The Leftist establishment, and particularly Leftist academics, have exalted the argument from authority, which logically is the weakest of all arguments, to the status of the only argument they deign to employ in support of their views. They don’t bother to offer evidence or substantiation for what they say. (The obverse of this is also true: if conservatives say something to which the Left objects, even if it is true, he must retreat in disgrace, no matter how high the mountain of evidence in his favor; see the recent case of Mark Green.) We are just expected to take it at face value, because of their exalted status. It is no longer considered within the realm of possibility that a professor could be a poor thinker, or that arguments should be presented with supporting evidence to show that they are true. Being a Leftist, especially a Leftist academic, means never having to offer any defense of the views you enunciate. They are what they are, and the lumpenproletariat just has to fall into line.
And so we come to Gettysburg College professor Dave Powell, who wrote this about my recent appearance on his campus in his article “Looking For a Cure For Educational Exhaustion,” Education Week, May 5, 2017:
I’ll say this though: what Spencer brought to campus was not enlightened discourse or thoughtful intellectual discussion. It was, in my view, third-rate argumentation masquerading as “courageous” free speech, a talk filled with cherry-picked information and weak logic that should have embarrassed the students who invited him. And I mean no disrespect to the students when I say that: my feeling is that they should invite who they want. But this was a weak argument, plain and simple, and not even a particularly provocative one.
The cherry on top was a declamation the speaker made calling for the president of the College to resign for inhibiting free speech (I heard that he called her a fascist, too, but I missed that on the livestream when I was trying to wrangle my daughter out of the bathtub). This denunciation was delivered from behind a podium in a quiet room while a check for $2,000 burned a hole in his pocket. His speech had, in fact, not been denied at all. It had been approved after careful deliberation and it went off without a hitch. He wove his web of circular logic, answered a few questions defiantly, tried unsuccessfully to provoke the crowd, and left. He even thanked the audience for its civility before scurrying off stage. Meanwhile, on the other side of campus, some 400 people gathered at a solidarity rally to protest the speech—not by causing a riot or inciting violence, but by dancing to music provided by a band and generally just enjoying each other’s company. Imagine that.
In reality, Gettysburg College President Janet Morgan Riggs characterized me, without presenting any evidence (of course), as “bigoted” and “hateful,” and called on students not to attend my event. She couldn’t cancel it: she would have been facing a lawsuit. But her actively discouraging students from attending was a quintessentially fascist act: stigmatizing and demonizing dissenting views without examination is one key weapon tyrants use to stay in power.
Powell then suggests, echoing a multitude of libelous pieces from Leftist and Islamic supremacist groups, that I am only in it for the money — as if I couldn’t find a way to make money that wouldn’t involve me getting death threats and being smeared and defamed on a daily basis. This from a man working at an institution that charges each student a cool $47,480 a year to be a recipient of its Leftist indoctrination, digging many students into a deep hole of debt as they begin their professional life. Hey, Professor, nice work if you can get it.
Anyway, the main element of Powell’s remarks that struck me was that he offered no evidence for his withering characterization of my presentation. Once again, the argument from authority from a Leftist academic. So I wrote to him:
Good evening, Professor.
I was quite interested to read this: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/K-12_Contrarian/2017/05/educational_exhaustion.html
“I’ll say this though: what Spencer brought to campus was not enlightened discourse or thoughtful intellectual discussion. It was, in my view, third-rate argumentation masquerading as “courageous” free speech, a talk filled with cherry-picked information and weak logic that should have embarrassed the students who invited him. And I mean no disrespect to the students when I say that: my feeling is that they should invite who they want. But this was a weak argument, plain and simple, and not even a particularly provocative one….He wove his web of circular logic, answered a few questions defiantly, tried unsuccessfully to provoke the crowd, and left. He even thanked the audience for its civility before scurrying off stage.”
How interesting that you didn’t provide even a single example of this weak argumentation.
A proposition for you: I will return to Gettysburg College at my own expense. We can debate on the debate thesis “Islam is a religion of peace.” You argue yes, and I argue no. You can expose to all the students what you didn’t explain in your piece: the cherry-picked circularity and weakness of my argumentation. We can make sure it is videoed and placed on YouTube, so that your discrediting of me will reach many of my followers worldwide and destroy my baneful influence forever.
Here is a further incentive: if you win the debate in the eyes of a mutually agreed-upon panel of neutral arbiters, or failing that, a panel made up of an equal number of supporters of each of us, I will donate $2,000 to Gettysburg College.
I look forward to hearing from you, and will wait to make this challenge public until I do, or until it becomes clear that you do not intend to answer.
