I suspect Maranci is a closet Muslim. He seems firmly stuck in the Muhammedan camp and uses the same smear tactics, like they all do.

Just had another look at Maranci's blog.

Maranci is not only an apologist, but a Muhammedan agent just like the egregious Bunglawussi from the MCB. He links to Islamic websites and goes all out to obfuscate, to smear opponents and to whitewash the cult. Why he doesn't proclaim that he himself is Muslim I don't know, but his agenda is no different from that of the Bungla or Indigo Jo or any of the Muslim brotherhood. Islamic websites promote him and cheer him on because he is such a price 'antropologist'-

He uses the same terminology ‘irrational fear of the other’ like all the Muhammedan agit-props do.

Nothing we haven’t seen before.

But people like this Maranci are still dangerous. Respected in society with a doctor title he can do a lot of damage to gullible students, to affect impressionable young minds with PC, Islamo-equivalence and Muhammedan agit-prop.

Btw: he also stopped comments, looks like he is already copping a bit of heat over his disingenous claptrap.

Cheers!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 29, 2007 9:44 PM

Mr Spencer, one question. Why did you study Islam at university? What were you planning on doing with this knowledge before you came to the realisations of Islam and 9/11? I'm not sure if I have ever heard or read anywhere as to why you studied Islam apart from it being in your family, I guess I have never come into contact with anyone taking so much of a great interest in Islam.
Forgive my ignorance if you have detailed this before but in your bio there's no mention as to why Islam pre 911 and what you were planning on doing with this knowledge? Were you a Muslim or dabbled in Islam? Thank you

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at December 29, 2007 9:45 PM

Leon:

I didn't plan to do anything with it. It was just a personal interest. I can't explain it beyond that. I was never a Muslim. In the 1990's I did do some consulting for some individuals and groups on Islamic issues, but I never expected to be doing this work publicly. You know how one thing can lead to another.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at December 29, 2007 9:47 PM

If some poor fool venerates you as a cult leader, does some of that evil idiotic mojo rub off onto said devotee? I mean, what's in this for US?

Posted by: John C at December 29, 2007 10:00 PM

Why Can't Muslims Debate?

It's not possible to defend the actions and life of Muhammad. From theft to the assination of poets he showd he was devoid of any morality. No phrophet of god would have broken so many of the 10 commandments.

Muhammads plan for you is enslavement.

Muslim practice is devoid of the GOLDEN RULE. Muslims don't treat others as thay wish to be treated. Words like kuffar or dihimmi would not be used if thay did.

Just go to the rotten core of Islam.

Posted by: Ruebacca at December 29, 2007 10:15 PM

Well, John C,

I am fresh out of Spencer the Great Leader statues, but you could always order one of these:

http://www.amazon.com/I-Love-Robert-Spencer-T-Shirt/dp/B0010GHIBM/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=apparel&qid=1198984551&sr=8-19

Enjoy!

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at December 29, 2007 10:16 PM

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/divinity/staff/details.php?id=g.marranci

Well, from a cursory look at his apologetics he seems to be Muslim. There's nothing about his appearance, his writing, or his politics that would seem to indicate otherwise. That being said...

The best offfense sometimes is offense. Keep 'em on their toes, that way the offender, or the apologist, never has to address the attrocities committed in the name of Islam, but instead it is the critics of Islam that are incessantly answering trumped up interrogatives by a hostile, litigious, and perpetually offended Umma.

Is this good fodder for a blog that needs new and continuing inspiration in a never ending and draining intellectual battles between Islam and The West? Sure. Until our general population and politicians start to take seriously the storm that has arrived at our shores then these exchanges unfortunately serve to illuminate a smallish population of people that already understand the threat we face. Leftists, in their rush to defeat Conservatism have made a deal with the Devil. What they don't know and don't care to know is that the Devil will have its due. Where they have freedom to engage in debate with their hated Conservative rivals, there will be no debate with Islam. They will be killed and murdered in droves.

And in case a Leftist decides to peruse the comments, then I sugges he or she find a book called Persepolis and review what happened to Socialists during the Iranian revolution. It's a graphic novel, so he or she might be engaged enough to make it to the end... Here's hoping that's the case...

Posted by: antishock8 at December 29, 2007 10:22 PM

Mr Spencer, I guess that this is your calling in life. No one can understand this more than you. Funny how life takes shape. Thanks for inspiring us!

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at December 29, 2007 10:33 PM

THNXS, RS--

Great link--great product! Pity about the Great Leader statue, though--woulda looked great on a shelf in my study, alongside the busts of Lenin and Che, and figure of Yasir Arafat. Darn!

