Spencer Grasping at Straws against Imam Ibrahim Dremali

Grasping at straws Spencer is on the war path of character assassination and misrepresentation, trying to inflate, as he always does, the threat from Mooslims. In a blog about Ibrahim Dremali titled Texas: Imam who donated to terror-tied Islamic charity arrested for marriage fraud, we see a perfect example of his modus operandi.

Spencer’s title exposes his bias. He attempts to link the Imam who made a donation to a charity that the government shut down to the boogeyman word “terror.” It is all innuendo and low brow hyperbole. Spencer knows that people who donated to these charities including the one Dremali gave to, Global Relief, had no a priori knowledge that these charities were contravening US laws.

Even former Bush era Attorney General John Ashcroft made clear that those who contributed to these charities did nothing wrong and were not terrorists. If that were the case there would be thousands of donors who would be in jail or facing trial for giving material support to terrorists.

Spencer then descends further into the gutter commenting,

Well, they got Capone on tax evasion.

There you go folks, Spencer standards. He equates Dremali with Capone and implies that he is guilty of something more than marriage fraud. What is the bigot trying to get at? You know…all Muslims are terrorists.

11 thoughts on “Spencer Grasping at Straws against Imam Ibrahim Dremali

  1. funny i know Imam Demali personally so it seems hilarious that spencer would try to impugn his character

    Allhu A’lam

  2. How does the Imam involvement with marriage fraud have anything to do with Muslims in general or even with the imaginary Global Jihad that Spencer is fighting on JihadWatch.

    Why is it that crime committed by a Muslim, not even in the name of his religion, becomes front page news on JihadWatch? Then whenever we bring up examples of African Priests who are guilty of genocide or the Lord’s Resistance Army, Spencer argues that their actions are independent of their religion.

    I can’t take it anymore, I just want to punch him!

  3. Moizzle,

    We all know Spencer is just a dog who wants his biscuits (money), and will try and pull all his tricks to keep getting it. “Punch” isn’t the right word. The correct word would be something more like “pity”.

      • They’re Spencer fans and I think they avoid commenting when even they realize they have nothing to say and can’t defend their hero.

        Spencer’s web of lies and deceit about Muslims and Islam is slowly, but surely, unraveling. As such, his fans probably just wanted to get a few pot shots in, while they still feel they have room to say something.

        Either that, or they failed to get the reaction out of us that they were looking for, and have either given up, are planning something, or are simply taking a break.

        • Maybe it’s because this website is pathetic and is home to only 4-5 regular commenters?

          Spencer’s web of lies and deceit about Muslims and Islam is slowly, but surely, unraveling

          Wishful thinking, on your part. As long as the evidence continues to support Robert’s arguments, the best you can do is try and discredit him as a bigot.

          • How strange that this so-called “evidence” to support Spencer’s “arguments” can never be defended when challenged.

            In all your long posts here, you, as a die-hard Spencer fan, have yet to successfully (and rationally) defend any of your arguments.

            Your cop-out routine amounts to you either elevating yourself or belittling others, and it’s not going to do anything for you, or Spencer’s mantra.

            Nothing from Spencer stands up to cross-examination. That you can even claim that the evidence supports what Spencer says, only discredits you from being rational and objective.

            Spencer’s claims about Muslim organizations has been proven to be false, and several chapters from his book have already been discredited, his police-blotter routine has been exposed, etc. Nothing is keeping him going besides the money, and his popularity among the lowest common denominator.

            “Wishful thinking” here, only your comments about Spencer and his arguments.

  4. Spencer’s claims about Muslim organizations has been proven to be false, and several chapters from his book have already been discredited, his police-blotter routine has been exposed, etc. Nothing is keeping him going besides the money, and his popularity among the lowest common denominator.

    Well, the money, and the fact that an incredible amount of Muslims around the world are engaging in jihad. Of course, I’m sure you’d love to just sweep that last little tidbit under the rug and go about your day, accusing people of racism when Islam is not a race.