Kindest regards
Robert Spencer
Powell responded just as I thought he would: he wrote that he had no interest in debating me and admitted that he was “no expert on the topics you discussed and do not pretend to be.” How he knows that my logic and argumentation were weak when he admittedly doesn’t know the field remains unexplained. He then lectured me a bit on the nature of the freedom of speech, but still offered no examples of my alleged “cherry-picked information and weak logic” and “third-rate argumentation.” We’re just supposed to take his word for it, and we don’t even have to pay $47,480 for the privilege.
But you don’t have to take his word for it. Judge for yourself whether or not Powell is correct in his claims. Watch the lecture and the Q and A here. If you find any “weak argumentation,” “cherry-picked information,” “circular logic,” or anything else supporting Powell’s claims, send me the exact quote and your case, and I will publish it here at Jihad Watch. But don’t neglect to make the case for your claims. We don’t accept the argument from authority here.
Richard says
Powell wrote, ” It was, in my view, third-rate argumentation masquerading as “courageous” free speech…”
In that sentence can be found his weasel-word escape clause – the disclaimer, “…in my view…”. This sneaky bit of chicanery absolves him of any intellectual responsibility because it confirms that everything he says in the article is nothing more that personal opinion with no basis in knowledge, research or even thought. But his intended audience, the other weak-minded Leftists, will miss the clue altogether and accept his arguments as authoritative and self-evident.
Jayke says
It’s the “because I say so” argument that is so often used by weak minds and the left but I repeat myself.
mousey says
and not only that richard, but how can you even have any responsible opinion on an arg’t if you miss part of it (or all of it maybe, who knows– since he was apparently busy in “wrangling out” in the bathroom). My guess is he didn’t hear much of it at all…not only bec/ of his stock generalities: weak, cherry picked, circular logic, not provocative, but also because the specific things he said were mistakes : Mr. Spencer tried to provoke the crowd (when was that??), defiantly answered questions (??), and “scurrying off the stage” …the video we have here does not show Mr. Spencer leaving the stage–when he finishes answering the last question the camera pans the audience.
So the question is, did “this guy named” dave powell watch ANY of the talk?
and how does he know Mr. Spencer wants to spend his money very fast? That just didn’t make sense. And as far as the amount $2000, does mr. powell know the going rate for NYT bestselling authors? Maybe he should look that up.
PRCS says
In truth, Powell’s post made very clear that he’s a hateful and uninformed bigot.
billybob says
$2000 certainly is a pittance. Did you all read where Obama was getting $400,000 to give a speech to Wall Street investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald?
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2017/04/barack_obama_is_taking_400_000_for_a_wall_street_speech_and_that_s_fine.html
mousey says
the list of his “accomplishments” in that linked article made me want to throw up. At least though he’s not talking such a sum, or larger, to speak in a foreign state in exchange for his wife’s cutting a deal.
btw did you notice this sentence “Obama… is definitely done with electoral politics” Makes you think, don’t it.
jihad3tracker says
HIS EMAIL ADDRESS SHOULD BE EASY TO FIND — so I will let you resourceful counter-jihadists tackle that task. If everyone of us — even the very occasional visitors — can scrape up 5 spare minutes today or tomorrow to simply send a link to this post by Robert, please do so.
Among the POLITE points you could make is that the students who were “dancing to music” [as he wrote in the concluding part of his article] will remain clueless about the essential nature of jihad in Islam, but the attendees might indeed be on a new route to shedding their privilege guilt.
jihad3tracker says
By the way: if you go to the Edweek blog post which Robert provides (in red) above, it leads to Powell
s full item, and as of 12:20 Eastern US time, one good response from “Zack” and Powell’s pushback.
WELL, HOW ABOUT US GETTING INTO THE SCRUM TOO ??? You will have to register to comment — and I don’t know if this will be a pain in the keister, but consider doing it anyway, please.
You can remind readers of your comment that the entire speech + Q&A are up in the Jihad Watch blog post here. And be sure to tell them about a refusal to debate, including his expectable admission, as Robert writes:
“Powell responded just as I thought he would: he wrote that he had no interest in debating me and admitted that he was ‘ no expert on the topics you discussed and do not pretend to be.’ ”
Carolyne says
It is said that Nero “Fiddled” while Rome burned. Apparently Professor Powell is proud that some students preferred dancing to being enlightened about a major threat to the civilized world.
Professor Powell would do well to become at least a bit knowledgeable about the topic before he criticizes one who is.
Tom says
As Clint said “It doesn’t matter how good your grades are or if you have a high IQ …… if you lack logic, reason and common sense you’re f*****g stupid”.
Describes just about all these Liberals.