Posted by: John C at December 29, 2007 10:47 PM

There are stud farms where there is less BS than this Maranci guy produces. Here's a rich example:

"Mr Spencer, an extreme hermeneutic and also a historical unilinearalist, misses the main elements to explain, in a convincing way, the situation in which both Muslims and non-Muslims find themselves today. Therefore, the oppression of women which we find in certain Muslim countries or certain ideological views of radical movements, could not be reduced simplistically to the Qur’an and the Hadith. Indeed, Italy is not a Muslim country, but it shares, for example with North African culture, many of the misogynist views which Mr Spencer and others would consider to be a product of Islam as religion (even not as culture). How, then, would Mr Spencer explain such similarities (even in traditional sayings as well as practices)? I hope that he, or others for that matter, would not suggest that South Italy was for centuries under the Saracens."

I guess Maranci's got us there, because I certainly never thought of that angle before. I must be a historical unilinearalist myself, whatever the hell that is, because I never thought about the striking similarities between the way women are treated under Islam and the awful plight of cute little Italian babes having their bottoms pinched while toiling away making meatballs.

Maranci is so full of himself he continually contrives new words and verbal constructs to show us all how smart he is, but his arguments are just silly. Mr. Spencer should waste little time on him, unless he wants to be drawn into some really bizarre polemics.

I agree with sheik yer'mami: Maranci is card-carrying, and he should just go ahead and convert. He might learn something.

And then he wouldn't have to make it all up as he goes along.

Posted by: Haid Dasalami at December 29, 2007 11:08 PM

"Maranci is so full of himself he continually contrives new words and verbal constructs to show us all how smart he is, but his arguments are just silly."

Good point Haid Dasalami.

Maranci, lets talk about the mouse in the room instead of the elephant shall we?

Posted by: Sounder at December 29, 2007 11:17 PM

"Italy is not a Muslim country, but it shares, for example with North African culture, many of the misogynist views "

Italian men do not put women in veils at the barrel of a gun. This is lies. My Italian American wife would cut off any man's balls who disrespected her, including my English ones.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at December 29, 2007 11:18 PM

Well said, Mr. Spencer; thank you.

I'm not going to follow the link to that man's site. I'll just worshipfully take your word for it, oh Great One.

("And awaaaay we go!")

Posted by: Josephine at December 29, 2007 11:45 PM

Talk about the proverbial "knife to a gun fight"! That guy's list of questions is completely useless for understanding anything that's going on today, although I'm sure they play well among the intellectually challenged. Mr. Spencer's laconic responses are much more than this individual deserves.

If his family was involved in fascism, it's not exactly a mystery why that movement failed. I've encountered boxes of rocks with at least three or four times the intelligence of Mr. Marranci (I refuse to call this idiot "Doctor").

Posted by: venividivici at December 29, 2007 11:53 PM

I tried to leave a comment on the topic he created today, but it is currently awaiting moderation.

Unfortunately, that's how it is with most left-leaning blogs, they want to control everything.

Posted by: senatortombstone at December 29, 2007 11:57 PM

4. Do you believe that there is an attempt to reduce to the state of Dhimmitude the West, so that we have to assume that there exists a unitary plan and project aimed to achieve such a goal? If so, who is behind the plan?

Yes, but I do not think that means that we must assume that there exists a unitary plan and project aimed at achieving such a goal.

There are many such plans, some of them connected to each other, some not so closely connected; all of them have a common root in Islam. "unitary" is simply misleading here.

If one wants to see one such plan, and who is behind it, all one needs to do is pull out some of the foundational documents of the Muslim Brotherhood, which Spencer does. Or to bring it closer to home, the manifestos written by those organizing the GIA (Group in America) which were brought forward in the recent Holy Land Foundation trial, which lay it down in quite some detail. This also makes quite clear WHO is behind the plan, which they call "civilizational jihad".

As the GIA spinoffs and subsidiary organizations are many, widespread, well-funded and very active all over North America, that should suffice for an answer.

But of course there are many such groups, not all following exactly the same agenda. Al Qaeda, for example, is a little more anxious than the Brotherhood, preferring to blow things up an issue ultimatums. Good cop bad cop ... er, I mean jihadist.

Then there are the Shia militants...

Posted by: Archimedes2 at December 30, 2007 12:07 AM

Marranci is just a useful idiot.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 30, 2007 12:27 AM

Had another look: definitely Muslim! Totally rapped up, the fool.

"Italy is not a Muslim country, but it shares, for example with North African culture, many of the misogynist views which Mr Spencer and others would consider to be a product of Islam as religion"

What a lot of crock! Tell that to the mama's and aunts of my extended family who firmly hold the reigns! Powerful matriarchs who reduce a man to the size of......Marranci?

Perhaps that's why he (Marranci) hopped into the opposite camp.

"Do you believe that Western Civilization is a unitary, unilinear historical process derived from a unique historical reality?"

What a BS question! From a wakademic Italian who defecates on his own culture and civilization in favor of the most barbarian nightmare that has plagued the world since 1400 years!

You are a degenerate, Marranci!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 30, 2007 12:39 AM

If this guy wanted to open my mind and enlighten me, it was a poor choice of words to call me Spencer's 'worshiper.'

Please.

At this rate, he may as well lecture my cats, or perhaps the stone wall out by the garage, for all the good it's going to do.

