Sacramento: Sikh Cabbie Severely Beaten Screamed “I am not Muslim”

(Read the original)

Robert Spencer likes to say, “Islamophobia? What Islamophobia?”

Here you go Bob,

Robbery or Hate Crime? Sacramento Cabbie Severely Beaten

(Fox40)

Ben Deci

Sacramento cab driver Harbhajan Singh is recovering from severe injuries he received at the hands of two men he drove into West Sacramento early this morning.

56-year-old Singh believes the men intended to kill him, but he was able to get away.

In a press release, West Sacramento Police say “two of the subjects began assaulting the victim and demanded money.” But Singh says that his money wasn’t what provoked the attack. He says it was his turban.

“After he gets the money,” Singh said of one of his attackers, “he’s still fighting. He says ‘I’ll kill you.’ I say, ‘I’m not Muslim. Please.'”

Singh has several stitches on his head and other parts of his body, bone chips in his nose, and bruising along his rib cage.

He says he picked-up the near fatal fare at Harlow’s in Midtown Sacramento Sunday morning. He says there were two men and two women. They first told him they were headed toward Broadway in Sacramento, but later had him drive into a dark West Sacramento neighborhood.

That’s when, according to  Singh, the two men exploded into violence. One shouted expletives and called him Osama Bin Laden.

Singh wears a turban because he is Sikh.

“It’s part of the religion,” said Resham Singh, a coworker of Harbhajan’s. “So we don’t know how to show the community we are different people. We are nice people. We are not joined with bad people.”

During the violent beating, one of the female passengers put her body between Singh and his attackers.

“She was very nice. She said ‘why you fight him? You’ll go to jail.’ But he did not listen,” Harbhajan Singh said.

Still, Singh was able to use the distraction to get away.

“God help me, I put the car into drive from park… and raced away,” Singh said.

He wound-up in a West Sacramento apartment complex where, still bleeding and with one eye swollen shut, he banged on doors until he found someone to call 9-1-1.

Singh was taken to the hospital. His attackers, and the woman who defended him, disappeared.

Greenwald: FBI Thwarts its Own Terrorist Plot

Recently a case regarding a 19 year old Somali-American accused of attempting to blow up a Christmas event in Oregon has garnered national attention. The arrest fits a familiar pattern in which individuals are encouraged, supported and financed by the FBI to detonate bombs. Did the FBI stay within their limits when pursuing the Somali-American, or did they cross over the boundary into entrapment?

Glenn Greenwald has an excellent piece that questions this arrest and highlights for the umpteenth time the motive behind these “attacks,” a motive that is obfuscated quite often by politicians, the media and anti-Muslim activists.

These individuals aren’t, (as the Robert Spencer’s of the world proclaim) randomly convinced to blow up things because of some religious prescription/motivation, they are motivated by “occupations” and aggression against Muslims and Muslim countries! (Note to the FBI: Spencer is not going to tell you that when he is training your gumshoe detectives)

Time and time again the statements of these misguided individuals speak towards the reality that “It’s the occupation stupid!” but the Cassandra cries of Glenn Greenwald and those like him are willfully ignored and marginalized and so the fear-mongering, exploitation and violence against innocents continues unabated.

The FBI successfully thwarts its own Terrorist plot

(Salon.com)

by Glenn Greenwald

The FBI is obviously quite pleased with itself over its arrest of a 19-year-old Somali-American, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, who — with months of encouragement, support and money from the FBI’s own undercover agents — allegedly attempted to detonate a bomb at a crowded Christmas event in Portland, Oregon.  Media accounts are almost uniformly trumpeting this event exactly as the FBI describes it.  Loyalists of both parties are doing the same, with Democratic Party commentators proclaiming that this proves how great and effective Democrats are at stopping The Evil Terrorists, while right-wing polemicists point to this arrest as yet more proof that those menacing Muslims sure are violent and dangerous.

What’s missing from all of these celebrations is an iota of questioning or skepticism.  All of the information about this episode — all of it — comes exclusively from an FBI affidavit filed in connection with a Criminal Complaint against Mohamud.  As shocking and upsetting as this may be to some, FBI claims are sometimes one-sided, unreliable and even untrue, especially when such claims — as here — are uncorroborated and unexamined.  That’s why we have what we call “trials” before assuming guilt or even before believing that we know what happened:  because the government doesn’t always tell the complete truth, because they often skew reality, because things often look much different once the accused is permitted to present his own facts and subject the government’s claims to scrutiny.  The FBI affidavit — as well as whatever its agents are whispering into the ears of reporters — contains only those facts the FBI chose to include, but omits the ones it chose to exclude.  And even the “facts” that are included are merely assertions at this point and thus may not be facts at all.

It may very well be that the FBI successfully and within legal limits arrested a dangerous criminal intent on carrying out a serious Terrorist plot that would have killed many innocent people, in which case they deserve praise.  Court-approved surveillance and use of undercover agents to infiltrate terrorist plots are legitimate tactics when used in accordance with the law.

But it may also just as easily be the case that the FBI — as they’ve done many times in the past — found some very young, impressionable, disaffected, hapless, aimless, inept loner; created a plot it then persuaded/manipulated/entrapped him to join, essentially turning him into a Terrorist; and then patted itself on the back once it arrested him for having thwarted a “Terrorist plot” which, from start to finish, was entirely the FBI’s own concoction.  Having stopped a plot which it itself manufactured, the FBI then publicly touts — and an uncritical media amplifies — its “success” to the world, thus proving both that domestic Terrorism from Muslims is a serious threat and the Government’s vast surveillance powers — current and future new ones — are necessary.

There are numerous claims here that merit further scrutiny and questioning. First, the FBI was monitoring the email communications of this American citizen on U.S. soil for months (at least) with what appears to be the flimsiest basis: namely, that he was in email communication with someone in Northwest Pakistan, “an area known to harbor terrorists” (para. 5 of the FBI Affidavit).  Is that enough to obtain court approval to eavesdrop on someone’s calls and emails?  I’m glad the FBI is only eavesdropping with court approval, if that’s true, but certainly more should be required for judicial authorization than that.  Communicating with someone in Northwest Pakistan is hardly reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Second, in order not to be found to have entrapped someone into committing a crime, law enforcement agents want to be able to prove that, in the 1992 words of the Supreme Court, the accused was “was independently predisposed to commit the crime for which he was arrested.”  To prove that, undercover agents are often careful to stress that the accused has multiple choices, and they then induce him into choosing with his own volition to commit the crime.  In this case, that was achieved by the undercover FBI agent’s allegedly advising Mohamud that there were at least five ways he could serve the cause of Islam (including by praying, studying engineering, raising funds to send overseas, or becoming “operational”), and Mohamud replied he wanted to “be operational” by using exploding a bomb (para. 35-37).

