Jump to content

Talk:Robert B. Spencer: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
1detour (talk | contribs)
217 edits
→New Section: Controversies: as discussed, moved non-relevant discussion of Spencer's methodology to talk pages
Line 147: Line 147:


** Writer98, Is Spencer really in any better position to cite Islamic Jurisprudence than D'Souza, much less even Bernard Lewis? I have only seen Spencer quote the Qur'an and Sunnah, but only very selectively from the quite voluminous pronouncements in the Islamic legal traditions. For one, your mention of the work translated as [[Umdat_al-Salik_wa_Uddat_al-Nasik|The Reliance of the Traveler]] leads me to point out the fact that it is a classic [[Shafi]] manual, which means that it was a text used by just one school of law; not all of them. For this reason, it is in no way "taught in religious schools throughout the Muslim world" as you implied, only Shafi institutions. Has any subsequent jurist of the Shafi school challenged the concepts therein that Spencer is so critical of? Good question. Next, what are we to make of Tripkovich's criticism of D'Souza's understanding of the chapter sequence, when if you pick up any copy of the Qur'an, you will find it begins with a very short chapter, called Surat al-Fatiha, which is composed of just 7 lines? Furthermore, does Tripkovich ever address D'Souza's explanation about Islam in India, which is derived from his own personal experience as a person of Indian origin? Or does Spencer? Next, you write that "Spencer has mainly claimed that the mainstream texts of Islamic jurisprudence contain material which justifies violence against nonbelievers, which many Muslims around the world act upon." That may be, and Spencer is right to highlight that; however, by emphasizing only those verses that support his conclusions, he willfully overlooks textual sources that either contradict, limit, or contextualize those passages. You wrote "It is incredibly striking that none of the critics quoted in the Spencer article has come up with a single specific claim or quote from Spencer which they dispute." Actually, they most certainly have, and it's manifestly clear that most of Spencer's critics are generally accusing him of one over-riding problem: cherry-picking. Verses supporting violence certainly exist, as do ones that advocate showing respect for the "People of the Book", negotiating truces, being merciful, and advocating peaceable coexistence. Such verses are often followed by a another which then modifies it- a standard feature of many Qur'anic chapters, which end with an appeal to mercy, etc etc. Spencer generally omits, overlooks, or when pressed, dismisses these verses, and it is this approach that has engendered the criticism. Sure, Osama bin Laden will use them to justify his positions. Yet when other Muslim religious bodies criticize him for doing so, when does Spencer take note of their arguments ad the sources that they cited? Regarding the exchange with Crane, Spencer never once addressed the point that he emphasized Chapter 9: 1-3, and conveniently overlooking verse 4 which effectively modifies the previous ones. That is a classic example of "cherry picking", and Crane has called him out on it. Why did Spencer avoid acknowledging this point in his lengthy reply to Crane's critique? Who cares if Crane is a former Nixon aide that shares the name of a famous television star? Instead of explaining why he omitted verse 4, we are instead treated with incessant innuendo about Crane's association with "Tricky Dick". As you've noted, Spencer has often replied to criticism made of him; but, so have critics in turn. To balance the article, shall we feature an additional section for this entry of the critics replying to Spencer's reply to their initial criticism? For example, the reply to Spencer's criticism of Mark LeVine's criticism of him engendered a rather interesting [http://www.juancole.com/2004/12/mark-levine-replies-to-robert-spencer.html follow-up reply] by LeVine, in which he states that "...it seems that you did not read most of what I have written before writing your critique of my work. I say this because I have discussed in detail most every thing you have accused me of not discussing--the origins of Hamas, the immorality and futility of suicide bombings, hatred for Israel and the like. It would be nice to be accused of something that I didn't do, instead of being accused of not doing something I have in fact done. Then at least I could learn from the criticism, which is always a good thing." Is that really a form of criticism of "the vague and ad hominem variety" as you implied? Finally, do you think that only people defending Islam are critical of Spencer? Think again. [http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010979.html Here's] a very interesting, more recent exchange with another notable conservative critic of Islam, Evariste, regarding Spencer's behavior. Evariste highlights Spencer's penchant for sliding into petty ad hominem attacks and diatribes rather than sticking to his argument. Spencer's treatment of Crane is quite similar; he cherry-picks the critiques made of him in favor of seizing the opportunity to lob a few more salacious references to the Nixon administration (which you should note, is another form of [[ad hominem]] fallacy). Is that really an approach that can be defined as "scholarship"? There are many credible scholars on Islam who take critical views (not only Lewis, but Patricia Crone, and more recent scholars like Donner, Berkey, Brown, etc etc) who generally do not share many of Spencer's sentiments. Spencer is a controversial figure, and has made his living out of it. Just as this article correctly highlights his views and criticisms, so should it highlight the nature of criticism made of him, irregardless of whether Spencer or his fans happen to like it or not. Isn't that NPOV?