The Islam-Basher and the Librarian Kerfuffle

A controversy erupted last week in Chicago after it was publicly revealed that a noted anti-Islam blogger, Robert Spencer, had been invited to an American Library Association panel advertised as "dispelling stereotypes about Islam."

Ultimately, the panel was canceled after all the other panelists withdrew. I'll get into that in a minute, but first, who is Robert Spencer?

In his own words:

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of eight books on Islam and jihad.

Spencer is a weekly columnist for Human Events and FrontPage Magazine.

Spencer has also written eleven monographs and well over three hundred articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism. Along with the bestsellers The Truth About Muhammad, Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion (Regnery) and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (Regnery), he is the author of Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith (Encounter); Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West (Regnery); and Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't (Regnery), a refutation of moral equivalence and call for all the beneficiaries and heirs of Judeo-Christian Western civilization, whatever their own religious or philosophical perspective may be, to defend it from the global jihad.

More recently he has also written monographs for the David Horowitz Freedom Center: What Americans Need to Know About Jihad; The Violent Oppression of Women In Islam (with Phyllis Chesler); Islamic Leaders' Plan for Genocide; and Muslim Persecution of Christians.

In case his one-sided tone and unabashed slant has left you a little queasy, Spencer is sure to add:

"Spencer has been studying Islamic theology, law, and history in depth since 1980."

Longevity equals credibility, eh? (Or put another way, it's been ample time for him to perfect his bias.)

Spencer postures himself as an "Islamic Scholar." But unlike most people we tend to call "scholars," Spencer did not burden himself with the traditional scholarly route that puts an emphasis on objectivity and academic rigor.

There is a good reason for this: his "scholarly" methodologies would not jive in any of our nation's accredited PhD programs let alone a path for tenure where he would have to get his papers peer-reviewed and have his methodology checked by notable scholars for objectivity and a lack of bias (unless, of course, David Horowitz decides to build the David Horowitz Freedom University).

Spencer dismisses such criticism as follows: he is right, and all of the tenured professors of Islamic studies, with their inconvenient knack for unbiased scholarship, are wrong. After all, universities are the establishment of the left-wing liberal conspiracy.

Besides who needs peer-reviewed papers, Spencer seems content to receive rave reviews from Weasel Zippers, Nice Doggie, Atlas Shrugs, Muslims are Terrorists, and of course, frontpagemag.com, that other gem of a creation, and bastion of objectivity, by the guy who cuts his checks.

Now, I will be the first to admit that there are plenty of problems in the Muslim world. I welcome an honest and responsible critique any day. But honest and responsible Spencer's agenda-driven hatemongering is not. I am not not the only one to take issue with Spencer's technique. Most objective scholars and professors of Islamic studies dismiss the guy as laughably fraudulent and amateur.

The independent national media watch group, FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting), identifies Spencer as one of the "Dirty Dozen: America's leading Islamophobes" who systematically "spread fear, bigotry, and misinformation." The special report, entitled "Smearcasters" provides examples of Spencer's sensational views.

So let us take a quick look at the crux of Spencer's methodology which is as disingenuous as his conclusions are sensational. In fact, it can be analogized to the three acts of a magic trick as described in the movie The Prestige.

The Set Up: Spencer and his associates scour the web for the most sensational and extreme expressions within the Muslim world. They may be related to a certain extremist interpretation of Islam, or may not even have anything to do with Islam altogether, but that won't matter, so long as the perpetrator is a Muslim, it will do.

The Performance: Spencer then supplants his own commentary on the story which he meticulously crafts with the ultimate goal of convincing his readers that the bizarre incident in question is representative of the faith of Islam and Muslims at large. This subtle leap of faith that he hopes no one notices is the key to his magic act.

The Prestige: He can then rightly claim, with the innocence of a schoolboy, that he does not make up the material he produces, that he is merely quoting things as is, hoping no one notices that he uses the aberrant to define the normative.

Yet, methodology is not the only disingenuous thing about Spencer, his marketing is as well. In selling himself, Spencer engages in double speak where he engages in one tone when riling up his right-wing fan base via his blog, books and documentaries and a whole other tone when hoping to be perceived as credible by the mainstream media.

Consider his most recent interview in which he denies my assertion that he subscribes to the point of view that Islam is evil:

Mr. Spencer challenged that interpretation of his views in an e-mail to The Times.

"Terrorists use the texts and teachings of Islam to make recruits among peaceful Muslims, and to justify their war against the United States and the West. I explore how they do it," he said.

Here he is claiming that he is simply interested in exploring how terrorists abuse Islam. That is an exercise none of us can fault. In fact, if this were truly his premise, I would count myself as a fan. But then you look at his actual work and you don't even need to go beyond their titles to see that he is lying through his back teeth.

Consider his most touted work, Muhammad, founder of the world's most intolerant religion. Note that he does not attribute intolerance and all the other lovely qualities he covers in this book to the extremist ideologies within the Muslim world, but to the basic religion itself. Contrary to what he claims in the above quote, his beef is not with extremists or terrorists like Bin Laden - but with Islam and Muslims. He claims to be an intellectual warrior in the "war on terror" but really brings in the baggage of an apocalyptic preacher out to bash a "rival" faith.