But strangely, while all other conversations with Mohamud which the FBI summarizes were (according to the affidavit) recorded by numerous recording devices, this conversation — the crucial one for negating Mohamud’s entrapment defense — was not.  That’s because, according to the FBI, the undercover agent “was equipped with audio equipment to record the meeting.  However, due to technical problems, the meeting was not recorded” (para. 37).

Thus, we have only the FBI’s word, and only its version, for what was said during this crucial — potentially dispositive — conversation.  Also strangely: the original New York Times article on this story described this conversation at some length and reported the fact that “that meeting was not recorded due to a technical difficulty,” but the final version omitted that, instead simply repeating the FBI’s story as though it were fact:  “undercover agents in Mr. Mohamud’s case offered him several nonfatal ways to serve his cause, including mere prayer. But he told the agents he wanted to be ‘operational,’ and perhaps execute a car bombing.”

Third, there are ample facts that call into question whether Mohamud’s actions were driven by the FBI’s manipulation and pressure rather than his own predisposition to commit a crime.  In June, he attempted to fly to Alaska in order to work on a fishing job he obtained through a friend, but he was on the Government’s no-fly list.  That caused the FBI to question him at the airport and then bar him from flying to Alaska, and thus prevented him from earning income with this job (para. 25).  Having prevented him from working, the money the FBI then pumped him with — including almost $3,000 in cash for him to rent his own apartment (para. 61) — surely helped make him receptive to their suggestions and influence.  And every other step taken to perpetrate this plot — from planning its placement to assembling the materials to constructing the bomb — was all done at the FBI’s behest and with its indispensable support and direction.

It’s impossible to conceive of Mohamud having achieved anything on his own.  Before being ensnared by the FBI, the only tangible action he had taken was to write three articles on “fitness and jihad” for the online magazine Jihad Recollections.  At least based on what is known, he had no history of violence, no apparent criminal record, had never been to a training camp in Afghanistan, Pakistan or anywhere else, and — before meeting the FBI — had never taken a single step toward harming anyone.  Does that sound like some menacing sleeper Terrorist to you?

Finally, there is, as usual, no discussion whatsoever in media accounts of motive.  There are several statements attributed to Mohamud by the Affidavit that should be repellent to any decent person, including complete apathy — even delight — at the prospect that this bomb would kill innocent people, including children.  What would drive a 19-year-old American citizen — living in the U.S. since the age of 3 — to that level of sociopathic indifference?   He explained it himself in several passages quoted by the FBI, and — if it weren’t for the virtual media blackout of this issue — this line of reasoning would be extremely familiar to Americans by now (para. 45):

Undercover FBI Agent:  You know there’s gonna be a lot of children there?

Mohamud:  Yeah, I know, that’s what I’m looking for.

Undercover FBI Agent:  For kids?

Mohamud:  No, just for, in general a huge mass that will, like for them you know to be attacked in their own element with their families celebrating the holidays.  And then for later to be saying, this was them for you to refrain from killing our children, women . . . . so when they hear all these families were killed in such a city, they’ll say you know what your actions, you know they will stop, you know.  And it’s not fair that they should do that to people and not feeling it.

And here’s what he allegedly said in a video he made shortly before he thought he would be detonating the bomb (para. 80):

We hear the same exact thing over and over and over from accused Terrorists — that they are attempting to carry out plots in retaliation for past and ongoing American violence against Muslim civilians and to deter such future acts.  Here we find one of the great mysteries in American political culture:  that the U.S. Government dispatches its military all over the world — invading, occupying, and bombing multiple Muslim countries — torturing them, imprisoning them without charges, shooting them up at checkpoints, sending remote-controlled drones to explode their homes, imposing sanctions that starve hundreds of thousands of children to death  — and Americans are then baffled when some Muslims — an amazingly small percentage — harbor anger and vengeance toward them and want to return the violence.   And here we also find the greatest myth in American political discourse:  that engaging in all of that military aggression somehow constitutes Staying Safe and combating Terrorism — rather than doing more than any single other cause to provoke, sustain and fuel Terrorism.

UPDATE:  A very similar thing happened last month when the FBI announced that it had arrested someone who was planning to bomb the DC Metro system when, in reality, “the only plotting he did was in response to instructions from federal agents he thought were accomplices.”  That concocted FBI plot then led to the Metro Police announcing a new policy of random searches of passengers’ bags.

Meanwhile, in Oregon, the mosque sometimes attended by Mohamud was victimized today by arson.  So the FBI did not stop any actual Terrorist plots, but they may have helped inspire one.

Robert Spencer of JihadWatch Becomes Desperate Against LoonWatch

Robert Spencer

Hate-blogger and career bigot Robert Spencer issued an open challenge to debate numerous times on his vitriolic site.  LoonWatch accepted his challenge.  It has now been officially 155 days since Spencer has avoided the debate.  By Spencer’s own logic (whereby anyone who dodges a debate is a chicken), this makes him a big fat chicken.  This is why I recently published an article entitled JihadWatch Afraid to Debate LoonWatch.

Instead of taking up his own challenge to debate, Robert Spencer now tries to take the chicken’s way out and has started throwing out wild Glenn Beck style accusations against LoonWatch.  Of course, this is no different than his normal M.O., which involves saying absolutely outlandish things and then simply repeating them over and over.  And so, Spencer now calls LoonWatch an “Islamic hate site.”  Next thing you know, Glenn Greenwald will be an “Islamic supremacist” and “stealth jihadist” to JihadWatch!

To give “proof” that LoonWatch is an “Islamic hate site”, the best Spencer can do is reproduce a comment posted by a random reader of our site by the name of Mosizzle.  Amazingly, Mosizzle (whoever he is) is not even a part of the LoonWatch team, nor has ever worked for us, nor has anything to do with us!  He’s just one of the thousands of people who read our website and decided to post a comment under one of our articles.

Is Robert Spencer to be held accountable for what every commentator on his site posts underneath his articles?  OK, let us apply this standard to him.  Even in the blog post itself (the one in which he decries Mosizzle’s alleged “threat”), we see the crazy minions on his site saying completely absurd things, like this (posted by the always classy SaleemSmith):

Muhammad was an insane goat and camel f**ker.

