Muslim group demands apology from Harper, chief spokesman

harper-libel-20140128

Muslim group demands apology from Harper, chief spokesman

Canada’s George W. Bush, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is still in power and still contemptuous of Muslim Canadians.

Harper’s spokesman Jason MacDonald has condemned the government for ignoring legitimate concerns while at the same time flinging libelous claims at the National Council of Canadian Muslims as “Hamas-linked,” echoing the way in which Islamophobes such as Robert Spencerand Pamela Geller describe any prominent Muslim organizations.

It will be a matter of time before the Canadian Zuhdi Jasser, Tarek Fatah is trotted out to repeat the government line and put an “acceptable” Muslim face on MacDonald’s libel.

Muslim group demands apology from Harper, chief spokesman

CBCNews

A major Canadian Muslim group is demanding an apology from Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his chief spokesman for a comment it says linked the organization to the militant group Hamas.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims has filed a notice of libel in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that accuses Jason MacDonald of acting maliciously when he made the comment earlier this month.

The council had criticized the inclusion of a controversial rabbi in Harper’s delegation that went to the Middle East last week.

“Rather than responding to our legitimate concerns, the PMO’s director of communications attacked us and attempted to smear our name by claiming NCCM had ‘documented ties to a terrorist organization such as Hamas,”‘ Ihsaan Gardee, the council’s executive director, told a news conference Tuesday.

“Nothing could be further from the truth. NCCM will not let the PMO’s false statement stand.”

The council says MacDonald’s comment was a deliberate attempt to discredit the group and Harper is responsible for the words uttered by his spokesman. On CBC News Network’s Power & Politics, Gardee told host Evan Solomon that “this is school-yard bully tactics – an attempt to silence dissent from anybody who has a differing view or anybody who asks a question of this government that is more difficult to answer than did the sun rise in the east this morning.”

The libel notice is the first step in what could become a formal lawsuit.

The Prime Minister’s Office responded tersely: “As this matter may be the subject of litigation, we have no further comment.”

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird told Solomon that he couldn’t comment, but directed Canadians to the internet. “I’d encourage any Canadian to Google the group in question, and do some research on their own and come to their own conclusions.”

Gardee was dismissive of that tactic: “If it’s on the internet it must be true. C’mon.”

Further legal action possible

Further legal action is possible, said Nader Hassan, lawyer for the council.

“Whether we go through with the lawsuit is going to depend on a number of factors, namely the quality, timing and content of the public apology and retraction,” he said.

Gardee said MacDonald’s comment was “categorically false, offensive and defamatory.”

The libel notice says MacDonald’s statement was unwarranted.

“The defamatory words were stated maliciously in order to discredit and insult an organization that did nothing other than exercise its constitutional right to freedom of expression to criticize a decision made by the prime minister,” it said.

“Mr. MacDonald simply made up that statement in an effort to discredit NCCM and deflect its criticism of Mr. Harper.”

The council describes itself as an independent, non-partisan, non-profit group which has worked for 14 years on human rights and civil liberties issues on behalf of Canadian Muslims. Gardee told Solomon the group has never shared any funding, staff or board members with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a U.S. group that has also faced allegations of ties to militant groups.

The groups shared names (NCCM was known as CAIR-CAN) until July 2013. Gardee said the Canadian group only used the name because CAIR was well recognized within the Muslim civil liberties movement.

A half-dozen other rights groups, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of University Teachers, have offered support to the Muslim group.

Farhat Rehman of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women said more than just the council was impacted by the remark.

“This defamation endangers the very valuable work of NCCM and goes against every Canadian democratic principle,” she said.

“Further, it exposes the members of NCCM and the whole Muslim community to suspicion, hatred and bigotry.”

Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer’s Ally Pastor Usama Dakdok Wants Another 9/11

Pastor Usama Dakdok, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.

Pastor Usama Dakdok, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.

By Mooneye

Last week Will Coley of Muslims for Liberty was a featured guest on Liberty Radio Ohio for a discussion on the relationship between Islam, Muslims, America and politics. His interview is worth listening to and begins at 53:26 as he delves into many subjects and also responds to the guest who preceded him, Pastor Usama “Muslims are demons” Dakdok.

