Robert Spencer Reads with Special Police Blotter Glasses

It look like he is squinting.

Robert Spencer must wear certain glasses when reading anything related to Islam and Muslims. These “special” glasses are perfect for those with dogmatic minds who wish to read everything from a particular biased and hateful perspective.

For instance today Spencer writes about a  Muslim woman from California who was forced to take her hijab off in jail:

California: Muslim defendant sues county over hijab removal in jail

They made her take off her hijab for security reasons, but who cares about security when Muslim practices must be accommodated?

“Muslim defendant can sue over hijab removal,” by Bob Egelko for the San Francisco Chronicle, March 16 (thanks to all who sent this in):

All you have to do is read the whole article and you will understand why this woman is suing the county. I am not making this up Spencer, it was in the article:

The court returned the case to a federal judge to decide whether the deputies interfered with Khatib’s religious freedom without a compelling security need.

Spencer seems to imply that prisoners don’t have freedom of religion, especially if they are Muslim, but that’s good old Spencer for you, fighting freedom at every turn.

The article was not simply about undue religious accommodation and as was related in the article there was no “compelling security need” that required that the woman be forced to remove her hijab. Spencer of course wants to turn this into something it isn’t, he wants to imply that this is an example of ‘Muslims taking over,’ or ‘America “submitting” to Islam,’ but what are we to expect from the police blotter who wears “special glasses?”

——————————-

In another post, Spencer writes about CIA contractor, Raymond Davis, released after paying 2.34mln dollars in compensation to the family of his victims who thereafter pardoned him; implicit in this is Davis’ acceptance that he wrongfully murdered these two. In Islamic Law this payment is known as “Diyaa,” commonly translated as “blood money” or what is known in the West as “punitive damages.”

And what was Spencer’s catechistic complaint:

And why is the U.S. submitting to Sharia in this regard? In better days, a team of commandos would have done the job.

Spencer again sees this as an example of America somehow submitting to the bogeyman monster of “sharia” which is all together more ridiculous when we consider that Raymond Davis actually killed two people and admitted as much when he implicitly apologized for the deed by paying the family. However, Spencer cares little about the lives of these two Pakistani men, he thinks commandos should swoop into Islamabad and violate a nation’s sovereignty, not a surprise considering Spencer in the past has supported calls for genocide against Pakistanis.

3 thoughts on “Robert Spencer Reads with Special Police Blotter Glasses

  1. “And why is the U.S. submitting to Sharia in this regard? In better days, a team of commandos would have done the job.”

    What an absolute moron. What would happen if an alleged ISI agent murdered two American citizens, shooting one of them in the back as he tries to run away from the maniac, causing the widows of the men to attempt suicide and then Pakistani commandos come and take the murderer back? I have a suspicion that Spencer would feel differently.

    The whole Raymond Davis issue made a mockery of Pakistan’s supposedly independent judicial system. At least the widows get the blood money for their terrible loss, no doubt after intense pressure from the government to take the money and keep their mouths shut, but for Spencer even that is too nice. It’s clear that he enjoys seeing Muslims killed, taking Hugh Fitzgerald advice and being “secretly delighted with each day’s news, the news that brings word not of Infidel casualties, but of Muslim casualties”.

    Why treat Davis any differently to the many ‘jihadists’ that Spencer reports on daily? They are both murderers and terrorists and should be treated as such.

  2. How the hell do events in Pakistan have anything to do with shari’ah supposedly coming to America? This is just fear mongering. Ridiculous.

  3. Yet another example of Spencer’s deceptive tactics. Using his Special Police Blotter Glasses, Spencer has been able to pick out a case of human trafficking that involves a Muslim from amongst the thousands that happen in the UK every year.

    To top it all off Spencer blames the Quran, saying that the woman had enslaved the other woman not because she herself was an evil person but because slavery is accepted in the Quran. Spencer is so desperate to use this crime to further his anti-Islam agenda, that he forgets that slavery has been outlawed by practically all Muslim scholars, that there are absolutely NO parallels between what Saeeda Khan did and the slavery done by Muslims in the past and that Spencer cannot in any way confirm that Khan acted because of the Quran or that she was a practising Muslim at all.

    One question, Spencer, is it okay then to blame the other thousand or so cases of human trafficking done by Non-Muslims on the Bible since Biblical Prophets regularly enslaved whole populations?

    His deceptive article is on the front page of his site.

Leave a Reply

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