Will Robert Spencer condemn SaleemSmith for saying this?  And is it now fair to say that “JihadWatch calls Muhammad an Insane Goat and Camel F**ker”?

The sheer number of hate-filled comments on JihadWatch is in fact astounding.  One does not need to dig far to find them.  Simply clicking on the comments to any post will do.  For example, just yesterday, we have one dedicated JihadWatch reader (by the user name of dumbledoresarmy) advocating ethnic cleansing of Germany:

evict from Germany, back to various parts of dar al Islam, all known Muslims (including native German converts to Islam; converts have shown a distressing tendency to involve themselves in Jihad plots).

How to reduce the danger of raids carried out from outside?

Don’t let any more Muslims into Germany. Not students, not tourists, not businesspeople, not diplomats, no nothing.

No Muslims allowed on German soil, would make life much more difficult for planners of jihad raids.

Another JihadWatch reader takes offense at this comment, arguing that it should be extended to all countries, not just Germany:

Could we not amend that fine premise to ‘No molsems allowed on non-moslem soil.’?

The next commentator (by the name of TJ) weighs in with a possible solution, arguing that Mecca should be nuked:

I believe a decent leader should prevent an attack by issuing threats that islams capital would be nuked (mecca) is theres a single attack in the country.

Another JihadWatch reader cheers on, likening Muslims to animals:

Do NOT surrender to these animals.

One has to scroll halfway down to find anyone who criticizes the “nuke Mecca” option offered by TJ.  In this case, it is a user by the name of Roland, who takes issue with nuking Mecca…Except only because it would mean destroying the oil that America so desperately needs:

TJ please do not spread such vile mischief. Believe it or not, America cannot use nukes against any land that is filled with oil, it will be slow suicide.

Ronald could care less that millions of civilians would be killed.  He cares about the oil over civilians, like all good neocons do.

The next commentator after Roland (by the name of El Cid) voices his support for ethnic cleansing, arguing for a policy involving “throwing them all out.”  The next commentator after him decides to go back to the “nuke Mecca” option, and prays for an earthquake to destroy Mecca.  (Why nuke when you can pray for an earthquake to do the same thing?)

Then R.K. MacUalraig decides to give his two thumbs up to the idea of ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Germany, saying:

Yes! Staright talk, straight solutions.

The poster after him also extends his support to the “throwing the Muslims out of Germany” solution (remember how the “throwing the Jews out of Germany” thing worked out?).  Then, he says:

Fortunately, slowly but surely, we are getting to that stage.

“That stage” refers to the Final Solution, i.e. ridding Germany of Muslims.

Then finally, we have someone who opposes this Final Solution to Rid Germany of Muslims idea.  Ahh, the voice of reason on JihadWatch.  Of course, the same poster offers his own solution which involves “dropping a load of old shoes over the grand mosque and kaaba stone of mecca”.  He argues that this is a “perfect solution” because it would “be pure insult and humiliation.”  He also notes that he has many other such ideas which are even more insulting than this, and then encourages the other readers to come up with “their own creative suggestions.”  So, this is the voice of reason on JihadWatch, the only user who actually opposed the Final Solution idea in the entire thread.

The next poster isn’t having any of it, and says:

I think it is time for a mass roundup and deportation, There is plenty of room in the sands of Arabia for all of them.

The commentator after that decides to give his own “creative solution”, arguing:

Pig parts, pig blood and perhaps waste towels from the bath houses of the lower east side (Village) NYC could be dropped on the holy land.

Then we have the last commentator on the page, the same one who came up with the idea to ethnically cleanse Germany of Muslims, chastise Ronald for being against the “nuke Mecca” idea.  In Ronald’s defense, however, it should be noted that he never claimed we shouldn’t nuke Mecca because it would kill filthy Muslim civilians, but because of the oil.  So c’mon crazy JihadWatch readers, cut him some slack!

Dumbledoresarmy addresses the crazed JihadWatch crew with the words “ladies and gentlemen” and then explains why nuking Mecca is a good idea.

And that’s the last post in the article.  Thirty-five comments by JihadWatch readers, and not a single one who opposed the idea of ethnic cleansing of Germany (or the entire non-Muslim world) and the nuking of Mecca on ethical grounds (with the notable exception of Ronald who thought that it would mean losing the oil reserves and another user who thought there are more creative ways to deliver “pure insult and humiliation” upon Muslims).  Not a single commentator on the thread opposed either of these two ideas on moral grounds.

Not a single peep from the ever vigilant Robert Spencer or any of the other moderators on the website either.

If Robert Spencer is claiming that LoonWatch must be held responsible for the solitary comment by Mosizzle, then by this logic, Spencer and JihadWatch are to be held accountable for the above comments advocating ethnic cleansing and genocide of Muslims.  Notice that JihadWatch has a disclaimer at the bottom saying:

The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.

If Spencer can use this defense of his site, then why does not the same apply to LoonWatch?  Therefore, even if–hypothetically speaking–an “Islamic supremacist” were to post a threat against Spencer on our site, it would not be (by Spencer’s own logic) attributable in any way to LoonWatch.  After all, JihadWatch commentators had threats against not just one person but against an entire religious group!

Having argued that point from a hypothetical standpoint, the reality is that no threat towards Robert Spencer was ever posted on LoonWatch.  Mosizzle’s comment was simply:

Like all cancers, this one needs to be cut out before it spreads.

Anyone who has ever spent more than three minutes of their lives on the internet well knows that people are “proverbially speaking” when they say such things.  For example, when the Huffington Post says“Jon Stewart Destroys Fox News…” or Fox News says that “O’Reilly Destroys Eminem and Media Matters”, nobody actually seriously thinks that Fox News has actually literally been destroyed or that Eminem or Media Matters are actually dead.  Or when someone says “Stewart Rips Maddow”, nobody actually thinks that Maddow has been literally ripped into little pieces.  Or when someone online says “Maddow eviscerated [someone]”, nobody actually thinks that the person has been literally eviscerated.

Mosizzle’s comment, in the context of epic blog language, is the most normal thing in the world.  In fact, the “[blank] is a cancer that must be cut out” phrase has been used only just a million times on the internet, never once being interpreted as an actual death threat.  For example, this neocon clown asks “Is Progressivism a ‘cancer’ that must be cut out of the American system?”  I am a progressive in the American system; should I claim that I have been threatened?  Glenn Beck also uses the “[blank] is a cancer that must be cut out” phrase.  Maybe Glenn Beck is not a good example (because he is nuts), but the point is that most people would not think that Beck is actually advocating physical violence by such a phrase.  Interestingly, the “Islam is a cancer in America that must be cut out” is very familiar and Spencer never seems to object to it.