Marty says
It’s important to.note.that not all members of the professoriate are ignorant and foolish. I teach at a state institution with colleagues who do not indoctrinate our students, but provide documented presentations.and encourage open debate. Hooray for Robert Spencer.
gravenimage says
Hear, hear!
Keys says
Thank you Robert Spencer for posting these videos. Well done. Thank you for standing up for the truth despite overwhelming forces against it.
Watching the question and answer video I thought this is a battle in the war for the hearts and minds of the young and old alike.
Wellington says
So, this Dave Powell admits he doesn’t know the subject matter and offers no examples of Robert Spencer’s deficiencies though claiming Spencer was deficient in one way or another. In short, he has no argument at all. None.
Pathetic. Very typical, however, of academics nowadays.
Carolyne says
But at least his kid is clean.
Gen Jones as in Generation Jones says
That inclusion of sympathy getting and virtue signaling was pathetic. Oooo look he’s a feminist cool dad who shares the chores. Imagine the reverse, a female author mentioning she missed some of the talk because she was giving the kids a bath. She’d be considered anti intellectual and a poor time manager.
Emilie Green says
“I look forward to hearing from you:
Robert, when the phone don’t ring, you’ll know it’s Prof. Powell.
They have big mouths, but lack the intellectual fire power to back up their taunts.
Halal Bacon says
What a straw man…….
Westman says
Apparently prof. Powell, a former high school instructor and a current Associate Professor is the chairman of the Education Department, which is usually considered to be one of the least academic on a campus. It’s amusing that he would use the word “circular” when education of more educators, by educators, is perhaps the most non-innovative and circular based profession.
In working for a local university, I noticed that disciplines that required logic and proof had little trouble placing their students; most having both experience and employment offers before graduation. For liberal arts it was a very different outcome.
One shouldn’t expect Prof. Powell to enter into both a logical debate with Mr. Spencer; a debate which would require research and a possibility of being observed while displaying weak arguments in public. That would undermine the credibility currency that the college uses to attract students.
Powell’s criticism is simply virtue-signaling to keep Powell in the tenure track by supporting the college administration. It’s doubtful that criticizing Spencer is the core motive. Anyone who has worked in university academics knows that Associate Professors are disposable.
jihad3tracker says
Superb observations, Westman! They bring to my ancient mind a classic Marx Brothers movies (which I think is titled “Horsefeathers”) but readers can easily find it by Googling “Huxley College and Groucho”.
As usual, that horny old goat is on the prowl for women — the younger, the better. In one scene, Groucho is paddling around a canoe containing a sweetly innocent coed.
Being as charming as possible to set her up for the wolf’s coming attack, he utters a few silly remarks, and she reacts with “Oh professor, you’re so full of whimsy.” His explanation: “I always get that way after I eat radishes.”
Maybe this Gettysburg academic swallowed an extra-large bunch prior to penning his article.
jihad3tracker says
HERE IS A QUEUE OF MARX BROTHERS MOVIE CLIPS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5744vGJFhc
For those of us who are too young to have seen even short moments of their hilarity, take a few minutes of spare time soon to watch. A great temporary antidote to the endless tsunami of jihad.
mousey says
westman,
i have a more cynical understanding of this prof. He teaches social studies teaching methods. He believes social studies teachers have an obligation to discuss politics, esp now that trump is in. Education is about enlightening the learner he says, and in another breath he says teaching that trump is like hitler is not a controversial position.
This man also co authored a paper that denigrated “the independent self valued in european american contexts.” A whole paper on it, and how teachers of teachers should purge themselves of this insidious understanding of self , which they’ve picked up by living here. Down with the american way!!!
He did say that running away from political discussions is a bad thing, and that talking with people who disagree with you and trying to change their minds is a good thing. I guess he only wants open discussion with people who are young with minds that can be changed to his view, not discussions with someone like robert spencer.
CogitoErgoSum says
It’s interesting that the title of Powell’s May 5th article for “Education Week” is titled “Looking for a Cure for Educational Exhaustion.” I say, Professor, your exhaustion is quite apparent … especially the mental exhaustion part … and I hope you do eventually find a cure. I might suggest you start by opening up your closed mind and letting some fresh ideas waft through the dusty corridors. You may cough and sputter at first but the air will clear eventually and things that once were hidden will slowly come into view … some of which you may find invigorating
By the way, Professor, I don’t think your son was being punished for telling the truth. He was being punished for oversleeping and being late for class. Telling the truth about the reasons for his tardiness was commendable of your son but there should be consequences for laziness and neglect. Call it one of the exhausting parts of building a strong moral character that will include such traits as responsibility, integrity and good citizenship …. those things about which you think you know so much.
