Spencer Proven Wrong (Again) About Muslim Organizations

It is a staple of his “Police Blotter” website about Muslims: his assertions that mainstream Muslim organizations such as the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) are “Hamas-linked.” He frequently links his posts with these assertions. It is based on federal prosecutors naming these two organizations, along with 244 other Muslim individuals and groups, as “unindicted co-conspirators” in a case against the Holy Land Foundation, a Muslim charity, in 2007. HLF was later convicted of supporting the terrorist group Hamas.

Federal prosecutors did this despite having no proof that these Muslim organizations had anything to do with the activities of HLF. Moreover, neither ISNA nor CAIR has ever been charged with any wrongdoing or criminal activity. Yet, Spencer continually calls CAIR and ISNA “Hamas-linked” in order to discredit anything mainstream Muslim organizations do and say, smearing them with the association with the terrorist group Hamas and terrorism in general.

He must stop doing so, because the assertion is incorrect.

In an opinion disclosed on October 20, an Appeals Court disclosed the ruling of a Federal District Court judge who ruled that that the Government should not have listed ISNA and CAIR as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the case against the HLF. When the ruling was initially made by the District Court judge, he sealed the ruling. This was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and this Court ordered the ruling to be unsealed.

The Appeals Court judge wrote:

The Court held that the Government did not argue or establish any legitimate government interest that warranted publicly identifying NAIT and 245 other individuals and entities as unindicted coconspirators or joint venturers, and that the Government had less injurious means than those employed, such as anonymously designating the unindicted co-conspirators as ‘other persons,’ asking the court to file the document under seal, or disclosing the information to the defendants pursuant to a protective order.

The ruling came in a case brought by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), another “unindicted co-conspirator.” In fact, the District Court ruled that the Government violated NAIT’s Fifth Amendment rights by naming it as an “unindicted co-conspirator.” The Fifth Amendment, remember, guarantees due process of law. It states, in part:

No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

In addition, a footnote in the ruling states:

NAIT’s motion was filed in conjunction with the Islamic Society of North America (“ISNA”), which is not a party to this appeal. Another entity, the Council on American Islamic Relations (“CAIR”) moved the district court for leave to file an amicus brief requesting that its name and all other unindicted coconspirators be stricken from Attachment A. CAIR’s motion was addressed in the order addressing NAIT’s motion, but CAIR is not a party to this appeal.

If I understand this correctly, this may mean that the District Court judge also found that the Government violated ISNA’s and CAIR’s Fifth Amendment rights by naming them as “unindicted co-conspirators,” but since they were not parties to the appeal, that part of the ruling will not be unsealed. In any case, it has been established that the Government was wrong and had no basis to name ISNA and CAIR as “unindicted co-conspirators,” and this totally pulls the rug out from underneath Spencer’s and other Islamophobes’ attempts to paint all maintream Muslim organizations as “extremist.” So, will Spencer stop saying CAIR and ISNA are “Hamas-linked”? We will see. I’m not holding my breath, though, for it’s been shown that facts don’t matter to the “Scholar” Robert Spencer.

You know, it is interesting…this news came out on October 20, but there was barely a peep in the media. A Google news search came up with only 3 links. Spencer didn’t mention it at all on his “Police Blotter.” But, that doesn’t surprise me. Maybe he thinks that no one will notice. Rest assured, we here at SW will notice, believe you me!

15 thoughts on “Spencer Proven Wrong (Again) About Muslim Organizations

  1. The ball is in Danios’ court now. Robert said that if Danios starts using his real name and stops cowering in the shadows, Robert will debate him.

    What say you, Danios?

    • ……And the minion finally returns to report his master’s bidding. That is honestly a lame excuse for avoiding a debate. Seriously, that is just awful.

      • haha you’re right Cynic, I enjoy the fact that kooks like ‘Dr Ali Sina’ (and others) hide behind anonymous ID’s and enjoy the full support of these nameless and faceless loonies. But they resent the fact that other people, who adhere to much higher standards (by not swearing, promoting inane conspiracies, spamming and trolling various forums etc) choose to remain anonymous

      • Not really. Danios likes to think that he talks a good game and can go toe to toe with someone like Spencer, yet he is unwilling to reveal his true identity outside of his online pseudonym.

        Nut up, or shut up, Danios.

        • It is very much a lame excuse, as revealing your identity has nothing to do with your ability to debate, nor does it have to do with the debate itself.

          By demanding it, Spencer makes himself look like he’s trying to find an excuse not to debate, as the only thing revealing your identity would do, is give him something that he can use for “character assassination”, after which he would inevitably declare that he is “not willing to debate such a person”. Thus, there would be no debate anyway, but Danios identity would be revealed, and Spencer would have someone new to go after.

          Neither you, nor Spencer can give one real reason why it is necessary for a debate, because there is none.

          Spencer is the one who needs to “nut up”, and stop trying to find excuses not to debate. But we all know he won’t, because a debate has actual rules, while Spencer’s entire case can only be made without them. Demanding Danios’ identity be revealed is just another in his long list of petty excuses not to debate.

