat the spread of jihad, even if you and I will not always see eye-to-eye. You do have an ally in me, when all is said and done.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 1, 2007 5:41 PM

Re. "Roobert": I can feel my already low intelligence quotient slipping downwards as I'm reading this thread. Must...change...threads...before...it's...too...late...

So little meat in such a big bucket of soup...

The only interesting thing I got out of this thread was:

Maybe you will turn out to be another self-righteous pest, and Hugh or Marisol will decide to ban you -- I don't generally do that myself.

Mental note to self: be very, very nice to Hugh and Marisol in my future posts.

Posted by: special_guest at November 1, 2007 6:08 PM

Rest assured that I will continue doing my part to combat the spread of jihad, even if you and I will not always see eye-to-eye. You do have an ally in me, when all is said and done.

It is certainly comforting to know that some anonymous poster on Mr. Spencer's blog is going to 'continue doing his part' although he doesn't bother to go into any detail about what that actually entails. I'm guessing that this "RoobartSbunsar" is actually a best selling author, or a famous journalist; maybe a foreign dignitary who has the ear of many powerful world leaders. Its a good thing I'm not more of a cynic. Otherwise I might be led to believe that "RoobartSbunsar" is actually just some nobody whose only intent is to waste Mr. Spencer's valuable time in an effort to make himself feel a bit more important than he actually is.

Posted by: Abu Allah at November 1, 2007 6:25 PM

RoobartSbunsar,
Might I suggest you read an article by Dennis Prager in regards to Ann Coulter's comments. Here's a sample:

"Those who label Ann Coulter an anti-Semite do damage to the battle against anti-Semitism.

I say this as a committed Jew, a religious Jew, a Jewish writer and lecturer, a past college instructor in Jewish history, co-author of a widely read book on anti-Semitism, recipient of the American Jewish Press Association's Prize for Excellence in Jewish Commentary, instructor in Torah at the American Jewish University, and a man who has fought anti-Semitism all his life.

There is nothing in what Ann Coulter said to a Jewish interviewer on CNBC that indicates she hates Jews or wishes them ill, or does damage to the Jewish people or the Jewish state. And if none of those criteria is present, how can someone be labeled anti-Semitic?

What damage has she ever done to Jews? What is wrong with a person believing that it would be better if another person adopted their faith? Is there one liberal who doesn't believe that a conservative would be better -- "perfected," if you will -- by embracing liberal beliefs and values? Why is it laudable for a liberal to hope that conservatives convert to liberalism, but dangerous and hate-filled when a Christian hopes that Jews or anyone else will go to heaven (that is, after all, Ann Coulter's and most other Christians' primary concern) by believing in Jesus?

I have read Jewish and non-Jewish writers who argue that Ann Coulter's words will lead to another Auschwitz. How does one respond to irrationality? How does one respond to hysteria?

There is also a move to boycott Ann Coulter, so dangerous are her words. Of course, there is no such Jewish or liberal boycott of former President Jimmy Carter, who has done real damage to the Jewish people by describing Israel as an "apartheid" state in the very title of his anti-Israel book. In fact, Carter was invited to speak on his loathsome book at Brandeis University, an ostensibly Jewish university. But for many Jews and liberals, real hatred, real damage to Jewish security can only come from the right, especially from Christians on the right. So Ann Coulter, who has done nothing in her life to compromise Jewish welfare, is to be boycotted, but Jimmy Carter is worthy of invitations to speak. Jewish groups even invite John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, the authors of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," which is essentially a tempered modern-day version of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." But Ann Coulter is beyond the pale. And she said nothing to harm Jews.

She said she believes that Jews who accept Jesus as their savior are "perfected." I fail to see why this is some form of hate-speech, let alone the basis of anti-Semitism, as stated by Abe Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, which often defames conservative Christians, whom he and his organization hold to be the greatest domestic threats to America."

Read the rest here http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2007/10/16/ann_coulter_wants_jews_to_become_christian_--_so_what
to get a perspective on your condemnation of Robert using an endorsement by Ann Coulter. Maybe if you think for yourself rather than jump on the hysteria bandwagon, you'd see where the real threat lies.