Similarly, consider his film "What the West Needs to Know about Islam," note he does not specify "radical Islam" or "terrorism" but "Islam." Indeed the whole film is dedicated to demonizing just that - Islam - as you can see for yourself if you watch it.

Now let me be clear, if Spencer wishes to take the position that Islam itself is the problem, as opposed to extremist interpretations, fine, he is entitled to that position. But the fact that he would take this position and then lie about it makes him not only a purveyor of medieval polemics, but deceptive on top of that. (I suspect he deceived the ALA in a similar fashion to get the invite.)

Which takes us back to the ALA Panel:

After the panel cancellation Robert Spencer claimed to be a victim of censorship brought about by the acquiescence of the weak-kneed ALA to the ominous and sinister CAIR.

But is that really what happened?

Before we get into the details, let me say this:

It never ceases to amaze me how the likes of Robert Spencer and Michael Savage who gleefully spout off anti-Muslim propaganda touting the freedom of speech card, suddenly feel threatened and victimized when Muslims use their own freedom of speech to respond. Spencer has a right to speak, Savage has a right to speak, and so does CAIR.

Yet when Muslims exercise the same basic rights that the Islamophobes claim to defend on behalf of Western civilization, the Islamophobes somehow cry "Sharia-foul." Their Muslim critics are hitherto branded as "Hamas-linked" or "Terror-linked." No evidence needs be provided, just regurgitation of other people's accusations.

As it so happens, CAIR does not concern itself with censoring or silencing Spencer's earth-shattering truthiness as he routinely claims on his website. Spencer speaks regularly at college campuses at the invitation of student groups like the College Republicans. He publishes books, produces documentaries, and freely blogs on a daily basis.

If anything, CAIR advertises Spencer's website every time it mentions Spencer in a press release, probably helping drive traffic to his website. How does this support Spencer's self-important claim that CAIR is afraid of what he has to say?

CAIR's position is that Spencer's own dismal record speaks for itself.

In fact, CAIR-Chicago's call on the ALA to rescind Spencer's invitation was not about Spencer but about the ALA, specifically: a) questioning why a respectable organization like the ALA would secretly invite an Islam-basher for an event designed to dispel stereotypes about Islam, and b) demanding that the ALA take responsibility for its misrepresentation of the panel event to the other panelists involved and to the public, and to provide an appropriate remedy for their error.

CAIR was not the only one to protest the ALA's inexplicable action, nor was it even the first to do so. Librarians affiliated with the ALA had launched their own protest before CAIR wrote to the ALA, and a Chicago federation of over 50 Islamic organizations later did the same in its own letter to the ALA.

Here are excerpts from my letters to the ALA:

"Would the ALA invite a notorious anti-Semite on a panel that aims to dispel stereotypes against Jews? Would they allow such an invitation to squeeze through under the guise of promoting diversity and averting censorship?

"People are free to hold extreme, bigoted views but whether they should be invited by reputable associations like the ALA to spew these views is a different question. That is the question ALA must answer..."

"We too support freedom of speech, including that of bigots; what we oppose is false advertising. If the ALA was sponsoring a debate on whether Islam is evil and publicized that Mr. Spencer was an invited panelist, we would not have asked to rescind Spencer's invitation, as the sordid nature of the event would have been honestly communicated to all."

"Everyone could then have made informed decisions about whether they wished to be co-panelists or attendees. But that is not what happened."

So what actually happened to get us to this point?

Here are the facts that Spencer has managed to confabulate on his website's rendition of events:

The ALA invited three Muslims three months ago to a panel entitled "Perspectives on Islam: Beyond the Stereotyping" that was scheduled to take place last Sunday during the ALA's annual conference held in Chicago.

The three invitees were Dr. Marcia Hermansen, Director of the Islamic World Studies Program and Professor in the Theology Department Loyola University Chicago; Dr. Esmail Koushanpour Emeritus professor, Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, & Former Executive Director of the Islamic Cultural Center of Greater Chicago; and Dr. Alia Ammar, Chief Neuropsychologist, Geriatric Care Association & member of the Islamic Foundation North.

Misrepresentation

These three distinguished members of society accepted the invitation eager to help dispel the prevalent stereotypes about their faith and their community. At no point did the ALA bother to inform the Muslim panelists that Spencer -- a guy who makes a living out of promoting those very same stereotypes -- was also invited. As a result, the ALA denied them the opportunity - nay, the right - to make an informed decision on whether they wanted to be part of such a panel, and if they did, then having the time to make the necessary preparations regarding how Spencer's contributions were bound to change the stated nature of the event.

Months later and only days before the event was to take place, Dr. Hermansen discovers by mere chance that Robert Spencer was in fact a fourth panelist. Dr. Hermansen informs the other two panelists and later informs me. Though shocked and disappointed in the ALA's bizarre behavior, she along with Dr. Alia decide to stay on board. The third panelist, Dr. Koushanpour drops out in protest. I write my own letter of protest to the ALA, as the Executive Director of CAIR-Chicago.

