| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Sanaa Nadim: Offended
Last Thursday night when I spoke at SUNY-Stony Brook, the new tactics about which I have written here, here and here were not as much in evidence as they had been at other campuses: students did not try to disrupt my remarks, but the MSA did show up in force, and were ready with hostile and contemptuous questions.
The fireworks began with the first question. Sister Sanaa Nadim, the chaplain of the Stony Brook MSA, stood up to declare how incredibly offended she was by my taking Qur'anic verses out of context in order to portray all Muslims as extremists. She launched into full-bore counter lecture mode (despite requests from me and the student organizers not to try to hijack the lecture during the question period, but to ask a brief question), repeatedly attempted to talk over my answers, and only retreated a bit when I pointed out what a splendid example of courtesy and fair play she was giving to her students.
When I did get a chance to speak again, I listed some of the Islamic authorities who taught that offensive jihad warfare against unbelievers was the final and lasting stage of jihad, including Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Qayyim, Ibn Kathir, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, etc., and asked her to save her offense for those people if she truly opposed this point of view, but not to pretend that I had originated this perspective.
But of course, it is likely that she, like most of her coreligionists in the U.S., has never expressed any outrage toward any of them or their modern exponents, allowing bland condemnations of an undefined "terrorism" to suffice. I think it that the outrage she was directing at me seemed manufactured, perhaps to give gullible audience members the impression that she had never heard before of this interpretation of Islam -- as none other than Mahdi Bray once claimed during a Q-and-A after a talk I once gave in Boston.
I also cautioned Sanaa Nadim and the MSA members in attendance that it was dangerous to believe their own propaganda: I had not said that all Muslims were "extremists" during that speech or in any other speech or in anything I had ever written. (In fact, I don't even generally use the term "extremist.") Nadim and her MSA students at Stony Brook, like the shrieking self-righteous harpy who descended upon me at Penn State and her allies in the audience there, seem to have memorized a few talking points that have been cooked up somewhere about what I supposedly say, and were working from that rather than dealing with what I actually said.
At the same time, however, the MSA's furious reaction and eager distortion of my remarks at both Penn State and SUNY Stony Brook highlights the other side of the coin, a point I have also often emphasized: the limited value of the fact that not all Muslims are "extremists." That not all Muslims are on board with the Islamic supremacist program is simply a fact, but it does not follow from that fact that there is any significant body of Muslims who are actively or seriously opposing the jihadists and Islamic supremacists. There are a few courageous individuals here and there, but as I have pointed out many times using Ibn Warraq's phrase, while there are moderate Muslims, there is no moderate Islam. And while some people are cultural and nominal Muslims who are ignorant of and/or indifferent to the jihad imperative, it cannot be assumed (as many Western government and law enforcement officials assume) that any given peaceful Muslim opposes the jihad simply by virtue of the fact that he is not actively engaged in violence or participating in plotting in a violent jihad group.
Moreover, when Muslims in America get angrier at me for discussing how other Muslims are using Islam to justify and spread an expansionist, totalitarian, and discriminatory ideology, than they do against those Muslims, it does not inspire confidence. In fact, it should make every non-Muslim who witnesses it wonder at their misplaced priorities, and at just how insincere are their protestations of moderation. I am not saying that Sanaa Nadim and her students in the SUNY Stony Brook MSA are jihadists. But if they really want to show that they accept American Constitutional pluralism, they would do well to start by acknowledging the existence of the Islamic supremacist ideology and repudiating it in specific terms, and backing up that repudiation with deeds (beginning with transparent, honest, inspectable programs teaching against it in mosques and Islamic schools in America), instead of getting angry at anyone who brings it up.
I can illustrate my point here by reference to one of Sanaa Nadim's own writings. In 2002 she contributed a chapter to the book Women for Afghan Women: Shattering Myths and Claiming the Future, edited by Sunita Mehta. Nadim's chapter is called "Women and Equality In Islam." In it, she attempts to show that "the realities that we have seen in recent history regarding the status of women in so-called Muslim countries do not reflect authentic Islam." Indeed, "extremist Muslims -- the West shudders at the phrase -- have given all sincere Muslims a bad name." She declares that "Islam brought true freedom to women." One may be led to believe from all this that Sanaa Nadim in her essay takes up and refutes some of the reasons that those "extremist Muslims" give for their oppression of women, but no such luck. The most glaring omission is that Nadim, even while discussing some of the Qur'an's statements about women, never mentions Qur'an 4:34, which declares that "good women are obedient" -- and what of those who aren't? "Beat them."