          If Spencer were confident in his stance, he’d have had a debate a long time ago. But, he’s not out to prove that he’s right when being challenged. He’s just out to be a rabble rouser for money.

          • It’s funny that you accuse Spencer of not being confident in his stance when he, not Danios, is in the public spotlight, goes around the world giving speeches and participating in debates, has gone on television and radio many times, etc. What has Danios done besides loonwatch? Nothing. He’s a nobody who isn’t even brave enough to reveal his true identity. Spencer has more important things to do than argue with nameless, faceless entities on the internet.

            And it’s VERY ironic that you would accuse Robert of engaging in “character assassination”, and use the term in quotations, when you are a part of this website, which is essentially all about character assassination. “Don’t believe Spencer because his Masters Degree wasn’t on the study of Islam!” “zOMG a white supremacist attended Robert’s rally! Racist! Islamophobe! Hate-mongering bigot!” Take away the ad-hominems and guilt-by-association logical fallacies from this site and loonwatch, and you have very little else to stand on.

            And again, the ball is in the anonymous Danios’ court now. Robert would have to stoop down to debate against some guy on the internet, when he has bigger fish to fry. The least Danios could do is be confident enough to put a name and face behind his internet scribblings. If Danios wants to debate so badly, he would do what it takes to debate Spencer. If he refuses to emerge from the blanket of anonymity that the internet gives him, then he’s a coward, plain and simple. Besides, what does Danios have to fear? He would have the legions of militant Muslims on his side, as well as the PC liberal media pitbulls. Spencer is the one who needs protection.

            Also, is Danios even challenging Spencer to an actual in-person debate, or does he want to do everything through the internet? Would Danios be introduce by the moderator as “Danios from loonwatch”, would Danios wear a mask to protect his identity? Would Spencer show up and debate against Danios who is phoning it in? How exactly would that work?

          • Like I said,

            There is no good reason to reveal your identity for a debate. It is unnecessary, and you have failed to demonstrate why it is.

            Identities aren’t part of the debate, and therefore, there is no need for them. This is just a sophomoric, pissing contest about who’s “big enough” to show their face, and nothing more.

            As for Spencer’s confidence, it obviously isn’t enough to allow him to engage in a radio debate with an anonymous individual, who has successfully debunked whole chapters from his book. Spencer can stick his head out and run around the world, preaching his bigotry to others as much as he wants, but if he can’t even defend his own book when it’s being debunked, then all of that means nothing.

            This site is challenging Spencer’s claims about himself. It isn’t an “ad hominem”, since Spencer’s claims and portrayal of himself, is the issue on “spencerwatch” (hence the name). The theme is still the same:

            “Proving Spencer Wrong”

            There is no article on this site, that isn’t directed towards doing that. Spencer is just looking for an excuse to justify his “haughty refusal to debate”, doing exactly what he accuses of Ahmed Rehab of doing.

  2. Again, I find it very ironic and hypocritical that you claim identity does not matter, when I can look through this website and see ad-hominem attacks on Spencer’s character, none of which is related to his specific arguments. Robert having a Master’s Degree in a topic other than Islam does not, in any way shape or form, negate this arguments on Islam, yet it is routinely thrown area here in order to discredit him. So much for your claim that “there is no article on this site” that isn’t about proving Spencer wrong.

    There is no good reason to reveal your identity for a debate. It is unnecessary, and you have failed to demonstrate why it is.

    Whether you like it or not, people need to know who they are talking to during a debate. If you’ve ever taken any speech or debate class, you would have learned that, in order to deliver a convincing argument, the audience has to become comfortable with somebody’s qualifications. That’s just how it is. Let’s say, for example, Danios had been arrested at some point in the past for traveling to Pakistan and training at an Al Qaeda camp. Would you still view his articles as credible? Would you blame somebody for doubting his real position? That’s an extreme case, but it serves my point. Robert’s credentials, positions, and background are available for anyone to see and scrutinize. This site wouldn’t exist if it were not for that fact. Danios hiding behind a pseudonym and talking a tough game isn’t good enough, especially since Robert is at a much higher level socially than Danios. Danios is a relative nobody, and it’s presumptuous of him to think everyone will give equal weight to his arguments when he is unwilling to disclose who he really is.

    allow him to engage in a radio debate with an anonymous individual,

    Radio interview, lol. Thanks for clearing that up. What does Danios have to hide? Why is he so scared? All the Islamophobes out there? Maybe he’d have to go into hiding like Molly Norris? Oh wait, she didn’t go into hiding because of the Islamophobes, did she?

    And tu quoque + moral equivalence does not mean something has been “debunked.” Sorry to break it to you.

    • Again, I find it very ironic and hypocritical that you claim identity does not matter, when I can look through this website and see ad-hominem attacks on Spencer’s character, none of which is related to his specific arguments.

      Spencer is the one who made claims about his knowledge and expertise, so when people attack these claims of his, by giving every reason in the world why these claims are false, it isn’t really an ad hominem argument.

      Robert having a Master’s Degree in a topic other than Islam does not, in any way shape or form, negate this arguments on Islam, yet it is routinely thrown area here in order to discredit him. So much for your claim that “there is no article on this site” that isn’t about proving Spencer wrong.