On his website, Spencer disputes the fact that the panelists were never informed by the ALA that he would be speaking, but the proof is in the pudding. Here is the email that broke the news to Dr. Hermansen (note the date):

From: Marcia Hermansen
Date: July 6, 2009 8:07:26 AM CDT
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Marcia Hermansen and Robert Spencer
Reply-To: Marcia Hermansen

Thanks--I didn't know about this--I thought I was on an informational panel for librarians--I guess this turns up the heat!

"xxxx" [[e-mail]] 07/06/09 3:06 AM >>>
Dear Colleagues,

I just found out on from the MELA list that Marcia Hermansen and Robert Spencer will be on an invited panel at the Ethnic and Multicultural Information Exchange Round Table (EMIERT) panel at the American Librarians Association annual meeting on July 12.

By that point, librarians and academics who are on the ALA's internal mailing lists had already lodged their own complaint to the ALA via an open letter expressing their concerns and astonishment at the invitation of someone like Spencer to a panel like this. The letter reads in part:

Even the most cursory overview of Mr. Spencer's oeuvre makes it clear that in fact he has no place on a panel whose aim is to dispel stereotypes about Islam. Indeed, we, as librarians, scholars, and individuals are deeply concerned by ALA & EMIERT's choice of Mr. Spencer for such a panel: Mr. Spencer espouses a view of Islam as a system of belief which is essentially violent, undemocratic, totalitarian, exclusive and at war with all non-Muslims. Mr. Spencer in fact goes as far as to equate Islam with fascism.

Hence a question arises as to the justification for inviting a speaker who cannot see anything positive about Islamic beliefs, cultures, societies, histories, etc. to talk to an audience in order to dispel negative views of Islam. We are indeed saddened and puzzled by ALA's choice for their panel, especially in that this appears to be a rare opportunity to educate people about Islam against the backdrop of an overwhelming atmosphere of ignorance, and negative stereotyping (For example a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released right before Obama's speech to the Muslim world in Cairo shows that only 1 in 5 Americans have a favorable view of Islam & 60 percent of Americans believe the Muslim world is at war with the United States).

The Executive Director of the CIOGC, a federation of 50 Muslim organizations protested to the ALA as well:

"Robert Spencer is an Islamophobe and his hateful views, while clearly protected under the First Amendment, are antithetical to promoting diversity. Mr. Spencer promotes hateful anti-Muslim rhetoric. Giving this individual a platform to advance his hate speech on a panel discussion aimed at dispelling stereotypes about Islam is simply wrong.

The remaining two panelists supported those protests and sent in their own. However, they told CAIR-Chicago that they did not intend to withdraw from the panel. CAIR-Chicago did not contest their decision. This fully contradicts Spencer's speculative claim that the panelists were ordered to withdraw by CAIR.

It was not until later, after the panelists felt that the ALA was handling the situation with a lack of professionalism and basic courtesy, that they decided to withdraw.

Here they are in their own words which is a matter of public record:

In announcing her withdrawal, Dr. Marcia Hermansen wrote to the ALA:

"While I heartily endorse the principles of free expression and diversity of viewpoints that are part of the ALA mission, the way in which this information session about Islam and Muslims for Ethnic and Multi-Cultural librarians was modified and politicized at the last moment raises serious concerns about the integrity of the session."

Dr. Alia Ammar wrote:

"Given the substantial changes in the composition, subject, and direction of the ALA panel to which I was invited to present as well as the blatant misinformation provided regarding the purpose of the session, it would [be] untenable to present in your forum...The lack of professionalism with which this matter has been handled has been wholly disappointing as the efforts of the originally invited panelists to reach a respectable solution to the problem were simply ignored. In light of these developments, I respectfully decline to participate in the panel."

As a result, the ALA decided to cancel the event.

So there you have it, the real account of what transpired. There is only one piece of the puzzle left missing. How did a guy like Spencer end up on a panel organized by the ALA in the first place?

My sources tell me that he was added at the behest of Ellen Zyroff of San Diego, head of a group called the Jewish Librarians, and a Zionist activist. She reportedly lobbied the ALA to invite Spencer arguing that "their side needed to be represented." Now this is a panel called "Perspectives on Islam: Beyond the Stereotyping." So the question becomes, what is that alternative perspective she wishes to see represented? That stereotypes about Islam should be promoted rather than dispelled? And what does she mean by "their side" anyway? What do Zionist activists have to do with Islam?

Having received this tip, I am of the opinion that the ALA did not act with ill-intent in associating with Spencer, but was merely guilty of being oblivious to his discredited record, as well as failing to adequately challenge Zyroff's reasoning for suggesting him.

They began to realize who Spencer really was after other librarians protested, but he had already been invited. The ALA, reluctant to disinvite him and be accused of censorship, felt stuck with the invitation. By not telling the other panelists, perhaps they hoped to minimize the damage.

But when the panelists found out about it only a few days before the event, the ALA found itself in even more trouble than it had on its hands before.

Moving forward, the ALA needs to acknowledge its mistake, apologize to the panelists and the public, and institute more robust standards in order to engage the communities it serves. It also needs to ensure transparent measures to protect itself from being blindsided by cynical agenda-driven maneuvers like the one Zyroff allegedly pulled off.