Dakdok is an extremist preacher and good friends with Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer. The interview was amazing for the sheer lunacy and vile hatred Dakdok was able to spew in just a few minutes.

The interview with Pastor Dakdok begins at 25:50, below are some of the “gems” he spewed in what essentially was a 25 minute tirade.

*****************************************

On CAIR. He thinks they wear wonderful suits:

Pastor Usama Dakdok: CAIR is a big lawyers here in America, they are here to literally take over America with a smile on the face wearing these wonderful suits and ties.

Pastor Dakdok believes religions are vegetables in a bowl of soup and Islam doesn’t fit into the soup because it’s poison.

Bill Yarborough: What should the place of religion be in America in relation to our government or political system?

Pastor Dakdok: Well brother there is a big difference when you say Atheism, Buddhism, Agnosticism whatever…and when you put Islam into it. It’s like me and you eating a dish of soup and you can put 50 different vegetables into it. See the Coexist stickers which you see many times on cars that say ‘lets all get along.,’ America’s a melting pot. Co-exist can exist but when you add Islam to it, it cannot exist. So when you add Islam to the soup which you have 50 vegetables in it and everybody enjoy eating this soup when you add one spoon of poison to this soup it’s no longer soup.

Not only doesn’t Islam fit the bowl of religious vegetable soup but it’s a cult and Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to legally exist in America; they are here to takeover and have already infiltrated government. I wonder if this is what Rev. Deacon Spencer means when he says thatMuslims should be brought up on charges of “sedition.”

Pastor Dakdok: “Islam is a very wicked cult. It is illegal for Muslims to live in America. Why? Because that is cult that teaches no freedom of religion.”

Pastor Dakdok: “Muslim in America my friends are not here to become Americans and enjoy our freedoms, they are here to spread Shariah, they are here to takeover America for Allah.

It is illegal for Muslims to breathe air inside the America therefore we should never allow Muslims to be anywhere in our government and sadly the last five years the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim Jihadi are in the White House, they are in the FBI, they are in the CIA, they are in the Homeland Security. They are here to infiltrate America through our education, through our political arena, through the media, so that’s exactly what happening in America.”

The radio host then asks Dakdok a sensible question abou what his solution is to the so-called “Islam problem”? Dakdok’s answer is that it would be better to have another 9/11 than Muslims in government like Rep. Keith Ellison.

Bill Yarbrough: “If, indeed, Islam cannot exist within our framework of laws and Constitutional protections and they are truly mutually exclusive, what is the remedy, what are you proposing from a political, legal perspective that would remedy that? If you had a magic wand what would occur so we don’t have any of the dangers of which you speak?”

Pastor Dakdok:”Well, we believe if the American people read the Quran which we have translated in our ministry, it took us four years and we sent that copy to every senator and Congress member and highest justice of the Supreme Court and I doubt any of those people have read it.

If the the American people read the Quran they will stop a man like Keith Ellison from the district of Minnesota to swear on the Quran. The man is swearing on a book that commands to kill every American until the last American become Muslim.

And if the American people read the Quran they will never allow a Muslim senator or President like Obama, or a Muslim Congressman like Keith Ellison to run for this offices.

America is losing America from inside…I don’t want the government to tell me what religion I should believe in but by allowing, giving the government the freedom to allow Muslims to run for office, to educate our children, to bring the new generation you are kissing your country completely good bye. I wish we have another September 11th, better, much better than to have Muslim senator and Muslim Congressman, Muslim mayor and Muslim educating our children on the propaganda of Islam because that is destroying the foundation of America.”

Usama ends his rant with, “We love Muslims, we want you to know the love of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.” Isn’t he merciful?

Some Jewish Reasons Why Inviting Pamela Geller To Speak Is Not Kosher

Not Kosher

None other than Spencer’s bestest friend in the whole wide world!

Some Jewish Reasons Why Inviting Pamela Geller To Speak Is Not Kosher

Loonwatch has previously pointed out that Islamophobia and Judeophobia are frequently related. In this open letter to synagogues and Jewish organizations planning to have Pamela Geller speak, Jewish Loonwatcher Just Stopping By points out that not only is Pamela Geller Islamophobic, but her Islamophobia leads her to take anti-Jewish positions as well. Loonwatchers are encouraged to send copies of or links to this letter, or to compose a polite but informative message of their own, when they hear of Geller planning to speak at a synagogue or Jewish organization.

