Sheila Musaji: Robert Spencer and the Disappearing Articles

Robert Spencer and the disappearing articles

by Sheila Musaji
On December 21st, Robert Spencer posted an article on Jihad Watch entitled London: Flight returns to terminal after Muslim starts praying in aisle, won’t take his seat.  The article opens with the claim that “This seems to be a fairly clear provocation—maybe the praying man is hoping to provoke a “discrimination” case that will establish that praying Muslims may have the run of the airplane.”

The problem with this story is that Spencer, as is often the case, has all of his facts wrong, and that the conclusions he draws from those “facts” are purely paranoid fantasies.

It seems that the actual story (from numerous news articles from around the world) was that a Christian man who wore dreadlocks, was dark skinned and was from a Caribbean Island left his seat and knelt in the isle and began reciting the Lord’s Prayer out loud in English as the Air Malta plane began to take off from Heathrow airport headed to Malta.  The man was asked to return to his seat, refused, and this concerned passengers and crew, particularly because the man had an orange plastic shopping bag in his hands.  The plane returned to the terminal and the man was arrested.

The article has subsequently disappeared from Spencer’s site with no explanation, however, it can still be seen on a web cache.

This method of throwing out some anti-Muslim claim, then simply removing it from the website is not new to Spencer.

For example, in our lengthy article collection on Robert Spencer we have noted:
– The existence of website url’s “f**kallah.com” & “f**kislam.com” which redirected people to Spencer’s Jihad Watch site and which Loonwatch first brought to the attention of the Muslim community.  After Loonwatch noted these sites, the redirection to Jihad Watch suddenly stopped and Spencer denied having any involvement in the two sites.  The two sites still exist but now take visitors to another site with photographs of the 9/11 tragedy.

It would be possible to have at least the possibility of believing that this man at least genuinely believes the nonsense he spews about Islam and Muslims if he printed a retraction.  When instead he engages in this sort of devious behavior, it becomes obvious that his motivation is more likely fleeting fame or financial gain.

52 thoughts on “Sheila Musaji: Robert Spencer and the Disappearing Articles

  1. It would be possible to have at least the possibility of believing that this man at least genuinely believes the nonsense he spews about Islam and Muslims if he printed a retraction. When instead he engages in this sort of devious behavior, it becomes obvious that his motivation is more likely fleeting fame or financial gain.

    Damn straight.

  2. I’ve always enjoyed reading Sheila’s work. This is definitely something that deserves to be investigated further, as per the last paragraph highlighted by NassirH.

    • You would think that after losing so many arguments on Spencerwatch this loon would rethink his blind hatred for Muslims. Perhaps we should just file him under “Retards”, or maybe in the “Has head up Spencer’s ass” folder.

      • Right, projection. I was dancing in the streets on 9/11. Oh wait, that was Muslims across the globe celebrating a huge victory.

        • It’s projection because you support loons who want to see innocent people dead (i.e. Robert Spencer and friends), not us.

        • I want Anhi to read this summary of the blog war between Danios and Spencer and answer’s Danios’ question:

          “My question for you JWers is quite simple, a simple yes/no will suffice: was Spencer lying or ignorant when he made these two claims? If neither of the two, then prove that what I said is false. I dare you to. I double dog dare you. But you can’t do it, so you use your deceptive means, which is to change the topic.”

          http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/do-muslims-want-to-reimpose-dhimmitude-or-live-as-equals/

        • Sure they did buddy, if it helps you sleep at night. It’s projection because it gave you an excuse to hate another group of people (ie: those taqiyya-spraying Muslims). There is no political correctness crampin’ your racist and bigotted style (oops, did that sound too black? Calm down, put the knife away ;)). It’s perfectly mainstream now to hate Muslims. And somehow said Muslims are pretending to be victims for being worried about that. All thanks to assholes like you.

          • It’s perfectly mainstream now to hate Muslims. And somehow said Muslims are pretending to be victims for being worried about that. All thanks to assholes like you.