As for Spencer, he is likely to continue to feel victimized by others speaking out against his one-track innuendo. I would not be surprised if he were to read this piece only to respond with a juvenile personal attack against me on his hate blog. As usual, he will be joined by the usual cacophony of blogger friends from the Islamophobic blogosphere followed by a love fest in the comments section.

Comments

[NickBanglo]

All very interesting - but one thing is glaringly absent from the article: examples of false or inaccurate statements Spencer is alleged to have made.
Even if we accept that anyone who does not think as they are "supposed to" should be silenced (which, oddly enough, I don;t...), wouldn't it be nice to see some - well, evidence?

[jhimmi]

Yes, yes, Islam means peace. Go back to sleep now, nothing to see here.

[CubsFan77]

Ahmed Rehab's article was well presented and it is a testament to the force of his arguments that a whole group of Spencer's shock troops came here and started attacking everything other than the issue at hand. This just further reveals what is pretty well known: Spencer is not an objective scholar researching Islam and presenting facts about it. He works from a preset conclusion that takes as its sources stereotypes about Islam -- he makes money from stereotypes. Exactly the reason why he was not fit to be a panelist and also the reason he was repudiated by scholars, librarians, and academics.

When reasons were further articulated why Spencer is an Islamophobe, anti-Muslim, when his associations and support for racist undemocratic and neo-fascist politicians were brought to light his supporters screamed "misrepres­entation," "context," "lies," "ignorance." This is quite funny because it is usually these very Spencerites who mock Muslims for stating that they are being "misrepresented." The refrain goes along the line of, "Oh those Mohammedans are playing the victim card and can't take criticism, etc." This time around it seems that they can dish it out but cant take any of their own medicine. Either way, again, the ALA did the right thing, though the even more right thing would have been to disinvite Spencer and apologize for being duped into almost giving him a platform.

[jhimmi]

I have read things Wilders has written, and it is apparent to me his problem is with Islam, not non-whites. His stated goal is to preserve Dutch culture and Western freedoms. Muslim apologists often conflate Islam with race, through ignorance or obfuscation, and often switch terms, from Muslim to 'non-white', in mid-argument to discredit their opponent.

Light skin doesn't magically change Islamic Law, nor does it change Islam's encouragement of hatred and violence against non-Muslims. Unlimited Muslim immigration into a non-Muslim country is likely to lead to violent Muslim separatist movements. The seeds are being sown in England now, where there are areas police will not enter because it's a Sharia Zone - British laws do not apply.

It comes down to an exercise in logic. If freedom of religion is one's goal, but one religion explicitly and specifically names other religions as having less rights, and includes instructions to enforce restrictions on other religions, by force if necessary, and then what do you do? If Christianity explicitly ordered Christians to kill abortionists (which it doesn't), would that absolve people who kill abortion doctors? Hey, they would just be freely practicing their religion, right?

Do you protect and condone the violence and human rights abuses perpetrated by a religion as 'freedom to practice religion'? Or do you acknowledge a religion's aggresive, totalitarian, supremacist nature and demand that it must operate within the confines of the law, or else it will be outlawed-r­estricted-­marginaliz­ed?

[CubsFan77]

A Muslim didn't discredit Wilders, it was Wilders himself.

An apologia from Spencerites for his program to limit freedom of religion makes hollow your claims to defend Democratic values. Something very fundamental as reading the Quran in the Wilders program would be a punishable offense. According to Wilders, Thomas Jefferson's possession of a Quran back in the 18th century was a crime. Either you support that or you don't?

Wilders when confronted with hard and challenging questions, such as on HardTalk revealed what he is really about. He wants a dominant culture, but that culture is one that is at odds with old Dutch values. He is attempting to create new Dutch values such as intolerance, less openness, predominately White, excluding foreigners and immigrants. Also in another step towards fascism he wants to strip Dutch citizens of their citizenship and send them to where their ancestors came from. So if you are a second or third generation Dutch whose ancestors came from Morrocco he would send you back. That is who Spencer supports and advocates for.

[jhimmi]

I don't agree with anything that specifies or hinges upon race or color. I would be surprised if Wilders truly believed race was some sort of litmus test after knowing Ayan Hirsi Ali. Injecting race into the discussion distracts from the core problems Islam has with peaceful coexistence and pluralism.

I don't believe in banning the quran, but I also don't believe in banning Mein Kampf. Why ban one and not the other? I don't believe in double standards. How can Mark Steyn be prosecuted for stating facts about Islam and Muslims, but supposedly moderate Muslims calling for gays and Jews to be murdered get a pass? Is it because killing gays and Jews is part of their religion, which they should be free to practice?

I truly feel sorry for peaceful Muslims who were born into Islam, for being burdened with a religion whose holy book says Jews are apes and pigs, and whose prophet personally executed, by beheading, hundreds of men before taking their wives and daughters as sex slaves. I can't imagine having to explain to my children why the man their religion holds up as the perfect example of human behavior married a six year old child and consummatd the marriage when she was nine.