In any case, Mosizzle himself clarified his statement, by saying that he was “just implying that we must refute Spencer’s lies now before he become more influential…”  So, it is exactly as I initially thought it was: it was not a threat of physical violence at all.  Instead, it was a call to refute his lies before his influence spreads.  The phrase was used in the same way “destroys”, “eviscerated”, etc. is used in blog talk.

Robert Spencer, on the other hand, physically threatened me (Danios), calling for me to be lashed 100 and 101 times on two different occasions respectively, saying about me (“the slick liar”):

The slick liar who penned that piece ought to get 100 lashes

And:

The slick liar who penned that piece ought to get 101 lashes

Calling for someone to get lashed 100 or 101 times cannot really be understood as “proverbially speaking” nor is it a common saying. (Admittedly, I think it was nothing more than him just losing his temper…) So basically on the one hand we have on LoonWatch a comment using a phrase most commonly used in the proverbial sense by a random reader of our site who is not even a part of the LoonWatch team…(Nowhere in the quote by Mosizzle is violent action called for.)  And on the other hand we have a threat that explicitly says I should be lashed, a threat issued not by some random reader of JW, but by the main man himself!

Furthermore, this entire idea of “the commentators on my site don’t reflect on me at all” is a bunch of baloney.  The fact that JihadWatch attracts so many crazy bigots speaks volumes about what JihadWatch is all about.  It’s food that fuels the bigots, and that’s why so many of them are there.  We at LoonWatch have some crazies who roam our site (which website on earth doesn’t!?) but unlike JihadWatch, they are just a tiny percentage.  Not only that, but someone will challenge a person if he says something crazy like that.  As for Mosizzle’s comment, I am sure that most loyal readers thought like me that his comment was proverbial in nature.  And Robert Spencer knows that.  The fact that he’s forced to use the words of random visitors to our site–and superimposing it upon us–tells us very clearly that he knows he has got nothing on us, so he must rely on indirect means. How desperate is Spencer to get at us, and how truly far he has to go to find something against us!

Remember I told you that Robert Spencer is a liar?  He feels no compunction in misleadingly titling his article: “Islamic hate site says Spencer is like a ‘cancer’ that must be ‘cut out.'”  Yet, our website never said that. It’s not just poor form to write like this; it’s outright lying and libel.  This from the man who keeps crying about people supposedly doing that to him.  He can dish it out, but he can’t take it.

The way Robert Spencer tries to superimpose a “threat” on the words posted by Mosizzle show how truly desperate Spencer is to get a death threat.  In the deranged world of Islamophobia, the more death threats and fatwas you have against your head, the more cred you have and the more books you can sell.  No wonder the cover of Spencer’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) is emblazoned with a death threat against Spencer made by some crazy internet Islamic extremist, and no wonder it boasts “[Robert Spencer] lives in a Secure, Undisclosed Location.”  And yet in an interviewavailable to the whole wide world to see, Spencer reveals his “undisclosed location” as “New England.”  If his life is really in such great peril from the Bad Guys (which no jail but Gitmo can stop apparently), why is he revealing his location?   And then why is he simultaneously printing books claiming that his location is “Undisclosed”?  All of this shows his sheer fraudulence.  It’s all histrionic theatrics and sensationalism designed to sell books.  The whole “I-have-death-threats-against-me-for-this-book” thing is as trite as the “Warning: Images too graphic for some”…These are just gimmicks designed to entice the viewer.  Oh, you’re getting death threats?  Then I must read your book to find out what you say!

Again, if Spencer wants to attribute one singular comment (that too which is simply proverbial in nature) to LoonWatch, then all those ethnic cleansing and nuclear genocide quotes are attributed to JihadWatch.  Having said that, it is not right to strike some sort of equivalency here.  LoonWatch has never advocated physical violence against Robert Spencer or the people who run his site.  On the other hand, Robert Spencer has himself advocated the same things that dumbledoresarmy and TJ did.  Dumbledoresarmy called for a ban on all Muslim immigration, which Spencer himself advocates:

Officials should proclaim a moratorium on all visa applications from Muslim countries, since there is no reliable way for American authorities to distinguish jihadists and potential jihadists from peaceful Muslims. Because this is not a racial issue, these restrictions should not apply to Christians and other non-Muslim citizens of those countries, although all should be subjected to reasonable scrutiny.

Reduce all this to its essence and you have exactly as dumbledoresarmy said: “No Muslims allowed on German soil.”

As for dumbledoresarmy’s support for ethnic cleansing, Robert Spencer was caught joining a white nationalist genocidal facebook group that advocated the same exact thing that dumbledoresarmy did on JihadWatch: ethnically cleansing a country (Turkey in this case) of all Muslims.

As for nuclear annihilation of Muslim lands, Robert Spencer posted a video advocating the nuclear annihilation of Pakistan.

So there can be no equivalence between the singular comment found on LoonWatch and the countless comments on JihadWatch.  Had anyone actually threatened Spencer, we would have called him out as a loon.  Will Robert Spencer strongly condemn as loons those people who post on his site calling for ethnic cleansing and nuclear genocide against Muslims?  We’re not asking just to reject what they are saying, but to clearly say that any who say such things are nutjobs.

The truth is, however, that such people characterize the vast majority of JihadWatch’s loyal readers.

Anyways, it is amazing how Robert Spencer chooses to focus on one teeny-tiny comment from someone who is not even a LoonWatch writer, instead of tackling the hefty arguments I have thrown his way.  Quite telling.  Also interesting is the fact that Robert Spencer and his minions mine our site looking for stuff to use against us even reading our comments section (whereas I would blow an aneurysm were I to read the comments section of JihadWatch for longer than a few minutes!), and yet Spencer still can’t get himself to say the name of our website.  How truly juvenile.  In that regard, I dedicate this song to him.

In the above article, I eviscerated Robert Spencer–proverbially speaking I assure you.

Robert Spencer’s “Fuzzy Math”

No Muslim can do any good for “Police Blotter Scholar” Robert Spencer. During the Hajj, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, the top cleric there, gave a sermon to the 2.5 million pilgrims declaring that there is no room for terrorism and extremism in Islam:

Saudi Arabia’s top cleric, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al Sheikh, called on worshippers in a midday sermon to espouse moderation and said Islam would survive what he described as attempts to defame the faith.

Delivering the Haj sermon at Namira Mosque at Mount Arafat, he said Allah Almighty endowed us with hosts of blessings and boons; guidance of Islam is one of them, adding Islam is not a theoretical religion; instead, it is a practicable code of conduct.

