Again, Robert Spencer Proves he Hates the Constitution

For Robert Spencer to allow his writer Marisol to make a big issue out of an infringement upon constitutionally granted liberties, one must wonder if his loyalties lie to this country and its laws or to his own agenda.

As a matter of fact, Spencer is no stranger to the support of anti-American, anti-constitutional sentiments as we have noted before. Despite the rhetoric on his site, make no mistake that Spencer and his ilk are vehemently anti-Democracy.

On Spencer’s hate blog, Marisol insinuates that the Muslim Hertz workers want to get paid for praying, as if that was their intention:

Reasonable accommodations don’t always mean you get everything you want. But this is about getting paid to pray, and making the break a hands-off affair for supervisors.

Marisol is inciting that Muslims want to shove Islam down peoples throat.  It is the tired conspiracy of “Islamization” and “Creeping Sharia.”

It appears that the employees had no prior warning to the stipulations of their breaks for prayer until they were ambiguously informed of the rule through a supervisor who simply told them that they couldn’t pray during company time.

At no point was it referenced that contractually they were obligated to clock out for prayer breaks, but that they simply couldn’t pray. The way that the rule was enforced is in direct opposition to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the good old US of A, which guarantees free exercise of religion.

Original news article can be found here

Hypocrisy Alert: Jihad Watch Gets Desperate Against LoonWatch Yet Again

Hypocrisy Alert: Jihad Watch Gets Desperate Against LoonWatch Yet Again

JihadWatch just published this:

Incitement to violence against Robert Spencer at “Spencer Watch”

Spencer Watch is a site affiliated with an larger propaganda outfit that had to go and steal the name of a perfectly nice site about birds.

Yes, idiotic comments happen, and here, we delete them as soon as we are aware of them. Ordinarily, we have better things to do than read anything Spencer Watch puts out, but a reader kindly brought this comment to our attention, which has remained for over a year on a rather major page within the site, intended to imitate our “Why Jihad Watch?”

Wow. Way to refute everything about Acts 17, “RefutingActs17.” You totally put St. Paul in his place there, dude.

Robert Spencer always enjoys giving himself an air of mystique by boasting that his life is in mortal danger, which is why his books such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) say that “He lives in a Safe, Undisclosed Location.”  This, even though he quite openly says here that “I live in New England.”  Couldn’t his book have said that, instead of the melodramatic “He lives in a Safe, Undisclosed Location” (all capitalized for some odd reason)? It’s not really “Undisclosed” then, is it?

The reason for this fraud is obvious: nothing boosts ratings more than a fatwa on one’s head.  So, it is no wonder then that Robert Spencer has been desperately trying to accuse LoonWatch (or its affiliate site SpencerWatch) of threatening him.  For the first time, Spencer and the Islamophobes have an organization that is really sticking it to them.  He has to find a way to discredit us. Unfortunately, nothing sticks!

The fact that JihadWatch has absolutely nothing to use against us–that Robert Spencer has no substantive responses to issue whatsoever–is painstakingly clear to see when we look at the frustrated, almost pathetic, attacks on our site.  Awhile ago, he published an article condemning a comment Mosizzle posted [“Like all cancers, this one needs to be cut out before it spreads”] which wasn’t even posted by a LoonWatch or SpencerWatch writer.  Not only that, but Mosizzle explained that his sentence was meant to be understood in a proverbial, not literal, way.

Once again, JihadWatch couldn’t find a single sentence written by a LoonWatch or SpencerWatch writer to take issue with, so it has to once again dig up a comment by some random posterRefutingActs17–who says: “It’s time Robert Spencer got schooled–the hard way.”  Apparently, that’s supposed to constitute “an incitement to violence.”

According to urbandictionary.com, “taking someone to school” means:

Being taken to school means that you have been owned, pwnt, ownt, pwned, beaten, defeated, SHOWN HOW ITS DONE. Nubs usually get taken to school in games such as Counter-Strike.