Some Jewish Reasons Why Inviting Pamela Geller To Speak Is Not Kosher

Guest Post by Just Stopping By

An Open Letter to Synagogues and Jewish Organizations Considering Inviting Pamela Geller to Speak: Pamela Geller Promotes Hatred of Jews and Jewish Practices

Pamela Geller frequently arranges to speak at venues by claiming to be a human rights advocate. Often, when the venues involved learn of her public Islamophobia, they decide to cancel her speech.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President Emeritus of the Union for Reform Judaism noted in 2013, “The recent decisions by a synagogue in Great Neck and another outside of Toronto to cancel appearances by anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller—both were rescheduled at other venues—have made headlines in the Jewish press and raised  interesting questions for the Jewish community.” Rabbi Yoffie states in his commentary that “Pamela Geller has no place in an American synagogue.  She is a bigot and purveyor of hate.”

Pamela Geller’s anti-Muslim hatred should be sufficient reason to not invite her to speak or to withdraw any invitation already given. In addition, as has often been pointed out, hate against one group often leads to hate against another. And, even if Pamela Geller does not mean to promote hate against Jews and Jewish practices, in many ways she does just that. Below are ten ideas that you may not be aware that Pamela Geller has put forth that, in fact, are conducive to promoting hatred of Jews and Jewish practices.

1. Geller is effectively against kosher meat, having described a process nearly identical to shichitah (kosher slaughtering) as an action that yields “meat slaughtered by means of a barbaric, torturous and inhuman method: Islamic slaughter. Halal slaughter involves killing the animal by cutting the trachea, the esophagus, and the jugular vein, and letting the blood drain out…” The same could be said about shichitah, as the slaughtering method is subject to the same concerns.

2. Geller objects to reasonable accommodations for those who want to wear religious headwear like a kippa / yarmulke. Similarly, she points out an Obama appointee is “the first veiled Muslim woman to serve in the White House,” (bolding in Geller’s post), licensing a similar smear against kippa- or sheitel-wearing Jews.

3. Geller objects to universities offering optional classes and conferences in religious law. This is true even when those conferences serve goals such as applying pressure on non-state actors to reduce civilian casualties by addressing “the lack of standards for dealing with the rise of irregular armies or the inability of the law to accommodate asymmetric forms of attacks by non-state entities against sovereign states.” This position could be used against schools like the largest Catholic university in the United States, which has a Center for Jewish Law & Judaic Studies.

4. Geller objects when a government official uses a Semitic language to speak to an audience, calling it “speechifying in” that language. This attitude could be similarly used to criticize U.S. government officials who reach out to Jews in Hebrew or, moving beyond purely Semitic languages, in the Yiddish phrases that former Secretary of State Colin Powell sometimes invoked.

5. Geller objects to a private airline removing pork from its menu when traveling to/from a Middle Eastern country, even though many American Jews are familiar and comfortable with pork-freeflights to the Middle East.

6. Geller objects to mosques‘ existence and construction, often under the pretext of zoning issues, using arguments that could be turned against synagogues. She further “calls for immediate investigation into foreign mosque funding in the West and for new legislation making foreign funding of mosques in non-Muslim nations illegal,” a principle that could be turned against foreign funding or support for synagogues, and presumably other religious endeavors such as Chabad Houses, everywhere in the world other than in Israel.

7. Geller objects to the use of sharia courts for private dispute resolution, though this could affect b’tei din (Jewish courts) and though Jewish, Muslim, and other religious courts are publicly financed in Israel.

8. Geller objects to public schools having religious holidays off when those holidays are for religious minorities at the school, though Jewish groups often make the case for schools with large Jewish student populations having Jewish holidays off.

9. Geller promotes intolerance by using mocking terminology for religious figures, such as “Moe”for Muhammad, while Jews have rightly been upset at the use of mocking references to Jewishnames and should be uniquely concerned with nomenclature given issues such as references to the Tanakh or the “Old” Testament.

10. Geller spreads conspiracy theories about what she has called the “Islamic Geopolitical Influence in Financial Markets.” Do synagogues and Jewish organizations really want to sponsor a speaker who promulgates theories about the influence of members of a particular religion on global financial markets?