Al Sheikh said Islam is based on justice and equity, which admits of no terrorism, extremis [sic] and injustice.

This is big news. The top cleric in Saudi Arabia told millions of Muslim pilgrims that their religion has no place for terrorism and extremism. It should put to rest the claims of those who say, “Where are the Muslim condemnations against terrorism?” If you care to look, they are everywhere.

But, for the “Police Blotter Scholar,” that is not enough. No. He chooses to focus on the chants of a small number of pilgrims – from among 2.5 million – to negate the powerful message of the sermon:

Chants reported here. It is doubtful that anyone there noticed any contradiction. When Sheikh Abdul Aziz al Sheikh began condemning terrorism and extremism, most of his hearers probably thought he was referring to the actions of America and Israel.

No, Spencie. He was not referring to “America and Israel,” but terrorism in general. That was quite clear. But, for Spencer, the wrong-headed chants of a few pilgrims > (“is greater than”) the sermon of the top Saudi cleric denouncing terror in the name of Islam during a most holy time and a most holy place. The actions of a few misguided Muslims represents the whole. This is Spencer’s “fuzzy math.”

And they call him a “Scholar”…

Spencer Complains About Story Linking him to “Ground Zero” Mosque

Spencer-hypocrisy continues, this time the police-blotter, faux scholar had his paper thin sensitivity hurt when a story came out highlighting the Park51 Syndrome that exists in the United States. For example it has gotten to the level that even the Google “e” on Veterans Day was thought of as a “crescent moon.”

The story that Spencer took issue with was about a Christian Church that is under construction and is going to have a dome, “concerned residents” thought a mosque was being built. The story pointed out quite accurately that Spencer and his fellow goon blogger Pamela Geller were the main voices branding Park51 a “victory mosque at Ground Zero.” So How can Spencer now complain about something that is an incontrovertible fact!

Message to Spencer: Your hysteric anti-Muslim rantings and disinformation campaign have an effect on your minions, this is one such effext. At the very least take some responsibility.

Church in Arizona protested because it looks like a mosque

(RAW Story)

By David Edwards

Islamophobia may have reached a point in this country where people condemn Christians that they suspect are Muslims without ever checking the facts.

In Phoenix, Arizona, a new Christian church has residents fearing that it is an Islamic mosque.

The Light of the World multidenominational church is being built just off of Interstate 10 and features a dome-like structure.

“Since the distinctive dome shape went up, church leaders said they have received phone calls from concerned neighbors who’ve mistaken the building for an Islamic mosque,” KPHO reported.

“I heard many people, they came over and they say, ‘Is this a Muslim temple?’ No, it’s not,” church member Juan Calixto told KPNX.

“It is unfortunate that people are so intolerant to differences that they aren’t willing to see that the place of worship is not a mosque,” said Tayyibah Amatullah of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Arizona chapter.

Church officials have hung a sign to let people know they aren’t Muslim. “If you think we are different you are wrong,” the sign reads. “We are building a Christian house of prayer.”

“We’re trying to let people know that we’re Christian and our churches are modern,” Uzieo Martinez, a church official told KPHO.

Officials are trying to avoid the type of backlash received by the Park51 Islamic center that is planned near Ground Zero.

The cultural center was largely ignored when The New York Times first reported about it in December 2009.

The project received wider notice in May 2010 when a community board considered the construction plans. Conservative bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer dubbed the proposed center the “Ground Zero Mosque” which started a national controversy.

“But with so many high-profile figures selling unfounded, anti-Muslim fear to the public, is it any wonder that all many Americans can see in Islam is a phantom menace?” asked Tanya Somanader at the liberal blog Think Progress.

This video is from KPNX-TV, broadcast Nov. 15, 2010.

Spencer Wrong Again: OK amendment will ban religious arbitration

Spencer is a scholar of getting it wrong

The “scholar” Robert Spencer said the following in reply to comments made by Asma Uddin, an attorney for the Beckett Fund, that the Oklahoma ban on Shariah will end religious arbitration:

To be sure, Uddin also argued against the wisdom of the measure itself, although in doing so she misrepresented it, speaking as if Oklahoma had outlawed Sharia as a matter of voluntary private arbitration. That was actually off the point, since the use of Sharia provisions in private arbitration doesn’t constitute the use of a law other than American law to legislate for Americans, which is what the Oklahoma anti-Sharia measure is all about.

Does he ever get anything right?

A sponsor of the amendment, Rex Duncan, said that ending religious arbitration to prevent shariah from being used in Oklahoma courts is one of the main reasons he sponsored this amendment. Doh!

Rex Duncan, a Republican state representative in Oklahoma and a sponsor of the amendment, has explained that part of its purpose is to ban religious forms of arbitration: “Parties would come to the courts and say we want to be bound by Islamic law and then ask the courts to enforce those agreements. That is a backdoor way to get Sharia law into courts. There … have been some efforts, I believe, to explore bringing that to America, and it’s dangerous.”

The “scholar” Robert Spencer is wrong again – speaking up before he got all the facts. Not only does this new amendment hamper Muslims who might want to arbitrate according to their religious law, but it will also hinder other faith groups from doing so as well. Religious arbitration among citizens is as old as apple pie in U.S. legal history. But don’t let that get in the way of amending your state’s constitution so you can demonize the less than 1% of Muslims who live in your state!

A law we don’t need by Michael A. Helfand (LA Times)

Oklahomans have a plan to save the country. It doesn’t address the reverberations of the financial crisis or outline a way to pay for social services on a limited budget. Instead, they’ve fashioned a “preemptive strike” against Islamic law in the United States. Last week, 70% of Oklahoma’s electorate approved this amendment to the state’s Constitution: “The [Oklahoma] Courts … when exercising their judicial authority … shall not consider international law or Sharia Law.”

Oklahoma isn’t alone. Arizona is considering a bill that would prohibit state judges from “rely[ing] on any body of religious sectarian law or foreign law,” and a similar bill has just been introduced in the South Carolina Legislature. Whether more states will hop on the bandwagon may depend on the outcome of a lawsuit filed in Oklahoma federal district court that contends that the amendment violates the 1st Amendment. But the amendment is not just of dubious constitutionality; it’s dangerous and unnecessary on the merits.

Rex Duncan, a Republican state representative in Oklahoma and a sponsor of the amendment, has explained that part of its purpose is to ban religious forms of arbitration: “Parties would come to the courts and say we want to be bound by Islamic law and then ask the courts to enforce those agreements. That is a backdoor way to get Sharia law into courts. There … have been some efforts, I believe, to explore bringing that to America, and it’s dangerous.”