She could have argued, as many Islamic apologists in the West have done, that no Muslims take this verse literally (it's okay for them to assume that Islam is a monolith), or that Muhammad mitigated it in the Hadith. Both of those positions are weak, as I have demonstrated elsewhere, but at least they aren't pretending that the verse doesn't exist at all. For Sanaa Nadim to ignore this verse in an essay about the status of women in Islam is extremely strange, and whatever her reasons may have been for doing this, they can't have had anything to do with genuine reform. Real reform doesn't happen by ignoring what needs reforming, but by confronting it. I think it's likely, however, that if during my talk I had mentioned 4:34, and the high incidence of wife abuse in Islamic countries, Sanaa Nadim's outrage would only have heightened. But the fact that it isn't turned against those Muslims who invoke 4:34 to justify spousal abuse, and that she passed up a golden opportunity to condemn them and call for reform in her book about women in Afghanistan, is telling.
As was the MSA's playing of the victim card Friday night in Stony Brook. One MSA member stood up to complain that MSA events at the university were not as well-staffed with campus police as mine was. I refrained from replying that I doubted that MSA events on campus were preceded by the threat that if they went on as planned, there would be "repercussions" -- which was a threat that the sponsoring group received in connection with my talk, and which police thoroughly investigated. I didn't refrain from telling him this out of politeness, but simply because I didn't think to mention it; I was too busy replying to his complaints about how difficult life had become for Muslims after 9/11.
I told him that I too was often singled out for extra searches in airports, and once while stuck in an airport was working on Jihad Watch when suddenly I found myself surrounded by police, several of whom were holding back hungry-looking police dogs. Someone had seen "jihad" on my screen and reported me, and I was taken away for questioning. I told him I didn't mind any of this, since I loved America and knew about threat we were all facing, and so didn't mind putting up with inconvenience for the sake of national security, knowing that if I wasn't doing anything wrong, it would all come out all right in the end anyway.
But of course if one doesn't hold in high regard the safety of innocent Americans, and would rather use the alleged mistreatment of Muslims in the war on terror as a means to halt those anti-terror efforts, one would not be interested in putting up with such inconveniences. Is that really the impression that this young man intended to leave with me and with the rest of the audience Thursday night?
Posted by Robert at October 27, 2008 5:34 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
The preamble of our ideological struggle with Islam...
"That not all Muslims are on board with the Islamic supremacist program is simply a fact, but it does not follow from that fact that there is any significant body of Muslims who are actively or seriously opposing the jihadists and Islamic supremacists. There are a few courageous individuals here and there, but as I have pointed out many times using Ibn Warraq's phrase, while there are moderate Muslims, there is no moderate Islam. And while some people are cultural and nominal Muslims who are ignorant of and/or indifferent to the jihad imperative, it cannot be assumed (as many Western government and law enforcement officials assume) that any given peaceful Muslim opposes the jihad simply by virtue of the fact that he is not actively engaged in violence or participating in plotting in a violent jihad group."
Posted by: Cornelius![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 27, 2008 5:49 PM
Hell, the whole thing was an intensely rewarding read Robert. I don't know why some essays written by the same person resonate so much more powerfully than others, all I know is that this one kicks ass...
...and no, that wasn't a left-handed compliment. We value everything you offer here, it's just that sometimes, like an athlete, you're on your absolute A game.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 27, 2008 5:57 PM
Totalitarian types often reveal more than they realize. Trying to shout down someone, talking over someone or even preventing a person from speaking is straight out of Totalitarianism 101. Just fill in Marxist, fascist, the New Left, Muslim as the individual instance requires.
Posted by: Wellington at October 27, 2008 5:59 PM
The manufactured outrage is on display with the complaints about "Obsession". Rather then complaining about the hatred being expressed in the film by Muslims. Jihad apologists complain that the film is being shown. One delusional Muslim described Obsession as "verbal and visual terrorism".As if images of Muslims preaching hate and engaging in terror can in any way be compared with the suffering of the victims of those terrorists. People see the hypocrisy which is one reason why Islam is viewed with contempt.