Pamela Geller’s statements about Muslims are hateful enough that on that basis alone she should not be invited to speak at a synagogue or Jewish organization. Jews would not approve of other groups making similar statements about us, and we should remember that we should not do to others what is hateful for us. Beyond that, when we go and study Geller’s statements, we see that her agenda is not pro-Jewish. In fact, it is conducive to hatred against Jews and Jewish practices; she does not even have a leg to stand on.

How far do Geller’s statements go in providing support for hatred against Jews? Consider this quote from Geller, with bolding added, about a rabbi who called out Geller’s bigotry:

The quisling “rabbi” Jill Jacobs, the executive director of T’ruah, which spent $10,000 on ads last fall to oppose my pro-Israel ads, said “I wish that none of this had ever started.” Really, “Rabbi”? Jacobs will answer to higher authority. Jacobs was silent when vicious anti-Israel ads ran in cities across the country. Jacobs only got involved to condemn me for standing up against the vicious anti-semitic ad campaigns running on transit platforms from NY to California. Jacobs is not a rabbi — Jacobs is a quisling, an enemy with a Mona Lisa smile. She should be stripped of any rabbinical status (I am sure she’s of the ridiculous “reformed” [sic] movement — which no practicing Jew takes seriously).

A speaker at a synagogue or Jewish organization should be someone whose talk leads to a good and pleasant experience for those seated in the audience, not someone who uses blog post titles to spread division-inciting baseless hatred while trivializing Jewish history. Geller’s statements are not the kind of speech that a Jewish soul should yearn for; for if it does, our hope for peace and understanding with Muslims and other Jews may be lost.

It is understandable that a synagogue or Jewish organization could be misled by a carefully edited biography about Pamela Geller that seems to show her as a civil rights activist. But, analyses by the Southern Poverty Law Center show that she is an avid anti-Muslim bigot. That should be sufficient to deny her a position as a speaker at a synagogue or Jewish organization. But, given Geller’s effective anti-Jewish agenda, if you do decide to invite her, remember not to serve kosher meat or to refer to any rabbis who oppose her, especially those of the Reform movement though also Modern Orthodox, as a rabbi (instead of as a “rabbi”), lest you do something she finds offensive. Of course, the best idea is to either not invite her at all, or, like other synagogues and Jewish organizations have done, to withdraw an invitation you have provided before being made aware of Geller’s anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish positions.

Court upholds UK ban on Geller and Spencer

Abhijit Pandya

Abhijit Pandya

Court upholds UK ban on Geller and Spencer

Over at Atlas Shrugs, Pamela Geller directs us to an article which she describes as a “thoughtful and stunning indictment of the latest tribulation in our legal battle against the de facto sharia ban on Robert Spencer and me in the UK”. The article, entitled “The end of free speech in Britain”, reveals the welcome news that last week a British court rejected Geller and Spencer’s appeal against the home secretary’s decision last June to ban them from entering the UK.

The name of the author, Abhijit Pandya – described by Geller as “one of our British solicitors” – may be familiar. That’s because Pandya has established his own reputation for frothing-at-the-mouth Islamophobia. Back in 2011, when he stood as the UK Independence Party candidate in the Leicester South parliamentary by-election, Pandya wrote a blog post in which he described Islam as “morally flawed and degenerate”and declared his agreement with Geert Wilders’ view of the faith as a “retarded ideology”. He added: “Islamic culture inherently rejects the Western way of life, more specifically the Protestant work ethic that has successfully built the economies of the West.”

The local paper, the Leicester Mercury, published an editorial condemning Pandya’s blog post as “a wildly inflammatory rant which boiled down to a crass and nasty characterisation of Muslims as lazy, intolerant spongers who are a threat to the British way of life. It was not part of a reasoned debate about multiculturalism, but a series of sweeping, unsubstantiated generalisations which demonise the Muslim community.”

So, clearly, Pandya was an entirely appropriate individual to act as Geller and Spencer’s legal representative in the UK.

A Refutation of Robert Spencer’s Attack on Prof. Akbar Ahmed

ahmed-head-1

A Refutation of Robert Spencer’s Attack on Prof. Akbar Ahmed

Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer‘s hatred of Islam and Muslims is quite evident by his consistent efforts to demonize every single Muslim who has some sort of impact on society.