In reality, such arbitration is well established. For nearly half a century, Jewish, Christian and Muslim tribunals have operated in the United States in concert with government courts. These tribunals preside over matters of religious ritual and also apply religious law to a wide range of disputes between individuals and even commercial entities. Parties, in keeping with shared beliefs and values, can voluntarily agree to submit employment, divorce, contractual and various other types of disputes for resolution. State and federal courts currently treat such religious tribunals as they do all other arbitration panels that litigants can seek out as an alternative to going to court. And, as long as the tribunal and its decisions meet certain standards, government courts routinely “confirm” them — that is, render them legally enforceable.

To some, the prospect that the “Save Our State” amendment could challenge this process would be a positive development. In fact, if we were to buy into some of the characterizations propounded by some pundits and politicians, we might think that religious arbitration could force U.S. courts to allow dismemberment or stoning as a form of punishment. But if the awards of religious tribunals are to be enforced in court, the hearings must comply with various procedural requirements, the arbitration agreements cannot be unconscionable, and the awards cannot contravene state and federal laws. Indeed, under the aptly titled “public policy exception,” courts cannot enforce any arbitration award, including one issued by a religious tribunal, that undermines U.S. public policies.

For example, parties before a religious tribunal have a right to an attorney that cannot be waived. The tribunal must give notice to the parties regarding all hearings. And it must accept all relevant evidence and allow parties to cross-examine witnesses.

When it comes to the decisions themselves, just as a court cannot enforce a contract to hire a hit man, a court cannot enforce an arbitration award that requires something such as stoning or caning. Nor could a court confirm a religious tribunal’s child custody decision without making its own independent determination as to what was in the best interests of the child. In the words of a New York court, “An arbitration award that deprives a party of a constitutional right to seek redress or protection in a civil or criminal matter is against public policy.”

But that alone isn’t a reason to maintain the tradition of religious arbitration. This form of justice sometimes provides legal redress that the state and federal courts cannot.

Consider a case in which a pastor, imam or rabbi is given a lifetime contract (a relatively common practice) that allows his or her congregation to terminate his or her employment only for cause. Somewhere down the line, the congregation decides that its religious leader is no longer doing the job. Accordingly, the congregation terminates the contract. But the pastor, imam or rabbi might very well disagree that there was cause for the dismissal. Where does he or she go to bring that claim?

The answer is not in state or federal court. The establishment clause of the 1st Amendment prohibits government courts from rendering a view regarding religious doctrine. And deciding what the appropriate responsibilities of a pastor or imam or rabbi are, and whether they have been fulfilled, would generally amount to rendering such a view. As a result, the court could only dismiss the case. However, the pastor, imam or rabbi could turn to a religious tribunal, and a U.S. court could later confirm the decision and give it legal force.

Legislation banning religious arbitration is deeply misguided. The decisions of religious tribunals are unenforceable unless they comply with public policy. And we need them to address cases that constitutional doctrine prohibits from being litigated in government courts. In the end, allowing state and federal courts to “consider” the findings of religious tribunals for the purposes of “confirmation” doesn’t violate cherished religious freedoms, it enhances them.

Laws like Oklahoma’s “Save Our State” amendment pander to unfounded fears. Instead of saving the nation, they merely add to its list of problems.

Michael A. Helfand is an associate professor of law at Pepperdine University and associate director of the university’s Glazer Institute for Jewish Studies.

Robert Spencer v. Peter Kreeft: “The Only Good Muslim is a Bad Muslim”

Kreeft and Spencer after tummy tuck

Robert Spencer had a “debate” at Thomas More College recently with a former professor (and ping pong partner) of his, Catholic Theologian and apologist Peter Kreeft. It was quite evident that the two were friends and they were quite chummy with one another, in fact it was pointed out by Kreeft that this wasn’t a debate as much as it was a “dialogue” or “discussion,” I thought of it more as good ole’ Muslim bashing.

The “Debate”:

The resolution being debated was that “the only good Muslim is a bad Muslim.” Imagine the reaction if it had been “the only good Jew is a bad Jew” or the “only good Christian is a bad Christian.” Of course yours truly Robert Spencer, affirmed the resolution, defending it with the usual canard of ‘any Muslim who truly practices his faith is potentially dangerous and a threat to society.’ The “debate” was interesting as it exposed even more vividly the inherent biases and prejudices held by Spencer, the deep lack of understanding and knowledge of Islamic theology, belief and history as well as his limited command of the Arabic language.

Kreeft who didn’t provide much of a challenge to Spencer and who showed brightly his Ultra-Conservative Catholic belief essentially agreed with 95% of what Spencer was saying. While it is clear that Kreeft regards Muslim devotion to, and confidence in their faith in high esteem he nevertheless believes Islam is a “primitive,” “defective,” and “false” religion that has caused “more bloodshed” than Christianity.

Instead of challenging Spencer’s consistent distortions of Islam and Islamic teaching (he deferred to Spencer as an “expert on Islam”) he pivoted the argument to say that the greater threat to Catholicism is the Enlightenment and the Sexual Revolution.

Surprisingly, Spencer agrees with Professor Kreeft regarding the Enlightenment being a threat to Catholicism though he didn’t explicitly say that Islam was less of a threat. I can see how Ultra-Conservative Catholics may rail against the Enlightenment, it was the era which saw a secularist revolt in the name of Reason against the Catholic Church and which led to formulas for the Separation of Church and State, it also witnessed the decline of the power of the Catholic Church in the temporal realm.

However, it is quite hypocritical for Spencer to agree with such a premise, especially considering Spencer claims to be a defender of the West. Agreeing that the Enlightenment is bad is like saying that the Separation of Church and State is bad, or that Constitutional government is bad, all the things that Spencer claims to champion! (but which we have frequently shown is just a front for his own anti-Freedom supremacist beliefs).

A few other points were likewise revealed in this debate:

Spencer’s terrible command of Arabic and very poor articulation of Arabic. This has been revealed on other occasions such as when Danios slammed Spencer and one of his JihadWatch groupies‘ faulty understanding of the word dhimmi, which Spencer was trying to pass off as meaning “guilty people.”

Spencer said during the course of the dialogue on the topic of Islamic views of marriage that,

In Islamic marriage the woman is essentially chattel, and actually the word for marriage in Islam is an obscenity in Arabic, I am not making this up, the theological word for marriage in Islam is not a word that people say in polite company.