Posted by: Roxane at October 27, 2008 6:15 PM
"That not all Muslims are on board with the Islamic supremacist program is simply a fact"- sure thing. But sister Sanaa Nadim certainly is, that's why she tried to shout you down.
You are too nice, Robert. You have a right to be heard. You should have had her removed.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 27, 2008 6:19 PM
You are too nice, Robert. You have a right to be heard. You should have had her removed.
to where sharia is law. then let her get up and try to speak
Posted by: theygottago at October 27, 2008 6:26 PM
I beg to differ either you believe in islamic supremacy or you are not amuslim i think the koran makes it pretty well known a muslims job is to be supreme over all others.
I appreciate your position constantly under attack but i feel we need truth you cannot be a muslim and not believe in the korans woed if you are not for allahs ot muhammads words you are not a muslim and both make clear how to deal with non muslims.
at October 27, 2008 6:29 PM
Why isn't this woman confronting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda as to their terrorist activities? Why is she confronting Robert and not the terrorists? Just another Muslim apologist aiming their questions in the wrong direction.
Posted by: champ at October 27, 2008 6:33 PM
Why doesn't she go back to her Islamic Crapistan where she can enjoy Islam 100%?
Well, why doesn't she?
Posted by: darcy at October 27, 2008 6:55 PM
This is up at the CAIR site right now in the article entitled "CAIR-LA Wins Judgment Against Theater that Canceled Screening":
This case was a classic example of how a few narrow-minded people can harm the right to freedom of speech that we all cherish, said CAIR-LA staff attorney Ameena Qazi."
Spoken, apparently, without irony.
Posted by: Rucker at October 27, 2008 6:56 PM
when people have their delusions, they do not take kindly to those who upset their fond sentimentalities.
Posted by: stickman at October 27, 2008 7:08 PM
There are no moderate Mohammadans.
Allah is not moderate.
Mohammad was not Moderate.
Mohammads companions, and the first four caliphs were not moderate.
The Quran is not moderate.
Ahadith are not moderate.
Islam is not moderate.
So how can it be that individuals who submit to all this immoderation, and have swallowed it hook line and sinker, can be moderate?
Just believing in the two basics...'Allah is God...Mohammad was his messenger', destroys moderation.
There may be Mohammadans who do not want to fight, and would rather stay at home and watch television, but Allah/Mohammad covered that one with:
Qur'an:8:5 "Your Lord ordered you out of your homes to fight for the true cause, even though some Muslims disliked it, and were averse (to fighting)."
And: Qur'an:4:75 "What reason have you that you should not fight in Allah's Cause?"
And: Qur'an:9:3 "Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah's Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place.
And: Qur'an:4:95 "Not equal are believers who sit home and receive no hurt and those who fight in Allah's Cause with their wealth and lives. Allah has granted a grade higher to those who fight with their possessions and bodies to those who sit home. Those who fight He has distinguished with a special reward."
And: Qur'an:61:4 "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His Cause.Qur'an:2:216 "Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not." [Another translation reads:] "Warfare is ordained for you."
And finally but not complete: Qur'an:61:4 "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His Cause.
Where do you find moderates in any of that?
at October 27, 2008 7:39 PM
Do please let us know how Andrew Bostom goes at USC.
And best of luck for your final gig at East Tennessee State U on the 29th.
PS I like the story about the interview with the cops - and their dogs - at the airport. Did you get a chance to 'educate' the cops once they'd checked your background and worked out you were harmless and indeed, on their side?
Who knows - maybe once they got off duty they gave way to their natural curiosity and went and lurked at this website or even went off and checked out your books. You don't know how far the word may have got by now.
Put it this way: if I knew that copies of 'Onward Muslim Soldiers' and 'PIG to Islam and the Crusades', for example, were circulating quietly among the beat policemen and their officers across the United States and Australia, I'd sleep a lot more peacefully.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at October 27, 2008 7:48 PM
I get the distinct feeling that Robert is too much the Gentleman at these events when confronted with hostile interlopers. Way too much of a defensive posture. It is really pointless expecting them to acknowledge something they will never admit to.
