Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

The debate starts at the twenty eight minute mark. Spencer and Daveed discuss Jihad warfare, Islamic supremacism, 'moderate' and 'radical' Islam and a number of other issues.

During the debate, Spencer brings up the valid point that reform movements in Islam (Wahhabiism, Almoravids, Almohads, etc.,) leads to a militant strain of Islam - the type of aggressive Islam as practiced during the time of prophet Muhammad and the rightly guided caliphs whereas reformed Christianity leads to a peaceful interpretation of Christianity, the type practiced in the first century because peace and love are the core concepts of Christianity.

Therefore, Westerners are gravely mistaken in pushing for a purified Islam. It is the additions to Islam over the years that tempers the core teachings of Islamic supremacy and Jihad, not the other way around.

http://www.afa.net/Radio/show.aspx?id=2 ... 2147497782

For a second there I thought you'd be announcing that Spencer had come out of hiding and faced the guy he challenged to a debate, Danios.

But alas, Spencer won't debate those who are armed with facts:
http://spencerwatch.com/2010/06/17/dani ... -a-debate/

But thanks for posting the above, the truth is always strengthened with sunlight - Spencer's views on Islam should indeed be heard in full, then a simple fact check carried out. When this is done (as in the case of the thread entitled 'The Misinformants' or indeed just by perusing www.spencerwatch.com ) we get a clear gulf between Spencer's Islamophobic views and the reality.

Each has to choose whether to side with the Misinformant who lays down challenges to debates and then runs away, or those who do indeed tell the whole truth. Which do you choose, eh?

Cheers,
Shafique

Let me know when you want to discuss the points raised between Spencer and Daveed in their debate.

Sure thing. Which particular part of the misinformation do you want to start with?

BTW- aren't you even a little ashamed of the fact Spencer runs away from debates with those who can challenge his falsehoods?

Danios of Loonwatch wrote: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.

Cheers,
Shafique

How 'bout the disinformation that Islam is a religion of peace ?

That claim was completely demolished in the debate.

Care to challenge the points made ?

Sure thing.

Please present any actual evidence for Spencer's beliefs- I listened to it, and all he seems to do is repeat his loon beliefs (loon as in discredited disinformation about Islam.

Anyway, the first thing he alleges is that Islam is a religion of violence that teaches war against all Muslims and subjugation of subjects. I.e. his loonly Dhimmitude argument.

Well, fortunately, this particular aspect of his hucksterism has been comprehensively punked (the Jihad misinformation is still being worked on), so - this one is easy:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/more-p ... -huckster/

Let me know specifically what you'd like to refute/challenge in Danio's demolition of Spencer's argument.

So over to you: Can you refute any of the arguments by Danios which show Spencers loony line on Dhimmis is just false?


BTW:
Daveed is not a Muslim (he says he isn't a Muslim at around 38min) - and wiki says he was born into a Jewish family, converted to Islam and then converted to Christianity. Now he works in the anti-terrorism sphere.

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas! The discussion is not a debate, as such - Daveed and Spencer both have a vested interest in bigging up the terrorist threats.

That said, Daveed categorically states at 37min that there is indeed moderate Islam and it is what people practice. And therefore, given that the majority of Muslims practice moderate Islam, therefore Islam is a moderate religion!

I also agree with Daveed's point from 38min about how ridiculous it is for a loon to pontificate about what constitutes true Islam! That would be like a Muslim stating that Catholics are the pure Christians - he says. (Spencer doesn't agree, of course - he thinks he knows the truth!)

Cheers,
Shafique

It's kind of funny how Spencer was well aware of what Danios brought up (Spencer having roots from the Ottoman empire and all) as this 2006 article makes clear regarding the Tanzimat reforms:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006984.html

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArt ... ARTID=2009

Danios' 'punking' of Spencer from 2010 was only four or five years off if Danios wanted others to believe that Spencer was ignorant of the contents of his post - I read an earlier article from 2005 where Spencer discusses these reforms, but was sure to point out that these reforms were passed under the auspices of Western pressure for Turkish reform - so, even there, these reforms were carried out by Pro-Western Turks under Western pressure and were considered 'un-Islamic' at the time and aspects of this legislation was subsequently reversed.

One swallow does not a summer make, dontchya know ?

BTW:
Daveed is not a Muslim (he says he isn't a Muslim at around 38min) - and wiki says he was born into a Jewish family, converted to Islam and then converted to Christianity. Now he works in the anti-terrorism sphere.