Posted by: Goob at December 30, 2007 12:52 AM

"Some of ‘em. Not all of ‘em."

The iteration of this phrase made me laugh. He so wanted to catch Robert in a transparent trap of saying ALL Muslims are this or that. Robert possesses many times the subtlety of Dr. Marranci, the pretentious prig.

Posted by: alexon at December 30, 2007 1:10 AM

2. Do you think that Muslims think, behave and act in a certain way because of Islam?

Now that question is as clear as mud. What 'certain way', are you referring to DR? I would say that yes, muslims behave, act, and think in 'certain ways' because of Islam, if they didn't they would not be muslims.

This character talks a lot of word magick/trickery, otherwise known as taqiyya, and he tries to slide by with $40 words to impress the unwashed worshippers at this site. Does this he talk the same way he writes? Debating him would be a useless waste of time, as it would be for most of the enemies of freedom that show up here.

Posted by: duh_swami at December 30, 2007 2:15 AM

These answers should be appended with counter questions, bolded. Note that these are appendages to Robert's responses, and not counter challenges to them. Such as:

2. Do you think that Muslims think, behave and act in a certain way because of Islam?

Some of ‘em. Not all of ‘em. Do you have any way to telling how many of them do?

6. Is the Shari’a one? If so, could you provide a clear example of the applied version? If this is not the case, where can we find what you define as the Shari’a?

No. From the Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali, and Ja’fari schools of jurisprudence. In fact, can you point to one 'democratic' Muslim country that doesn't have institutionalized shariah in its laws?

7. Which is, according to you, the difference between Islam and Muslims? Are they the same?

Um, I think...um...maybe...Islam is the belief and Muslims are the believers? Um, is that it? And no, they’re not the same. Do you have any way of determining how many Muslims believe in Islam, as opposed to how many of them are closet atheists or agnostics?

9. Does your definition of the West and Westerners include also the Muslim generations which are born in Europe or the US?

Some of ‘em. Not all of ‘em. Again, do you have any way of filtering out those who are a threat from those who ain't?

12. Why do you refer to the flirtation of Muslim leaders with Fascists but omit any reference to the parallel relationship of Zion-Revisionists with the same Fascist leaders? What is the difference at a historical level?

The “Zion-Revisionists” don’t have a program for world domination, and the subjugation of unbelievers. Historically, they never did. The number of Jews in the world, let alone the number of Jewish countries, ought to bear that out.The jihadists always have had one, and still do. Not only do Islamic texts contain those directives, but even minority Muslim groups in non Muslim countries, such as Israel, Nigeria, Serbia, India, Kenya et al, have such aspirations of overthrowing not merely the governments of their countries, but their established institutions, and replacing them with Islamic substitutes.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 30, 2007 2:50 AM

Marisol

Please delete my above message from at December 30, 2007 2:49 AM; somehow, the inserts didn't get indented properly. Sorry about that.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 30, 2007 2:52 AM

Hello everyone: This is how he is described on the Web. Laugh? I could have cried!

Dr Gabriele Marranci is an anthropologist by training working on religion with a specialisation in Muslim societies. His main research interests concern identity, Muslim migration/immigration, urban sociology, fundamentalism, political Islam, secularisation processes, criminology, and anthropology of music as well as the relationship between anthropological research and cognitive neuroscience.

Prospective enquiries from students and post-graduates who would like to study in these areas are very welcome.

Dr Marranci’s first monograph, Jihad beyond Islam (London, New York: Berg) discusses the current crisis of identity among Muslim migrants and their children, and explores the circumstances in which Muslims speak of jihad. In this book, by developing a new sociological-anthropological theory of identity based on the latest theories of self and consciousness in cognitive neuroscience, he has proposed a new interpretation of the reasons for which Muslims in the West might radicalise or understand jihad as violent struggle. His second monograph, The Anthropology of Islam (in press 2007), is also published by Berg. In this book Dr Marranci discusses and challenge the state of the art of the discipline. His third monograph, Understanding Muslim Identity, Rethinking Fundamentalism (forthcoming in 2008) is under contract with Palgrave Macmillan.

Dr Marranci has successfully started, as founding editor, the first anthropological journal of Islamic Studies, Contemporary Islam: Dynamics of Muslim Life, published by the international publisher Springer. The journal, which focuses on different aspects of Muslim societies, has a multidisciplinary editorial board. Recently, he has established (with Prof. Bryan Turner of the National University of Singapore) a new book series entitled Muslims in Global Societies also published by Springer. These editorial activities have provided an opportunity to form academic networks with colleagues in major universities located in America, Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

Dr Marranci has started and is currently the convenor of the EASA Network on Contemporary Study of Muslims and Societies.

Dr Marranci’s last four year-research, funded by The Carnegie Trust (2003-2004), The University of Aberdeen and The British Academy (2004-2007) has focused on identity, religion and ideology among Muslim prisoners and former Muslim prisoners in the UK.

