Stop Debating Robert Spencer!

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

  • Chezwick_mac

    While David fights the good fight within the halls of academe, Robert is without a doubt the uncrowned king of the anti-Jihad. The fact that he is so hated and vilified by the Islamic advocacy groups is a testimonial to his effectiveness. These two men are the pillars upon which the intellectual/philosophical defense of Western civilization is being carried…certainly in America (Europe has its Wilders).

    I gave up hero-worship a long, long time ago. I realize that David and Robert are no less prone than anyone else to the faults and imperfections that come with being human. Nonetheless, there are no two men whom I admire more. While the rest of us spew our righteous indignation from the safety of anonymity, these two giants risk their good names, reputations, and physical well-being everyday…to make a difference in the cause of human freedom and equality. We owe them one helluva debt of gratitude!

    • WilliamJamesWard

      How true what you say, Robert has educated me on many aspects of Islamist
      perfidy and David has shown me great intellectual stamina, both are men
      of inner strength, courage and truth. My opinion is that we owe them more
      than we know, I would like to thank them as best as I can and continue
      to follow their work, I am proud they are fellow Americans………………William

  • OLJingoist

    If your catching flak you are definitely over the target.
    The problem with muslims and spencer is that spencer can tell you exactly what the next words will be from the muslims mouth. It's as if there is a script that they all memorize. If you take them off their talking points they start to spout absolute absurdities about everyone else BUT islam. They become angry and boorish to the point that anything they have to say falls on deaf ears.

  • jacob

    I have watched Mr. SPENCER debating one of the Islamics and I really felt sorry
    for the poor bastard, as he couldn't find shelter to evade the storm of ideological
    sticks upon his head, trying to defend the indefensible KORAN preachings which
    every practicing Muslim must blindly abide by…

    And at the end, as I've watched their mullahs when they run out of drowning their opponents with a tsunami of words and not giving a chance to interject a single
    word in typical MUSLIM fashion, highly perfected by the MAD DOG's followers I've
    been able to watch, they shelter themselves in the repetition of their mantra
    "ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE"

    Strange nobody bothered asking them so far :
    PEACE OF THE COMMON GRAVES OR THAT OFTHE CEMETERIES ????

  • maria

    Go on Mr. Spencer, I admire you for your courage.
    Islam is not a religion. It is an evil ideology, rasist ideology that is very similar to nazism.

  • eye duh hoe an

    Keep battaling the prince of darkness and the principalities of darkness. Expose Satan to be the defeated sinner that he is.

  • John

    They've clearly never debated anything on CNN or MSNBC. They're about the most pro-Islam news organizations that I've seen. Like on an installment of Anderson Cooper when talking about the Mosque in Murfreesboro, TN, he made the Muslim girl look like a abused 3rd grade little girl while he made Laurie Cordoza-Moore from Proclaiming Justice to the Nations look like the evil witch of the West. Also the entire subject of not welcome in America on CNN. It was so lopped sided toward a Muslim bias. What was even more baised was the comment section. They would not allow any comments defending Ms. Moore, only comments defending the Muslims and slamming Ms. Cordoza-Moore. I wrote several comments praising the actions of Ms. Cordoza-Moore. None made it to print.

  • StephenD

    As has been and will always be the truth, the darkness cannot stand up to the light. When Spencer, Geller, Horowitz, et al, expose the lies to the light of day they scurry like rodents and try to hide behind false accusations, misquotes, outright lies and when all else fails they refuse to engage as if you aren't worth their time. It is a pleasure to witness! Keep up the good work.

  • sedoanman

    The reason they are easy to defeat for almost ANY Westerner is because Muslims are under a severe handicap: Islam, which teaches that two mutually exclusive statements can both be true at the same time [dualistic logic]. See http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle….

  • Chezwick_mac

    Disheartening.

  • crypticguise

    He is neither mature nor "well read". He has been self-programmed by his dhimmi cowardice.

  • Rob Jones

    The #1 thing I learned while doing Christian apologetics is that no matter how many answers you come up with, the trolls will question you to death…hoping~ you will run out of answers. And I know what it's like not having all the answers to a book that has hundreds of pages.

    So naturally, I'm unimpressed that Robert Spencer managed to find a muslim without photographic memory of the Koran. But for those of you who think that's some kind of accomplishment or proof, continue to give your money to this man in exchange for his opinions.

    • StephenD

      While you were "doing" Christian apologetics did the issue of being a dhimmi ever come up?

  • http://americanpatriotcouncil.com/ Mike in VA

    This is just laughable.

    Will Sheila Musaji and the rest of the losers who can't compete with Mr. Spencer in the Arena of Ideas take it to the next level and STFU once and for all?

  • ahmadnb

    I'll debate with you on the subject of Islam, Robert Spencer. Any time that I have available. I'm not afraid to. I have nothing to lose.

  • tanstaafl

    Here is a typical "debate" with your typical Muslim.

    me- Islam permits wife beating, the prophet himself beat Ayesha.
    Muslim – nowhere in the Holy Qur'an does it say that the Prophet hit Ayesha!
    me- it's not in the Qur'an, it's in the aHadith.
    Muslim – prove that!
    me- it's in Muslim (one of the collections of Hadiths) verse 2907.
    Muslim – silence, crickets chirping……..

  • Voltimand

    Islam is a terrorist religion, i.e., its members are themselves terrorized, which is why their only conceivable MO is going to be terrorism inflicted on others. The history of muslim imperialism through Europe and Asia is the history of people who can only understand relations between people and groups in terms of dominance/subordination. If you do not dominate, you are dominated. Has anyone ever conceived of an analysis of Islam founded on the psychoanalytic concept of sadomasochism? In such a culture projecting one's own fear onto to others–the result being you either dominate or you will be domnated–can only result in relations of either domination or death. Islam is short is a collective psychosis. Are they curable? Maybe. If not, then they invite the western medieval/Renaissance solution: utter annihilation. Spain's King Ferdinand realized that there is no dealing with such people. Result: you simply get rid of them either by killing or by transporting them elsewhere.

    The sadomasochistic thesis, BTW, also makes sense out of your "typical American muslim" who doesn't want to kill anyone. Of course not: to be a muslim is to be scared stiff. A muslim who questions Islam is like a sane person in an insane asylum: you become the only crazy one there.

    One last suggestion: you want to understand Islam? Watch The Sopranos.