Oh my God!  Maybe RefutingActs is challenging Robert Spencer to a game of Counter-Strike!  (I’m going to hazard a guess that Spencer will play with the Counter-Terrorists.)

As I pointed out previously in response to Spencer’s spazzing out over Mosizzle’s comment, all of this reeks of profound hypocrisy:

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!

I smell something: it’s the smell of desperation.

All of this desperation coming from JihadWatch just because LoonWatch and SpencerWatch are really getting under their skin.  Most humiliating of all, of course, is that Robert Spencer is scared to debate us here at LoonWatch. But I guess whining about a comment here and there posted by random visitors to our site is just as good as facing me in debate?

Instead of defending the arguments he raised in his book (many of which I have refuted and will continue to refute), Spencer’s site spends time analyzing the name of our website. Oh no, we stole the name of a bird site (even though our site existed beforehand).  To respond using the words of JihadWatch: Wow.  Way to refute everything about LoonWatch.  You totally put Danios in his place there, dude.  You just refuted us, and now we give up.  All our base are belong to you.

Note: Make sure to read our earlier article on a very similar topic, Robert Spencer of JihadWatch Becomes Desperate Against LoonWatch

Marisol on the Saudi Jinn Judge: Blame Islam for Crime

Marisol seems to be taking over the writing duties today at Jihad Watch as Spencer heads off somewhere in the distance, no doubt wearing his Superman cape to fight for the beleaguered West against the Muslim hordes.

In similar Police blotter fashion as her teacher Spencer, Marisol writes today about a story of some Saudi judge who was embezzling funds and then went and blamed it on someone bewitching him with a Jinn (genie). It is a classic corruption case and when the individual was caught he cried, “the devil made me do it.” The difference here is she blames Islamic belief in the existence of magic for his corrupt actions.

The truth however is that this belief in magic is found in other religions, not least Robert Spencer’s own Christianity, and doesn’t in any way allow for a carte blanche cover to commit criminal activity. What’s to blame is the flawed, nepotistic Saudi judicial system and not Islam.

Imagine the hoopla if these children who are accused and murdered as witches and practitioners of magic were Muslim? Spencer and co. would have a field day:

African Pastors torture and murder “witch children”; what if they were Muslim?

by Greeneye

(Read the whole piece at WhatIfTheyWereMuslim.com)

More African Churches are dealing with the troubling problem of Christian pastors torturing and executing “witch children” in the name of their faith. Quite a disturbing phenomena to say the least. The Huffington Post reports (hat tip: Tomas):

The nine-year-old boy lay on a bloodstained hospital sheet crawling with ants, staring blindly at the wall.

His family pastor had accused him of being a witch, and his father then tried to force acid down his throat as an exorcism. It spilled as he struggled, burning away his face and eyes. The emaciated boy barely had strength left to whisper the name of the church that had denounced him – Mount Zion Lighthouse.

A month later, he died.

Pastors were involved in half of 200 cases of “witch children” reviewed by the AP, and 13 churches were named in the case files. Campaigners against the practice say around 15,000 children have been accused in two of Nigeria’s 36 states over the past decade and around 1,000 have been murdered. Other practices include beating with sticks, sawing or driving a nail into children’s heads, burying or burning them alive, forcing them to eat cement, and other grizzly acts of merciless cruelty. (Note: burying children alive is specifically forbidden by the Qur’an, see verses 81:8-9). The parishioners take very literally and seriously the Biblical injunction:

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. (Exodus 22:18)

Since these Christians quote scripture to justify their misdeeds, we must conclude that this is a mainstream “orthodox” Christian practice, right?

Wrong. It is definitely not a mainstream “orthodox” Christian practice, as the Post reports:

“It is an outrage what they are allowing to take place in the name of Christianity,” said Gary Foxcroft, head of nonprofit Stepping Stones Nigeria.

Bishop A.D. Ayakndue, the head of the church in Nigeria, said pastors were encouraged to pray about witchcraft, but not to abuse children.

“We pray over that problem (of witchcraft) very powerfully,” he said. “But we can never hurt a child.”