    “Several chapters from his book” Spencer has written 10 books. And Danios has not discredited that one book he keeps referencing, he simply did a bunch of tu quoque and moral equivalence in the hopes that Islam can be seen as just as nefarious as Judaism and Christianity. Unfortunately, the level of violence and fanaticism coming from Muslims far outweighs the output from any other religion, so his arguments are ultimately moot.

    As for Muslim organizations, is Spencer wrong when he says that these organizations are unwilling to condemn Hamas and other terrorist groups? Is he wrong when he says that many of the founding members have been convicted on terror related charges? His claim about CAIR being “Hamas-linked” was based on what the Government said about the organization. Oh, and the article on the front page is incorrect about Robert not mentioning this development on his “police blotter.” It’s right there, on the front of the JW homepage. Proof.

    • Hahaha.

      Comic relief indeed.

      Spencer has written 10 books. And Danios has not discredited that one book he keeps referencing, he simply did a bunch of tu quoque and moral equivalence in the hopes that Islam can be seen as just as nefarious as Judaism and Christianity.

      Well actually @Anhi, Spencer’s claims about “Dhimmitude”, Islam and suicide, rape victims in the Muslim world, and “taqiyya” have been thoroughly debunked (other refutations coming soon).

      If you actually bothered to read Spencer’s books you’ll notice that they are basically the same garbage–simply rehashed into different forms so that gullible bigots can can repeatedly waste their hard-earned money.

    • Well, the money, and the fact that an incredible amount of Muslims around the world are engaging in jihad. Of course, I’m sure you’d love to just sweep that last little tidbit under the rug and go about your day, accusing people of racism when Islam is not a race.

      And you’d think that, even though it’s false, because of Spencer’s conditioning. You assume everything Spencer says is true, without even bothering to cross-examine any of it.

      For one, there is no large number of Muslims around the world engaged in jihad. There is just Spencer’s police blotter data, which he sensationalizes into some global phantom jihad scheme. Furthermore, the only people who think Islam and Muslims are a race, are the Islamophobes themselves. That they consider Muslims to be a race, and hate on them as if they were a race, means that they are “racist”.

      Spencer has written 10 books. And Danios has not discredited that one book he keeps referencing, he simply did a bunch of tu quoque and moral equivalence in the hopes that Islam can be seen as just as nefarious as Judaism and Christianity. Unfortunately, the level of violence and fanaticism coming from Muslims far outweighs the output from any other religion, so his arguments are ultimately moot.

      No, Danios actually discredited the arguments made in the book itself. Given that you think it’s just “tu quoque” and “moral equivalence”, shows that you haven’t actually read it. You’re just copping out of doing so, by assuming what it is, and using that assumption to justify your ignorance.

      Furthermore, the violence, etc. today is besides the point. When Spencer misrepresents the information and makes a faulty conclusion about it, then he is wrong, regardless of who is doing what around the world. Danios has successfully demonstrated Spencer’s misrepresentation of information, which inevitably debunks Spencer’s conclusion based on his misrepresentation.

      As for Muslim organizations, is Spencer wrong when he says that these organizations are unwilling to condemn Hamas and other terrorist groups? Is he wrong when he says that many of the founding members have been convicted on terror related charges?

      Yes he is, because he, as always, misrepresents the issue by sensationalizing it, in order to suit his premise.

      Y’know, he can write an essay on how all Muslims are this and that, while only citing 2, inconsequential examples, and you’d think he’s actually made his point, when it’s really just sensationalism.

      Spencer misrepresents the info, sensationalizes it, and jumps to conclusions, and then when challenged, changes the goal posts. That’s how he plays his game.

      The fact that he mentioned that thing about the Muslim organizations on his police blotter, is besides the point, as it’s doubtful he would have bothered to do so, if his opponents weren’t aware of it. Only when his opponents are aware of it, and say something about it, does he bother to mention it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>