      Those attacks are related to Spencer’s claims about himself. As soon as you make high claims about yourself, you yourself become a subject for cross-examination based on those claims.

      Spencer not having any sort of degree or expertise on Islam at all, is what the issue is. His entire case against Islam is based on nothing besides the sensationalism of a few fringe, anti-Islam websites, and this is obvious to anyone, since these discredited polemics have been online for at least a decade.

      Whether you like it or not, people need to know who they are talking to during a debate. If you’ve ever taken any speech or debate class, you would have learned that, in order to deliver a convincing argument, the audience has to become comfortable with somebody’s qualifications. That’s just how it is. Let’s say, for example, Danios had been arrested at some point in the past for traveling to Pakistan and training at an Al Qaeda camp. Would you still view his articles as credible? Would you blame somebody for doubting his real position? That’s an extreme case, but it serves my point. Robert’s credentials, positions, and background are available for anyone to see and scrutinize. This site wouldn’t exist if it were not for that fact. Danios hiding behind a pseudonym and talking a tough game isn’t good enough, especially since Robert is at a much higher level socially than Danios. Danios is a relative nobody, and it’s presumptuous of him to think everyone will give equal weight to his arguments when he is unwilling to disclose who he really is.

      So basically, revealing your identity is for the purpose of opening the door to ad hominem arguments against you, thus taking the focus away from the debate itself.

      The credibility of an argument is based on the argument itself. Furthermore, you can have anonymity over the radio, while you cannot have it in person.

      Radio interview, lol. Thanks for clearing that up. What does Danios have to hide? Why is he so scared? All the Islamophobes out there? Maybe he’d have to go into hiding like Molly Norris? Oh wait, she didn’t go into hiding because of the Islamophobes, did she?

      Why does it matter? Oh wait, it doesn’t.

      And tu quoque + moral equivalence does not mean something has been “debunked.” Sorry to break it to you.

      Then I’m sorry to break this to you, but claiming something is tu quoque or moral equivalence, doesn’t make it so.

    • Robert having a Master’s Degree in a topic other than Islam does not, in any way shape or form, negate this arguments on Islam, yet it is routinely thrown area here in order to discredit him.

      The point isn’t to discredit him or his “argument” O gifted one. It is to prove that his claim to being (and I’m not b.s’ing you here) “the acclaimed scholar of Islam” is completely bogus. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that is what it says on his site right? How can one even dream about calling himself a scholar (forget about being acclaimed) on Islam, when all he is is just another idiot who decided to pick up a Puffins copy of the Qur’an circa 2o01 in order to justify his newfound hatred of Islam and Muslims?

      Not to mention, none of the work he does can be considered “scholarly”. Can you explain to me how creating a catch 22 for all Muslims by effectively saying that apart from the radical extremists, most (if not all) other Muslims regularly practice taqiyya (which he claims is divinely sanctioned lying to non-Muslims)? Or how about claiming that your opposition to Park 51 is because of the “sensitivities” of the families, all the while referring to the Islamic cultural center as the “Islamic Supremacist Mega-Mosque at Ground Zero” everytime you mention it? What about brandishing that every Muslim who disagrees with him an extremist, and every non-Muslim who disagrees with him a “dhimmi” (lol seriously?)? Come on Ahni, is that the work of a “scholar”? Is it not fair for him to be called out on that?

      Why don’t we even just assume that he has 2 Ph.D’s on the subject, and that he is a scholar. Why would a scholar be so freaking dishonest? Scholars usually base their entire lives around attaining knowledge, and objectively and honestly studying in their respective fields. Why would a scholar waste so much time, only to lie and deceive? The only logical answer would be the lure of some serious benjamins. And it comes as no surprise to find out that he makes a 6 figure income from JW.

      Take away the ad-hominems and guilt-by-association logical fallacies from this site and loonwatch, and you have very little else to stand on.

      Wow really? I could have sworn you were describing JW there. You know, simply name-dropping logical fallacies does not mean they exist. You have failed time and again to prove such instances of logical fallacies. Is it not Robert Spencer who thrives on the guilt by association fallacy in order to discredit his opponents? The term “Hamas-linked CAIR” immediately springs to mind.

  3. Ahni, there’s many Muslims and non-Muslims who want to debate Robert Spencer. How many debates has he been in? 1 I believe.
    For a guy who sits at home with an occupation as a blogger and makes over $130 000, do you really think he’s stupid enough to give it all away? Of course not thats why he DOESN’T debate any one.
    And yes, the only TV station that has him on is FOX.

  4. Let’s say, for example, Danios had been arrested at some point in the past for traveling to Pakistan and training at an Al Qaeda camp. Would you still view his articles as credible? Would you blame somebody for doubting his real position? That’s an extreme case, but it serves my point. … Danios hiding behind a pseudonym and talking a tough game isn’t good enough, especially since Robert is at a much higher level socially than Danios. Danios is a relative nobody…

    Wait, what were you just saying about ad hominem?

Leave a Reply

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