His recent conspiratorial gaze and hatred has been directed at Prof. Akbar Ahmed, a well-regarded scholar and activist for peace and interfaith co-operation–anathema to Rev. Deacon Spencer.

A REFUTE OF ROBERT SPENCER’S POST ON PROFESSOR AKBAR AHMED

by Craig Considine

Robert Spencer, the administrator of the blog JihadWatch, is known for painting all Muslims as extremists. In a recent post titled “AKBAR AHMED, ADVOCATE OF ‘DIALOGUE,’ CLAIMS ‘ISLAMOPHOBES’ ARE ‘LINKING ISLAM TO VIOLENCE, TERRORISM AND INTOLERANCE,” Spencer argues that PROFESSOR AHMED, the Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University in Washington, DC, is “disingenuous” in promoting interfaith dialogue and interested in converting non-Muslims to Islam. Spencer also calls him an “Islamic supremacist” and likens him to SAYYID QUTB, the 20th century Muslim extremist.

To refute Spencer’s accusations, I will look to the example of Professor Ahmed and his relationships with non-Muslims, through which he promotes interfaith dialogue. In doing so, I prove that he is a leading Muslim figure in the fight against religious extremism and that not all Muslims are extremists, as Spencer claims.

I am a Roman Catholic student and assistant to Professor Ahmed, who is like a father to me. He does not treat me differently for being Catholic because he sees Christians and Muslims as equal members of the Abrahamic family. In 2008, Professor Ahmed and his wife had dinner at our family home in suburban Boston. Over Italian food, he shared with my mother, a Roman Catholic and Italian American, several stories of his childhood days in Pakistan. He was educated by Christians at Forman Christian College in Lahore and at Burn Hall in Abbottabad, which was run by Roman Catholic priests. Touching upon these experiences in the recent New York Times article “PAKISTAN’S PERSECUTED CHRISTIANS,” Professor Ahmed wrote: “We loved and respected our Christian teachers, and they us. We never doubted that harmony and cooperation between faith groups were not only possible, but also completely normal. It was the reality of our lives.” Religious tolerance was built into Professor Ahmed’s life from his earliest days, which is why he is naturally inclined to speak and write about how Muslims and non-Muslims can coexist.

Professor Akbar Ahmed (right) celebrating Christmas with Christians in Pakistan.

Professor Akbar Ahmed (right) celebrating Christmas with Christians in Pakistan.

Professor Ahmed has also risked his own life in trying to build bridges between his Muslim and Christian friends in Pakistan. In December 2013, he gave a lecture at Forman Christian College, despite the police warning that the Pakistani Taliban had dispatched bombers to the city as an act of revenge for the killing of a former Pakistani Taliban leader. Professor Ahmed’s lecture titled “BUILDING BRIDGES OVER TROUBLED WATERS” demanded that Muslims be more tolerant of Christianity and other non-Muslim faiths in Pakistan. By supporting the rights of non-Muslims, he advocates for religious freedom and equality in a country which is rife with discrimination and persecution.

Developing friendships with Christian leaders has always been a priority for Professor Ahmed. After the events of September 11th, 2001, he befriended former BISHOP JOHN CHANE of the Washington National Cathedral, with whom he co-authored an article with him in 2010 titled “CHRISTIANS SENSELESSLY TORMENTED BY EXTREMISTS IN MUSLIM WORLD.” Professor Ahmed and Bishop Chane called for Muslims to “think of Jesus, so highly revered and loved by both Christians and Muslims,” as a way of building respect and harmony among followers of Christianity and Islam. Instead of supporting Muslims who attack Christians, Professor Ahmed challenges them on how persecuting non-Muslims is contrary to Prophet Muhammad’s philosophy on tolerance.