            No, it’s thanks to your asshole terrorist brothers in the ummah. Somehow, they’ve given us the idea that your religion is a violent, fascist ideology. Go figure.

          • No, it’s thanks to your asshole terrorist brothers in the ummah.

            Who account for less than 1% of said ummah. Scratch that, more like less than 0.01%. So congrats for admitting you hate Muslims. And also for ascribing to collectivism, proving to everybody that you are indeed an asshole.

          • Collectivism is the foundation for Communism. Therefore, Ahninny being a collectivist, must therefore have Communist inclinations.

            Ahninny – Always over-generalizing, stereotyping, sensationalizing, and never bothering with the specifics; classifying people into monolithic units with absolutely no regard for individuality; these are all behaviors of someone with a Communist mentality.

        • “Oh wait, that was Muslims across the globe celebrating a huge victory.”

          Yeah, orchestrated videos of a Palestinian woman dancing, and a few children being given candy. That’s supposed to be “Muslims across the globe”? What a joke. Oh, wait, you’re just regurgitating old hack media sensationalism. They’ll ignore the various non-Muslims who celebrated 9/11, while going out of their way to find even a few Muslims they can claim are celebrating it (such as the dancing Israelis filming 9/11). The reason this is so, is because, as we all know, whenever a Muslim does something:

          *****IT’S A SENSATION!!!!*******

        • ” Oh wait, that was Muslims across the globe celebrating a huge victory.”

          That’s interesting since every Muslim country (except Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, for obvious reasons, but he later expressed sympathy with those killed) condemned the attack and even the Palestinian Authority condemned that celebrating Palestinians, which is probably what you are referring to. Muslims, including members of Bin Laden’s family, were quite shocked at what had happened and condemned the terrorists. Even, Hezbollah condemned the attack, and they’re terrorists! Notable Muslim leaders and Imams also condemned this act of terrorism.

          If, as you say, Muslims were ‘celebrating’ the attacks, then how do you explain this:
          http://www.time.com/time/europe/photoessays/vigil/

          The Iranians have a weird way of ‘celebrating’ 9/11! If the dancing of a few Palestinians is enough evidence to make the world’s 1.57 billion Muslims guilty of celebrating these attacks, then the cheering of a few Israelis (initially thought to be “Arabs”) at the collapse of the WTC is enough evidence to make 7 million Israelis guilty of celebrating these attacks.

          Seriously Ahni, use the maths that Muslims invented 🙂

          • Credit belongs to Al-Khwarizmi, as he is rightfully considered to be the “father of algebra”, given his contributions to it. It may have Greek and Indian origins, but Al-Khwarizmi’s work is still the foundation for modern algebra.

          • Thanks for the link, Ahni.
            Here’s my favourite part:

            “820 The word algebra is derived from operations described in the treatise written by the Persian mathematician Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Ḵwārizmī titled Al-Kitab al-Jabr wa-l-Muqabala (meaning “The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing”) on the systematic solution of linear and quadratic equations. Al-Khwarizmi is often considered as the “father of algebra”, much of whose works on reduction was included in the book and added to many methods we have in algebra now.”

          • By the way, Ahni, you didn’t respond to anything else that had been written and instead chose to pick up on my joke. Typical Ahni.

          • Are these anything like the “condemnations” against the killing of “innocents”? I hear that one all the time. Imams are quick to point out that Islam forbids the killing of “innocents”, but always seem to leave out that no non-Muslim is innocent, since they are in a state of rebellion against God.

          • For those interested, this is a very interesting paper regarding non-Muslims, salvation and its consequent political ramifications.

            Once again, it supports Jackson’s contention in the ‘Jihad and the Modern World’ article that Muslim scholars have responded to new conditions, new situations and contexts, by engaging their tradition. Islamophobes quoting medieval or pre-medieval works simply no longer cut it.