Robert knows as much if not more about Islam than these nitwits that show up making everyones life and education miserable. It is disingenuous at the least for them to come and profess the Koran does not say what it does. Just remind these people you are well informed of what the texts say and what they mean and your unwilling to just let them misinform the audience. Working in that verse about the the right of Muslims to lie to infidels and your not going to let them get away with it. Just throw these facts back at them and let them eat grouse. Your the ones with the armed Guards. Not them.
Every one of these "after action" posts read like Robert is put on the hot seat when the Interlopers need to be placed under the spot light.
No doubt Robert is a gentleman, but the time has come to stomp on their Toes instead of the other way around.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at October 27, 2008 7:57 PM
"The fireworks began with the first question. Sister Sanaa Nadim, the chaplain of the Stony Brook MSA, stood up to declare how incredibly offended she was by my taking Qur'anic verses out of context in order to portray all Muslims as extremists."
Quranic versus out of context,--- incredibly offended,--and portraying all Muslim as extremist. This is the constant propaganda drum beat of Muslims. There is no room for rational discussion, indeed it is offensive to even comment in any way critically on Islam. The Muslims is taught to believe that the words of Mohammed are pure and cannot be changed.
Did she invalidate Robert's understanding of Islamic Teachings? Did she challenge him to a discussion on versus in the Quran and what they really mean?
at October 27, 2008 7:58 PM
"One MSA member stood up to complain that MSA events at the university were not as well-staffed with campus police as mine was."
I am quite sure that Robert does not live in a secure undisclosed location because he is merely anti-social.
Posted by: awake at October 27, 2008 7:58 PM
flowerknife:
You say that I should "just remind these people you are well informed of what the texts say and what they mean and your unwilling to just let them misinform the audience."
I did. I always do.
Perhaps you missed this paragraph of what I wrote above:
When I did get a chance to speak again, I listed some of the Islamic authorities who taught that offensive jihad warfare against unbelievers was the final and lasting stage of jihad, including Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Qayyim, Ibn Kathir, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, etc., and asked her to save her offense for those people if she truly opposed this point of view, but not to pretend that I had originated this perspective.
One of the students at SUNY-Stony Brook told me he had video of my exchange with Sanaa Nadim, in which you will see that I did not let any of her false claims go unchallenged. I haven't heard from him, but he told me he was going to post it and I hope he will soon.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at October 27, 2008 8:04 PM
Mr. Spencer, this is Conor from Stony Brook University.
Here is the video from our event last week:
http://www.youtube.com/user/conorblue
That is my profile and it has one video, that is the exchange between yourself and Sister Sanaa.
Thank you again so much for coming, and we are still on cloud nine here at the University.
I'd like to send you our newest issue for next month with an article about you, and about the event inside of it. I hope to send that soon.
Thank you so much
Posted by: Conor Harrington at October 27, 2008 8:19 PM
I just noticed your post above mine. I apologize for the lateness of my video. Got a bit busy with work and midterms this week.
Sorry!
Posted by: Conor Harrington at October 27, 2008 8:26 PM
Oh, also...
(sorry for the third post)
the audio is a bit bad on tiny speakers. The best way would be to use headphones. That you can hear the exchange much more clearly. Or perhaps if you are hooked up to good speakers you can hear it well too. Using laptop speakers makes it very hard to hear
just a suggestion for everyone
Posted by: Conor Harrington at October 27, 2008 8:31 PM
The charge of taking things out of context can be dualistic, the person saying such a thing can have their own idiosyncratic understanding of the context to which they refer while someone versed in the texts can have a more objective view of what the context is.
A woman raised under Islam might have internalized all the agitprop about Islam elevating womens rights, her reaction to those who point out FGM and Honor killings might be the same as a woman who is told the love of her life is being untrue, she might decide, irregardless of the evidence, to become angry at the person who told her rather than realize she gave her heart to someone that was untrue.
I will confess I have no formula for the dillemma, to disillusion someone of a delusion, or even to let someone know that I knew that they were being played falsely is never a good thing.
Posted by: stickman at October 27, 2008 8:42 PM
Start with a terrorizing pedophile warlord and you end up with angry cranks for devotees.
Posted by: profitsbeard at October 27, 2008 8:43 PM
When is Bostom going to be at USC?
Posted by: PRCalDude at October 27, 2008 8:56 PM
Whew: I don't know how you do it...I would be throwing chairs after about three minutes of that.
That's probably why I never get invited to speak anywhere...