Posted by: No_Mooselimbs at November 1, 2007 6:33 PM

I have always wanted to be the "fly on the wall" and this exchange between Roob and Robert is, how shall I say....priceless! I appreciate Roobs tenacity (and his belief that Islam IS a problem) as well as Roberts always succinct (sic) method of answering any and all critics. Thank you both for making JW the premier site for discussions about Islam.

"Kuffirs of the world, Unite!"
"Stop Muslim immigration now"
"Islam, abusing women since 622AD"

Posted by: OregonJake at November 1, 2007 6:55 PM

No_Mooselimbs,
All I can say is WOW. You presented an excellent argument to RoobartSbunsar. Notice the pun he uses on Mr. Spencer's name.

Posted by: Bonniea at November 1, 2007 7:07 PM

"It is certainly comforting to know that some anonymous poster on Mr. Spencer's blog is going to 'continue doing his part' although he doesn't bother to go into any detail about what that actually entails."

Would you prefer that I NOT do my part, then? I don't quite understand the thrust of your argument.

"I'm guessing that this "RoobartSbunsar" is actually a best selling author, or a famous journalist; maybe a foreign dignitary who has the ear of many powerful world leaders."

If that were true, I wouldn't be posting here--I'd be off doing the things that the important people of the world do, like...well, ignoring jihad, I guess.

As for wasting Robert Spencer's time: I asked questions, he answered them. If he felt I were wasting his time, he would've said so. Rest assured that Robert Spencer is perfectly capable of standing up for himself, just as I am capable of disagreeing with him.

If you feel I should never disagree or voice my concerns, I am afraid I see it differently.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 1, 2007 7:21 PM

Bonniea,
I take no credit in the argument I presented. It came from the intelligent and eloquent words of Dennis Prager, who, in his own words, "prefers clarity to agreement" as Robert seems to also.
Robert and Dennis define and defend their positions so well. I am a grateful learner. Both are men of great intellect bringing sanity to a bellicose world.

Posted by: No_Mooselimbs at November 1, 2007 7:57 PM

I really like the Darth Vader music. Music that deserves to be a theme tune here at JW. Not reserved just for the current Saudi parasite, whatever it calls itself. This could be played every time trolls such as Naseem or RoobartSbunsar raise their heads above the parapet.

Posted by: Dane at November 1, 2007 8:07 PM

I am an Orthodox Jewish Zionist,...I am for human rights worldwide!

.... If you are so concerned for the rights of Moslem women, why don't you collect funds for a women's school in Tehran? If you are so concerned about Moslem oppression, why aren't you using your prominent voice to support petitions to free political prisoners?"

1- Why then don't YOU do it? Instead of telling others to do it?

2- A woman's school in Tehran? Because the ayatollahs won't allow it--THAT"S why!

"that even my secular Moslem friend from Turkey was distressed by your "Anti-Islamofascism". What would you have me tell her? "

We here in the West are distressed by many things, and insults to our beliefs and ideas. For instance, I'm very offended that the bathroom paper company should use the music of "Handel's Messiah" for their commercial ( which by the way, that company would not dare to use anything pertaining to ole mo' - an alleged prophet). Your nice islamic friends better start growing thicker skins and learn to ignore many things, and pay more attention to more important things..LIKE WHAT THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT DOES THAT EFFECTS THEN, AND THEIR 9-5 JOBS.

Anyway, who CARES what islamics think?

Posted by: allat at November 1, 2007 8:31 PM

Previewing your Comment
I am an Orthodox Jewish Zionist,...I am for human rights worldwide!

.... If you are so concerned for the rights of Moslem women, why don't you collect funds for a women's school in Tehran? If you are so concerned about Moslem oppression, why aren't you using your prominent voice to support petitions to free political prisoners?"

1- Why then don't YOU do it? Instead of telling others to do it?

2- A woman's school in Tehran? Because the ayatollahs won't allow it--THAT"S why!