[[User:Jemiljan|Jemiljan]] ([[User talk:Jemiljan|talk]]) 06:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
** Writer98, Is Spencer really in any better position to cite Islamic Jurisprudence than D'Souza, much less even Bernard Lewis? I have only seen Spencer quote the Qur'an and Sunnah, but only very selectively from the quite voluminous pronouncements in the Islamic legal traditions. For one, your mention of the work translated as [[Umdat_al-Salik_wa_Uddat_al-Nasik|The Reliance of the Traveler]] leads me to point out the fact that it is a classic [[Shafi]] manual, which means that it was a text used by just one school of law; not all of them. For this reason, it is in no way "taught in religious schools throughout the Muslim world" as you implied, only Shafi institutions. Has any subsequent jurist of the Shafi school challenged the concepts therein that Spencer is so critical of? Good question. Next, what are we to make of Tripkovich's criticism of D'Souza's understanding of the chapter sequence, when if you pick up any copy of the Qur'an, you will find it begins with a very short chapter, called Surat al-Fatiha, which is composed of just 7 lines? Furthermore, does Tripkovich ever address D'Souza's explanation about Islam in India, which is derived from his own personal experience as a person of Indian origin? Or does Spencer? Next, you write that "Spencer has mainly claimed that the mainstream texts of Islamic jurisprudence contain material which justifies violence against nonbelievers, which many Muslims around the world act upon." That may be, and Spencer is right to highlight that; however, by emphasizing only those verses that support his conclusions, he willfully overlooks textual sources that either contradict, limit, or contextualize those passages. You wrote "It is incredibly striking that none of the critics quoted in the Spencer article has come up with a single specific claim or quote from Spencer which they dispute." Actually, they most certainly have, and it's manifestly clear that most of Spencer's critics are generally accusing him of one over-riding problem: cherry-picking. Verses supporting violence certainly exist, as do ones that advocate showing respect for the "People of the Book", negotiating truces, being merciful, and advocating peaceable coexistence. Such verses are often followed by a another which then modifies it- a standard feature of many Qur'anic chapters, which end with an appeal to mercy, etc etc. Spencer generally omits, overlooks, or when pressed, dismisses these verses, and it is this approach that has engendered the criticism. Sure, Osama bin Laden will use them to justify his positions. Yet when other Muslim religious bodies criticize him for doing so, when does Spencer take note of their arguments ad the sources that they cited? Regarding the exchange with Crane, Spencer never once addressed the point that he emphasized Chapter 9: 1-3, and conveniently overlooking verse 4 which effectively modifies the previous ones. That is a classic example of "cherry picking", and Crane has called him out on it. Why did Spencer avoid acknowledging this point in his lengthy reply to Crane's critique? Who cares if Crane is a former Nixon aide that shares the name of a famous television star? Instead of explaining why he omitted verse 4, we are instead treated with incessant innuendo about Crane's association with "Tricky Dick". As you've noted, Spencer has often replied to criticism made of him; but, so have critics in turn. To balance the article, shall we feature an additional section for this entry of the critics replying to Spencer's reply to their initial criticism? For example, the reply to Spencer's criticism of Mark LeVine's criticism of him engendered a rather interesting [http://www.juancole.com/2004/12/mark-levine-replies-to-robert-spencer.html follow-up reply] by LeVine, in which he states that "...it seems that you did not read most of what I have written before writing your critique of my work. I say this because I have discussed in detail most every thing you have accused me of not discussing--the origins of Hamas, the immorality and futility of suicide bombings, hatred for Israel and the like. It would be nice to be accused of something that I didn't do, instead of being accused of not doing something I have in fact done. Then at least I could learn from the criticism, which is always a good thing." Is that really a form of criticism of "the vague and ad hominem variety" as you implied? Finally, do you think that only people defending Islam are critical of Spencer? Think again. [http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010979.html Here's] a very interesting, more recent exchange with another notable conservative critic of Islam, Evariste, regarding Spencer's behavior. Evariste highlights Spencer's penchant for sliding into petty ad hominem attacks and diatribes rather than sticking to his argument. Spencer's treatment of Crane is quite similar; he cherry-picks the critiques made of him in favor of seizing the opportunity to lob a few more salacious references to the Nixon administration (which you should note, is another form of [[ad hominem]] fallacy). Is that really an approach that can be defined as "scholarship"? There are many credible scholars on Islam who take critical views (not only Lewis, but Patricia Crone, and more recent scholars like Donner, Berkey, Brown, etc etc) who generally do not share many of Spencer's sentiments. Spencer is a controversial figure, and has made his living out of it. Just as this article correctly highlights his views and criticisms, so should it highlight the nature of criticism made of him, irregardless of whether Spencer or his fans happen to like it or not. Isn't that NPOV?[[User:Jemiljan|Jemiljan]] ([[User talk:Jemiljan|talk]]) 06:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The link that Writer98 provided is an old one that I had already seen. Moreover, in the link Spencer attacks the person (including president Nixon) without addressing the selection biases that has been pointed out by Crane: namely he omits verses from the Quranic passage to reverse the meaning taught by Islam. Crane has many other examples in his online book about Spencer using sources from extremists and un-reliable individuals to show Islam and Muslims in a bad light; as well as not taking into account muslim reason for past events. Also, Lewis' article, which you obviously have not seen was not just about 9/11 but what Muslim Jurispudence says about violence in general. I have posted the last paragraph of his article for you here (WSJ: opinion pages, September 2001): "Similarly, the laws of jihad categorically preclude wanton and indiscriminate slaughter. The warriors in the holy war are urged not to harm non-combatants, women and children, "unless they attack you first." A point on which they insist is the need for a clear declaration of war before beginning hostilities, and for proper warning before resuming hostilities after a truce. What the classical jurists of Islam never remotely considered is the kind of unprovoked, unannounced mass slaughter of uninvolved civil populations that we saw in New York two weeks ago. For this there is no precedent and no authority in Islam. Indeed it is difficult to find precedents even in the rich annals of human wickedness." Hope this clears up any doubts you may have had about where Muslim jurists stand. (As usual Spencer's explanations completely reverses what Islam teaches.)