Obviously, he has no idea of how ridiculous and academically challenged he actually is. Worse, much worse, he has managed to fool the Senate of one of Scotland's greatest Universities into giving him a post, probably tenured, from which he can spout such jargonistic, unproven and unprovable, nonsense.

I don't want to sound too classist but I'm willing to bet that he is one of the new breed of of 'Doctors' - those given doctorates in silly little monkey subjects just to make up the numbers from some sector of society perceived as deprived and excluded by our socialist overlords. He certainly writes as if he is.

He is just a common little oick whom we could have safely ignored thirty or so years ago but today we have to answer because he has some spurious 'doctorate' and some spurious credibility by virtue of being able to spout 'facts' which he, himself, has either discovered or, more likely, invented. The absence of any type or sort of academic rigour in his work is buried, obviously, in the density of his prose - it would be nice if he actually wrote English or had any semblance of English style and grammar at all, wouldn't it?

No, no! This man is charlatan - a dangerous charlatan because he is teaching - in a prestigious University - the next generation. How on earth did he get his post? How on earth can anyone of even the meanest intelligence not see through his arrant nonsense and complete lack of any understanding whatsoever of the real world? Good heavens, it baffles me how on earth his colleagues tolerate him in the Staff Room!

Posted by: OliverPCamford at December 30, 2007 3:14 AM

Sorry, here's the link:

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/divinity/staff/details.php?id=g.marranci

Posted by: OliverPCamford at December 30, 2007 3:37 AM

People like Dr. Marranci and his many US counterparts bring me closer to fully accepting Senator McCarthy and J.H. Hoover as heroic Patriots who crippled attempts by Reds to subvert the Constitution and our American way of life in the 1950's. Maybe we need a McCarthy and a Hoover right now in this moment.

Posted by: Bingo at December 30, 2007 4:23 AM

Bingo,

Maybe we need a McCarthy and a Hoover right now in this moment.

You, American friends, need them not just "maybe", but most desperately. The question is; could such unapologetic patriots attain to the office and exert the influence comparable to their predecessors in today's, paralyzed by political correctness, America?

As for Europe it is too late now. We are heading full speed toward our islamic epilogue. The only scenario I can consider that could save us from the spectre of Eurabia is a patriotic military takeover backed by the indigenous populations of the West Europe.

May it come quick before the lights of the Christian Europe go off forever.

Posted by: thomas. h at December 30, 2007 6:15 AM

And now a few questions for the good doctor and his ponderous thesaurus:

Is it hotter in the summer than it is in the city?

Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?

If there is a call to prayer and there's no one to hear it, did it make any noise?

He says debate, but mentally he spells it "de bait", and expects one to take it hook, line and sinker. Not on this (Jihad) Watch. Yawning laconic answers are all he deserves, and I am sure that a debate would be the same tired dance in slow circles, but there is always the chance for more hilarious comparisons of the cultures Italy and North Africa. Ready about, prepare to hoist petard. Go gettem, cult leader.

Posted by: QuickHenryTheFlit at December 30, 2007 6:30 AM

Marranci is a young chap who fancies himself. I was going to say fancies himself as a Young Turk, but maybe that's defamatory? So I'll just stick with 'fancies himself'.

He did his undergraduate degree in anthropology in Italy at the University of Bologna. Then he went to Queen's University, Belfast, where in three years he did a PhD on the Muslims in Northern Ireland (the population of Ulster is about 1 million and the number of Muslims, about 2,000, according to the 2001 census). Most of them live in Belfast, so he didn't have far to travel to conduct his fieldwork and must have known most of the adults personally. There are currently 1.2 billion (some say, 1.6 billion) Muslims on the planet, 20% of the world's population, so on this vast swathe of field research on Muslims he has set himself up as an authority. The doctorate on the 1800 or so Muslims in the tiny province of Ulster was quickly turned into a tome, such is the state of dhimmitude in the UK, and the young Marranci was scooped up by the Divinity School of the University of Aberdeen where he now holds court and has a number of doctoral students all churning out his line that Muslims mean us no ill and Islamists are simply those who support the doctrines of Islam.

He is a condescending prat, as you note. Otherwise his contention that what the Qu'ran says and what goes on in individual Muslims' heads might differ, would earn more respect from me - his field is essentially that of the sociology of religion. However, he is blind to the impact of unreformed ideology, 'rationalisation' (more Muslims can read, and can read the Quran) the universalisation process of globalisation, and finally the all-important impact of context. Of course when Muslims are a tiny percentage of a bullish traditional population like that of Ulster, just recovering from The Troubles, they are going to be politically quiescent. Just stick them altogether as over 100 million in a nuclear state like Pakistan and there the unreformed ideology of the Quran assumes a frightening aspect. Marranci, of course, ignores all this, and extrapolates from a fairly benign and feeble (because neutered) minority population in Northern Ireland to the entire world.