[lemontreeforme]

True to form, Spencer uses subtle language to deceive. He says Rehab "finally admitted" he was invited to the panel as if to imply Rehab had lied about that. But he did not show one instance in which Rehab had ever "denied" that. Rehab mentioned why that "invitation" was a farce and therefore not one that he considered for a moment. It came only 3 days before the event and after the controversy had already exploded, and not 3 months before as Spencer's had.

Spencer then lies in stating that the ALA invited Rehab to placate CAIR after CAIR had sent out its press releases. FALSE. As stated on the ALA blog, CAIR sent its first press release 24 hours after Rehab had sent a response to his "invitation" and did not get an answer to his concerns.

[CubsFan77]

Do any of you see the irony in decrying the renunciation of Spencer by the ALA panelists, librarians, and scholars as censorship and an attack on freedom of speech but then support Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, DeWinter who want to restrict Muslims' freedom of Religion? If you dispute that Spencer wants to restrict freedom of religion for Muslims just look at his "support" and advocacy for the racist Wilders which is on the record. If you guys forgot freedom of religion is something our Constitution protects and something our country was founded on.

Here is Wilders on BBC Hardtalk:

[Sackur]: Are you saying that the fact that Amsterdam, Rotterdam, the Hague are very soon, if not now going to be majority non-White cities is not acceptable?

[Wilders]: Of course it's not acceptable! You're asking me the question as if it's some kind of surprise what my answer would be.

[John Marlboro]

CubsFan77, you are misrepresenting reality here. Geert Wilders is not a "racist." He was a member of the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy along with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is a black Somali women, who is still a friend of Wilders and who supports his cause. The quote you are referring to is taken out of context. Wilder's is referring to the fact that thes cities are becoming majority Islamic, not non-white.

Also, where do you have any evidence that Robert Spencer would want to restrict the freedom of religion of Muslims? If by freedom of religion, you mean honor killings, beheadings, female genital mutilation, and sharia law provisions, then yes, I would be in favor of restricting that as well. If you consider sharia law and Islamic jurisprudence elements of "freedom of religion," then that would imply taking rights away from Christians, Jews, and non-Muslims, who are classified as dhimmis and second-class citizens under sharia and are not entitled to equal rights. In addition, Muslims are not entitled to special religoius accommodation at the expense of other religions. This means that Muslims are not entitled to special prayer times or prayer rooms in the workplace, extra loud muezzin amplifiers which create a public nuisance because of noise, etc, etc. As for practices such as zakat (alms-giving) and attending mosque, Muslims are fully entitled to that. So, I hope you are speaking in ignorance, otherwise your comments are quite disingenuous.

[CubsFan77]

No misrepresentation of facts here. I'm just using the methodology of Spencer and letting Wilders own words speak for themselves. Sackur asked him directly "non-white," and he answered unequivocally. That Ayaan supports someone who would affirm such a statement speaks volumes about her.

Wilders has said, "We should also stop pretending that Islam is a religion, the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam." He said this at a conference in Florida and a few synagogues to roaring applause.

Spencer wrote recently, "I didn’t actually have anything to do with that conference in Florida, but Hoop could just say straight out that I support Wilders. And so should anyone who holds dear the Western values that are threatened by Islamic supremacists — notably, as I said above, the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of all people before the law."

All freedoms except for the freedom of religion applying universally to all groups is what Spencer keeps out.

By freedom of religion, I am not referring to those cultural appendages that you conflate with religion. I am speaking about something very fundamental that Wilders would deny. Im speaking about the right of a Muslim to practice their religion. To read their Quran and not have it be a punishable offense. As you and Spencer know Wilders wants to ban the Quran. Do you support that John? It seems Spencer in his support of Wilders does.

[John Marlboro]

TO THE MODERATOR: This is the third time I've tried to post this comment onto the comments section. It has been rejected 3 times. I've edited the content this time to be as polite as I can.

I am so amazed by the loaded terminology that Rehab tries to use to mislead the American left in their attempts to depict their critics as irrelevant, marginal bigots. Words like "Islamophobe," "bigotry," and "far right-wing" are so out of place that they are downright deceitful and insulting. Those who oppose Islamofascism come from diverse racial and faith backgrounds, ranging from Somali atheists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, to Christian Lebanese like Brigitte Gabriel, as well as Jewish and Christian minorities who have lived under sharia law and actually experienced the oppression of Islamic governments (e.g. Bat Ye'or, Robert Spencer's own family in Ottoman Turkey, the Coptic relatives of Raymond Ibrahim). These people speak from the depth of their experience and knowledge, unified in their consensus that Islamofascism poses a threat to human rights and freedom. The ad hominem attacks are very shameless, because invoking "far right" associations somehow suggests that his critics are members of the KKK or neo-Nazis (ironically, the far-right whom Mr. Rehab so vociferously dismisses has a much closer alliance with the Islamofascists than they ever did with "Islamophobes." Hence, David Duke traveled to Iran to attend Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial conference and went on Syrian television calling for the destruction of Israel.)