(Gasps from the crowd)

It’s because its a very degraded idea.

In this instance Spencer says that the theological word for marriage in Islam is actually an obscenity! A ridiculous notion that underscores the willful and deliberate ignorance of the so-called “scholar of Islam.”

The word that Spencer is likely referring to is *”Nikah” which simply means in Islamic theological terminology “marriage.” In claiming that “Nikah” is an obscene word that cannot be uttered in polite company, “scholar” Robert Spencer is committing a laughable gaffe that underscores yet again the shallow nature of his knowledge of Arabic and Islamic terminology. He is confusing a classical Arabic word Nikah, with the colloquial word (“Neik”), a different word, just because they sound similar. This would be like Spencer suggesting that Richard is an obscene word, because a colloquial subtract “Dick” is used as a derogatory word for penis. Well, here Spencer is arguing that Richard is an obscene word. That’s your scholar.

Also, when Spencer attempted to say Arabic words such as madhab, nasikh, mansukh, etc. it sounded like an Arabic 101 student struggling with pronunciation, it was quite embarrassing.

Kreeft, in one of the rare instances where he pushed back against his buddy Spencer said,

Kreeft: Doesn’t the Qur’an say that you can only have four wives if you respect them and treat them equally?

Spencer: It doesn’t say respect all of them, I have it here, it says you can have four wives if you treat them all equally, in other words if you treat them all the same, if you’re beastly to all of them then you can have them. It doesn’t say anything about respect.

Here Spencer reveals more of his biases and readings of his own prejudice into Islamic text. He believes the Qur’an calls for men to treat their wives “beastly.” Can he provide us a quote, a single verse that says anything remotely near that claim? In fact his claims are belied by the fact that the Qur’an and Islamic teaching specifically call for love, harmony, and respect between a husband and wife.

Take this verse (30:21),

“And amongst His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquility in them; and He placed between you love and compassion. Indeed in that are signs for a people who contemplate.”

or this one (2:228),

“And they (women) have rights similar to those (men) over them in kindness…”

or this (2:187),

“They (women) are your garments and you are their garments.”

or take the saying of Prophet Muhammad,

“The best amongst you, are the best for their wives”

So much for all that chattel nonsense.

More disturbing was when the question shifted from one in which Islamic belief is questioned to questioning the mere presence of Muslims in the West.

In reply to a commenter/questioner from the audience who basically asked “what will we do with Muslims in the West, since they are in our midst now,” Spencer replied,

Anyone who professes the Islamic faith, if he delves into the teachings of his own religion, he can end up being someone who is very dangerous to us. Now that doesn’t mean that people should be round up into camps and such but we need to enforce our own laws about sedition and formulate some sane immigration policies and recognize that this is an ideological conflict and not a problem of racism.

Oh thank heavens! At least Spencer isn’t calling for camps! Though his buddy Michelle Malkin does. Muslims need to *just* be aware that for merely professing to follow Islam they can be convicted of sedition! That is really the import of what Spencer is saying, he is calling for Muslims to be locked up and denied entry to the USA. Very Geert Wilders-esque.

The moderator asked the horrid question earlier to Kreeft and Spencer,

Couldn’t we learn from Muslims what we need to learn from reading their books but nevertheless energetically fighting their attempts to assert themselves in American society, restricting their entrance into our countries and just generally fighting political Islam, protecting our own religious freedom and our own political freedom by aggressively imposing our own values on our own societies. In other words, not permitting them polygamy, not permitting them honor killing, or wife beating or any of the other aspect of Sharia that they are asserting. In other words couldn’t we get all this from your book, your book tells us what we need to gain from Islam, and so, ok, fine, they can go home now?

(Laughter)

The framing of the question is terrible, which Muslim or Muslim group is asserting Sharia? Who is calling for polygamy and honor killings? Then look at the condescending way in which the moderator asks “why don’t we tell them to go home now?”

So I ask you who is for freedom? Democracy? Who is viewing the “other” as foreign and not belonging?

Kreeft who is supposed to be the “counter” replied,

the long and complete and nuanced version of my answer to your question is ‘yes.’

Spencer answered the question without any caveats simply saying,

yes.

Spencer also asserted that there are “20-30,000 polygamous groups of Muslims in the USA” but he didn’t provide any independent evidence. This is in fact all conjecture to further the “stealth-Muslims-in-our-midst-who-are-trying-to-advance-creeping-Sharia’ conspiracy theory.”

To cap it all off a Thomas More student who is joining the Israeli Army said,

You’re probably familiar with the supremacy clause in the Qur’an, “In order to honor Allah you must kill all the infidels, first the Saturdays and then the Sundays.”

Spencer replied accurately (he had no choice) for once, thereby sparing himself further ridicule from us that “such a verse doesn’t exist in the Qur’an,” but unable to help himself he went on to say,

There is a hadith, it isn’t in the Qur’an that says the Muslim must kill the Jews, and the Jews hide behind trees and the trees cry out and say, O’ Muslim there is a Jew behind me come and kill him, that is an authenticated hadith, and so it is considered to be a laudable practice for a Muslim to kill a Jew because it is something that hastens the coming of the end times in which all things will be consummated, but its not specifically in the Quran like that.

Unbelievable. A colossal falsity, an absurd statement that ventures on the ridiculous and is certainly slanderous. In this instance Spencer is attempting to advance the notion that a tenent of Islam is that the End Times can be hastened and brought quicker by killing Jews.

In fact, Spencer should focus more on his Christian brethren in the Evangelical movement who believe they can hasten the second coming of Christ by planting the seeds of the second Armageddon.

Such a theological precept doesn’t exist in Orthodox Islam. In fact it runs counter to Islamic theology to say that one can hasten the End Times, and if anyone were to claim they could they would be immediately considered a heretic. However, I will deal with this claim in more depth in a future article. Suffice it to say that it is a despicable statement that underscores Spencer’s profound ignorance of Islamic theology and belief.

*Update:

Dawood, one of our Loonwatchers points out,

“nikah” (نكاح) and “neik” (نيك) are completely different words, having no relation to each other in structure. As can be seen above (for those who don’t speak Arabic), only 2 letters are the same (ن ك). Unless Spencer is implying the Arabs simply decided to drop off a letter, which is something I have never heard of before!

The root term for “nikah”, means union, or the coming together of two things. He is obviously implying that it is a term meaning the sexual act, and in a lewd way, but it simply is not. It could definitely allude to it – as you can see from the meanings above – but it can also mean, as most people understand it, the coming together and union of two people in marriage. If we check the major lexicons, such as Hans Wehr and Hava, even the older texts such as Lane’s Lexicon, they support this interpretation clearly.