Islam is dangerous because Islam is unreformed and Islam is becoming more standardised due to globalisation and it is the literalists who are winning. Just look at the black burka: this was an Arab dress associated with Wahhabis in the Nejd district of the Arabian penninsula but has now become adopted across the globe in places it was never seen before. Ditto Salafism.

Nobody except An'Naim, the Sudanese scholar and exile, has suggested that only the more universalist and enlightened Meccan suras be accepted for human rights. He rejects the Medinan suras (that wish death on non-believers) but this is a radical liberal confrontationalist view which is not in ascendant, nor likely to become any time soon.

Marranci needs to take a wider look around.

Posted by: devorgilla at December 30, 2007 6:49 AM

What makes the West a Civilization?

The question is in itself an indication of Marranci's mental bankrupcy. For an Italian, a descendant of the Roman empire, probably the greatest civilization ever, to doubt his own heritage, the arts, justice according to law (not sharia) science, (not jinn and camel urine) architecture, (not tents) medicine, music, surgery, aeronautics, modern technology and a hundred other things, not to forget democracy, equality of the sexes and freedom of the individual: to question all that is in itself is an insult to anyones intelligence. He sounds more like a spoilt child with half-baked theories than a grown man who has something to say.

Spencers answer below is more than sufficient. I just thought I add my 5 cents....

Lots of things. Above all today I’d say a commitment to the equality of dignity of all people, which the schools of Islamic law deny, a commitment to the equality of rights of all people before the law, which the schools of Islamic law deny, a commitment to freedom of conscience, with the schools of Islamic law deny, and a certain attachment to art as ennobling the human spirit, such as is not possible in a strictly iconoclastic culture.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 30, 2007 6:52 AM

"The question is in itself an indication of Marranci's mental bankrupcy. For an Italian, a descendant of the Roman empire, probably the greatest civilization ever, to doubt his own heritage, the arts, justice according to law (not sharia) science, (not jinn and camel urine) architecture, (not tents) medicine, music, surgery, aeronautics, modern technology and a hundred other things, not to forget democracy, equality of the sexes and freedom of the individual: to question all that is in itself is an insult to anyones intelligence. He sounds more like a spoilt child with half-baked theories than a grown man who has something to say."

Very well said, Sheik yer'mani. Nr. Marranci's utterances are, indeed, a shame on the great civilization that helped produce him.

Posted by: Razdan at December 30, 2007 7:12 AM

The only scenario I can consider that could save us from the spectre of Eurabia is a patriotic military takeover backed by the indigenous populations of the West Europe.
by Thomas H.

First, Europe needs more than a token military. Are you willing to go down the road of the militaristic (according to some, not all) US? By now the US, with a population about equivalent to the EU, should constitute just half the NATO force.

Posted by: PMK at December 30, 2007 7:36 AM

Unfortunately, that's how it is with most left-leaning blogs, they want to control everything.

Posted by: senatortombstone

Not just the blogs. Some (not all) left-leaning authors (on C-SPAN, anyway) don't take unscreened questions from readers. Readers instead have to write their questions on index cards and pass them to the moderator, who then picks which ones to ask.

Posted by: PMK at December 30, 2007 7:40 AM

There are reasons some Doctors are brought up on charges of Malpractice. Take the 2 Aspirin and forget about calling him back in the Morning.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at December 30, 2007 8:41 AM

Venividivici wrote,

“I've encountered boxes of rocks with at least three or four times the intelligence of Mr. Marranci (I refuse to call this idiot "Doctor").”

Being awarded a PhD used to mean a great deal more than it does today. This was before the virulent strain leftis-voracious infected more than 80% of academia. All too often, PhDs are granted today to those who have simply finished their indoctrination. How else is one to explain people such as Cornell West or Noam Chomsky (Both of whom I refuse to call Professor.) I wouldn’t give a plug nickel for the lot of them.

Posted by: patagonianplato at December 30, 2007 9:23 AM

You pose the question: "Why Can't Leftists (and Their Islamic Allies) Respect Those Who Disagree With Them?" I cannot speak for their Islamic allies, but it is arguable that leftists are linear descendents of the Puritans. The latter sought signs of election. The former, whose dessicated religion has devolved from a justification by faith to a justification by self-regard, seek a similar sign in having the correct opinions. As a result they invest their egos in those opinions, and invariably experience disagreement as disrespect, not to mention heresy.

I am pleased to see the name of my esteemed co-religionist, Haid Dasalami,in the combox.

Posted by: Darryl Harb at December 30, 2007 10:15 AM

Before Dr.Marranchi takes on Robert in the main event, he needs to move up through the ranks in bouts with some of JW's posters. I'm betting he will not make it to Robert. We have some heavy hitters here.

Posted by: pismopal at December 30, 2007 10:55 AM

Dear Mr. Spencer, thank for your inspiring ideas, however, personally, I'm less interested in these "debates" that use tons of ink but, in the end, are useless because nobody changes his own ideas. As for Gabriele's remarks, being Italian and having had a Fascist father, I totally agree with him in the criticism of the term Islamo-fascism. Today people uses the term "fascism" to mean something different from the real thing. This is not a big deal; we should only agree on the meaning of the terms we are using.