[lemontreeforme]

Its funny that you say that the Islamophobes all come from diverse backgrounds but then fail to disclose that they all share the same funding and support network. Also, Spencer avidly supports the father of "far and extreme right-wing" politics, Geert Wilders. Wilders is a self-admitted proud Islamophobe who advocates the banning of the Quran and the limitation of Muslim religious rights - his own words. Brigitte Gabriel does as well and contends that "Arabs have no soul." So, do not whine about calling a spade a spade, better to have some moral honesty and decry the fact that it is indeed a spade.

[John Marlboro]

Rehab talks about "credentials" and academic backgrounds. Let's assume he is sincere. Would Rehab then be willing to debate Daniel Pipes, who has a Ph.D. from Harvard in medieval Islamic history? Would be willing to debate Bernard Lewis, professor emeritus of Near East studies at Princeton? How about Bat Ye'or? After all, these are just more so-called "Islamophobes" whose views Rehab considers as outside the mainstream. Rehab's mention of credentials is shameless smokescreen for his desire to escape inconvenient criticism. It's not like Robert Spencer has no educational background either, the man has an M.A. from UNC in religious studies, not to mention all of his work for U.S. intelligence.

[jhimmi]

Silencing discussion and stifling debate through intimidation is almost guaranteed to backfire. It prevents an open exchange of ideas. It prevents solutions. It reinforces stereotypes and misconceptions.

There are over 1.5 billion Muslims, many of which live in Europe and North America. Nothing anyone can do or say will make a majority of Muslims suddenly renounce and denounce their religion - for most of them, it's not just a religion, Islam is their government, their history, their culture, their whole identity is wrapped up in Islam.

Unfortunately, secular Western democracies are not compatible with the current MAINSTREAM Sunni and Shia interpretations of Islam. Islam mandates theocracy; unlike Christianity, there is nothing in Islam to justify the separation of church and state. Islamic law directly contradicts the equal protection clause of the constitution in that it requires Muslims and non-Muslims to be treated differently under the law.

Debate and discussion on issues like these is necessary. Promoting a simplistic, fictionalized, idealistic view of the world (Islam is the Religion of Peace), or meaningless anectodal evidence (I know a nice Muslim) produces cognitive dissonance. Why aren't there Muslim 'scholars' (you know, the ones with the credentials) advocating a different interpretation of the Quran, one that doesn't include killing apostates, homosexuals, and adulterers, or consummating marriage with a nine year old? Is it because they themselves would then be murdered for being a heretical apostate? It's the Salem witch trials circa 2009.

[Phnom]

A growing number of people have started to criticize and denounce Islam and its ideology for 2 very simple reasons :
1- They acknowledge the growing amount of atrocities committed in its name, and
2- They find plenty of straightforward justification for them in Islam's teachings, starting with the Coran itself.

That is the only thing R. Spencer claims to do. And you don't need to have a PhD in Middle-Eastern history to do that.

What Ahmed is doing here, essentially, is saying that :
1- R. Spencer doesn't have a right to speak about that, for lack of credentials and because of impure motives, and
2- everything he says about Islam is distorted truth anyway. Yet he won't debate him.

What's unfortunate, is that everybody who dares take a look at Islamic ideology and criticize it eventually ends up being told the same thing, and gets denied a reasonable debate. So no debate ever occurs.

What's even more unfortunate, is that in the face of such a taboo, only far-right elements (such as those commentators on jihadwatch.org) end up speaking what's on common folks' minds.

(PS- If you want to check, I've also posted comments at jihadwatch.com, under the pseudo "Ramanujan". Twice, I believe. Both times to criticize Spencer.)

[lemontreeforme]

Show us where he says "R. Spencer doesn't have a right to speak."

To the contrary, he says in 4 places:

"Spencer has a right to speak, Savage has a right to speak, and so does CAIR."

"As it so happens, CAIR does not concern itself with censoring or silencing Spencer's earth-shattering truthiness as he routinely claims on his website."

"We too support freedom of speech, including that of bigots; what we oppose is false advertising."

"Now let me be clear, if Spencer wishes to take the position that Islam itself is the problem, as opposed to extremist interpretations, fine, he is entitled to that position."

It would be nice if you did not project your lazy assumptions on other people and you actually read things carefully before you comment.

Let me add, you too are free to agree with Spencer and engage in a selective reading of history and religious texts, and to use a double standard in assessing Islam from assessing Christianity. It is a little bizarre that if you choose that path, you would fault Rehab for not coming to save you. You have a mind of your own, make your choices as you see fit.

[Phnom]

Now , now, no need to become aggressive, please.

-Of course Rehab would state that he is in favour of free Speech: Even if his and CAIR's actions do the exact opposite.
The fact is, everytime Spencer or others like him are scheduled to speak at universities, CAIR, the MSA and other groups stage boycotts and demonstrations to try to intimidate the organizers in cancelling them. Whereas it seems to me that if Spencer's views were so factually skewed and distorted, as you assume yourself, the easiest way to demonstrate it would be to ridicule them in debate.

As for my own double standards, I'll ask if you have read the Coran and Hadith (I have), and can honestly say you've found a message of peace in them ?
Have you not noticed that what they and sharia offer is a total system of repression ? They do : It's in Islam's texts and in its history. I haven't taken Spencer's or anybody's word on it, I have done my homework. Have you ?

