Lord Voldemort, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named
Once again, Robert Spencer responds to one of my articles but refuses to take my name. I am forever “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.” Spencer says:
And on those rare occasions when the opposition does offer a substantive response, it’s tissue-paper thin. A friend recently told me that he posted a lengthy rebuttal to a pseudo-scholarly presentation purporting to prove false something I said about the meaning of an Arabic word (my friend is a native Arabic speaker); his comment was summarily deleted.
My response is as follows:
1. “And on those rare occasions when the opposition does offer a substantive response”
I’ll take that as a compliment!
2. “it’s tissue-paper thin.”
Of the “ultra soft and strong” variety I hope.
3. “A friend”
I assume you are speaking of Kinana of Khabyar, who like you is an intellectual huckster.
4. “a pseudo-scholarly presentation”
As I said before, this is a bad case of projection: Spencer tries to pass himself off as a scholar despite his lack of scholarly credentials, so he simply assumes that everyone else is trying to do the same. I have never claimed to be a scholar, and it truly amazes me that he would even assume that I tried to be “scholarly” considering I used the word “sh*% hole” in the title of my article. How many scholarly works have you read that speak with such an irreverent tone? The fact that Spencer would even think this speaks volumes about how little he knows about scholarship.
5. “native Arabic speaker”
Is that supposed to impress me? Kinana of Khaybar could be a professor in Arabic for all I care or the Queen of England. None of that changes the fact that he is guilty of academic deceit.
6. “his comment was summarily deleted.”
A lie. I never deleted Kinana’s comment. He never posted it on our site. Instead, he posted it on JihadWatch, and someone posted the link to it on our site, which you will see is still very much there. But let’s even assume–simply for argument’s sake–that I “summarily deleted” his comment. Not only is the link posted by an Islamophobe still on our site, but I myself reproduced the link in my counter-response as well as his response itself!
7. “he posted a lengthy rebuttal”
Let’s recap the debate. First, Robert Spencer claimed in his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), that the word “dhimmis” translates to both “protected people” as well as “guilty people.” He went on to say that non-Muslim residents are called “guilty people” (or “dhimmis”) because they rejected the prophethood of Muhammad and altered their scriptures. I wrote an article declaring all this to be a bold-faced lie and proof that Spencer is an intellectual huckster who is guilty of wholesale fabrication.
Both Robert Spencer and his friend Kinana of Khaybar responded to my article. Spencer tried to cover his ass by moving the goalposts: instead of defending his claim that the word “dhimmis” means “guilty people”, Spencer argued that the word “dhimmis” is related to the word “guilt.” Kinana attempted to strengthen this argument by citing various Arabic dictionaries that linked the word “dhimmis” with “guilt.” In my counter-response, I exposed the intellectual chicanery that Kinana was engaging in: he quoted only a part of the dictionary definition, purposefully omitting the critical part which clearly explained that the “guilt” was associated not with the non-Muslim residents as Spencer and Kinana claimed, but with the Islamic state should it violate the rights of the non-Muslim residents.
Furthermore, the claim that the non-Muslim residents were called “dhimmis” because they were guilty of rejecting the prophethood of Muhammad and altering their scriptures is complete fabrication from the conspiratorial mind of Robert Spencer. Neither Spencer or Kinana sought to explain this bit of wholesale fabrication.
My question now is: whose response is “tissue-paper thin”? Will Spencer or Kinana care to defend their academic honesty (or in this case their lack thereof)? My guess is that they will try to avoid issuing “a substantive response” as much as possible.
In the same post, Robert Spencer bellows:
The list of the Leftist and Muslim academics and apologists who have refused my challenge to debate is very long; they know they can’t refute what I say on the basis of evidence, so they resort to broad-based smears and personal attacks — and haughty refusals to debate.
I accept your challenge, Spencer. I agree to a radio debate with you on the topic of jihad and “dhimmitude”, namely chapters 1-4 of your book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). It will then be seen if you can defend your own writing, which I argue is a load of sensationalist crock.
Will you accept my challenge to debate or cower in fear? My guess is that you “know [you] can’t refute what I say” and will “resort to…haughty refusals to debate.”
I predict that the JW minions will give excuses to explain away why their master Robert Spencer will refuse to debate me, instead of urging him to enter into a debate as they always do with other people who challenge his ideas. They already know that Spencer does not stand a chance in a debate with me, which is why they will continue to generate excuses to exonerate him from his intellectual cowardice. This is because deep down inside they know–as does everyone else who has followed his and my writings–what the outcome would be.
Spencer backing down from a debate with me would be curious, considering that he has already conceded that my writings are “rare occasions when the opposition does offer a substantive response.” Spencer, are you saying that you can debate with people so long as they don’t give you a substantive response, in which case you flee?
No matter, I’ll continue to pulverize your arguments in my articles. Speaking of which, I’m almost done with my latest one (on the topic of jihad). Stay tuned.