As for the famous Dr. Gabriele Maranci's questions I immediately thought: "These are really stupid questions", but I cannot say it because this is a civilized debate, so I will say "childish" if this term is allowed, or, please, suggest me the right term to render, in an approved way, my sudden thought.

To make things short and to be practical, as a real fascist intellectual should be (according to Gabriele), I should summarize the situation like this:
Christianity, grown on the roman-greek culture, is good and preaches goodness. Christians are often bad, or very bad (Inquisition, persecutions, Galileo and bla, bla, bla), but when they follow the principles of their religion, they become good.
Mohammed is evil, Islam is evil and preaches murder. Muslim are often good, very good (I have many Muslim friends), but when they follow the principles of their religion, they become evil, terrorists, jihadists.

May be it's too simple, but, I think, it's very, very true.

Thanks and regards; b.t.w, happy new year to everybody

Posted by: Buraq at December 30, 2007 11:05 AM

First, Europe needs more than a token military. Are you willing to go down the road of the militaristic (according to some, not all) US? By now the US, with a population about equivalent to the EU, should constitute just half the NATO force.

posted by PMK

I could agree that in comparison to the mighty US a military of any European country can be dismissed as a "token". But military coup is not staged beyond national borders against a possibly stronger country, but internally where a military, however minimal, has in terms of fire power, absolute advantage over its unarmed likely opponents. And that applies both to big countries like UK, France, Germany and to a tiny Lichtenstein.
There are many factors which influence the success of a coup, but the most important is that there is a tightly knitted dedicated group of idealistic officers in key positions who are able to command the army to arrest a sitting government, muzzle the media and enforce martial law. If they can legitimize their action by articulating in their manifesto the wishes of the silent majority, present a program for realization of these wishes and demonstrate their readiness to shoot if necessary for achieving their objectives the coup initiators have very good chance of success.
To summarize; it is not how many submarines, nukes, or bombers a military coup leaders have under their command, but if they are able to quickly seize strategic positions within the military and convince the majority they are representing its interests.

Posted by: thomas. h at December 30, 2007 11:16 AM

Btw: he also stopped comments, looks like he is already copping a bit of heat over his disingenous claptrap.

Cheers!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 29, 2007 9:44 PM

You're right, sheik. He published 2 of mine, but not (not yet, anyway) the next 4. He couldn't take it, I suppose. A coward, like all Leftist Academics. Can dish it out, but can't take it.

Posted by: darcy at December 30, 2007 11:52 AM

Robert Spencer....Batman and "kicker of kittens" heh heh heh

Posted by: interestinconundrum at December 30, 2007 11:53 AM

I don't like the "kitten" remark. It's not funny. Can we dispense with that image of cruelty and barbarism, please?

Many thanks.

Posted by: darcy at December 30, 2007 12:06 PM

Dear Robert,

I'm sorry, but I most certainly don't worship you. And no, I won't be buying the "I Love Robert Spencer" tee-shirt either. For me to love you it would require several dates, a few bouquets of flowers and at least one intimate encounter for me to even consider it. So forget it. Anyway, I'm not that kind of a boy....

As for the rest of you "worshipers", Happy New Year! Be strong, be safe and may 2008 bring you all happiness, good health and prosperity! And no, I'm pretty sure Mr. Spencer won't go out with you either.
Shalom,
Theosebes

Posted by: Theosebes at December 30, 2007 12:50 PM

Mr. T,

We're talkin' philia here, not eros, dude. If I wusyou, I wouldn'be dissin' our Dear Leader, caus'thas sorta like blasphemy in these parts o'th blogosphere.

Posted by: John C at December 30, 2007 1:21 PM

The Left does believe in free speech as long as you agree with what the believe. Mr.Spencer runs afoul of them because he says things that run contradictory to Leftist dogma so it makes him a demon in the eyes of the Left who must then be silenced or marginalized.

You can also see this in the way the liberal blogs are run, especially the "A" list blogs like DailyKos, MyDD, etc. They'll censor or ban you if you cross the party line on issues. Only proper ideas and opinions are allowed.

Posted by: waltc at December 30, 2007 1:23 PM

The commonality of wacky professors in our academia is truly frightening. The boards of regents at all universities should bone up on their hiring practices and not so readily accept those multi-millions that the wahabi lobby so happily dumps into their laps. Be like Rudy. Just say no.

Posted by: imamerican at December 30, 2007 2:31 PM

Dear Mr. Spencer,

After having visited his website, I can assure you that he has neither the intention nor the capacity to engage you in intelligent civilized debate.

Please stop wasting your time engaging this pretentious prig.

Posted by: patagonianplato at December 30, 2007 3:14 PM

Yet this post is not about Spencer's answers, which in any case you can read and draw your own conclusions about.It is not about his lack of humour, and his self-centric business related, attitude. It is more about the kind of people who seem to orbit around him. Indeed, due to such a reality, it becomes impossible to have any serious (or even humorous) discussion with him.