I notice a number of people walking out, like on cue...I guess it got a little too hot for them...
at October 27, 2008 9:16 PM
It is obvious from the video that the hijabs and the beards have no interest to hear anything critical of islam, and the 'sister' had only one purpose, which is to deflect and to disrupt.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 27, 2008 9:22 PM
Posted by: Conor Harrington at October 27, 2008 8:19 PM
Thank you Conor.
It was classic you panning to the mass Exodus of Muslims who realized, it seems in unison, that they could not refute a single thing Robert was saying.
Posted by: awake at October 27, 2008 9:24 PM
Posted by: awake at October 27, 2008 9:24 PM
Thanks a lot. Im not sure why exactly they were leaving. Some came back, and some never did. I heard some left for prayers, and some left because they simply wanted to. It was when things got testy between Sister Sanaa and Mr. Spencer that a lot began leaving, which makes me err on the side of their departure as a result of distaste for Robert's remarks. I told Sanaa it wasn't a debate, you can hear it on the video. She didn't like that, but oh well. We told her days in advance it was not a debate, as she kept urging us to mold the event into one.
It was a fantastic night for our conservative group on campus. Robert Spencer was incredibly nice, cordial, and was great to have dinner with. It was a pleasure to share a brew with him and we at the Stony Brook Patriot are forever indebted.
Posted by: Conor Harrington at October 27, 2008 9:30 PM
And on the flip-side, an example of "education" wasted at Stony Brook, a simple economic lesson for Robert Spencer and his irrational fear of Shari'ah implementation in the US by the "prestigious" Zachary Kurtz.
http://thestonybrookpatriot.blogspot.com/2008/10/lesson-on-economics-for-robert-spencer.html
Muslim cabbie id's? He sounds like he would have been an advocate for identifying Jews in the 1930's with the Star of David armpatch. Curious indeed.
Apparently, Mr. Kurtz doesn't think Capitalism will take a hit, thus providing a quicker avenue for Shari'ah implementation all under the guise of religous tolerance, if the US elects Obama next week.
Hopefully SUNY SB can have Mr. Spencer speak again at the next IFAW outing.
Posted by: awake at October 27, 2008 9:38 PM
Posted by: awake at October 27, 2008 9:38 PM
as the resident blogger at the patriot blog, i am in total disagreement with kurtz
Posted by: Conor Harrington at October 27, 2008 9:50 PM
PRCalDude
re Dr Andrew Bostom, the notice I was sent said "October 28th USC Dr Andrew Bostom". Unfortunately it didn't give venue and time of day, whether it cost to get in, whether you had to book, etc.
Here in Australia it's midday on the 28th, already, but I think we're ahead of you time-wise, so - if it's going to be an evening presentation - you might still have time to get there and provide moral support.
Contact the Terrorism Awareness Project people pronto, like, right now, and they might be able to tell you precisely where and when on campus the talk is happening.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at October 27, 2008 10:22 PM
Awake...I don't think Kurtz understands Islam or cab drivers...
kurtz, from his article: In modern day St. Paul, where theoretically anybody can start a taxicab company....
Now that's a stretch. I'm glad he added 'theoretically'. 'Theoretically' I can build a sky scraper in Dubai. The fact is, not just anyone can start a cab company. It takes a large amount of money to put one cab on the street, permits, insurance (did you know that no insurance company will insure the physical cab?), the car itself etc.
If anyone could give rides for money, no one who owns a car needs to be poor, but that's not the way it works. Only those with cash assets, or really good credit can open a cab business...So 'theoretically' anyone can start a cab company, but actually, no they can't...
at October 27, 2008 10:49 PM
Swami,
Theoretically, anything is possible: I could start a cab company under a skyscraper in Dubai, Minnesota, make a million dollars, marry a super-model, track down Big-Foot, photograph a UFO...even make the acquaintance of a moderate Muslim.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 27, 2008 11:34 PM
"That not all Muslims are on board with the Islamic supremacist program is simply a fact, but it does not follow from that fact that there is any significant body of Muslims who are actively or seriously opposing the jihadists and Islamic supremacists. There are a few courageous individuals here and there, but as I have pointed out many times using Ibn Warraq's phrase, while there are moderate Muslims, there is no moderate Islam. And while some people are cultural and nominal Muslims who are ignorant of and/or indifferent to the jihad imperative, it cannot be assumed (as many Western government and law enforcement officials assume) that any given peaceful Muslim opposes the jihad simply by virtue of the fact that he is not actively engaged in violence or participating in plotting in a violent jihad group."