"that even my secular Moslem friend from Turkey was distressed by your "Anti-Islamofascism". What would you have me tell her? "

We here in the West are distressed by many things, and insults to our beliefs and ideas. For instance, I'm very offended that the bathroom paper company should use the music of "Handel's Messiah" for their commercial ( which by the way, that company would not dare to use anything pertaining to ole mo' - an alleged prophet). Your nice islamic friends better start growing thicker skins and learn to ignore many things, and pay more attention to more important things..LIKE WHAT THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT DOES THAT EFFECTS THEM, AND THEIR 9-5 JOBS.

And last, but not least, you, a zionist Jew, better consider what your future and that of your family will be, in any country where islamics are the majority and are in control. The koran has rules and regulations on how to treat jews ( you should read the koran as re. the treatment of jews). You are friendly with an islamic at a distance. Even if your friendss are tolerant and moderates, what would be their influence with an overwhelming majority of moslems nearby? Jews in the past and in predominantly islamic countries, or even neighborhood, KNOW that it isn't any fun and games.

Wisen up, Mr. Slomo, and read the koran. Islamics absolutely HATE jews with a royal hate. Your people are the ones who got away, and had the nerve to backtalk to ole mo. But he got them good!

The truth hurts.

Posted by: allat at November 1, 2007 8:42 PM

RoobartSbunsar: Run along now.. you ARE a wayward child!

Allat

Posted by: allat at November 1, 2007 8:57 PM

This might come as a shock to some people, but a racist is only exercising his right to think.

You can argue with the irrationality of his thinking, but no one has a right prevent him from thinking as he wishes.

Where did this idea ever come from that institutions like Delaware U, or any other public institution, has a right to bludgeon others into thinking thoughts approved only by the institution.

The fact that the University would approve of a program like this, only goes to show how little their leadership uderstands the traditional understanding of concepts like Freedom and liberty.

It's scarey to think that these institutions are turning out the future leaders of our country.

Posted by: rational at November 1, 2007 9:32 PM

I'm not quite the poet Henning is, but I expect all Jihad Watchers to compliment and finish this "lift" of his famous lyrics:

Come and listen to a story about a man named JEB

A poor MUSLIMEER, barely kept his readers fed,

Then one day he was shootin at the TRUTH,

And up through the ground came his PC RUSE.

Posted by: Aiken Bryce at November 1, 2007 9:59 PM

Spenser...How come your not perfect?

Those who expect 100%, 100% of the time , are not capable of it themselves.

Koogle admits he is a student...that's about right...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 1, 2007 10:07 PM

swami:

"That's about right" is right...and it led to my point of posting the incredible info on the "reeducation" initiative at the University of Delaware.

A majority of these people Robert has dealt with are just kids. What is much more disturbing is the agenda of the faculty, administration, and political overseers of the educational institutions they are attending. This is where these kids are being indoctrinated and "reeducated" by a purely neo-Marxist and elitist movement.

We in this country have been so satiated by our own prosperity that we are not paying attention to the ideas being fed to our young.

Posted by: JohnAdams at November 1, 2007 10:28 PM

RoobartSbunsar:

By posting so many repetitious and irrelevant blurbs here you waste everyone's time including your own. You (yes, YOU) ARE ignoring the global jihad. And contributing precious little in return.

In my view, your point is utterly pointless.

Posted by: pythagoras at November 1, 2007 10:34 PM

The fact that this little foamer doesn't have the professional courtesy to show respect for Dr. Spencer's academic achievements by addressing him as "Dr. Spencer" instead of "Mr. Spencer" really says a lot.

Posted by: Dumpling at November 1, 2007 10:44 PM

Roo, you should be a little more forgiving of those rare ocasions where Mr. Spencer livens up an otherwise heavy subject.

We understand that your Tie is tied rather tight. We will pray that it is not Jihad Joe making it so.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at November 1, 2007 10:48 PM

"I respectfully disagree..."

Why "respectfully"? Why not "contemptuously"? Or, if you prefer, why not just "disagree" without any adverb at all, adverblos?

Posted by: Hugh at November 1, 2007 10:51 PM

Hugh,

I "heartily" agree with your last post.

