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.
Like Terry Jones, Spencer has come up against the difficulty of finding any legitimate Muslim scholars to involve themselves with his publicity stunts, as the scholars and leadership in the American Muslim community are now only too aware of his modus operandi. And so he needs to attempt to get some mileage from pointless “debates” with uninformed Muslims who seem to also be only interested in publicity….
Definition of a “fake Sheikh” and an “uninformed Muslim who is only interested in publicity”: one who loses to me in a debate. You can see for yourself by watching my debate with El-Hassan.
There are other individuals like Mike Ghouse, also from Texas, who fall into this category, but seem to genuinely believe that engagement with these individuals might have some positive outcome.
He has been on the Sean Hannity program at least a dozen times. You can view a list of these programs here, however in order to view them you need to sign up and pay a monthly fee to the Sean Hannity Insider. Hannity is making money every way he can off of his bigotry. Some of these debates are available on You Tube – e.g. debating Robert Spencer on radicalism here – debating Spencer on Imam Rauf and the Cordoba House project here – debating Pamela Geller on Cordoba House project here.
On these programs he has debated Andrew McCarthy (on media coverage of Muslims, and on the Libyan revolution), David Horowitz (on the French Burqa ban), Leland Vittert and Doug Schoen (on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), Brigitte Gabriel (on the American response to the Egyptian revolution and on U.S. border security and on the firing of Juan Williams), Jay Sekulow (on TSA security tactics), Pamela Geller (on the Cordoba House project in NYC), Robert Spencer (on the Qur’an and “Islamic Supremacism” and on radicalism in the Middle East). Ghouse may mean well, and be a good person, however, it should be obvious that no one has expertise in all of these subjects that he is ready to “debate” if no one else steps forward. Mike Ghouse has a bio on one of his 4 websites and 27 blogs that shows that he has a lot of experience in interfaith dialogue, but that is a far cry from engaging professional Islamophobes. Dialogue is useful and positive, such debates are non-productive and negative.
I really hope that individuals who are tempted to take the bait and engage with professional Islamophobes, stop to consider that there is a reason that most scholars, activists, and leaders in the American Muslim community ignore their provocations and requests to debate.
Cowards. Obviously, if I were really the egregious liar Musaji and others claim that I am, it ought to be easy for a Muslim spokesman to show me up in a public forum and end my baneful influence forever. Instead, they circle the wagons and claim that it is “non-productive” to discuss matters with me.
Notice to Sheila Musaji and the Islamic establishment in the U.S.: if any of you poor dears, nervous nellies and shrinking violets ever grow some spine and become willing to defend your positions, I am ready to debate you. I am willing to stand and defend my views – why aren’t you? Contact me at director[at]jihadwatch.org.
Oh, and by the way, Sheila, as you throw El-Hassan and Ghouse under the bus, don’t forget the illustrious Moustafa Zayed!