I.e., 1 + -2 + 1.5 + -1 + 0.5 + -1 + 1.
Posted by: DenverRodeo at October 28, 2008 12:08 AM
...even make the acquaintance of a moderate Muslim.
Posted by: Cornelius
Now that one is really theoretical...
Posted by: duh_swami at October 28, 2008 12:36 AM
With all due respect Mr. Spencer, Sister Sanaa Nadin left the doors wide open to be discredited.
In the opening of her statement she states she speaks on this subject. Yet, later she poses questions while you are making references in your defense.
such as,
Who are these men?
We don't know them
We don't see them
But you make this out to be a reality and everybody should know about them.
This is an incredible thing for someone to say who professes to be an expert in their own right. She left a hole big enough to run a 6 lane highway through. Simply stating that as an "expert", she of all people should know who they are and what they say means.
At the same time the Muslim Students are leaving the room without being challenged in the least.
I just think that there are other methods to apply your command of the subject material in a fluid environment. Even if it only benefits the Infidels in the audience. There are many ways to apply Dale Carnegie.
I mean no disrespect for you and your efforts. I hold you in the highest regard.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at October 28, 2008 8:46 AM
Flowerknife:
She was saying so many things -- I tried to stop her so I could answer point-by-point -- but I didn't hear her say the things you say she said here. I answered her as best I could. I am quite sure that you and many others would have done a better job, but unfortunately right now I am one of the few people out there challenging them at all, and I did what I could.
Meanwhile, your remark about challenging the MSA members who were leaving is odd. What did you want me to do, bar the door?
Finally, I can't help but notice that your first post saying I handled this poorly was posted before the video was put up, and yet in your explanation in your second post you're quite specific about what Sanaa Nadim said that I didn't answer. Were you there at the event, or did you decide a priori that I did not do well and then go looking for corroborating evidence?
I may indeed have done poorly, but I did find this curious.
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
at October 28, 2008 9:37 AM
No doubt Robert is a gentleman, but the time has come to stomp on their toes instead of the other way around.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at October 27, 2008 7:57 PM
RS has got the patience of a tortoise. But, will "slow and steady" win the race against the Gathering Jihad ( my phrase from Churchill's "Gathering Storm")?
at October 28, 2008 9:41 AM
Darcy,
I answer everything they say except insofar as I don't hear it or they throw out so many lies and deceptions that there isn't time to deal with them all. But I am not going to scream and shout and hurl abuse at them as they do to me -- maybe you would find this satisfying, but I believe it would play into their hands, particularly when the crowd is hostile.
Anyway, it doesn't depend solely on me to stop the jihad, and so I invite you to begin speaking on campuses and confronting the MSA's -- there is plenty of room for more people to do this, and I am sure you would do a much better job than I do.
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
at October 28, 2008 9:49 AM
Mr. Spencer - I have no idea why you took such umbrage to my comment. I meant no criticism in any way.
The sarcasm of your 2nd paragraph is quite hurtful, as I'm an ardent supporter of yours. In fact, I just watched the video link posted above of your talk at Stony Brook and thought, "Good God, how does he do it?"
IMO, questioning the "moral of the story" to "The Tortoise and The Hare" (slow and steady wins the race) is quite appropriate considering the accelerating pace of the Stealth Jihad, and how we must curtail it.
No, I wouldn't want to see you "scream and shout and hurl abuse" and neither would anyone else. But, we don't want to see you get walked on, either.
Hope you have a great day.
Posted by: darcy at October 28, 2008 10:15 AM
Mr Spenser
My first post was based upon the impression your own post gave me. One that mirrors many others with regards to previous speaking events.
My second post was based upon watching the Video link provided.
Granted, both you and the good Sister were talking at the same time and the Muslim participants were leaving as well. No doubt making for an unsettling situation at the very least. I even concede the point that events at the time may have precluded your ability to hear what the Sister was saying.
As for the Students leaving, Baring them from doing so obviously is not an option. Shaming them for doing so however, is an option. Like asking them what it is about Islamic Scripture they find so offensive as to induce them to leave. Or something to that effect.