          • “Imams are quick to point out that Islam forbids the killing of “innocents”, but always seem to leave out that no non-Muslim is innocent, since they are in a state of rebellion against God”

            If that is true then how do you explain the Muslims that have condemned the attacks on 9/11, 7/7, the Mumbai attacks as well s the recent bombing on a Coptic Church.

            Explain this:
            http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/01/egypts-muslims-attend-coptic-christmas-mass-serving-as-human-shields/

          • Anhi:

            Islam forbids the killing of innocent civilians during war, including non-Muslims. This is an important caveat relating to Jihad that is completely ignored by the likes of Spencer et al.

            “Nafi’ reported that the Prophet of God (may peace be upon him) found women killed in some battles, and he condemned such an act and prohibited the killing of women and children.”

            “When Abu Bakr Siddiq sent an army to Syria, he went on foot with Yazid b. Abu Sufyan 3095 who was the commander of a quarter of the forces. Yazid said to Abu Bakr: Either you mount up or I shall dismount. Abu Bakr replied: Neither you will dismount nor will I ride. I consider these steps to be a virtue in the path of the Lord. You will find some people who imagine they have devoted their lives to Allah (the hermits), leave them to their work; you will find some people who shave their heads in the middle (the Magi), strike them with your swords. I instruct you in ten matters : Do not kill women or children, nor the old and infirm; do not cut fruit-bearing trees; do not destroy any town; do not cut the gums of sheep or camels except for purposes of eating; do not burn date-trees nor submerge them; do not steal from booty and do not be cowardly.”

            “[The Umayyad Caliph] ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz wrote to one of his administrators: We have learned that whenever the Prophet of God (may peace be upon him) sent out a force, he used to command them. Fight, taking the name of the Lord. You are fighting in the cause of the Lord with people who have disbelieved and rejected your Lord. Do not commit theft; do not break vows; do not cut ears and noses; do not kill women and children. Communicate this to your armies.”

            “Once when Rabah ibn Rabi’ah went forth with the Messenger of Allah, he and [the] companions of the Prophet passed a woman who had been slain. The Messenger halted and said : “She is not one who would’ve fought.” Thereupon he looked at the men and said to one of them: “Run after Khalid ibn al-Walid [and tell him] that he must not slay children, serfs, or women.”

            http://books.google.com/books?id=uTUnWkJ4kmMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=islam+fundamentalism+and+the+betrayal+of+tradition&source=bl&ots=DK_gIxw-2I&sig=3BZFSS6u_WGKBCmilUh_9JIWvi0&hl=en&ei=OXwoTaqaLoissAOiqcjUBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=some%20examples%20of&f=false

          • Are these anything like the “condemnations” against the killing of “innocents”? I hear that one all the time. Imams are quick to point out that Islam forbids the killing of “innocents”, but always seem to leave out that no non-Muslim is innocent, since they are in a state of rebellion against God.

            You can’t ‘leave that out’, since it isn’t even there to begin with.

            “Innocents” means civilians in this context. Therefore, when an Imam says that Islam condemns the killing of innocents, what they really mean is that Islam condemns the killing of civilians.

          • “Nafi’ reported that the Prophet of God (may peace be upon him) found women killed in some battles, and he condemned such an act and prohibited the killing of women and children.”

            That’s true. Women and children were taken as war booty and turned into slaves.

          • Islam forbids the killing of innocent civilians during war, including non-Muslims.

            But they get around that distinction pretty easily, don’t they? Who are Muslims not in a current state of war with? Christians? Yup, active war there. Jews… obviously. Americans, yes. Indians, yes. Europeans, yes.

          • Anhi:

            That’s true. Women and children were taken as war booty and turned into slaves.

            That’s false. When the Prophet Muhammad conquered Mecca, for example, no one was killed or taken captive. In fact, the Prophet and his companions freed tens of thousands of slaves over their lifetimes.