Professors Judea Pearl and Akbar Ahmed

Professors Judea Pearl and Akbar Ahmed

Alongside his relationships with Christian friends, Professor Ahmed has also developed a powerful friendship with PROFESSOR JUDEA PEARL, a Jew and father of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street journalist who was murdered by Muslim extremists in Karachi, Pakistan in 2002. One year later, the American Jewish Committee invited Professors Ahmed and Pearl to lead a nation-wide public dialogue on the divisions between Muslims and Jews. In 2006, they were among the recipients of the first annual Purpose Prize “in recognition of [their] simple, yet innovative approach to solving one of society’s most pressing problems.” Professor Ahmed collaborated with Professor Pearl in order to carve the path for Jewish and Muslim understanding and to promote the dialogue between, and not the clash of, civilizations.

Read the rest…

Stoke EDL member stole chocolate bar from Marks and Spencers – before racially abusing and assaulting security guards

Anthony Forrester

Lovely lads, aren’t they?

Stoke EDL member stole chocolate bar from Marks and Spencers – before racially abusing and assaulting security guards

Alcoholic Anthony Forrester attacked two supermarket security guards – after they asked him to pay for a bar of chocolate he had stolen and eaten.

The 44-year-old was in the Marks and Spencer store, in Hanley, on October 17 when he picked up a 69p bar of chocolate and ate it without paying. North Staffordshire Magistrates Court heard yesterday how store security guards Ian Creed and Bekezela Ndlovu followed Forrester to Iceland, in Charles Street, to ask him to pay for the food.

Prosecuting, Giles Rowden said: “Mr Forrester picked up a bar of chocolate and ate it and threw the wrapper away. He was approached by the security guards and told them he would pay for it, but he then left the store. The security guards saw the defendant in the Iceland store where he became abusive.”

The court heard that he racially abused and swore at Mr Ndlovu claimed he was a member of the English Defence League.

Mr Rowden added: “He was using abusive language towards Mr Ndlovu, who was just trying to do his job. The other security guard was then punched in the head and bit on the hand. Forrester was then arrested, but on the way to custody he damaged a Perspex cage belonging to Staffordshire Police.”

Forrester, of St Luke’s Court, in Hanley, pleaded guilty to five charges which included theft, assault by beating, criminal damage and using racially abusive and offensive language.

 

Defending, Nicola Bell, said: “Mr Forrester has not appeared before the court in a long time. He has tried to tackle what is a very real alcohol problem which he has not been very successful at addressing. These are serious offences and they are in the context of the record of a man who is now 44 years of age.”

Miss Bell added: “There are two sides to Anthony Forrester. He can be extremely vile and unacceptable, but then there is the Anthony Forrester who wants to change and wants to address issues from the past. There are deep-rooted problems here, but the daily issue is the alcohol.”

Magistrates told Forrester: “This was a nasty, alcohol-fuelled incident.” He was handed an eight-week prison sentence, suspended for 12 months with 12 months supervision and an alcohol treatment requirement for using racially abusive language and the same punishment for the assault on Ian Creed, to run concurrently.

He was given no further penalty for the theft and criminal damage charges. However, he was told to pay £165 costs and £100 compensation to the victims as well as £20 for damage to Mr Creed’s watch and 69p to Marks and Spencer for the chocolate.

The Sentinel, 4 January 2014


Forrester’s Facebook page includes among his “likes” the far-right Britain First party (a splinter from the BNP) as well as the EDL. Given his previous convictions for assault (see here and here) it is surprising that he wasn’t jailed.

Reza Aslan, a Typo, and the Petty Vindictiveness of Robert Spencer

Reza

Reza Aslan, a Typo, and the Petty Vindictiveness of Robert Spencer

by Ilisha

As we’ve noted before, Robert Spencer seems to have an unhealthy obsession with Reza Aslan. Sadly for Spencer, his interest is not reciprocated.

In this case, serious engagement would elevate Spencer and give him a veneer or credibility he does not deserve. The best response to irredeemable loons is laughter and ridicule. Aslan has responded by teasing Spencer about a man crush:

1. You don’t actually think I read the drivel you send me do you? You’re a clown and the only proper response to clowns is laughter. Unless of course your obsession with me is motivated by something else. In that case, I must tell you that I’m flattered but you’re really not my type.

2. I don’t know how else to tell that I’m just not attracted to you. You and I are never going to get together Robert. You should stick to men your own age and weight.