JawsV says
Powell’s a leftist moron, defender of a mass-murder ideology, Islam, like his leftist moronic colleagues Todd Green and Janet Riggs. I pity the students paying big bucks at GC for nothing but leftist indoctrination.
Montedoro44 says
Bravo to Robert on his successful talk at Gettysburg. Mr. Powell’s combination of admitting ignorance — I think that’s as close as “not an expert” of the subject — is testimony to his coming across as a purveyor of a party line, i.e., neither his intellect nor professional detachment is involved.
That said, in this article, Robert writes “How he knows that my logic and argumentation were weak when he admittedly doesn’t know the field remains unexplained.” and that raises my eyebrow. Strictly speaking, logic is purely about connections between statements, not only source materials, but inferences and deductions made from them. It isn’t about the truth value of the source statements — “knowing the field”. So this statement looks like it slurs the difference between logic and the fact-field. Should, by some miracle, Mr. Powell accede to debate, this might be an invitation for him to sidestep the issue.
RAB says
Weal Logic!?!? How much logic does it take to connect the lines between what Muslims say and do on a daily basis and what the Koran and the Hadith tell devout Muslims to do and say?
vlparker says
The only thing I don’t like about you, Robert, is that every time I read one of your pieces I have to haul out my dictionary. 🙂 Lumpenproletariat? I guess I should have read Marx, but commies bore me.
As for the lecture and the response to the lefty prof, you smoked ’em. They don’t have a leg to stand on.
HugoHackenbush says
Mr. Spencer,
This was one of your best lectures due to it’s succinct and logical nature. Since it compacts so much material regarding the major issues surrounding Islam it is perfect for the education of those unsure of what to believe. It was amazing to see a woman object to your logic not by offering counterfactual material but by whining that “you’re only presenting the bad parts of Islam”. You mentioned the general categorization of the Koranic materials (Meccan vs Median) and thereby suggested abrogation but did not specifically articulate the “principle of abrogation” that rules what to follow. It would be helpful to prove this to other audiences by quoting from the Bukari hadiths an example of the many times the wording appears (I’m paraphrasing) “…we used to follow such-and-such until it was abrogated by such-and-such”.
Thank you for all your work.
jihad3tracker says
Hello Mr. Hackenbush —
HERE IS AN EXCELLENT ITEM ABOUT ABROGATION:
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/09/qurans-last-word-on-non-muslims.html
It is on Citizenwarrior, one of the best counter-jihad web resources I have found. If readers here have never visited it, choose a time when you are not multitasking and look over the extensive array of subjects.
One of the longer items is “The Terrifying Brilliance of Islam” — roughly a 20 minute journey through that hellhole of pathology from the subconscious of Muhammad.
Also check www [dot] inquiryintoislam [dot] com — which I have mentioned many times over several years commenting on JW.
Wellington says
“…..through that hellhole of pathology from the subconscious of Muhammad.”
I really appreciate great phrasing, jihad3tracker, and yours above is first-rate.
Yes, just imagine the mind of a psychopath like that of the reputed founder of Islam. Disturbing in and of itself of course, but when you reflect upon the influence this highly immoral Bedouin has had on history it becomes downright chilling in the extreme. Of course, Dave Powell of Gettysburg College won’t get any of this, but then I suspect there is a great deal this obviously limited man does not get.
Hope you and yours are doing well, my friend. Take care in this very goofy world we live in. So long for now.
jihad3tracker says
ALWAYS GREAT TO HEAR A FEW WORDS FROM YOU, SIR ! If you have not visited Dr. David Wood’s blog lately, www [dot] answeringmuslims [dot] com, he posted a truly major opus: “The Psychology Of Islam”.
I dove into Part 2 — the one top-queued during on the evening I found that comprehensive discussion. In it, he talks about Muhammad’s tragic childhood of orphanage and cruelty (the Defective Father Hypothesis) as a logical predictor of how “Allah” guides Muslims to conduct their lives.
Part 2 is long, lucidly intense. I had to bail out after 10 minutes or thereabouts, due to obligations, and regrettably have other priorities keeping me from viewing the rest and Parts 1 and 3.. Highly recommended though, as likely to be copiously cited — establishing assertions — as Dr. Wood’s authorship always is.
jihad3tracker says
THIS IS PART 2 — it runs 40:14
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2017/03/the-psychology-of-islam-part-2.html
And for those of us who only have time for shorter ones: “The Jihad Triangle” / “What Is Taqiyya” / “Three Questions For Moderate Muslims”.
Such superb resources do not fall from the sky into David’s lap — so please send him a comment of gratitude when a spare slice of time appears.
Wellington says
I share your esteem of David Wood and thank you for the update on what he has to say (which is always on point, always relevant, and often funny).