            But they get around that distinction pretty easily, don’t they? Who are Muslims not in a current state of war with? Christians? Yup, active war there. Jews… obviously. Americans, yes. Indians, yes. Europeans, yes.

            Ah, so you admit that Islam forbids the killing of civilians and that Muslim terrorists are contravening their religion? Also, it’s not like Muslims have killed more people than non-Muslims. In the last century Christians and Athiests were the chief murderers, and historically, Christians have killed more than twice as many people as Muslims.

            http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

          • But they get around that distinction pretty easily, don’t they?

            They don’t get around it, they just ignore it, because they aren’t really doing it because of Islam, but in spite of it.

            Who are Muslims not in a current state of war with? Christians? Yup, active war there.

            Not really, since for one, Muslims are not collectively in a war with anyone and likewise, not all Christians are collectively in a war with anyone either.

            Jews… obviously.

            Not really, since Jews don’t exist as a single monolithic bloc, and neither do Muslims. Therefore, there can be no collective war between the two groups.

            Americans, yes. Indians, yes. Europeans, yes.

            In addition to Muslims not being a collective, monolithic mass, this is an impossibility, since there are a lot of Americans, Indians and Europeans who are Muslims.

            You aren’t really at war with people, when you shop from the same stores as them, work with them in the same places as them, drive on the same roads as them, live in the same neighborhoods as them, go to the same schools as them, and of course associate with them on a regular basis. It just doesn’t work.

            Your idea of all Muslims waging war against everyone else because of their religion, is a delusion that exists only in your mind and the others who think like you.

          • “That’s true. Women and children were taken as war booty and turned into slaves”

            Good work, Ahni. So you admit that the killing of women is forbidden (“that’s true”) and therefore terrorists that do kill women (pretty much all of them) are going against Islam. Thanks for clearing that up.

            By the way, as NassirH pointed out, women being captured as slaves was not a rule hence why Muslim armies don’t do that today. The capturing of women as slaves, when it did happen, was acceptable at the time and similar things were done by Christians in the following centuries.

            “But they get around that distinction pretty easily, don’t they? Who are Muslims not in a current state of war with? Christians? Yup, active war there. Jews… obviously. Americans, yes. Indians, yes. Europeans, yes.”

            Why are terrorists killing Muslims then? Loon fail. The reason that they kill civilians is that because they live in democracies, they become responsible for the actions of the government because they voted for them. Obviously, that logic is stupid, Islamic scholars have rejected it but terrorists want to kill civilians so they don’t let common sense or Islamic teachings get in their way.

            Your whole comment is useless because killing civilians is forbidden even during warfare. Only people involved in the fighting directly are legitimate targets. So even if Muslims are at war with Christians (?) then they are not allowed to kill civilians.

          • That’s false. When the Prophet Muhammad conquered Mecca, for example, no one was killed or taken captive. In fact, the Prophet and his companions freed tens of thousands of slaves over their lifetimes.

            One wonders where he got all those slaves to begin with, for him to set them free like that.

            If my claim is false, what did Muhammad do with the women and children in Banu Qurayza? Or Khaybar? Just out of curiosity. I don’t think his treatment of the people of Mecca can overrule everything else he ever did, right?

            The capturing of women as slaves, when it did happen, was acceptable at the time and similar things were done by Christians in the following centuries.

            According to NassirH, it never happened. You might want to have a secret Muslim pow-wow to clear up that little discrepancy. Taqiyya fail, Nassir =þ

            Oh, and regardless of what Christians did in later centuries, it’s worth mentioning that the “perfect role model” in Christianity never took women as slaves, or advocate that women should be taken as slaves by his followers. The “perfect role model” in Islam did this, and many other nasty things, and is still considered to be “perfect.” The bar is set so low for Muslims, there’s no sense of right and wrong. Thanks Muhammad!

          • Easy there, loon. I didn’t say that the early Muslims never took slaves. I was pointing out that they didn’t prohibit the killing of civilians so that they could take them as slaves.