My comments pointing out the conservative credentials of D'Souza were to merely point out the obvious: in this day and age, when it's fashonable in some conservative circles to jump on the anti-Muslim bandwagon, you have conservative Christians and Jews (Ralph Peters, D'Souza, and Bernard Lewis) standing up for the truth; eventhough this may cause them to pay a price in terms of their careers in some of the more fringe conservative circles. While D'Souza is not an expert on Islamic theology, he can at least analyze arguments for himself. For one, Spencer's claims that various Muslim schools teach warfare against non-Muslims, if it were true, you would see historic repurcussions of this teaching: For 1,500 years, not a single instance occured where non-Muslims were systematically killed for their beliefs, or forced to convert, as D'souza pointed out. For example, No Muslim emperor killed Hindus or forced them to convert, as D'Souza again pointed out. (For you, I will be even more specific: There are over 900 Million Hindus in India today, compared with only 12% of Indians being Muslim, even after Muslim ruled most of India for 2 centuries. Contrast that with Portuguese colony in Indian part of Goa where the Hindus were forced to become Catholics, including D'Souza ancestors.) Hence the point: D'Souza can perform a sanity check on Spencer's claims and sees for himself that the man is creating his own "stories" about Islam. 2nd item pointed out by D'Souza: what Spencer calls dhimmitude was much better than anything Christianity offered to their minorities at the time: conversion or death or total subjugation. Also, consider the benefit that non-Muslims had: not only freedom to worship, freedom to work in any profession, right to their money & property, chance to climb the political ladder near the top, and freedom to live where they pleased, and to come and go when and where. They could have their own courts and live by their religious rules and not be subjected to Muslim rules and courts. (The nationalists in the West would say that this is worst than multi-culturalism because it creates a "parallel" society, but it was allowed by Muslims to their minorities several centuries ago.) Spencer omits all of this as well, for obvious reasons. Does that sound "subjugated" to you, especially by the standards of 500 years ago? There you have it: Spencer's revisionism that Islam or Islamic schools teach violence can't be proven by fairly reviewing authentic sources (in their context) and are certainly not supported by 1,500 years of Muslim history. Spencer has no intention of telling you the truth about Islam!!! [[User:1detour|1detour]] ([[User talk:1detour|talk]]) 04:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)