I long ago concluded, to put things concisely, that Islam, or more specifically believing in Islam, represents a mental disease. The details of such belief (disease) can be debated by reasonable and informed minds, but that Islam is an aberrancy and menace of the first dimension to mankind I think is beyond debate. Might as well argue that Nazism or Marxism have merit, so devoid of anything defensible is the continued defense of Islam by ANYONE.
But such defense continues, OMG!, even by Republicans like Paul Ryan, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Lyndsey Graham, let alone the eternally, though often unintentionally ridiculous, clueless Democrats———people like Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Chuck Schumer.
Am loathe to conclude that we’re effed, but sometimes I feel as though I am left with no choice but to conclude such. So, thank God for people like Wood, Wilders, Orban, Geller and Spencer. They kinda’ right now are serving as the last redoubt of the better part of mankind (Dave Powell of Gettysburg College will surely miss this entirely). Ah yes, things are very much in the balance and still tilting in the wrong direction.
Time for a beer (haram in Islam), for a Beethoven symphony (haram in Islam), and a fine pork sandwich (and, you guessed it, also haram in Islam——-all three of which, if “participating” in, would result in death or at least significant bodily harm by those wonderfully devout Muslims who make up ISIS, something else the Dave Powells of this world will completely miss as they will Robert Spencer’s brilliant description of so-called moderate Muslims as “lazy Muslims”).
Take care, my friend.
jihad3tracker says
Goodnight Wellington —
Let’s continue subsersive mischief here on JW. When free minutes appear we can toss our contributions into the pickle barrel of inconvenient reality.
Lauri Heikkilä says
IMO, it’s a good speech, I watched it yesterday. If there was anything I would criticise that speech about, it is the fact that there is very little “new” in it: it resembles very closely a number of other speeches Spencer has given before. I suppose, if you’ve found strong, well founded arguments, there’s no reason not to use them, but still… Given the abundance of material you could use to make the argument that the doctrine of Islam is one of the main reasons, if not THE root cause, of Islamic terrorism, it wouldn’t hurt to use that material a bit more extensively.
gravenimage says
We’ve heard all of this before, Lauri–but many in the audience, I’m sure, had not.
jihad3tracker says
Yes, gravenimage — strongly seconding your remark. Robert could just phone in his lecture to auditoriums at American campuses for clueless, well-intended, sweet, innocent Western-toleration-values college age snowflakes. He probably prefers that.
Thus eliminating travel expenses, jet lag, hostile TSA screeners, and implications of overcharging ($2,000) on a word-by-word basis. But for entrenched resistance to clearly evident reality, a personal speaking appearance, taking Q&A afterward, is the best tactic.
Carolyne says
There is nothing new in Islam.
gravenimage says
Gettysburg College prof Dave Powell claims Robert Spencer lecture “weak logic,” gives no examples, refuses to debate
…………………
Talk about projection!
billybob says
That was great. I so wanted to hear the question and answer session, which wasn’t available when first the video of Robert’s talk was posted.
I listened very attentively, especially since I thought Robert had said something dismissive of the questions originally. I think in some cases they really did try to give it their best shot, and received very clear and solid answers from Robert. I also backed up the video twice to listen to and judge the ending applause, which sounded to me quite appreciative and respectful.
I thought it interesting when Robert responded to that last girl, who felt he should have included something nice to say about Islam in contrast to all the bad news. Robert gave an excellent and very enlightening answer, at which point it was clear that somebody in authority had decided this had gone on long enough and that the event should be wrapped up after one final question. I couldn’t help thinking that was in response to Robert’s excellent rebuttal, which was probably far too convincing to suit him.
Finally, in response to that girl at the end who thought Robert should also include something nice about Islam in his talks, I think I understood where she is coming from. Robert will deny he is “anti-Muslim” or spreading hatred of Muslims, and state that instead that all he discusses is the idea of Islam itself, and how it motivates Jihadis. This is absolutely true. I have never heard Robert say anything bad about Muslims or preach hatred against them. However, he does seem to dismiss the concern that exposing the misogyny, supremacism, and violence in Islam can engender hatred of Muslims.
I have certainly many times seen people in the comment section, for example, take that knowledge gained from Robert as a reason to despise Muslims. Is Robert responsible for that? This girl might think so. So I think this girl felt a bit ripped off because Robert did not accept responsibility for how exposing Islam might lead people to despise Muslims.
Now before I go any further, let me be absolutely clear. I have no expectation that Robert should concern himself with the social impact of the fruits of his research. It is not his fault that Islam is the way it is. Furthermore, he is very much a lone voice among a thunderous roar of disinformation about Islam coming from the left and Muslims themselves. Robert is just the messenger. His message is urgent and timely. Maybe when he is old and gray he may pause to consider unintended consequences, but for now, he needs to remain focussed and stay on point. We need him to be just as he is. The world needs him.