It does seem apparent that the MSA and their mentors are aware of the methods you and the few others like you use during these lectures. Being well versed in how to press buttons, distract the audience, and engage in otherwise childish and rude behavior, Ending in a well dramatized exit.
If Shame is something the Muslim mind has difficulty dealing with, then why avoid using it when so many ripe opportunities present itself?
These Individuals obviously know what their scripture says and their presence is not intended to be clarified by you. Rather, to cloud the issue with the Infidels in attendance.
I understand that opinions are like noses and everyones is different. I offer my 2 cents for what it is worth, be it a grain of salt or pound of sugar.
As a lay individual it is unlikely I will be given an opportunity to speak before a crowd any time. soon. I do what I can on an individual basis. Friday I will be attending a private function where the odds will be 12 against 1 with individuals who are of the Political persuasion to disarm us from the threats you so clearly work to prevent. Thanks to all your hard work and efforts, the odds are still in my favor.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at October 28, 2008 2:07 PM
Sanaa Nadim...stood up to declare how incredibly offended she was by my taking Qur'anic verses out of context in order to portray all Muslims as extremists. --Robert
Since Robert has already refuted Nadim's "out of context" charges, I thought I'd try to find some examples of verses cited by Nadim, to see how much context she includes. Here's one example of a Quranic quote by Nadim:
"The following are some examples of verses ("Ayat Al-Shifa") used in spiritual healing. "And God shall heal the breast of the believers" " (Tauba 9:14 )Source: Contexts Vol.7, No.3, February 1999 Spirituality and Health Care: An Islamic Perspective
Nadim is saying the verse is used in some kind of Quranic healing process. This is laughable. Here is the verse with some more textual context:
9:13. "Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first? What! Fear ye them? Now Allah hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers
9:14. Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers."
Talk about taking verses out of context! Nadim pulls that "healing" phrase out of a bellicose passage that evokes feelings of anger and revenge motivation in his followers, and which incites them to fight (q-t-l = kill) the disbelievers.
Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at October 28, 2008 2:36 PM
"his followers" that is Muhammad's followers.
Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at October 28, 2008 2:38 PM
darcy
I apologize. I think I misread what you wrote.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at October 28, 2008 10:54 PM
flowerknife
I suggest you actually attend a talk I give before forming judgments, but that is up to you.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at October 28, 2008 10:55 PM
"The words of the wise spoken calmly are more listened to than the shouts of a leader in the midst of a mad people.
Posted by: Nick Danger at October 29, 2008 3:00 AM
"Come hear me demolish shaitan Spencer, my students! Once my witty repartee, my unassailable logic, my strawman arguments, my long winded blathering and my talking over anything he tries to say have reduced him to a quivering heap and he begs to be allowed to recite the shahadah, you may stand up and leave the room."
"Of course if something goes wrong, and if he is not pleading to become a mussulman or Allah doesn't turn him into a monkey or a pig after I speak, then stand up and leave right then. You have a right to freedom, and there is nothing more free than your mind free of any doubt that only I know the truth."
Later....
"Flee! Flee for your lives sisters and brothers, shaitan Spencer has burst the strawman chains that we attempted to tie him with! Run for your lives! He's unfairly using facts against us! I can only hold him for a short while with the, 'I don't know who you're talking about. I never met them. They never introduced themselves to me. They don't have a regional office with Espresso bar in my dining room. There is no such thing as the Muslim Brotherhood and anyone who tells you there is is a liar. And stop slandering them, they're good people, they're the best of people - and they're fight for our ummah, they fight the jihad. If they existed, which they don't. If they ever existed, which they never did.'"
"Run, run, to the dormitories. Where we can recite a few more verses of the Quar'an and Hadith, and I can tell you about all the love and goodness contained therein. Of course you won't be able to understand it yourself if you can't speak and read classical Arabic and then spend your entire life as a muslim scholar, but it is there. Somewhere. Really clear and simple for all but the kufr."
"Anything you ever heard at this meeting from shaitan Spencer was lies, made up entirely, completely false, with not a single word of truth and worse still - taken out of context. Ibn Ishaq - does not exist and never did. And his isnads are weak, very weak. If they were sahih hadith, would we not have the Sirah Rasul Allah in Ibn Ishaq's own handwriting?"