Reasonable people should be able to conclude that such practices are an aberration which goes against the well-known Biblical commandment to be merciful and love one’s neighbor.

But what if they were Muslim?

UWe’d expect the anti-Muslim blogosphere to erupt in self-righteous indignation, led by JihadWatch and AtlasShrugs, citing a few Islamic scriptures, maybe an archaic medieval Muslim law manual (all in ready-made English translations of course because, as we know, Spencer holds no degree in Arabic nor is he proficient in the language). From this handful of cherry-picked evidence, we’d be given the horribly stereotyped determination that such an aberrational practice is standard, normative, traditional, mainstream, “orthodox” Islam accepted by all interpretations of Islamic law. Of course, this would again conveniently ignore abundant evidence to the contrary. But when has Spencer ever played fair?

Christians rightly condemn the practice of murdering “witch children,” despite the citation and literal interpretation of Exodus, because as we know Christianity has a vibrant interpretive tradition. So it is clearly unfair to take any Christian religious nut at face value when they cite the Old Testament. If we used this incident to indict all of Christianity in all times and all places forever, Spencer and his company would cry foul by pointing to the Christian interpretive tradition.

Not so with Islam. In fact, Spencer’s entire million-dollar hate-blogging Muslim-bashing brainwashing industry critically depends on denying mainstream Islamic interpretive tradition. As Dr. Robert Crane rightly put it:

Spencer’s readers are carefully steered away from all contact with the Islamic interpretative tradition, which equals or exceeds that of any other religion, because any scholarly knowledge about Islam would expose all his extremist interpretations to ridicule.

Bottom line: it is unfair and deeply hypocritical to apply one mild standard to Christianity and another harsher standard to Islam. We don’t take these children murdering Christians at face value when they cite their scripture as justification, so why should we take Al-Qaeda at face value when they cite the Qur’an?

But what do I know. Aren’t I just a liberal-dhimmi/stealth-jihadist?

Dry Run was a False Alarm, JihadWatch won’t backtrack on calling it terrorism

Two men were arrested after their plane landed in Holland, the speculation was that they were doing a dry run for a terrorist organization. However no proof was advanced and just today the two men were let go.

When this story broke out JihadWatch’s Marisol treated it as though it was a proven case of terrorism.

First she asked the question,

“Just your garden-variety Dutchmen gone wrong? Wooden-shoe bombers?”

and then she answers it simply,

“No.”

Will we hear an apology or at least an acceptance of the fact that JihadWatch was being purposefully deceptive? No. This is par for the course on JihadWatch, when anything remotely relating to Islam and Muslims comes up in the news and implicates Muslims in violence they push it as Jihad or terrorism related. When they are proven wrong they either ignore it or sheepishly shrug it off.

Two Men Arrested on United Flight on Terror Concerns Freed Without Charges

Dutch prosecutors have let go two Yemeni men who were initially detained over concerns of a possible terror “dry run,” they said Wednesday.

Ahmed Mohamed Nasser al Soofi and Hezam al Murisi were arrested during a United Flight from Chicago to Amsterdam Monday. They were released without charges.

American law enforcement officials say their initial concerns about a possible terror “dry run” involving the two eased, in part because they have learned the men’s abrupt change in flights resulted from them missing their original flight.

“These two passengers have not been charged with any crime in the United States and we caution you against jumping to any conclusions,” said a statement issued by the Department of Homeland Security Tuesday afternoon.

Al Soofi began his trip in Birmingham, Alabama and al Murisi started from Memphis, Tennessee.

JihadWatch turning good works into evil

Marisol, who presumably posts when Spencer is not around, blogged about a Muslim women’s shelter in Tulsa that she titled, Shelter helps abused women in Kabul? No. In Riyadh? No. Where? In Tulsa.

You can’t win with these Islamophobes. First they complain about the domestic violence in the Muslim world and how women have no recourse to shelters, and then they complain about the existence of such shelters arguing that they are indicative of inherent misogyny and violence in Islam and amongst Muslim males. Continue reading