Jemiljan, you say that you have not seen Spencer quote from Islamic legal traditions other than “The Reliance of the Traveler.” Evidently you are not very familiar with his work:

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F9196424-1ED7-4995-87A7-E176982D1EB3

You also say that this legal manual represents the view of only one of the four main schools of Sunni jurisprudence. Quite apart from the fact that they all agree on the need to wage warfare to spread Islamic Law (nobody can give me the name of one which doesn’t teach this), what you say concedes Spencer’s point – the necessity to spread Islamic Law through warfare is indeed a MAINSTREAM, longstanding Islamic doctrine, not a fringe view of some loonies who have “twisted the religion.” The Shafi’i represent the second largest Sunni school in the world in terms of followers and are traditionally regarded as among the least extreme in their doctrinal outlook!

I noted that D’Souza was unaware about how the Qur’an is ordered – basically from the longest chapter to the shortest (with the exception of the first) and that this demonstrates his extreme ignorance of Islam. You note that the first Sura, the Fatiha, is shorter than the one after it. True, but how does this refute the point about D’Souza?

You ask whether anyone addresses D’Souza’s point about Muslims not harming Indians. Through history countless Indians have died through invasion and Jihad warfare, particularly under Mahmud of Ghazna. It seems incredible that D'Souza does not know this:

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2008/11/26/india-jihads-permanent-battleground/

In any case, Spencer’s claims are about what Islamic Law teaches, not how Muslims all behave. Doubtless there are many millions of peaceful Muslims in the world who have no interest in waging Jihad against anyone, as Spencer is quick to note. Clearly not all people follow every aspect of what their religion teaches.

You asserted that Spencer is correct in noting that mainstream texts of Islamic jurisprudence contain material which justifies violence against nonbelievers, which many Muslims act upon. Well that is 75% of his position. It is what he is perpetually vilified for claiming! The prevailing orthodoxy is that Muslim violence has nothing to do with mainstream Islam, and that some so-called Muslims have distorted what is a Religion of Peace to justify their violence. You say that with regard the manuals of Islamic Law Spencer “willfully overlooks textual sources that either contradict, limit, or contextualize those passages.” It is most unfortunate that you neglected to find an example of this. Please explain to me the teaching in Islamic Law regarding whether or not unbelievers must live as Dhimmi communities under the rule of Sharia, without equality with their Muslim overlords, which must be imposed on them by force if necessary.

You say that Spencer overlooks passages including Qur'an 9:4. That is false:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018764.php

Mainstream Islamic commentators such as Ibn Kathir and mainstream commentaries such as the Tafsir al-Jalalayn have regarded violent passages as abrogating the peaceful ones. Spencer reports how the passages have been traditionally understood, generally by quoting commentators. Tell me which Qur’anic commentaries are most respected in the Islamic world, then tell me what they teach on the issues Spencer raises. Then we can see whether he is “cherry picking” to give a false view of mainstream Islam.

[[User:Writer98|Writer98]] ([[User talk:Writer98|talk]]) 04:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)



1detour,

You incorrectly claim that Spencer ignores Qur’an verses. In fact Spencer has blogged the whole Qur’an at the link below, so he couldn’t possibly have ignored verses:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/articles/bloggingtheq.php

With regard Spencer ignoring the specific verses alleged by Crane, that is also false. I documented that in what I wrote above to Jemiljan.

You say that “Spencer us(es) sources from extremists and un-reliable individuals.” Would those include the mainstream Islamic commentaries, and texts of Islamic Law? I repeat the challenge I gave to Jemiljan: tell me which Qur’anic commentaries are most respected in the Islamic world, then tell me what they teach on the issues Spencer raises. Then we can see whether he is “cherry picking” to give a false view of mainstream Islam.

You take Spencer to task for incorrectly implying that Islam mandates “unannounced mass slaughter of uninvolved civil populations.” But since Spencer has never claimed anything remotely like that, you really ought to find out what his position is before you try to attack it.