Spencer upset Muslims take on extremists

Robert Spencer is miffed. There has just been too much good press for those pesky Moozlims. Writers of late have pointed out that the mainstream Muslim community is at the forefront of combating terrorism and extremism; such as the Muslims who prevented the recent Yemen mail bomb plot or Muslims who have prevented numerous other cases of terrorism. If Spencer’s goal was to prevent terrorism, one would think these news stories are cause for celebration. But if the goal is to tar all of Islam in a fear-for-profit holy war racket, eh, not so much.

For Spencer, highlighting anything positive Muslims do in the fight against violent extremism just doesn’t jive with his lop-sided cherry-picked contextless narrative that Islam is the root cause of all evil. He says,

There is a counterproductive aspect to this kind of publicity for the Muslim community in America: that these stories would be considered newsworthy at all is due to their unusual, man-bites-dog aspect.

It bewilders those of us not indoctrinated with prejudiced anti-Muslim hostility to see how stories about ordinary Muslims thwarting terrorist attacks are “counter-productive.” These stories are positive reminders that our fight is against violent extremism, not the religion of Islam or all Muslims. But Spencer’s transparent goal is not to prevent terrorism as much as it is to profit by demonizing all of Islam and its adherents. He continues,

If the teachings of Islam and the sentiments of the Muslim community in the U.S. really were the way they are ordinarily represented by the mainstream media and assumed to be by the U.S. Government, then there ought to be a concerted, organized, ongoing effort among Muslims in the U.S. not only to foil jihad terror plots, but also to eradicate the Islamic teachings that inspire and encourage such plots.

Here Spencer fumes with conspiracy-mongering indignation as he decries how the mainstream media and the U.S. government fail to smear the entire religion of Islam and its 1.5 billion followers. Then he demands that Muslims “eradicate the Islamic teachings” that inspire terrorists while he ignores the mountains of empirical research which demonstrate that military occupations are the root cause of terrorism, not the religion of Islam, or that alienation

from the mainstream Muslim community leads to terrorism, not engagement with it. But he continues,

Also, these writers and others generally assume that the Muslims who foiled these jihad plots did so out of Islamic conviction, and that they therefore represent an alternative perspective on Islamic teaching, one that opposes and counters that of the jihadists. Unfortunately, that is not established.

This sentence explicates Spencerian Islamophobic doctrine: when a Muslim commits a criminal act, that is “true Islam,” but when a Muslim does a good deed, he is somehow acting against the teachings of Islam. Of course, this non-terrorist “alternative perspective on Islamic teaching,” which those of us in the real world call “mainstream Islam” is in fact well-established not only in countless scholarly books, organizations, and websites, but also by scientific polling of global Muslim attitudes. Unsurprisingly, Spencer has been unable to publish any of his Muslim-bashing conspiracy theories in a single academic peer-reviewed journal. No need for balance, scholarship, or polling; mere speculation and “truthiness” are good enough for Spencer.

Mr. Spencer, your stubborn self-serving denial of reality obscures our country’s ability to tell the good guys from the bad guys. As Jon Stewart recently said, “…the inability to distinguish terrorists from Muslims makes us less safe, not more.”

Mr. Spencer, you are making us less safe, not more.

JihadWatch Supports the Banning of Sharia’ in Oklahoma: Whats next? Unicorns?

Election season 2010 provided many interesting and quite scary insights into the relationship between American and Islam. On the good side of things Keith Ellison won re-election by a tremendous 44 point margin. On the other hand, Allen West an outspoken anti-Muslim candidate won election to Congress in Florida’s 22nd district. West believes Islam is not a religion and that we are at war with Islam.

Also on the ballot in Oklahoma was an initiative that seeks to ban “Sharia'” in the state. It is a ginned up initiative that seeks to ban something that doesn’t exist in Oklahoma, which has all of 15,000 Muslim citizens.

Spencer saw the passing of the measure as an indication that Americans are standing up against Muslims and Islam. However he doesn’t see the fact that what Oklahomans actually banned is something that doesn’t exist in their state. What is next, Unicorns?

Colbert expressed it best,

The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Stephen Colbert Gives You Props
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election March to Keep Fear Alive

JihadWatch Afraid to Debate LoonWatch

JihadWatch, a vitriolic hate site run by pretend scholar Robert Spencer, has propelled itself to the forefront of the Islamophobic movement in the United States.  The fear-mongering Spencer has used his hate site to demonize Islam and Muslims.  To bolster his credibility, Robert Spencer had long ago issued an open challenge to “Muslims and leftists” to debate his ideas.

I accepted Spencer’s challenge to a debate on June 17th, 2010.  Since then, several influential Muslim-American spokesmen have expressed their interest in such a debate between Spencer and I.  This includes Ahmed Rehab (Executive Director of CAIR-Chicago), who issued a scathing statement against Spencer.  However, it has now been over 135 days since I accepted Robert Spencer’s challenge.  JihadWatch has generated excuse after excuse as to why this radio debate cannot take place.

The latest set of excuses was that I must reveal who I am before a debate can take place.  Spencer issued this pre-condition knowing full well that I value my anonymity too much to do that.  He naturally thought that this was a creative way to get out of a debate with me while at the same time saving face.  Said Spencer:

Sorry, I don’t debate fictional characters or pseudonyms. “Danios of Loonwatch” can go debate Scot Harvath or Harold Robbins.

This is of course strange since Hugh Fitzgerald, the Vice President of JihadWatch since 2004, himself operates under an anonymous pseudonym.  Fitzgerald is a co-administrator of the site, alongside Spencer.  Is Fitzgerald then a “fictional character” who is only worthy of debate with Scot Harvath or Harold Robbins?

If that is the case, I challenge Hugh Fitzgerald–co-administer and Vice President of JihadWatch–to a radio debate.  The topic will be Jihad, “Dhimmitude”, and Taqiyya (Stealth Jihad), namely chapters 1-4 of Robert Spencer’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).

Hugh Fitzgerald of JihadWatch uses a pseudonym like myself, and he remains completely anonymous like myself.  Surely two “fictional characters” are worthy of debating each other, right?

Now what excuse will be generated by JihadWatch to avoid this debate with LoonWatch?  I can just see Robert Spencer’s brain churning in order to generate a reason to get out of this one.  The truth is that JihadWatch is a bully, and as soon as someone steps up to a bully and delivers a solid punch to the mouth, the bully backs down like the coward he is.