Furthermore, I am one of those who could easily feel I despise Muslims when I learn the facts about their religion, and I myself have probably left comments here that might expose my feelings from time to time. I am no hypocrite..
At the same time, I feel I understand that girl. She seemed intelligent and sincere. Furthermore, she has a heart. She may have Muslims as colleagues and even friends, and she is thinking how they may feel hurt by Roberts talk, and she is feeling empathy for them. She is not wrong to feel that way. She is a human being, and I think we do need to consider this side of things collectively and we never do. I say “we” the recipients of the fruits of Robert’s research, not Robert himself. He presents his research, and it is up to us what to do with that.
When I pass a Muslim on the street, or at work, all this stuff I am reading about Islam every single day here at JihadWatch and elsewhere immediately rushes to my head. At the same time, if I make eye contact with that person, I am aware there is another human being here in front of me, and I am conflicted, and I tell myself – I choose not to hate, but at the same time I also tell myself, I will fight the hideous ideology of Islam with everything I have to fight with, being that simply leaving a comment to a newspaper article sharing some of the knowledge I have gained from people like Robert, or often pondering what unique thing may I have to contribute to the cause. Such is life, to live between contradictions.
mgoldberg says
And yet… there are no assaults upon muslims, virtually none. And there are many that are false and manufactured assaults insults, created by …. muslims Now, the point is that the venting here is not leading to anything that needs to be dealth with or worried over. But the opposite is true- that indeed the taquiyya, the lying about ‘islamophobia’ is a direct result of the tenets of islam, the Jihad is indeed the source of homcidal serial assaults upon all others, and that is the point I think of this discussion.
Whatever peoples inner disgust and feelings here, I doubt you’d find people performing with indiscretion against people on the street or anywhere else. But… you will find homicidism, serial killing, and sociopathic converts performing unspeakable or desiring to perform unspeakable acts of horror in the name of Islam.
Montedoro44 says
Regarding hating Muslims — if you take into account the strength of the brainwashing plus isolation from off-agenda ideas plus the fear of everlasting punishment plus punishment in this life, and of having sworn to submit, even before knowing the full extent of what they will submit to, it is easier to sympathize with their lot in life — only a very few can risk getting out. You have seen the 3-year-olds on YouTube reciting how they want to kill Jews in the name of Allah, etc. When do these babies become responsible for what they believe, what they do, when this kind of thing is the norm, and rewarded and they are punished if they refuse? How many of us born on that planet could withstand such pressures — even weak-minded and weak-willed troubled converts who meet up with experienced recruiters? Hate isn’t the way. IMO, this is part of the necessary understanding of the enemy.
jihad3tracker says
HELLO BILLYBOB —- I appreciate your long thoughtful comment.
That “intelligent and sincere” girl whom you write about is THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT I CALL A PRIVILEGE-GUILT AMERICAN. She has grown up with Western values, convinced that all religions have equal respect for each other.
Her teachers in high school and college also have this multi cultural slant. So when Robert Spencer shatters such an illusion, there is emotional trauma— as we can plainly see in her face. Dr. David Wood has a video relevant:
“Three Questions For Moderate Muslims” — easily found with a YouTube search. As the endless violence of jihad continues, those “moderates” cannot avoid asking themselves why DEVOUT & FULLY-OBEDIENT worshippers of Allah so often veer into slaughter of our fellow humans.
Norger says
In lawyer’s parlance, Powell makes a series of conclusory statements: e.g. “Spencer’s logic is weak;” “Spencer uses circular reasoning.” Those are bold statements. Unfortunately for you Mr. Powell, the truth of those statements is not self evident. If you to convince anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills of the truth of those statements, you should be able to substantiate every one of those conclusions with specific examples. If you can’t (and you know you can’t) you’re literally just blowing hot air. You wouldn’t dare debate Robert– or even discuss Islam with Robert–in any public forum because you know it is your own “weak logic” on this subject which would be exposed.
No Fear says
Robert Spencer uses circular reasoning? Don’t make me laugh.
Muslim: “The Quran says Mohammed is perfect so it must be true”
Non-muslim: “……but but but…..who wrote the Quran?”
