Pages: 1 2
Oh, this is rich. Apparently my recent debates with Muslim leaders have left the Islamic establishment in the U.S. so embarrassed that the American Muslim’s Sheila Musaji, whose lies I have exposed in the past, is now throwing under the bus some of the Muslim spokesmen whom I have debated recently, and pleading with Muslims to stop debating me.
The truth stings, eh, Sheila? In the May 19 article, “The American Muslim Communities’ ‘Useful Idiots,’“ Musaji explains:
A Muslim “useful idiot” is an individual who may believe that they are being a force for good, but who are either naive or a publicity seeker whose actions and words actually give support to the cause of the Islamophobes. [...]
Some of these “useful idiots” are people who think that it makes sense to appear on the television or radio programs of individuals like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, or Michael Savage, and “defend” Islam against professional Islamophobes like Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel, etc. The problem is that they are usually not qualified to speak on behalf of anyone but themselves. When they come out looking foolish, the audience takes their inability to convincingly defend whatever claim is being made as “proof” that there is no defense. They do a great deal of harm to the entire community.
The reality here, of course, is that the truth is not on their side, and Geller, Gabriel and I pierce through their taqiyya fog. How dreadfully inconvenient for them! For Musaji to come to believe that a Muslim spokesman, all he or she has to do is debate me. Then suddenly the spokesman lacks all credibility and competence.
Engaging with such known Islamophobes only gives them credibility. Engaging with them on their “turf” and under their rules, cannot do anything other than provide them more fuel for their prejudiced attacks on Islam and Muslims. Examples of useful debates might be those on the Young Turks site hosted by Cenk Uygur Here is one of these TYT debates. Another example of the possibility of an honest debate would be a case like that of Reza Aslan debating Robert Spencer on the relatively neutral CNN with Christiane Amanpour as the moderator.
It was ABC, not CNN, and it wasn’t a “debate” at all. It was Aslan retailing lies and defamation while my mic was cut off so that my responses were not recorded. Small wonder that that would be the sort of one-sided, rigged exchange that The American Muslim would favor. As this article shows, they certainly can’t handle a level playing field.
It is a very different situation when the Islamophobes are not allowed to control the debate. When both the host of the program and the individual being debated are both Islamophobes, there is not much chance that a Muslim participant will be given an honest hearing. They are not “fair and balanced” and the outcome is pretty much rigged.
This is silly, of course. I rarely deal with neutral moderators, and most are on the other side. I debated the dhimmi tool Dinesh D’Souza with the stealth Islamic supremacist Suhail Khan moderating, and it went very well. If Sheila Musaji wants to set up a debate with me with an opponent, moderator and venue of her own choosing, I am ready. But she doesn’t dare. She wants all the debates rigged like the exchange with Aslan on ABC, and then — in yet another example of Islamic supremacist projection — accuses the other side of rigging debates, and throws a Muslim leader to the wolves:
An individual named Mohamed El-Hassan or Elhassan is an informative case in point. [...] It is no surprise to see that Robert Spencer has just posted a video of a “debate” between himself and this fake Sheikh on the subject of Islam and human rights. His only lead in to the video is Here is my debate last night on ABN with Sheikh Mohamed El-Hassan of the Texas Islamic Center on the question, “Does Islam respect human rights?” The first half hour of the show is an interview with Walid Phares; the debate starts after that.
Pages: 1 2