Robert Spencer Fuming Over LoonWatch, Threatens Danios With 101 Lashes
As many of you well know, I have taken it upon myself to refute Robert Spencer’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), cover to cover, page by page, and line by line. I have already written several articles refuting Spencer, exposing him for the fear-mongering fraudster that he is.
Omer Subhani, a reader of our website, blogged it out best:
Robert Spencer has said something like the following many times:
“…I am always happy to debate any serious Muslim spokesman…”
Then why not debate the writer of multiple refutations of your work?
That writer goes by the name of Danios and he or she writes over at Loon Watch. Danios has written numerous refutations of Spencer’s work without much of a peepleaking from Spencer. Yet, Spencer was more than happy to share with his audiencea list of people he has formerly debated.
But no mention of anything written by anyone at Loon Watch.
I smell something. And it smells like chicken.
What’s the excuse? Danios is writing anonymously? That shouldn’t matter. Spencer, you have continuously proclaimed from the day you started writing your blog that you would debate anyone, anywhere, any time. Well, Danios has penned multiple refutations of your work and yet you have failed to reply. You have hinted at Danios’ work in previous posts, but you haven’t gotten around to refuting Danios. You havecalled Danios a “slick liar,” but have failed to respond substantively to what Danios wrote.
Why are you chickening out, Spencer?
You’re aware of Danios’ refutations of your work, but you won’t engage in dialog. Usually when someone doesn’t respond to another person’s argument it means that they’ve conceded the point. Maybe Danios’ refutations of your claims were so absolute that it really isn’t worth debating. If that’s the case, then be a man about it and say so.
Subhani notes that Robert Spencer referred to me as a “slick liar,” but it may interest you to know that Spencer was so frustrated that he went even further, declaring:
The slick liar who penned that piece ought to get 100 lashes
In another article, Spencer upped the ante, and decided that 100 was just not enough, and threw in one more for added effect:
The slick liar who penned that piece ought to get 101 lashes
Instead of using such violent language, why doesn’t Spencer just refute the points I raised? Isn’t that always his gripe against those who write about him negatively in the media?
The “piece” I wrote for which I became a “slick liar” can be found here: Robert Spencer Rapes the Truth, Part 1: Does Sharia Reject the Testimony of a Rape Victim? In that article, I contest Spencer’s bold claim that in rape cases a woman’s testimony is rejected under Sharia. And I promised that in part 2 (coming to a theater near you soon) I will discuss Spencer’s claim that under Sharia a woman is lashed if she claims rape but cannot produce four witnesses.
So let’s read Spencer’s response, which is as follows:
Recently someone forwarded me a pseudo-scholarly piece by a smooth Islamic apologist purporting to prove that I was wrong, wrong, wrong (and therefore evil as well, of course) about Islamic rules of evidence for crimes of zina (adultery, fornication, and other sexual offenses), and claiming that rape victims in the Islamic world are never punished for being raped. The slick liar who penned that piece ought to get 100 lashes instead of “Camille” for his obfuscation and enabling of this kind of torture of women.
OK, let’s take that one line at a time, shall we? First, Spencer writes:
Recently someone forwarded me a pseudo-scholarly piece
Here is a really bad case of projection. Robert Spencer tries passing himself off as a scholar, and therefore assumes that I would too. Apparently, Spencer has no idea what a scholarly paper looks like, because if he did, he would know that my article is far too irreverent a piece to be scholarly. Does that mean that every piece of writing that is not scholarly becomes pseudo-scholarly? What an absurd understanding. Do newspaper articles or op-eds then become pseudo-scholarly works?
Then, Spencer says:
by a smooth Islamic apologist
I haven’t revealed what religion (if any) I follow. In fact, I think the fact that I approach these debates as a neutral outsider–instead of approaching them as a vested Muslim–is what gives me the edge over other people who have debated with Spencer. And in any case, Spencer can then be considered “a smooth Catholic apologist.” Actually, he’s more like a Catholic crusader who attacks the infidel Islamic world with his vitriolic pen.
He goes on:
I was wrong, wrong, wrong (and therefore evil as well, of course)
No complaints here.
Here is the real doozie:
and claiming that rape victims in the Islamic world are never punished for being raped.
I’ve noticed that Robert Spencer always does this in his polemical pieces. First, he builds up his argument with half-truths, and then near the end he will insert an outright lie. Nowhere did I claim that “rape victims in the Islamic world are never punished for being raped. “ This is a complete strawman argument. Clearly, there are uneducated fundamentalists who do that, and who need to be stopped. My contention with Spencer is his claim that such a thing is inherently part of Islam itself or the Islamic jurisprudential tradition.
Spencer then proceeds to report a case of a rape victim being punished in the Islamic world. So instead of critically analyzing the arguments I put forward in my article (Robert Spencer Rapes the Truth, Part 1: Does Sharia Reject the Testimony of a Rape Victim?), Spencer constructs a strawman argument (claiming that I think or said that rape victims are never punished in the Islamic world) and then proceeds to knock it down by citing a case of just such a thing. Clearly, Spencer’s need to construct a strawman is rooted in his inability to address any of my arguments. Meanwhile, my own arguments against him are always precision guided surgical strikes.