I'll be sure to get to what Daveed says regarding Islam as being a religion of peace - we'll see if his argument holds watre.

Danios really could have saved himself the time by just reading old Spencer articles and debates.

But thanks for bringing this up, we have more examples of Spencer engaging in debate.

Thanks eh - but you appear to not have clicked on the link above and read what Danio's refutation says.
The second part of the post about Spencer's discredited view is:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/06/more-p ... r-sh-hole/

I'm therefore not sure what made you think the links you provided refute the points made by Danios which comprehensively punk Spencer's theory about what a Dhimmi is?
Perhaps you were thinking of this post:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/do-mus ... as-equals/
(Which comprehensively tackles Spencer's argument that the Ottoman ruling was realpolitik and not real Islam)

What is remarkable, is that Spencer did indeed debate (along with two others) with a Muslim in the past and acknowledged many of the points made by the Muslim. Which makes the continuing refusal to follow through on the challenge of debate with Danios all the more curious. Perhaps it is because Spencer realises that his arguments from back then have now been comprehensively exposed as less than truthful?

You may also want to examine this longer post from 2009:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/the-ch ... himmitude/

But let's examine Spencer's argument in the pod cast. He is explicitly arguing that those Muslims who are not fighting non-Muslims and trying to dominate them, or those who don't believe they should be doing this - are not good Muslims. He concedes that the majority of Muslims aren't being 'good Muslims' (in loon terms).

So his point is that his view of Islam is correct, and the minority of those who are killing and justifying it on the Quran are those who are true Muslims.

As Daveed points out - this is absurd. It is like a Muslim telling Christians that the KKK are the true Christians, and that the majority of Christians are in denial or are bad Christians.

Cheers,
Shafique

Hey, I think Mr Akyol makes a good point when he says:

We Muslims should get rid of those politically needed but religiously irrelevant rules that still persist in the religious texts of Islam. We should also see that the Koran took the conditions of the 7th century Arabia as a given and established just norms according to those conditions. The dhimma was one of them. Based on the Koran (Sura 9:29), and the needs of the Islamic state, Muslim jurist developed the whole idea of what Bat Yeor calls "dhimmitude." She and others criticize this pretty harshly but they should see that the dhimma was just and humane according to the political realities of the seventh century. In Christian Europe, religious minorities were not tolerated at all. In Islamic lands, they were tolerated as second-class citizens.

The passages in the Koran are for a certain time and place

No argument there.

But it is interesting to note what Spencer writes and contrast his message to the spin Danios adds for the reasons the Turks adopted new laws:

It is true that “the dhimma was abolished by the Islamic Ottoman Empire in 1859,” but this was accomplished mainly due to Western pressure, and cultural hangovers of the dhimma continue to plague non-Muslims throughout the Islamic world. Hence I hope that Western awareness of and pressure against the denial of equality of rights for non-Muslims in Muslim countries continues to increase, and again applaud Mr. Akyol for his rejection of such measures. May his influence continue to grow in the Islamic world.

And as we all know, one swallow does not a summer make.

Epic failure again eh.

Spencer's hucksterism has been demolished by Danios, and Spencer has run away from the debate he issued a challenge to.

Anyway, if you have no answer to Danios (it is clear Spencer doesn't) then there is nothing to debate regarding evidence is there?

So, let's use logic to examine Spencer's loony claims:

shafique wrote:But let's examine Spencer's argument in the pod cast. He is explicitly arguing that those Muslims who are not fighting non-Muslims and trying to dominate them, or those who don't believe they should be doing this - are not good Muslims. He concedes that the majority of Muslims aren't being 'good Muslims' (in loon terms).

So his point is that his view of Islam is correct, and the minority of those who are killing and justifying it on the Quran are those who are true Muslims.

As Daveed points out - this is absurd. It is like a Muslim telling Christians that the KKK are the true Christians, and that the majority of Christians are in denial or are bad Christians.

Do you agree with this logic?

Anyway, the first thing he alleges is that Islam is a religion of violence that teaches war against all Muslims and subjugation of subjects. I.e. his loonly Dhimmitude argument.

Really ? Spencer's views on Dhimmitude have been demolished when has Danios demolished those views ?

-- Fri Sep 03, 2010 7:06 pm --

So his point is that his view of Islam is correct, and the minority of those who are killing and justifying it on the Quran are those who are true Muslims.

Sounds like some Muslims who would like to preach to Christians and Jews on how to properly follow their own religion.

But yes, I agree that if Spencer said that, that would be a loon belief.