Posted by: Aiken Bryce at November 1, 2007 11:05 PM

"Where did this idea ever come from that institutions like Delaware U, or any other public institution, has a right to bludgeon others into thinking thoughts approved only by the institution."
-rational

Answer: Political Correctness, the age-old absolute opposite of common sense & reality.

Posted by: jcom972 at November 2, 2007 12:14 AM

what Spencer left unsaid -....that the witting majority of Muslims don't actually follow the passages that he cited. Throughout the Islamic world, there is little support for the notion that apostates should be killed,...

Little support? Notion? lets see, who should I believe, this guy named Jeb or my lying eyes and Sharia.

Only fanatics follow the more "disturbing, intolerant, and exclusivist elements of the three holy religions."...... Few would disagree, for instance, that the Bible contains many of the same intolerant elements that the Quran does.

This guy Jeb cant be serious, can he? Can I ask this question after the little support, notion flounder?
If you direct your questions wittingly at only anti-Christians, then and only then would you have this consensus that he so claims.

Bible verse you quoted:
Samuel 15:2-3 being an historical account of the war between King Saul and the Amalekites as punishment for what they did to Israel, not something any Jew or Christian could in their wildest dreams construe as orders to kill Amalekites today.

Ephesians 5:22-23, I find nothing that says I can beat my wife, matter of fact verse 5:25 commands me to love my wife, that doesn’t sound like an order to beat her, now I know you couldn’t bear to look, but verse 5:21 command both wife and husband to submit one to another, I dare you to find that stuff in the Qur’an!

The Qur’an
005.051
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

009.111
YUSUFALI: Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:

008.017
YUSUFALI: It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah's: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself: for Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things).

047.004
YUSUFALI: Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

The Sahih Bukhari
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." The questioner again asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" He replied, "To perform Hajj (Pilgrim age to Mecca) 'Mubrur, (which is accepted by Allah and is performed with the intention of seeking Allah's pleasure only and not to show off and without committing a sin and in accordance with the traditions of the Prophet)."

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Bible, Qur’an, Hadith, what’s the difference?

Three holy religions in deed! But don’t believe your lying eyes and/or Sharia

Posted by: Bar at November 2, 2007 12:58 AM

I've said it before: it is easy to imagine a scenario where an intelligent poster would disagree with Robert's writings or speeches. A rational set of specific rebuttals would be given, preferably complete with references, as Robert's writings are. Robert would respond, and the poster would respond; all readers would gain knowledge from the intellectual discourse.

But that's not what we get. Not here at JW/DW, not at our colleges when Robert is invited to speak. Not in reviews of his book, not in other blogger's blogs. I think this is my fourth year of reading JW/DW and Robert's books, and there has never been such a case. Never. I've gone back through the archives too. And read other writers' articles. Never. What we get are attempts to waste Robert's time. What we get are personal attacks, obfuscation, threats, and attempts to censor the disscussion.

If there are any "moderate" Muslims who really believe that Islam teaches peace and tolerance, and they can back those personal beliefs up with some sort of cogent argument based on core Islamic documents as interpreted by mainstream Islamic clerics and scholars, I have yet to see any sign of their existence.

I would say that I'm still waiting, but that's not true.

Posted by: special_guest at November 2, 2007 12:58 AM

The insanity is rampant. The Left has been screaming for women's rights and gay rights for years, but at the same time they have been excusing the Islamofascists for totally denying women and gays any rights at all.

I think we all must start calling the Islamofascists 'racists'. We should scream that they are hateful towards the Christian race, and the Jewish race, and the Hindu race, and the Atheist Race, that they are Christianityphobiasts. They will scream that Christianity is not a race, and we'll say:

“See, Islam is NOT a race either.
And by the way, the Bible doesn’t say to convert, conquer or kill non-Christians (and any similar violent BS the Christians long ago grew out of) like the Koran says to do to non-Muslims. So there YOU RACIST hater of non-Muslims! You’re a Kuffarphobic!”

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
you have NO rights

to hate religions
that demand to convert you

absurd thought -
God of the Universe calls
for sick ideologies

that deny human rights
KILL adulterers and gays

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
don't learn about jihad

wanting to know or teach it
is RACIST say the WACKOS

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
don't DEFEND your way of life

if it is a Western way
democratic and modern

http://absurdthoughtsaboutgod.blogspot.com/
:)
.