My ever so dearest Robert Spencer: please do address the actual points I raised in the article.
Spencer Responds to My Latest Article on Dhimmitude
Awhile back, I published part 1 of my rebuttal of Robert Spencer on the topic of dhimmitude. I alreadyaddressed Spencer’s bumbling reply to part 1. Once again, he was absolutely unable to debate the actual topic, which was the historical treatment of dhimmis (vs perpetual serfs). After Spencer refused to respond, I called him out as a chicken.
Then a few days back, I published part 2 of my dhimmitude series. Just now, Spencer issued a response. For some odd reason, however, Spencer refuses to take my name and suffices himself with veiled (but painfully obvious) references. (Similarly, he refused to take LoonWatch’s blessed name when one of our intrepid writers broke the story about how FuckAllah.com and FuckIslam.com mysteriously redirected to his website; instead, he somehow chose to target CAIR, who simply reproduced our article.)
Spencer writes (emphasis is mine):
More or less on a regular basis I am sent purported refutations of what I say here and in my books — essays that purport to show that Islam doesn’t really teach warfare against unbelievers and their subjugation as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law,
Clearly a reference to yours truly.
Spencer goes on:
although these purported refutations usually content themselves with showing that Christians or someone else were doing something worse,
Completely false. I only contented myself after proving that contemporary Muslims reject the Pact of Umar (a document which is so central to your Islamophobic viewpoint that you call it the “the foundation for Islamic law regarding the treatment of the dhimmis”). So yes, I was quite pleased with myself after I toppled the foundation of your argument. (I treated myself with ice cream.)
If you are referring to part 1, I had already been quite clear that my rebuttal would come in multiple parts, and that the first part would simply contest your claim that historically Muslims treated Jews worse than Christians did. And I have already answered this argument of yours in my response to your bumbling reply. Or do we have to go through this again? You had said earlier:
It is an extended (very extended) example of the familiar tu quoque fallacy in which Islamic apologists always indulge: other people have done evil, and therefore our evil is not so bad or not to be spoken of.
To which I had replied:
I certainly never said that the “evil is not so bad.” What I said was that the “evil” (your choice of words) done to infidels in the Islamic realm was historically less than that done to infidels in Christendom. And I said that to negate chapter four of your book, in which you specifically wrote “the idea that Jews fared better in Islamic lands than in Christian Europe is false,” and “the Muslim laws were much harsher for Jews than those of Christendom.” I am fact-checking your book, and you made a claim, and I refuted it. Simple as that. Now it is up to you to either defend your initial claim or concede that you were wrong to state it.
Back to Spencer’s recent response, he goes on:
or that some document or other to which I refer in my books is held in no esteem by Muslims
That’s it? You’ve conceded the point? Wow. This was easier than I thought. Suddenly, you’ve moved the goalposts, as evidenced by what you say next:
or virtually anything other than actually proving that there exists a sect or school of Islam that teaches that Muslims must live with non-Muslims as equals on an indefinite basis
I’m starting to sense a pattern here. Every time I refute one of your arguments, you will move to the next one. But don’t worry, Spencer my love, your wish is my command. In fact, the third (and final) part of my dhimmitude series will prove exactly what you asked for, namely that contemporary Muslims do believe that they should live with non-Muslims as equals. Stay tuned for that. (I’m sure by that time you’ll skip to another topic, never standing up like a man and defending the actual issue I write on.)
Then Spencer goes off on another tangent, writing:
In any case, the fundamental problem with all these alleged refutations is that if I am misunderstanding Islam, an awful lot of Muslims, including Islamic clerics who have devoted their lives to studying the Qur’an and Sunnah, misunderstand it in the same way. And here we have another. Afzali says he betrayed his religion, but that is, I suspect, just in order to bamboozle the unbelievers yet again.
Notice how Spencer tries to prove that there is a “fundamental problem with all these alleged refutations” by giving the example of Ahmad Afzali, an Imam who tipped off an Al-Qaeda militant. Ummm…am I missing something here? What does Ahmad Afzali have to do with any of my refutations of Spencer? What does Afzali tipping off an Al-Qaeda militant have to do with the historical treatment of dhimmis vs perpetual serfs (part 1) or the Pact of Umar (part 2)? It’s completely nonsensical and shows the sheer desperation Spencer is feeling right now.
How about instead of going off on random tangents you address the points I raised? You obviously have enough time to rant about me on your website (although in a veiled manner), yet don’t have the time to construct a few decent logical arguments? Why then did you make the claim that “I am always happy to debate any serious Muslim spokesman”? You after all call me an “Islamic apologist”, and I assume “Islamic apologists” are also “Muslim spokesmen”, so why don’t you debate me? Your loyal readers argue that LoonWatch is “beneath you,” and thus “unworthy of your time.” Yet, here you are ranting about me (albeit in a veiled manner); so why not better use that time to give more substantive responses?
Well, the answer is obvious: you’re a bully, and you’ve been bullying people for a very, very long time. But like all bullies, when you meet someone your own size, you run away like the coward you are. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I’m not going anywhere. You are in quite a bind: if you try to respond to my arguments, the weakness of your case will become even more apparent. If you decide not to engage me due to this fear, you still lose by virtue of forfeiture. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Either way is fine by me.