The good Dr is poof that you can go to school for a long time and still come away empty handed, if I was him, I would ask for a refund!

Posted by: Bar at December 30, 2007 3:37 PM

All hail Spencer the Great!

Posted by: joeblough at December 30, 2007 3:58 PM

Marranci's little helper, AbdulHaq, posted this:

http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=na7ofI4MoLA

Kids stuff.

From the video: 'Spencer is not a scholar and as such not qualified to speak about Islam'-.

These arguments are as false as they are childish, misleading and cheap. The sura's this 'qualified' adherent of Islam cites are easily debunked due to the underlying dualism (Mecca and Medina) but he won't tell you that. Instead he invokes Moses & David as having been 'warrior prophets'- so how could Muhammad be wrong mass-murdering, raping and plundering other tribes.

Exhilarating stupidity, but they (Muslims) don't think so....

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 30, 2007 4:35 PM

Hey there, Darryl. I don't often get back to these threads after I chew them up, but this one didn't digest, and I'm glad.

I'll get to you under separate cover. Hell, I'm always undercover.

Puritans, huh? And there's that historically linear thing again, but apparently not unilinear. Hmmm.

I guess it's all over my head. I'm still trying to fathom Italian misogyny.

That reminds me. I was going to make some meatballs.

Regards,

HAID

Posted by: Haid Dasalami at December 30, 2007 4:42 PM

Hahahahahahaha....too good.

How did I miss this yesterday?

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at December 30, 2007 5:16 PM

All Hail!

Posted by: John C at December 30, 2007 5:36 PM

The true colors of the Bunglawussi:

Among of Marranci's great supporters and fans we find the Bungla from the MCB. On his blog, aptly named 'Islamophobia watch' he eagerly denounces all the enemies of Islam and those who oppose the establishment of sharia in the UK.

In his latest entry he features a David Green, here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/30/do3005.xml

Green: "The inequality of women under the law will never be acceptable in the West. The freedom to criticise religious beliefs and to join and leave faith traditions as individual conscience dictates is simply not consistent with the Muslim habit of threatening apostates with death. The view that the Koran must be binding for all time is not compatible with our commitment to learning from each other through free inquiry and the clash of opinion. The year 2008 could see the beginnings of a liberal British Islam willing to embrace equality under the law, freedom of religion, and freedom of interpretation."

This is of course, wishful thinking on the part of Green. But one can always hope.

But not when it comes to the 'immutable' Koran: The Bunglawussi has Green all figured out and does a proper Islamic dressing down, authoratively and with gusto:

Note the sleight of hand here. Green applauds the development of "an interpretation of Islam that is compatible with liberal democracy" (so you can't accuse him of being an anti-Muslim bigot, can you?) while simultaneously asserting that mainstream Islam in the UK – which he identifies with the oppression of women, death threats against apostates and a literalist intepretation of the Qur'an – is incompatible with liberal democracy.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 30, 2007 6:25 PM

Sorry, forgot to post the link:

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2007/12/30/torygraph-promotes-islamic-reform.html

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 30, 2007 6:28 PM

What a self-assured innocent. What stupidaggini.

Posted by: Hugh at December 30, 2007 7:12 PM

I especially am delighted that Dr. Marranci notes that RS is forming a "vitual militia," it SO appeals to the Walter Mitty in me that LOVES role-playing games--no need for a virtual Baghdad or Beirut, I can slug-it-out with the "Other" RIGHT HERE to stake and hold our turf! Deus vult!

Posted by: John C at December 30, 2007 7:27 PM

Dear Jihad Watch,

I think you guys should send Dr. Marranci (clueless and humorless though he is) another item in that fine product line: Number 1877, "I LOVE BENITO MUSSOLINI"; or perhaps the equally evil idiotic Number 1700, "I LOVE KIM JONG IL."

Posted by: John C at December 30, 2007 7:37 PM

When Leftists challenge me on the term Islamofascim this is how I respond to them:

Fascism:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Fully implemented, Islam is a system of government (the Caliphate), marked by centralization of authority under a dictator (the Caliph), stringent socioeconomic controls (Sharia law) , suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship (the system of dhimitude for Non-muslims) , and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism (Jihad) and racism (Islamic supremecy).

Posted by: Vince at December 30, 2007 7:47 PM

Dear Mr. Spencer:

Any informed person readily sees your joke for what it is--a joke. It is in the nature of things for a popularizer of ideas--serious ideas at that--to connect with his audience. Humor and the personal touch are excellent vehicles for this, and serve to increase your intended audience.

Self-promotion is integral to communicating ideas; is, and always has been.

Dr. Marranci can carp and sneer, but foot traffic is heading the other way--his efforts help--so let the Doctor gnash his teeth in envious fury!

Posted by: John C at December 30, 2007 8:09 PM

Reminds me of Groucho Marx's humor: Dr. Marranci "may look like an idiot and sound like an idiot--but don't let that fool you--he IS an idiot!"