Muslim: “Mohammed”
Non-muslim: “and you don’t see a problem with what you just said?”
ibrahim itace muhammed says
mr spencer,if the professor is not a specialist on the field on which you made your presentation at least he has been able to identify you as ignorant and christian bigoted passing cherry_pick informations you have been passing to your vulnerable targeted audience.you dont know islam,yet you claim to be an expert on it using third(not even secondary)information you have copying and pasting from the works of those christian evangelists like mad sam shamoun and devil wood who could not even read and understand the original works on islam;they guessed from the works of christian orientalists who twisted the original works on islam.Thus,your lines of arguements against islam are not even thought_provoking,they are not scholarly.you can only convince ignorant people,not intellectuals with objective minds like that professor who rated your presentation as illogical and bigoted.That is why i challenged you to an open debate for me to disabuse your mind and tear your bunch of lies against islam,which you trade with to earn income.you have been using a cheap sentimen
t that your life is being threatened by islamists because you are exposing the evils of islam.Islam has no evil aspects.you just imagine it and say it without proof.As i said in one of my comments anyone can insult and condemn the religion of another to promote his own.But when it comes to honest intellectual analysis you have to be knowledgeable on what you are discussing.mr spencer,you are not learned on islam for you to follow the scholarly arguement,even though some ignorant commentors in this forum call you an expert,which you are not.Go back to class and start genuine learning islam before your criticisms against islam are taken as thought_provoke.you are a layman on the subject.
billybob says
I don’t get what is so hard to understand about Islam that even after 20 years of study you say that Mr. Spencer doesn’t understand it. The Quran emphatically states that it is a clear scripture…
Alif Lam Ra. A Book whose verses are set clear, and then distinguished, from One All-wise, All-aware: S. 11:1
A book that fully and clearly explains everything,
… Shall I seek a judge other than Allah while it is He Who has sent down unto you the Book (The Qur’an), explained in detail… S. 6:114 Hilali-Khan
… And We have sent down on thee the Book making clear everything, and as a guidance and a mercy, and as good tidings to those who surrender. S. 16:89 Arberry
A Book whereof the Verses are explained in detail; A Qur’an in Arabic for people who know S. 41:3 Hilali-Khan
The implication of the aforementioned texts is that all of the verses of the Quran are clear and that the Muslim scripture doesn’t contain any passages that are obscure or difficult to grasp.
Now Mr. Spenser goes directly to the most trusted translations of the Quran, such as translations accepted by Al Azhar University in Egypt, the oldest and most respected institute of learning for Sunni Islam. If the Quran is clear, and one uses a good translation, and one also studies all the hadiths and what is said by contemporary Imams around the world, and debates Islam with many scholars, after 20 years, don’t you suppose one may have earned a right to an opinion? I really trust that Robert gets Islam, certainly without doubt, in broad strokes.
In fact, it doesn’t take 20 years and all the rest to “get” Islam. Most people can see right off the bat if a man is talking about cutting off people’s heads and how it is ok to rape captives of war or rob caravans from Mecca or slaughters whole tribes of Jews, this man is evil. There can be no justification. None. Zero. To formulate a justification requires an inversion of morality.
Furthermore, Islam deliberately spreads disinformation about Christianity. This is a rather hateful thing to do. Tell me this, Ibrahim – Muhammad was well aware of the teachings of Jesus. Why did he not follow them? Why did he have to go and invent his own religion that was entirely contrary to everything Jesus taught? I’ll tell you why… because he was an evil man, and he needed a rationalization to perpetrate his evil, and to support his evil ambitions, that’s why.
Finally, there is a passage in the bible that states “By their fruits, ye shall know them”. That is telling us that we can know if a person is good or back by looking at the effects and results of their actions. Can a bad tree bring about good fruit? So then you come along, a representative of the fruits of Islam, and you spout the most vile hatred for Christians and Jews… and you are impervious to argument or logic, and it is clear that your mind has been warped by the brainwashing you have received, and what are we to think? You turn out to be just like we could predict you might be by studying your religion.
Gen Jones says
Bravo Billybob. Thank you.
Maria Sederholm says
Professor David Powell probably wouldn’t recognize logic if it hit him right between the eyes. He seems to be too weak of mind.
sidney penny says
Ah! the argument from AUTHORITY.
Read Appendix 4 of this great book and enjoy the argument from authority.