You say that “For 1,500 years, not a single instance occurred where non-Muslims were systematically killed for their beliefs, or forced to convert.” That is a quite fantastic claim, but it is also an irrelevant one. '''The claim of Spencer is not that Islam mandates that unbelievers must be forced to convert or killed if they fail to convert to Islam.''' The fact that you think he believes this shows that you simply have not yet taken the time to understand his position.
You say that D’Souza notes that some Christian societies historically treated people worse than some Muslim societies did. But Spencer has never claimed otherwise. So that is yet another misunderstanding on your (and D'Souza's) part. The point is that those Christians were acting in a way that is contrary to the teachings of the religion and the founder. There is no “Christian Law” that Christians today cling to which mandates the subjugation of unbelievers. Christians look back on past excesses of their ancestors with shame and regret. In Islam, the military successes under Mohammed and the vast military expansion of Islam under the “rightly guided Caliphs” are looked on with pride as a golden age of Islam, since all that is legitimized by Islamic Law.
[[User:Writer98|Writer98]] ([[User talk:Writer98|talk]]) 05:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

::Spencer doesn't blog the entire Quran. As Dr. Crane points out that '''Spencer is superficially very scholarly'''. Before you give Spencer too much credit, see if you can reconcile his omission of verse 9:4 with what Spencer claims Quran teaches. See the ref:http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/forging_a_common_front_against_the_totalitarian_mind_a_case_study_in_religi/. As far as what Spencer says about Islam, it seems that neither you nor Spencer really know what they believe about Islam. Sometimes Spencer says that Islam teaches violence, sometimes he says that it's the schools that teach this or that. He says whatever he needs to say to get out of any sticky situation: an effective polemicist. What we do know, as Crane pointed out, he invert what Islam teaches. As to why, imo, it because it's ea$y.
::Spencer had his chance, per the previous link you pointed out, to counter why Crane is wrong in his assessment about Spencer, but instead of answering the many charges, Spencer decided to resort to personal attacks; you still want to give him the benefit of the doubt?. Perhaps he is an "empty suit".
::The "golden age" pride is nostalgic and no different than what's found in other cultures. It's not about military successes (despite what Spencer wants you to believe), but about the advances in civil society, tolerance, and advancement of knowledge in many fields. Muslim golden age produced not only Muslim scholars like Averros, but also took in Christian scholars who escaped the Christian Europe so they could continue to work on philosophy and science without hindrance of religion. For example, disciples of Pluto escaped to Persia (Iran) and helped build a rich philosophy history of Persia which produced many great Persian philosophers. Golden age produced many leaders who really cared for their people, who created educational institutions, libraries, and implemented programs for improvement of the common person. While Spencer finds way to mock women in Islam, Islam was the first religion, 1300 years ago, to grant the women control of their own affairs: right to marriage, divorce, run their own business, and the right to their own identity such as keeping their maiden name; while the pope and East were questioning if a woman even had a soul. It's one thing to say that today's Christians are shameful of the past and another to understand the complete facts. One shouldn't ignore that what Christians did was approved and even encouraged by the various Popes; while it's Spencer who omits context just so that he can show Islam in negative light. While all of the Muslim emperors were secular leaders who at times, no doubt, acted in their own best interest. So, you want to blame Islam for some actions of some secular Muslim emperors and excuse Christian's actions (which were far far worst than anything Muslim did) even-though they were encouraged by the Pope, Viceroy of Christ, and were justified by the Bible. Christians, even today, are accused of taking part in persecution, just ask the Palestinian who say that their homes and land are forcefully taken away for expansion of Israel and backed by money and support of some Christian churches because it fulfills God's prophecy. Are you saying that you are shameful of these Christians as well? Or, will you leave that to future Christians?
::As far as which Islam commentary are most respected, Spencer picks and chooses which commentaries and the parts of those commentaries he write about. There are many commentaries that Spencer either ignors or belittles. For example, Spencer mocks Muhammad Assad's (aka Leopold Weiss) commentaries because he believes that as a former Jew, Assad whitewashes what Islam teaches. Why would a European Jew, who himself survived the holocaust and whose parents were killed in the holocaust, whitewash religious hatred of Jews if it really existed in the Quran? He wouldn't and the Quran doesn't teach that. So, there are many sources available but the issue is that Spencer selectively chooses his sources. Bigger point is that Spencer on one hand claims to base his views on authentic sources (Quran and Hadiths) but on the other hand he relies on other people's commentaries. Do you agree with every single Bible commentary? Better question: have you read any of them recently? If you read your own book(s) you would know that what was historically taught was not out of context, except that today's Christian leaders, due to pressure of secularism, have decided to say so; however, the Quran provides full context and it's people like Spencer who decide to omit the context. You don't have to read the Quran, just compare the historical actions of the Muslims and Christians when they were both in power and which, as you write, Spencer never compares because he can't get away with it as easily. (As Assad wrote: '''"Islam appears to me like a perfect work of architecture. All its parts are harmoniously conceived to complement and support each other; nothing is superfluous and nothing lacking; and the result is a structure of absolute balance and solid composure."''')
::If you feel you understand Spencer and still believe Spencer's explanation about Islam, then you should have no problem responding to any of the examples that Crane points out about Spencer's lies. Spencer, in his response, chose to punt. Will you respond directly to each example? (Crane's examples, if you can't refute them, should be sufficient for you as an objective person that Spencer plays games.)[[User:MadisonTn|MadisonTn]] ([[User talk:MadisonTn|talk]]) 07:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


