[Beerinkol]

There's a long tradition of rallies like that in Texas. I'm sure they'll get a big turn out.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...ive/cross2.jpg

http://www.africaresource.com/ijele/...s-lynching.jpg

Thanks for your help Andak01!

I've been talking about the intellectual dishonesty and moral corruption of the so-called moderate Muslims and how they provide ideological backing for the Jihadists.

Robert Spencer is hosting an open academic conference to expose the dangers of the classical Islam using Islamic sources (Koran and hadiths) and you're comparing the event to those of Ku klux klan?!

Is this how you moderate Muslims react to intellectual debates?
Is that why when those Jihadis flood the streets over a cartoon and shout "behead those kafirs..." you play both sides?

The moderate Muslims simply let the Jihadis do the dirty work, while trying to fool the media that they are against extremism.

Your comparison above shows how you can provoke and alarm the brothers and sisters. So much for your sensible and peaceful interpretation skills!

Someone is debating Islam and you compare them to ku klux klan - Oh brothers and sisters Islam is in danger and the West is raging a war on us...

Is this how you're going to bridge between Muslims and the West? By fallacy of faulty comparison? By intellectual dishonesty and deception?

[Ifroham4]

Actually, Parsi. I think it is a rather appropriate analogy. Afterall, the KKK and islam share many traits. If Andak was comparing KKK with the Jihadists, I could confidently support it with Islamic scripture (Koran and hadith) as well as historical notes and some recent photos taken in London.

I wasn't aware this is a debate. Is Robert Spencer debating an Islamic scholar? What kind of mischaracterization is that? There isn't a single Muslim speaker at the event. And don't pull out Wafa Sultan, she's apostated. This has got as much to do with open debate as the symposium on Holocaust denial has to do with history. You're right. It isn't a debate. I accept I used the wrong words (conference and debate).

Either way, I haven't heard of a single Muslim scholar willing to debate with Robert Spencer except those who make websites/youtube clips with misleading titles "Robert Spencer Refuted...". And we all know how search engines work at that level.

Robert Spencer isn't looking for bridges. The very existence of Muslim-Jewish of Muslim-Christian relations reduces his book and lecture sales. I never said Robert Spencer was looking for bridges. I said YOU were.
But, you're right anyway. He isn't looking for bridges between Muslims and non-Muslims. He's trying to build an intellectual bridge between non-Muslims and Islam's ideology.

[Beerinkol]

Maybe you aren't aware of all the people who have offered to debate Robert Spencer. A thirty second search yields this.


http://hatewatchhallofshame.blogspot...to-debate.html

http://muslimmethod.wordpress.com/20...nge-to-debate/

Both these websites are islamic propagandist websites and lack any credibility whatsoever. You'll have to do better than to offer your islamic taqqiya websites, run sub rosa by CAIR and AMC like organizations as proof.

[brraverishhh]

The sites that Andak posted do seem to by flatly lying, or at best, misleading and anti-Spencer propagandist. Each side wants to choose the forum and moderator, that's nothing new, and it's true of boths sides - so condeming Spencer for it is massively hypocritical of the site. Second, Spencer clearly isn't afraid of a debate as long as it is not in his opponent's battleground of choosing. Third, Frontpagemag, while you may not agree with it, is no "bastion of hate." That's another flat out lie.

I have to side with ShimonG here, this is a great example of "Takkiya".

[doctorzlo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer

or:

May I give you one example of how well-informed Spencer is? I heard a debate on NPR between Spencer and a Muslim representative from the CAIR. The Muslim quoted a very obscure hadith about women being treated equally. Spencer replied that the Muslim had quoted the hadith completely out of context, and explained why this was deceptive. Spencer explained that the quoted hadith actually described the treatment of women in Paradise, not here on earth. The Muslim representative sat silently, obviously embarrassed at having been caught in a deception. http://www.democraticunderground.com...dress=110x5913

[Fegasderty]

Andak,

The issue with Nuking Mecca comes to what might happen if there were a sustained, serious terror campaign on the US, and why Islamists are a huge threat to all Muslims - because they may provoke a "big war."

It has nothing to do with calls to genocide or anything of the sort. On the contrary, it is merely a statement that the non-Muslim world will not tolerate Muslim terror against it at a high intensity for very long. Not every country is Israel or India. Russia would slaughtler millions. China's repressive actions are well documented. Europe is responsible for the horrors of WWI, WWII, the Holocaust and many colonial slaughters. And the US nuked Japan to ensure that it would win the Asian theatre of WWII.

Andak, when I talk about a nuked Mecca and Medina, I don't mean it as some sort of "rah-rah" saber rattling threat. I mean it as a very practical warning. Unless the Islamic world takes real, tough actions against Islamist and Islamist theology, this is a very real possibility.

That said, this is merely a distraction from this thread - the quotes about Spencer are at best misleading and at worst intentially, flatly, maliciously false.

Your point in response to Parsi's was overstated. Instead of saying - no, there are some who have offered to debate Spencer or talk opposite to him, but they haven't agreed on terms (and apparently at some point have, including on FrontPageMagazine), you made the contrary point - Spencer isn't willing to debate Muslim scholars. That's just as false as Parsi's comment- moreso, because it comes with your accusation that Parsi wasn't being accurate, but you are just as innaccurate.