APPENDIX 4-QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE MARXIST PROFESSORS
from
HINDU TEMPLES -WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM
Volume II
The Islamic Evidence
(Second Enlarged Edition)
https://www.saddahaq.com/questionnaire-for-the-marxist-professors-by-sr-goel
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/htemples2/app4.htm
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/htemples2/
Carolyne says
In the picture of Associate Professor Powell above, there is a framed photograph of a person who looks remarkably like Adolph Hitler. I know it is not and it does seem to be Associate Professor Powell; But it is somewhat chilling. I wonder if he autographed it “With love,” to himself.
ibrahim itace muhammed says
billybob,you have got it wrong.the original expression used in the Quran is “walaqad fassanal ayat lidhikr(indeed we have simplified the verses of the quran for those who could reflect)”.The word “fassalna(we simplify)” is a technical expression from “mufassal “which is an opposite of clumsy expression which is a meaningless expression.It means whatever is expressed in the Quran has a meaning for those with standard level of learning.it doesnt mean even if you are not knowledgeable you can interprete the Quran by trial and error as mr spencer is doing where he just picks some verses of the Quran and hadiths and assign meaning to them to form his obnoxious opinions.Based on consesus of muslim ummah the muslim jurists set certain standard of learning before one is qualified to form an idependant opinion on basis of the Quran and hadith to avoid mischief and wrong interpretation of islam.the qualifications are (1)memorise the whole Quran and master its sciences(2)memorise all hadith and sciences(3)master all Subject areas of Arabic laguage like Nahw( grammar) and balagha(rhetorics )plus Arabic literature(4)master fiqh and usul(jurisprudent and its science(5)master islamic history and sira very well from reliable sources.Anyone who does not meet any of the above requirements must rely on the works of those who met the requirements to maintain the standard of interpretation of islam.I am sure mr spencer has not mastered even one of the subject areas above,yet he claims to be an expert on islam.Note using translated versi0n of the Quran and hadith cannot qualify him to be an eXpert to judge islam according to its sources .mr billybob,all the allegations of murder,rape ,robbery,levelled against our noble prophet muhammad are false;non can be proved with cogent and irrefutable historical evidence.The stories are just fantasies invented by evil jews and christian evangelist.ThoSe jewS put to death were fairly tried and convicted for treachery in breach of treaty of togetherness and the tribunal which tried them was presided by a neutral non_muslim,not prophet muhammad.is that a murder?the assassination of Abu Afak on the order of prophet is a lie.Again,whom did pr0phet muhanmmad rape ? is marriage a rape ?it was christian evangelists who concocted these lies and mr spencer copied and pasted them for you stupid to take them hook,line and sinker
Gen Jones says
So in other words the only people qualified to explain Islam are those already brainwashed in it. “Islamic sciences” ?
And the greatest mystery of all, the all powerful Allah sending the most important message to an illiterate in a a language that 1.) Wasn’t even developed and 2.) That cannot be translated.
So this filthy Christian is just wondering Ibrahim, if you follow a god who is illogical and incomprehensible wouldn’t you be illogical and incomprehensible too?
billybob says
Well I have never seen where Mr. Spencer “claims to be an expert on islam”, but I have done my own substantial independent research. I don’t rely on any single individual. Especially, I was very skeptical and cautious when I first encountered this website. However, as the years passed, I could find no fault with Mr. Spencer’s view of Islam.
If as you say, based on consensus of muslim ummah, the muslim jurists set a certain standard of learning before one is qualified to form an independent opinion, you are stating that we cannot hope to know the truth about Islam without years of study.
Then suppose, for example, I was attracted to Islam and consider converting, but first, I want to get some idea of what this religion is all about. How can I know? How can I access the truth about Islam? I am not going to invest years of study just to learn if it is the right religion for me. So then it is impossible for me to know. I can never become a Muslim.
But wait – I bet you have an answer for my delima. You might suggest I go to the muslim jurists and they will supply me with the necessary information. They will tell me all I need to know about Islam. Fine – then which one? Which one can I trust? So you may recommend for me a dozen or more scholars to choose from, but how do I know I can trust your recommendation? How can trust anyone?
At some point then, I am just going to have to make the best judgement I can, based on all the facts I can gather up, and multiple opinions from multiple sources, and make an educated guess. There is just no way around the need to take personal responsibility to research and employ critical thinking and make a decision.
You comment is very revealing of how you are maintained a prisoner of your own mind. It appears that at some point someone convinced you of exactly what you are saying here, and from that point forward, you suspended critical thought on the subject of Islam. Open your eyes man. You have been brainwashed.
Samuel Barthis says
It id clear that many Americans and the intellectual class deem Christianity complicit in the pogroms and wars waged throughout the ages. Christianity may not be at war currently but its past actions it seems is the cause for Europeans and Americans to doubt it sincerity. Islam is therefore, in this context, regarded as a reasonable riposte to Christianity. My problem with Robert’s lecture is that it rides against “liberated” thought- thoughts that are deemed superior(Intellectual America and Europe). While Christianity is shredded in textbooks and speeches Islam is left academically and theological unscathed. Powell and other professors are not doing critical thinking any favours. It is sad that all tafsirs, Sunna of Muhammad and the Qur’an is deemed correct and Powell and other Professors logic invent the link of violence to Christianity and not the Islam’s last 1400 years