He is, however, pointing out that the texts and teachings, for instance, call for holy war and the domination of Islam over all other religions. Muslim smoke screens and apologetics is not genuine reform (you can't reform something if you don't acknowledge it) but denial:

The point of all this is only to note that, while I continue to wish Mr. Akyol all success in his reform endeavors, I am afraid that he is likely to face stiff opposition from Muslims who will consider his rejection of punishment for apostasy and of the triple choice of conversion, subjugation, or war as a capitulation to Western ideas and a rejection of Islam. I note this not out of some crabbed glass-half-empty spirit, but because it is important for Westerners, locked as we are in a struggle against global jihadists that is likely to drag on for decades, to have a realistic view of the prospects of the moderate Muslim endeavor in general. The principles that led to the Gadahn convert-or-die videotape, as well as to the forced conversions of Centanni and Wiig, are deeply embedded within Islam, and will not be cast off lightly or easily by Muslims, any more than the Tanzimat reforms were lightly or easily accepted within the crumbling Ottoman Empire.


I agree with Mr. Akyol that "Islam should be an invitation, not an imposition." To make this a reality will require a reshaping and reinvention of Islam on a massive international scale. Accordingly, Western policymakers would be foolish in the extreme to proceed as if this Islam were already a viable reality, or to count on its appearance any time soon. But that doesn't mean that courageous Muslim individuals shouldn't undertake the effort, and for that I again salute Mr. Akyol.

Let me know when you are ready to discuss the evidence and the logic of Spencer's loony claims.

I've already linked a few times to Danios' comprehensive punking of Spencer - starting with Spencer's epic failure of comprehension where he was shown to be wrong on the subject of the meaning of Dhimmi/Dhamma.

I mean, if he can't even define the word without misleading people - I'm amazed that you still consider him a scholar.

event horizon wrote:

So his point is that his view of Islam is correct, and the minority of those who are killing and justifying it on the Quran are those who are true Muslims.

..

But yes, I agree that if Spencer said that, that would be a loon belief.

I'm glad that you agree that Spencer's logic is a loon logic - but that you're in denial that he actually said that! I invite you to re-listen to the podcast again - then you'll hear your Guru exactly espouse this loon belief.

I'm glad we are agreeing now. I mean, it is exactly this loon belief that elicits Daveed's response that I paraphrased:

As Daveed points out - this is absurd. It is like a Muslim telling Christians that the KKK are the true Christians, and that the majority of Christians are in denial or are bad Christians.

So, were you listening to a different podcast?

Cheers,
Shafique

Some quotes from the original podcast linked to by eh.

At 34.00 min:
Daveed to Spencer:

putting it all to Islamic doctrine is NOT accurate

- punking Spencer's example of Pakistan where Daveed points out that the support of the Taliban etc is about realpolitik.

(So, an example of loon exageration punked)

His reply is a classic - he starts by saying that he doesn't dispute the realpolitik reasons, then states that the US government is naive for ignoring his theories about Jihad doctrine that, he says are 'being overlooked by the American Gov' (35.40) !

at 37.00
Daveed is asked a blunt questions, and his answers are to the point:

Question: Is there a moderate Islam? And what is it?

Answer: Yes there is a moderate Islam. Moderate Islam is what you see when you see moderate Muslims.
..
38.18
When we look at what moderate Islam is, it is precisely what people practice. If someone is moderate in their understanding of the faith that's what Moderate Islam is. Of the three of us, none of us are muslim, none of us practice Islam.

Then Spencer, predictably states at 42.57: "No there is no moderate Islam. But there are many moderate Muslims"
@46:37:

Spencer: The idea that moderate Islam is an actual tradition or a sect or a school within Islam, that does not teach warfare against unbelievers as such does not exist.

Daveed: I'd argue that the big point of difference between us is the utility of referring to Islam as a fixed reference, given that this isn't a doctrine that we hold. (i.e. Spencer pontificating that his view of 'true Islam' is the truth). Likewise I would think for a Muslim to weigh in and say that the Catholic Church or the Dutch reformed sect is true Christianity would not be particularly helpful to me as a Christian.

So, even though Daveed does not believe Islam is a religion of peace (see previous comment about Turkeys and Christmas), he does have more integrity than Spencer and does point out the obvious that Christians pontificating about Islam is absurd and also exposes an excellent example of loon exaggeration.

But, that said - I'm glad that we agree that the loon argument is illogical, even if eh is in denial that loons use the argument!

Thanks for starting the thread eh - most enlightening.