Posted by: USpace at November 2, 2007 2:21 AM

Thank god, I'll be sleeping quite restfully tonight knowing that Roobart is "doing his part" against global jihad while monitoring Mr. Spencer's etiquette towards character assassins.

Posted by: Xero G at November 2, 2007 4:13 AM

"The fact that this little foamer doesn't have the professional courtesy to show respect for Dr. Spencer's academic achievements by addressing him as "Dr. Spencer" instead of "Mr. Spencer" really says a lot."

foamer, your resort to a personal insult says volumes of your maturity level--or lack thereof. It's embarassing to yourself only.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 2, 2007 4:59 AM

or, rather, "dumpling."

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 2, 2007 5:01 AM

And as for pythagoras:

"RoobartSbunsar:

By posting so many repetitious and irrelevant blurbs here you waste everyone's time including your own. You (yes, YOU) ARE ignoring the global jihad. And contributing precious little in return.

In my view, your point is utterly pointless."

Sorry to say that you are not high on my list of people whose opinions matter to me.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 2, 2007 5:02 AM

Let me first say that I wish that God had given me the grace and patience under fire that he gave Robert Spencer.

Second, it is my opinion that you used that Nom (Roobart)so that your opinions would show up on Google. What an ego!

There has in the past been a lot of Jihad-Do ideas here in the comments section and many of us are doing them. None of them involve sending money to Islamic countries. They get enough of that from our federal government.

As far as our former President Jimmie Carter goes, Americans vote with their pocketbooks. Last weekend a movie about his book about the situation in Palestine (directed by an award winning director) opened to a whopping $10K box office. A number I suspect reflects the purse of one Hollywood 16 theatre.

I realize that you will also look down upon my opinions from your lofty intellectual perch and quite frankly, Scarlet I don't give....
I am old enough to have been your grandmother, which means I was educated before the nut jobs got to our school system. It follows that I will most naturally look at and speak to you as one who has yet to have the life experiences to be treated as an adult.

I was part of the Peace movement (long-ago and far away)on campuses and I can guarantee that such a "re-education" attempt (such as Delerious U) on the campuses I attended would have resulted in some serious protests and building conflagrations.

I have a few questions.
What, exactly is a Zionist Jew? Sorry for my ignorance.
I think I know what a secular-Muslem is. Saddam Hussien was one.

Robert S. and David H. and all who participated in IAW. Kudos to you. You have definately gotten their attention. Keep up the good work.
Keep them busy trying to put a correct 'spin' on the ROP and it will use up a lot of that violent energy.

When I say 'They' I mean the people who are blindly buying into the idea of the ROP (especially the Peace part) and the idea that America is to blame for every evil that walks in this world. I didn't buy that from spoiled, over financed college kids in the 70's and don't buy it now.

My next Jihad-do will be bumper-stickers that say 'Buy Islamic merchandise'. I think that will open an interesting dialogue. Who, what, when and where will bring some interesting answers, doncha think?

Posted by: Aunt Bea at November 2, 2007 8:01 AM

What we have is RoobartSbunsar on the site> a troll - who came out from out the bridge.

Posted by: allat at November 2, 2007 8:45 AM

allat, I find it rather sad that you must resort to insults and rudeness in order to feel better about yourself. Well, I am nothing if not generous. If this is the only way for you to raise your flagging self-esteem, fire away.

Note to anyone who considers insulting me: at least be creative when you do so, for crying out loud. All the usual curses being heaped upon me are out-of-date by now.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 2, 2007 9:17 AM

Welcome to the world of Spencer-logic:

Spencer: Islam is violence. I'm going to cite 1000 year-old dead guys that "everybody reads" to say so.

Counter: You know, those guys are like 1000 years old...people don't follow them any more.

Spencer: I know, exactly my point.

At this juncture, in Western logic, your argument is now what we would call "dead"

Spencer's response to any counter: It doesn't matter what the verses say because Muslims are violent today. It also doesn't matter what over a billion Muslims do peacefully because the verses are violent. Round and round we go.