3. I told you. I’m into women not walruses.

4. Ok. Fine. I’ll think about it. But first you have to shave and lose some weight.

5. If I send you a picture will that satisfy your lust for a while?

Undeterred, it seems Spencer continued, and received this response:

Dear Mr. Spencer. This is Mr. Aslan’s assistant. You seem to be under the impression that Mr. Aslan is actually opening, reading, and responding to your emails. I assure you he is not. The email responses you are receiving are automated responses set to respond to your emails indefinitely. You can’t actually think he is interested in reading anything you have to say. Mr. Aslan is a world renowned, best selling scholar. There is nothing about you or your “work” that would interest him in the slightest. Still, we hope that you will keep up your writings about him. Not only does everything you say validate Mr. Aslan’s importance. But you are a source of immense amusement for our team. Thank you.

Roshi

Spencer actually posts these responses on his website, apparently proud he managed to get a response at all. Undeterred, he recently attempted once again to engage Aslan.

His latest onslaught was sparked by an interview with Sarah Harvard in DL Magazine. Spenceraccused Aslan of being an “Islamic supremacist” who thinks Christianity teaches reincarnation:

ASLAN: It has to do with the symbolism and metaphors that Islam provides to think about God. All of that actually made more sense to me. When I think of God, I think about it in the terms of radical unity, which Islam talks about, and less in the terms of the trinity and reincarnation, which Christianity talks about. That’s it. My faith hasn’t changed. The language in which I use my faith has changed.

Reza Aslan responded to Spencer’s accusation on Twitter:

Twitter Aslan

In turn, Spencer described Aslan as an “immature, foul-mouthed creep,” and wrote [emphasis mine]:

Stung by my noticing that he thinks Christianity teaches reincarnation, Islamic supremacist Christianity-debunker Reza Aslan is claiming that it was just a typo and slinging his usual invective. Only an imbecile, apparently, would be fool enough to believe that Reza Aslan would be fool enough to believe that Christianity teaches reincarnation.

This is at least the second time Spencer has made this accusation, having devoted a previous articleto the topic of Aslan’s alleged belief that Christianity teaches reincarnation.

Reza Aslan wrote an entire book devoted to the life and times of Jesus. If he believes that Christianity teaches reincarnation, it seems likely he would have said so in his book. A search on Kindle reveals his book mentions the word “reincarnation” only once, and the reference is not literal:

Malachi’s prophecy explains why the courtiers at Tiberias see in Jesus thereincarnation of Israel’s quintessential end-times prophet. Zealot, The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, p.130

In contrast, the word “incarnation” is mentioned six times, on pages 12, 36, 105, 138, 170, and 213. In reference to the trinity, Aslan mentions the notion of Jesus as God “incarnate,” which in fact is a widespread Christian teaching:

The Incarnation in traditional Christianity is the belief that the second person of the Trinity, also known as God the Son or the Logos (Word), “became flesh” by being conceived in the womb of a woman, the Virgin Mary, also known as the Theotokos (God-bearer). The incarnation, then, is the God-Man ‘Jesus Christ’.

If Aslan really “thinks” Christianity teaches reincarnation, why did he neglect to mention this throughout his entire book? The word “incarnation” is clearly more consistent with his work. Still, could it be that Aslan is lying about the typo?

In fact, Reza Aslan was clearly vindicated when DL Magazine has posted a correction [emphasis mine]:

CORRECTION 12/29/13: The original published version of this interview stated that Reza Aslan rejected “reincarnation”. That is incorrect; he states that he rejected “incarnation”. DL Magazine regrets the transcribing error. Thank you.

Spencer also tried to take a swipe at Aslan’s best-selling book, Zealot, The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. Rather than challenging the content, he suggested the book was ghost written because:

…so obvious is Aslan’s abysmal ignorance of the subject matter and only dim awareness of how to write a grammatically correct sentence.

Is that the best he can do? Instead of offering a substantive critique of Aslan’s work, Spencer has now devoted two articles to huffing and puffing about something spectacularly petty.

At the time of this writing, Spencer has not updated his article. If the past is any indication, he will not post a correction. He will let his false accusation stand, and when the mood strikes, he will no doubt challenge Aslan again–and invite another round of ridicule.

Related:

Exclusive Loonwatch Interview with Reza Aslan

Robert Spencer: “I have exactly the same credentials as [Reza] Aslan”; Oh, Really?