            Oh, and regardless of what Christians did in later centuries, it’s worth mentioning that the “perfect role model” in Christianity never took women as slaves, or advocate that women should be taken as slaves by his followers. The “perfect role model” in Islam did this, and many other nasty things, and is still considered to be “perfect.” The bar is set so low for Muslims, there’s no sense of right and wrong. Thanks Muhammad!

            Yawn…like you know anything about religion. You can’t even tell the difference between reality and the garbage you find on the internet when it comes to the Qur’an and the Hadith (there was even a time when you couldn’t tell the difference between the Qur’an and the Hadith).

            Anyways, Christianity and Islam have multiple Prophets, and they are influenced by all of them, not just Jesus or Muhammad. There are several Biblical figures that had taken slaves, including women. Solomon, for example, has 300 concubines, and according to the Bible, Hagar was Abraham’s concubine (and she was quite young too). David also had slaves, as well as numerous other prophets of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

          • Anhi:

            So yes, when you implied that the early Muslims didn’t kill women and children for the purpose of enslaving them you were wrong. And I showed how you were wrong by giving an example of the Prophet’s mercy and his conquest of Mecca.

            According to NassirH, it never happened. You might want to have a secret Muslim pow-wow to clear up that little discrepancy. Taqiyya fail, Nassir =þ

            More like a Taqiyya success. Again, I didn’t say that Muslims never took slaves (in fact, I mentioned that they had slaves), but that they didn’t prohibit the killing of civilians for the purpose of taking captives.

          • So we big-bad, “Taqiyya-spraying” Mooslims have refuted every one of your lame arguments and you’re reduced to linking to some random site in a desperate attempt to justify your bigotry? That seems to happen a lot, doesn’t it Anhi?

            Anyways, two can play at this game.

            Egypt’s Muslims attend Coptic Christmas mass, serving as “human shields”

            The funny thing is that Neocons and the Christian Right have both done everything they can to demonize Muslims here in the United States.

        • It’s a website run by a group of your brothers misunderstanding Islam and trying to kill Coptic Christians. You know, those Christians who are killed and persecuted every day in the dar al Islam. Why don’t you try and talk some sense in to them and explain how they are misunderstanding their religion?

          Oh wait, that’s right. You’ve got that blanket statement made at some indeterminate point in the past ambiguously condemning that sort of thing. You don’t have to worry about it. Your concern is “Islamophobia” and how non-Muslims see your religion.

          Muslims like you are playing your part in jihad. Your more extreme coreligionists are doing the dirty work, killing Jews and Christians, spreading Islam by the sword and demography, etc. The slightly less extreme coreligionists are funding it financially, and the rest are busy trying to keep the world blind to what is really going on within the Islamic movement.

          • The imaginary Muslim conspiracy pops up again from Ahninny, who continues to avoid admitting a truth he doesn’t like, while ironically, falsely accusing Muslims of doing the same (trying to call it “taqiyya” out of his own ignorance of the word’s meaning). And all he provides is some random, obscure website, from an obscure group of people. I guess that’s supposed to mean something?

            That Ahinny even needs to go digging around for stuff like this (a google cache is the best he can do?), is evidence enough that the whole “Muslim war of conquest against everyone else” conspiracy, is just an internet fable.

            It’s quite sad that adults can actually, truly believe in such a ridiculously absurd conspiracy theory, based only on sensationalism. Even retards are smarter than that.

          • So basically what you’re saying is that every single Muslim is waging ‘the’ Jihad? All 1.6 billion of them? Is that what you think? No wonder you people are shitting bricks. That shit is downright scary.

            I see that non sequitur is the latest logical fallacy you’ve decided to rape. Loon logic: Muslim is worried about Islamophobia, therefore Muslim is a jihadist. Brilliant.

          • “Muslims like you are playing your part in jihad. Your more extreme coreligionists are doing the dirty work, killing Jews and Christians, spreading Islam by the sword and demography, etc. The slightly less extreme coreligionists are funding it financially, and the rest are busy trying to keep the world blind to what is really going on within the Islamic movement.”