It just depends who he's talking to and he has two options: talk about old stuff and if they can counter you on old stuff just start jumping to new stuff and hope that they don't know about that or didn't read the same MEMRI report.

What's really cute is that the Islamo-Facism week in its attempt to destroy free speech on campus and expose "Islamofacists" has actually done a far better job exposing what Horowitz and his crowd really are, a bunch of bigots.

Just doing some thinking (and today, a case of prejudgement of bigotry, but you guys do 100+ of those per day, so 1 from me will probably send you crying for a week)

Posted by: An American at November 2, 2007 11:14 AM

Roob...I don't think you are a troll, but I do think possibly you protest just a little too much.
Your objections to Spensers, ah...style, sound way to parental and insulting. Thats just my opinion.
You couch all that in intellectual language, but it is transparent. You sound like you are castigating rather than being helpful. Maybe that's just your style, but it is probably why you are getting flack from those who are offended by statements like this,

Roob: I don't expect to last long on this site now, since people who are not worshiping the ground you tread on seem to get banned in quick fashion.

I take that as an insult, (though not leveled at me personally), because while I have been posting here for years, and agree with RS positions on jihad, I don't 'worship' the ground he walks on.
But I do hold him in high esteem because of the work he does, in spite of the danger in doing it.
Actually I have no idea what worshipers you are referring to.
You expanded your criticism of Spencer to include an insult to those who post here and appreciate Spensers work. This will not expand the size of your fan club. If you keep that up, you will get counter attacked...It would probably have been better if you had not made these complaints to begin with.
But at least RS had the opportunity to explain these items.
Thank you for your anti-jihad efforts, whatever they are...it all counts...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 2, 2007 11:16 AM

WAAAAAAA!

An American made me cry!!!!

signed:
Wuzlim

ps. call a wambulance!!!!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 2, 2007 11:31 AM

"Don't talk about old stuff because old stuff is old and old stuff doesn't matter anymore."

signed:
An American

(just doing some deep thinking)

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 2, 2007 11:45 AM

duh_swami: "You expanded your criticism of Spencer to include an insult to those who post here and appreciate Spensers work."

("Spencer" is spelled with a "c")

I don't believe I did any such thing. Can you site the specific line(s) that led you to draw this conclusion?

...once again, Robert Spencer answered my questions--if he truly felt that a) I was only out to lecture him, or b) that I was wasting his time, he would've made it known in no uncertain terms. He's not in need of being defended, as he's perfectly capable of doing so himself.

dennisw referred to me as an "idiot," yet you imply that it is I who is insulting everyone.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 2, 2007 11:50 AM

"What's really cute is that the Islamo-Facism week in its attempt to destroy free speech on campus and expose "Islamofacists" has actually done a far better job exposing what Horowitz and his crowd really are, a bunch of bigots."

signed
C.A.I.R.
(Council on Arab Islamic Relations)

(/sarc)

@American

I'm cryin! Cryin like a baby. And it's all your fault for having your head so far up your ass.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 2, 2007 11:52 AM

I agree with American ONLY insofar as I have little liking for David Horowitz. Beyond that, his criticism is unfounded. I won't go so far as to imply that he has his "head up his ass," however--seriously, how old are you? I don't know very many people beyond the age of 16 or so who would use that phrase.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 2, 2007 12:00 PM

"What's really cute is that the Islamo-Facism week in its attempt to destroy free speech on campus and expose "Islamofacists" has actually done a far better job exposing what Horowitz and his crowd really are, a bunch of bigots.

Just doing some thinking (and today, a case of prejudgement of bigotry, but you guys do 100+ of those per day, so 1 from me will probably send you crying for a week)"

...once again, Fascism is spelled with a "c". At least extend us the courtesy of correct spelling if you plan to offer more sarcastic yet wholly baseless criticism.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 2, 2007 12:02 PM

I don't know very many people beyond the age of 16 or so who would use that phrase.
--posted by Roobart (the punster)

Hey, you talkin' to me?