Do you think that Spencer will come out of hiding and debate someone (say a Muslim scholar, or say Danios) who doesn't agree with his main loon belief that Islam is not a religion of peace - or does he only 'debate' with those who mostly agree with him?

Cheers,
Shafique

I agreed with Daveed on the issue of the ISI and the Taliban and the reason he gives for the ISI's support for the Taliban - to counter Pashtun nationalism - was one I've never heard before and sounds like the most straight forward explanation to me.

Spencer: The idea that moderate Islam is an actual tradition or a sect or a school within Islam, that does not teach warfare against unbelievers as such does not exist.

Well, go ahead and name a school of thought within Islam that you believe to be moderate. Even the Qadianis support the imposition of Sharia law and, therefore, are far from moderate for any Westerner.

That's why Spencer is correct that in practice, there is no moderate Islam.

So, even though Daveed does not believe Islam is a religion of peace (see previous comment about Turkeys and Christmas)

Not everyone believes the talking points. Care to quote Daveed to see if his argument that Islam is not a religion of peace has any teeth ?

But, that said - I'm glad that we agree that the loon argument is illogical, even if eh is in denial that loons use the argument!

Yes, I think preachers who double as 'experts' on the religions of others, telling them how they should really be following their religion, are loons.

No argument there.

However, Spencer is simply questioning the talking points that Islam is a religion of peace. Ok, if it is, why not quote the texts and teachings of Islam from the schools of jurisprudence to see what is peaceful of Islam.

I think from quoting traditionalist commentaries on key passages of the Koran and the rulings of Jihad by Muslim scholars and the acceptance among Muslims of a fusion between religion and state, Spencer has found these claims to have been wanting.

Can't blame him for those views. Muslims here justify hand chopping because 'it's in the Koran', just as Muslim scholars throughout the ages have justified holy war (Muslims are now more careful to actually discuss Jihad in the West, preferring to lie or whitewash Islam and Jihad) - though according to what some would have us believe, there's no concept of holy war in Islam ! *LoL*

And if Daveed doesn't believe that Islam is currently a religion of peace, how can one not see the contradiction that Islam is currently not moderate ? That was what Spencer said.

Do you think that Spencer will come out of hiding and debate someone (say a Muslim scholar, or say Danios)

Most scholars and Muslim spokespersons refuse to debate Spencer. He has, however, debated a number in the past who were heavyweights compared to Danios:

Q: Have you debated Islamic scholars and spokesmen?
RS: Yes, I have discussed and/or debated various aspects of it with Jaafar Siddiqui and Salam Al-Marayati (twice) on the Michael Medved Show; Al-Marayati again on the Alan Colmes Show and Radio Islam; Hussam Ayloush on the Dennis Prager Show and another show; Hussein Ibish on CNN radio; As'ad AbuKhalil (the "Angry Arab") on a station in San Diego; Muqtedar Khan on a Jamaican radio station; Ibrahim Hooper on MSNBC TV with Keith Olbermann; Abdul Malik Ali on Pax TV; two Islamic scholars on Michael Coren's TV show in Toronto; Abdulaziz Sachedina and an Iranian scholar on the Lou Dobbs show; and Ayloush and AbuKhalil, as well as Khaleel Mohammed, in print. Others also.

That certainly is more impressive than debating someone who quote mines scholars and wonders why no one takes him seriously.

shafique wrote:Do you think that Spencer will come out of hiding and debate someone (say a Muslim scholar, or say Danios) who doesn't agree with his main loon belief that Islam is not a religion of peace - or does he only 'debate' with those who mostly agree with him?

And the answer is that 'most' Muslim scholars won't debate him, but he has indeed debated with some others? It appears you're trying to use smoke and mirrors to hide the fact Spencer has no answers.

Well, let me know when you come up with a new excuse for Spencer running away from this particular debate - which Spencer challenged and Danios accepted.

Thanks for confirming that Daveed does indeed disagree with Spencer in that there is, indeed, Moderate Islam in contrast to Spencer's loony claim that his interpretation represents true Islam. (But why call this a 'debate' Daveed agrees with Spencer that Islam is not a religion of peace - so is hardly going to be the most unbiased 'expert' to debate with Spencer - is he? It's a bit like the KKK and Apartheid Boers debating on black rights.. one may be slightly better than the other..but hardly representative!)

In the meantime, I also await any refutation you may have of Danios' punking of Spencer's claim that 'Dhimmi' means 'guilty' etc.

Cheers,
Shafique