            Oh no! He found out about our secret Mooslim plan to take over the world. Not even our “taqiyya-spray” could stop him. Damn you, Ahni, damn you!

            This is all typical Ahni behaviour. When he realises he is wrong, he accuses us of being terrorists or secretly helping terrorists. As “dumbledoresarmy” said on JW, “Muslims are either jihadists or dormant jihadists” that are waiting to be “activated”. Lol.

          • Anhi,

            I don’t know what to say about your utterly retarded conclusion, because it looks like I’m out of Taqiyya spray.

  3. Everyone knows that Spencer’s specialty is to lead his readers to the logical conclusions that 1. All Muslims are evil and the ones that say they’re not are liars (taqqiya) 2. We must quickly remove this evil from the west by any means necessary. (When pressed, Spencer will of course deny all this and claim that he’s only against “Islamic supremacism” but we all know that’s hogwash. )

    One tactic he’ll very often use is post an article on his website by a fellow hate-monger whose job it is to whip up jwatchers into a frenzy of murderous hate. If someone objects, spencer then says that just because he posts an article it does necessarily follow that he agrees with everything the writer says (cleverly deniable hate-mongering). Once in a while however, he slips.

    One example concerns Spencer’s treatment of the Bosnian genocide which is basically to encourage his readers to believe that it never happened (war is deceit) while at the same time defending and excusing Serb actions because Bosnians you see are evil Muslims and retroactively responsible for real or perceived Ottoman persecutions. In august 2009 he posts an article denying that the massacre at Srebernica ever took place; complete with this heading:

    “After 14 years of investigating events that took place in Srebrenica in 1995 I can attest there was no genocide over Muslims in that enclave”

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:f-yz69p5fLcJ:www.jihadwatch.org/2009/08/after-14-years-of-investigating-events-that-took-place-in-srebrenica-in-1995-i-can-attest-there-was.html+www.jihadwatch.org/2009/08/after-14-years-of-investigating-events-that-took-place-in-srebrenica-in-1995-i-can-attest-there-was.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
    At this point, in his commentary he’s very careful not to explicitly support the author’s (a fellow anti-Muslim writer) conclusions but implicitly it is clear that he does in fact concur (cleverly deniable hate mongering).

    He makes a mistake on January 2010. That day he posts a story and in his commentary, writes : “For the facts on Srebrenica, see here.” which is a link to the original jihadwatch article denying the massacre.

    I called him on it and realizing that he’d in fact publicly taken a position he immediately deleted the article from his blog . It was also deleted from other forums but you can still find it at front page mag (posted by Robert Spencer himself).
    rontpagemag.com/2010/01/24/uk-jihadist-threatens-bosnia-style-bloodbath-on-the-streets-of-britain/
    This is clear evidence that Robert Spencer believes as fact the notion that there was no massacre at Srebrenica.

    • I suggest that you send that info to Loonwatch so that they can further expose Spencer as the genocide-supporting bigot he is.

    • As great evidence as it s, it happened a year ago and I don’t think it would be appropriate for Loonwatch to write an servos bout it.. It’s also kind of ridiculous how a “scholar” deletes his article because someone else pointed out a huge contradiction in his piece..

    • So it seems that Spencer, in addition to being a lying, hate-mongering, ethnocentric, fascist scumbag, is also a total flake as well. Now, he’s a lying, flaky, hate-mongering, ethnocentric, fascist scumbag.

  4. So Ahni says a random Internet forum is more representative of Islam than the opinions of the Grand Mufti of Egypt.

    “This is not just an attack on Copts, this is an attack on me and you and all Egyptians, on Egypt and its history and its symbols, by terrorists who know no God, no patriotism, and no humanity,”

  5. Pingback: Response to lancastrian_EDL « tweets_rhymes_and_life

Leave a Reply

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