"Remember what you heard here tonight was a Christian Extremist, and we all hate them, right? And how do we know he's an extremist? Yes, that's right, because I just called him one, and we hate Extremists. Hate Extremists. You saw that his attempts to answer back to my pontification - sorry, 'Question', shows how much an Extremist he is. Anyone that opposes the Ummah is an Extremist."
/sarc
Posted by: Gharkad at October 29, 2008 6:41 AM
I would like to respond to several points made against my blog post on the Patriot Blog: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=153891673828976661&postID=8016165107098618640
My point was not to minimize Robert Spencer's important points about the threat of Islamic extremist leaders, but to point out that, in a economically free society, it will be much harder for them to succeed in implementing any amount of Shari'a law. For every company that decides to bend to ideas of tolerance, another will take advantage of that, and be able to outcompete the "sharia-acceptant company."
Until the left further "European-izes" us, I think Spencer's fear of extremists actualizing implementation of shari'a law under the guise of tolerance will be largely unrealized. This demonstrates the importance of maintaining a society with free markets, where entrepenurs can freely enter a market. In such a scenerio, not company will risk profit to bend to the will of extremist leaders.
awake said [quote]Muslim cabbie id's? He sounds like he would have been an advocate for identifying Jews in the 1930's with the Star of David armpatch. Curious indeed.[/quote]
No... this is a clear ad hom. If a private company wants to mark their employee's cars at the direct request of those employees, that's perfectly fine and legal. The open and public discrimination against a certain group, against their will is a completely different matter.
In the former scenario, the company is letting consumers make a choice to avoid giving business to a certain group. In the latter, a government is ensuring that the public treats a certain ethnicity differently than the rest of the population.
These are hardly the same thing, and is the difference between the freedom to act differently in a society and be willing to accept the economic consequences of doing so, and having the freedom of conformity taken away and being forced, agaisnt your will, to deal with the consequences.
Posted by: zachary at October 31, 2008 2:35 PM
I would like to respond to several points made against my blog post on the Patriot Blog: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=153891673828976661&postID=8016165107098618640
My point was not to minimize Robert Spencer's important points about the threat of Islamic extremist leaders, but to point out that, in a economically free society, it will be much harder for them to succeed in implementing any amount of Shari'a law. For every company that decides to bend to ideas of tolerance, another will take advantage of that, and be able to outcompete the "sharia-acceptant company."
Until the left further "European-izes" us, I think Spencer's fear of extremists actualizing implementation of shari'a law under the guise of tolerance will be largely unrealized. This demonstrates the importance of maintaining a society with free markets, where entrepenurs can freely enter a market. In such a scenerio, not company will risk profit to bend to the will of extremist leaders.
awake said [quote]Muslim cabbie id's? He sounds like he would have been an advocate for identifying Jews in the 1930's with the Star of David armpatch. Curious indeed.[/quote]
No... this is a clear ad hom. If a private company wants to mark their employee's cars at the direct request of those employees, that's perfectly fine and legal. The open and public discrimination against a certain group, against their will is a completely different matter.
In the former scenario, the company is letting consumers make a choice to avoid giving business to a certain group. In the latter, a government is ensuring that the public treats a certain ethnicity differently than the rest of the population.
These are hardly the same thing, and is the difference between the freedom to act differently in a society and be willing to accept the economic consequences of doing so, and having the freedom of conformity taken away and being forced, agaisnt your will, to deal with the consequences.
Posted by: zachary at October 31, 2008 2:36 PM
That being said, I enjoyed Robert Spencer's lecture greatly. I thought he made very intelligent points and spoke elequantly.
I was annoyed that his positions were so easily misrepresented by others... even people I call my friends.
My only problem was that I believe his fears about the implementation of Shari'a law will not come as quickly or as easily as he made it sound in his lecture, depending especially on our political and economic futures.
That being said, I think Spencer's ideas are very important and his words defended where they should be defended, but discussed critically, where we can find flaws.
Robert Spencer - please keep up the important work.
That being said, people here may be interested in this opinion article: http://media.www.sbstatesman.com/media/storage/paper955/news/2008/10/30/Opinion/Robert.Spencers.Radical.Agenda-3513922.shtml
Posted by: zachary at October 31, 2008 2:42 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)