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 2, 2007 12:03 PM

"The Rum-Tum-Tugger is a terrible bore..."

Posted by: Abscedere at November 2, 2007 12:05 PM

Bigots? I know numerous 'An Americans', who are bigots. Most of them are leftists who have no credibility to speak of. I think it is clear just who on these campuses violate any semblance of free speech. It is not Spenser or Horowitz, it is just your average, 'An American' leftists. 'An American' leftist hypocrite clones are abundant, they are all over the place like a flea infestation.
The 'An' in An American stands for 'AM not'. It is rather a large club, where only pretenders of righteousness are members. The prime duty of an 'An American' is to carry a plumbing wrench and throw it into the gears of anyone that disagrees with them.
It's low pay, dirty, filthy work, but 'An American' leftists are perfectly suited for rolling around in the pig sty. Too bad that they have such a hard time convincing people (other than fellow leftists), that rolling around in pig droppings is the political key to success, (muslims abandoned that idea eons ago) and making a valid point, if they ever have one...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 2, 2007 12:06 PM

Hey look, all I'm trying to do is urge people to conduct their disagreements in a manner that isn't reminiscent of a high school yard after school is out. I was hoping that my question-and-answer session with Mr. Spencer would show that it's possible for two people to disagree--sometimes quite strongly--while remaining civil. Calling someone "idiot" or implying that someone has their head up their ass is just dumb. Are we, or are we not, adults? That's all I am asking.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 2, 2007 12:07 PM

Or am I just shouting into the wind?

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 2, 2007 12:08 PM

Many of the responses/comments at http://fpwatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/islamofascism-speaker-misses-point.html are just excellent.

The point, IMO, is that pointing out Old Testament discarded garbage is not an exoneration of Islam’s still highly respected garbage. Although the old Mosaic Law did call for some very horrid behavior, Jews for centuries have sensibly ignored this, but most Muslims take their entire Koran seriously (at least when they read it). Your typical Jewish synagogue attendee is hardly likely one day to start waging holy war against some group when he figures that Israel has problems because they haven’t been stoning women for adultery as called for in the Torah. But disaffected or disgruntled Muslims have and will continue to take up violent jihad to restore a purified Islam after reading anew the intolerance & hate mongering in the Koran. The clear texts are always there as a beacon to Muslims inclined to terrorism.

Posted by: FM at November 2, 2007 12:09 PM

An American

I must say I admire your tenacity! Your ridiculous puffery and dishonest, fact-free posts keep blowing up on you in the most extravagant fashion, and yet you keep on coming back here and claiming the moral and intellectual high ground. I do wonder how you do it!

For newcomers, here is some background on you:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018569.php#c465693

And now to your latest:

Welcome to the world of Spencer-logic:

Spencer: Islam is violence. I'm going to cite 1000 year-old dead guys that "everybody reads" to say so.

Counter: You know, those guys are like 1000 years old...people don't follow them any more.

Spencer: I know, exactly my point.

At this juncture, in Western logic, your argument is now what we would call "dead"

Spencer's response to any counter: It doesn't matter what the verses say because Muslims are violent today. It also doesn't matter what over a billion Muslims do peacefully because the verses are violent. Round and round we go.

You, and Jeremiah Koobler, and everyone else who has tried something like this left out one inconvenient fact of your little scenario: Islamic terrorists themselves cite the 1000 year old dead guys to call Muslims back to what they represent as the purity of Islam. And they cite the Qur'an, copiously, also.

Just check out, to take one of myriad examples, the recent missive by Osama to the people of Pakistan. Full of Qur'an quotes. Other Al-Qaeda writings also cite Islamic jurists -- those 1000 year old dead guys -- at length.

Then when I quote this stuff, and ask peaceful Muslims to counter it, I get instead posts like yours and articles like Koobler's.

Go on, keep pretending that I'm making it all up, if it makes you feel better!

But alas, that will not make the problem go away.

Just doing some thinking, big guy!

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at November 2, 2007 12:10 PM

*sigh* never mind. I guess I came to the wrong forum.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 2, 2007 12:12 PM

Warning re: "American"

The last time I conversed with American he said that the authenticity of the Hadiths did not matter, and even what was recorded in them didn't matter. The truth, the accuracy of the canonical Islamic texts doesn't matter, he maintains.