If you need to know, I'm an anti-theist. If you're to compare me with anyone, think Bill Maher or Sam Harris before R. Spencer. And especially, don't hint that I'm a fan of Christianity or any other religious ideology.
My only contention in all of this, is that we should give ourselves the right to publicly criticize religious ideologies as we do any others. Especially when those ideologies are responsible for countless acts of irrational violence.

[lemontreeforme]

BUSTED: "Canto28" and "Butwhatabout" are spencer groupies from Spencer's resident hate site jihadwatch.com, here are their comments copied and pasted from there:

Canto28:

"I admit I don't have indept knowledge or familiarity with the BNP but frankly, based on what I can read & see on their web sites I don't see what's so terrible about the BNP" (BNP is Britain's fascist party)

"So stop whining and start electing right wing politicians with backbones who will actually not sellout your country! "

Butwhatabout (goes by "Awake" on Jihadwatch):
Here are some of his "scholarly" posts, no doubt learned from his grand guru Spencer:

"I am clearly a paranoid "Islamophobe", and most proud of that fact. "

"A country of Christians and ...negligible...and ....neglig­ible...and­...negligi­ble others."

"I personally would nuke you flat first. "

"Muslims are liars and the MSM groups are complicit? Whou'da thunk it?"

"Obviously. The more the Islam, the worse it is for the ladies."

"I suggest a takfir "Battle Royal" out in the Ethiopian desert for the lot of them. Just another corpse, brought on by acts that Muslims seem to routinely excel at."

"The status of Muslims, their principles and their individual associations to a group or groups willing to commit violence is ever-changing. The impetus, justification and mandate for this evolving numerical global group ...Islam, is fixed, permanent and unyielding to the bitter end."

"God Bless Netanyahu!"

"*Pictures Muhammad licking boy's tongues**barfs* "

[butwhatabout]

Nice googling. What does it prove?

Context?

[lemontreeforme]

Well for one, it proves that you are a self-admitted paranoid Islamophobe and proud, that you believe that ours is a Christian nation with negligible others, and that you are a Likudist.

For two, it proves that you and Canto28 are not the per-chance commenters you would love for us to believe you are, but are infiltrators from jihadwatch.com, here to sing the Islamophobic tune of your grand guru, Spencer. And that just like him, you bear rotten extremist and racist views as evidenced by your own verbatim quotes.

For three, it proves that CubsFan77 is right, that most of the people attacking Rehab in the comments section here are none other but the biased apologists for Spencer that raced over from his cesspool of vile ant-Muslim commentary, jihadwatch.

Four, it proves that like your grand guru, you speak in one tone to the mainstream when you try to dupe them that you come in reason and logic, but show your true (extremist) tone that tou try to conceal from us when your guard is down speaking your true mind to your radical brethren.

etc. etc.

[CubsFan77]

Good work lemontree.

Spencer's unofficial shock troops are here attempting to pressurise Rehab and others behind the veil of objective commenters which they quite obviously are not. In fact they are Islamophobes and bigots.

Still for the life of me I don't get how these people can proclaim to uphold Democratic values and at the same time be proud followers of Spencer. Contradiction anyone?

I haven't received one response to the fact that Spencers good friend, who he is on the record "supporting" (that is his words not mine), Geert Wilders has called for the restriction and denial of religious freedom to Muslims - a pillar of American Democracy. That is who you support Spencerites,

Geert Wilders at a conference in Florida:
"We should also stop pretending that Islam is a religion…the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam."

[lemontreeforme]

BUSTED: "Canto28" and "Butwhatabout" are spencer groupies from Spencer's resident hate site jihadwatch.com, here are their comments copied and pasted from there:

Canto28:

"I would encourage all to demand on comments at Rehab's article... Let's show that Robert Spencer is not some no account "rabble-rouser" he can so easily dismiss."

"The Koran, which this evil fraud [Muhammad] obviously fabricated as he went along"

" [Obama says] 'I respect Islam as one of the world's major religions as well as its religious symbols,' What's to respect?"

"Should anyone respect a brutal totalitarian "religion", based on an obvious and odious fabrication by an obvious 7th century megalomaniac con man, that aspires to hold a sword over everyone's head? That it has over a billion followers is testimony only to the ignorance & illiteracy of so much of the Muslim world, the evident desire of its men to oppressively dominate women, and Islam's commandment to kill apostates!"

"I don't doubt that if a Palestinian state (armed or not) were created that it would be vastly more populated and very much poorer than Israel and all the pin head bleeding hearts of the West would called the situation a wicked apartheid like nasty white South Africa once had and demand total integration. The results, of course, would be even much worse than what has happened in SA" (Here you have it, this guy bewails the anti-apartheid desegregation of South Africa as such a horrible thing)

[Canto28]

Quote me as much as you like - better to see my comments at Jihah Watch in context - but your juvenile attempt at attacking me is very beside the point that Mr. Spencer is a much read, watched and respected expert on Muhammad & Islam whom Ahmed cannot dismiss as a nobody "rabble-rouser" unworthy of debate and still have any credibility. I think readers can see that Ahmed is just lamely running away.