Posted by: John C at December 30, 2007 8:16 PM

Humorless SOB and egotist? ANOTHER fine example of projection!

A self-deprecating joke proves the case? This is an example of inverted reasoning, also.

Posted by: John C at December 30, 2007 9:31 PM

Too bad about the Great Leader statues. When they're back in stock, I want to order one. It would look really cool above my workbench, right beside my copper Ganesha. Someone let me know when they come in, okay?

Thanks,
A Worshiper

Posted by: Abscedere at December 30, 2007 9:40 PM

Dearest Exalted Leader Mr. Spencer,

Please don't let our undying devotion and adoration go to your head and morph into a pretentious prick like so many of your adversaries. That would be devastating!

Trusting that you will remain eternally humble, approachable, and modest, I am

Your Faithful Worshipper Forever

P.S. I eagerly anticipate the great debate.

Posted by: Susanp at December 30, 2007 10:03 PM

Susanp,

The trouble about our Exalted Leader, is that he gets the jihad imperative right, but just doesn't get this "cult leader" stuff down right yet. He's actually EMBARRASSED by it--of course his detractors make him out to be a demigod, it's projection and downright ENVY (besides, Pamela Geller over at Atlas never returns THEIR calls or e-mails).

Now, if only Robert comes around to playing along with the gig--I mean, Saddam never had a problem accepting his people's adulation--it's THE PEOPLE who keep offering Caesar the crown, goes with the territory. It's all for the people's sake, after all.

Posted by: John C at December 30, 2007 11:20 PM

Dear Jihad Watch:

BTW, when DO you get more Spencer the Great Leader statues in stock? Deus lo vult.

Posted by: John C at December 31, 2007 12:45 AM

Thomas H.- Don't troops in Britain swear allegiance to the Queen? Put her back in charge and this Eurabia problem will end in about 5 minutes.

Posted by: Bingo at December 31, 2007 3:37 AM

Bingo,

Put her back in charge and this Eurabia problem will end in about 5 minutes.

Except that you will need a military takeover to put her back in charge.

Posted by: thomas. h at December 31, 2007 6:40 AM

ROFL...

You mean you areNOT the leader of a cult?

Darn it I have to cancel my order of white robes! But what do I do with all these tapes on how to be a super islamaphobe?

Posted by: Weatherob at December 31, 2007 11:01 AM

THE BIGGEST JOKE of this all is to portray Robert Spencer's [innumerable legions] of admirers as a cult of [blindly] "fanatic worshippers" --what a hoot, what a frolic!-- driven by [uncontrollably] "irrational emotion." That way, we become a projection and parody of the very things we fear and detest!

(This is an entertaining tragicomedy, perversely comforting and amusing for us perfervid followers of The Unexpected One--Our Peerless, Imperious Leader--especially in the wake of 9/11 and its attendant traumas.)

Posted by: John C at December 31, 2007 2:03 PM

In his current piece, one of GM's "worshipers" (seems this is his preferred terminology) crows about a debate that appears to be connected to the recent non-debate by vacuous grandstander Nadir Ahmed at ExamineTheTruth.com ( who also chimes in on GM's blog comments to claim "victory" over Spencer).

The latter claim, by one AbdulHaq, is that that Spencer "Spencer more or less chickened out of a well-organised and planned debate with the Muslim author Jalal Abualrub". I have no knowledge of this particular challenge, but it can be found, with all the requisite crowing and Allahu-Akhbarring about defeating the feeble kuffar, over at IslamiLife.com .

Once more it looks like a zealous grandstander hoping to wow with his awe-inspiring rhetorical skill and stage presence, and like others of the same ilk unwilling to engage in a rational discourse, such as Mr Spencer appears to have suggested in place of the staged spectacle the fellow appeared to have in mind.

Mr. Abualrub appears to be a bit busy with other matters ... seems he's been engaged in a bit of a spat with a fellow islamist over at Answering-Christianity.com. I found Mr. Zaatari's piece, Jalal Abualrub: The fake Scholar of Islam mildly amusing, but a bit of a dull read. Got to respecting Mr Z a bit, though for having the fortitude and integrity to speak his mind on the matter. If he is capable of more than the character assassination evident in this piece, he might be a reasonable enough fellow to debate with himself.

BTW: Happy New Year all.

Sheik, as to your guess that Maranci is a closet Muslim, perhaps, but if so not so closeted. I think, more likely, he is a closet kafir (-slash-useful-idiot), if one takes his "about me" comments seriously:

As an anthropologist, I become part of the community I am studying, and am offered the opportunity to observe and understand things from everyday life and as an ‘insider’, instead of from the mass media or libraries.

I guess he knows all about Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood as an Insider, which establishes his qualification to debate with one of the leading anti-jihadists in the world. Poor Mr Spencer's knowledge about jihadism comes from books and scholarship instead of "every day life as an 'insider'..."

Posted by: Archimedes2 at January 1, 2008 2:59 AM