I asked him what does matter, but he was too confused and inarticulate to provide an intelligible answer.

I defy anyone on this post to deconstruct the gobbledegook coming out of that "thinker's" brain.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 2, 2007 12:12 PM

Roob...I already gave you a specific statement.
I don't intend to pick your posts apart, but you do speak 'down' to those you disagree with.

As far as typos, (Spensers name) you have nothing to complain about...you spelled worshiped with two 'P's, I corrected that in my post to you.
No biggy, I would not have mentioned it, but if spelling/typos is an issue to you, you should be aware of your own.

Posted by: duh_swami at November 2, 2007 12:17 PM

"As far as typos, (Spensers name) you have nothing to complain about...you spelled worshiped with two 'P's, I corrected that in my post to you."

I respectfully disagree--"worshipped" is indeed spelled with two p's.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/worshipped

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 2, 2007 12:19 PM

And I don't look down on those I disagree with--not in the least. My sole complaint was/is against people who voice their opinions and disagreement in a manner I perceived as disdainful and immature. I felt my posts made this quite clear, though I apologize if this isn't the case.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 2, 2007 12:21 PM

The Old Testament was formerly used to condone slavery. He needs to be reminded that slavery, less than 200 years ago, was rampant in the United States, and some, if not most, southern clerics condoned it.
..................................

This is true. However, it is also true that many slaves refered to Biblical stories such as the Israelite captivity in Egypt as a *protest* against slavery. Many spirituals use Biblical imagery such as crossing the River Jordan as a metaphor for fleeing slavery for freedom.

Abolitionists such as William Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson, as well as American Quakers, were inspired in large part by their Christian religion to fight against slavery.

Those who were pro-slavery did at times use religious arguments, but this was much less common than using utilitarian or political arguments--such as the assertion that Great Britain would lose ground to France economically if they were to abolish slavery in the Carribean, or that the agrarian South would fall further behind the indulialized North if the abandoned their "peculiar institution".

Personally, I would be thrilled if Muslims really did start intrepreting the Qu'ran and the Hadiths to fight Jihadism and champion human rights (including the still continuing fight against slavery). So often, though, the peaceful passages are just quoted to bamboozle Westerners into believing that Islam is a entirely a Religion of Peace.

Posted by: gravenimage at November 2, 2007 12:33 PM

Accusing posters of worshiping the ground Spenser walks on, is an insult...you said it, now own up to it. I don't think you are a bad person, but you are rationalizing your statements. If you really want intelligent conversation, it is a good idea not to alienate your audience...I don't feel hostile toward you, this is meant to be more constructive than critical...have a good day...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 2, 2007 12:35 PM

Real Old Stuff (for "American")

from the Hamas Charter:

"The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Moslem Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after ... the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
=====================
@American

Real old stuff, eh?

(just doing some thinking)

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 2, 2007 12:42 PM

The problem with describing anything as "provocative" is that the term itself is so watered down and subjective that it can be applied to almost anything.

It is an appeal to emotion, which makes it a logical fallacy to begin with, one that is impossible to refute because it makes no substantive claims. At least when you call someone a "racist" you're actually saying something about them that can be known, measured, and understood.

It is just another example of the "I'm offended" strategy used by would-be tyrants and their enablers to obscure the truth by silencing the debate.

Posted by: Lee Reynolds at November 2, 2007 12:48 PM

Roob...Worshipped...you are correct...my error. My spell checker tagged it. Bad spell checker...bad.
Sorry...My own spelling unaided, is atrocious. I did not realize it was that bad until I turned on the spell checker. What a revelation...Ha ha...Well, I went to school in California, so whats new. 2+2=6.
Only in Kalifornia...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 2, 2007 12:50 PM

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

-Adolf Hitler, Munich, 12 April 1922

Posted by: kirklandhawaii at November 2, 2007 2:04 PM

The comments by Bret Vallacher show a very poor grasp of logic. Even if Christianity did encourage slavery and other horrible practic