Readers can judge for themselves the level of knowledge and insight of Robert Spencer by, for example, viewing his lecture on Muhammad at the Heritage Foundation's website. All you & Ahmed can offer is ad hominem attacks that convince no one. I'm surprised this site stoops to allowing just attacks from a representative of CAIR. See the CAIR Watch site to learn about CAIR.

And I really think this site should stop blocking my reasonable comments.

[lemontreeforme]

"See the CAIR Watch site to learn about CAIR."

You mean Joe Kaufman's site? (learn about Kaufman here: http://www.loonwatch.com/tag/kaufman-o-meter/ )

Nice going Canto28, not biased at all are you.

What next? Are you going to recommend the stormfront.org site to learn about Jews?

I see that Spencer has trained you guys well.

[CubsFan77]

There is no let up from the Spencerites it seems. They continue to wonder: why won't Rehab debate Spencer, or why wont he speak on Islamic precepts, why does he object to Spencer, why why why.

All of these of course have been answered even though they didn't relate to the topic under discussion which is more important then Spencer and that is how could the ALA be duped into inviting a Spencer to a panel that is to go beyond Stereotypes. Spencer works off and cashes checks from stereotypes. The old stereotypes from Medieval Europe that Islam is inherently violent, bloodthirsty, etc. etc. The Orientalist cards of Oppressing women, unable to adopt to modernity and so on and on and on.

So as Rehab and the others point out Spencer is just not suited for the topic or the organization. Hate speech belongs somewhere else.

[Smith1953]

"why does he object to Spencer, why why why. "

Nobody wonders why Mr. Rehab objects to Mr. Spencer. What everyone is wondering about is why this perfect opportunity to publicly expose this hate monger, who appears on, TV, radio, Universities and on the NY Times best selling list as a, fraud, and teller of lies.
Surely there is no other target more worthy of a public exposure than this Islamic hatemonger. To say Mr. Spencer is not worth it for whatever reason seems deeply dishonest in light of his very, very, public presence.

[Smith1953]

"There are hundreds of rabble-rousers out there who want a piece of my time, them wanting it is not a compelling enough reason for me to give it."

Yeah, because so many rabble-rousers have lots of published books. Some on the NY Times best selling list. It is obvious Mr Spencer has a huge following, and here's you chance prove how right you are, and how wrong he is. In light of how far and wide Mr. Spencer's message has gone, I would think you would jump at the chance to debate.

[lemontreeforme]

Tucker Max, the frat boy who wrote a book based on his gutter blog, "I hope they serve Beer in Hell" about his unrepentant womanizing and bing-drinking habits was on the NYT best seller list.

Being on that list does not make you a respectable scholar. It just makes you a good marketer of your product.

No doubt in the case of Spencer, sensationalism played a role in that regard, much like pyrotechnics and good special effects help a shallow flick get number one in the box office. Objectivity makes you a good scholar and that's something tenured professors will tell you this "man on a mission" does not have.

So yeah, if Rehab is after publicity, all this should matter and he should debate this guy. Otherwise, I say don't legitimize him. As Xac said, would Abe Foxman give David Duke the time of day?

Nice try Smith1953, but no cigar.

[Smith1953]

My main point about being on the list was that Mr. Spencer's message it getting out to a large audience. And here is a grand opportunity for someone like Mr. Rehab to expose all of Mr. Spence's untruths. I think most people would enjoy seeing that, wouldn’t you? It's about proving to the world, and to all those who have been exposed to Mr. Spence, that what he says is patently false. You don't think that is a good cause? Who could possibly condemn Mr. Rehab for taking up his valuable time to prove that what Mr. Spence says about Islam are not based in reality.

Yes, I could easily understand if it was just some rabble-rouser who had some silly website with a paltry 100 hits a day. Not someone who has authored many books (again some on the NY Times best selling list,) and who appears with his message constantly on TV, radio, and lectures the FBI, CIA, and at many universities. Come on, isn't this exactly the kind of man that needs to be straightened out? I can’t think of a better example. Can you? If so, Who?
Why let this superb opportunity slip by?

[Canto28]

Robert Spencer sources all of his claims and does not resort to ad hominem attacks. Ahmed Rehab has just done the opposite. Roberts Spencer is a well known author of numerous and much read books on Islam (some have made the NYT bestseller's list). If Ahmed rehab thinks the much read Mr Spencer (and much heard on TV & web video sites) is just spreading vile misinformation about Islam then Mr. Rehab is obliged to accept Mr. Spencer's challenge to a debate to expose his ignorance and deception. Otherwise Mr. Rehab has no credibility.

[KariAnsari]

Only the uninformed would assume that because someone can garner a book deal, it makes him a scholar--otherwise let's add OJ Simpson to the list of reputable scholars on crime and domestic violence. His book, "If I Did It" topped President Clinton's book on the NYT Best Seller list.

[SeesBeyond]

Wrong conclusion. No one is arguing that Spencer is a scholar simply by virtue of writing some best selling books. Rather, he is a best selling author because he is writes about material that is not well known in the West, and people are hungry for it. Have you read any of his books? If not, you should. There are several. You'd learn some interesting things you probably didn't know before.