Madison,

You say "Spencer doesn't blog the entire Quran." That is false:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/articles/bloggingtheq.php


You say that Christian leaders did bad things in the past. I agree. That is also 100% irrelevant as to whether the significant points Spencer makes are true or false.

Your idea that Spencer ignores 9:4 is simply false. He discusses precisely how it is understood by the tafsir (see below). Even if he had ignored that verse (which he has not), that would not show the substance of any of his significant claims is false. To imply this shows everything critical he has said about Islam is false is a non sequitur. Indeed, the fact that you bring such a trifling issue up, rather than the substantial points he raises, seems rather telling.

Spencer writes with regard Qur'an 9:2-4:

"This restriction comes with the warning that “Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him” (v. 2), which the Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains as “humiliating them in this world by having them killed, and in the Hereafter, by [sending them to] the Fire.” The announcement is made during the Hajj that “Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans” and call them to repent and accept Islam (v. 3). This refers only to those pagans who have violated the terms of their treaties with the Muslims; the other treaties will be honored to the end of their term (v. 4). As-Sawi says that this is an exception to the four-month limit, giving to the Damra tribe, “who still had nine months of their treaty remaining.”"

This refutes the (trifling) claim that you and Crane make, that Spencer simply ignores 9:4 and never discusses it.


Consider some of the significant issues here:

I asked the other discussants here to provide me with the name of a mainstream school of Islamic jurisprudence which does not advocate Jihad warfare for the purpose of implementing Islamic Law over nonMuslims who resist it. I am met by silence.

I hear from the discussants, including you, that Spencer only selectively refers to commentaries on the Qur'an which make Islam look bad. I noted that Spencer refers to the most respected commentators in the Islamic world, who are taught in madrassas all over the world. I asked for the names of tafsir more widely respected and read than the ones Spencer refers to (e.g. Ibn Kathir, Tabari, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, the Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas, Ibn Arabi and Zamakhshari). I am met with stony silence.

Which widely respected Islamic authorities openly repudiate and condemn the notion of dhimmitude for unbelievers, enshrined in Islamic Law?

Which mainstream Islamic organisation anywhere in the world has repudiated or teaches against the idea (openly expressed by Muslims all over the world even today) that Islamic Law must ultimately once again rule supreme (which entails dhimmitude for unbelievers)?

I suspect I won't get any of these questions answered, either.

[[User:Writer98|Writer98]] ([[User talk:Writer98|talk]]) 21:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)"the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians...until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh ‘Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)...while remaining in their ancestral religions.”
:Your attempt to refute that Spencer doesn't ignore verse 4 falls short. In the above paragraph, he minimizes its meaning and manages to put a negative spin on what Islam teaches by not acknowledging the entire verse as well as the historic context. These verses say that you can only wage war in defensive reason; moreover, they were revealed during a certain period against certain tribes who were waging war against the early Muslim community. Spencer shows his limits of Islamic knowledge by not knowing (most likely ignoring) the historic period which no Muslim scholar will ignore because their intention is to understand God's message, whereas Spencer is merely trying to show Islam in a negative light.
:There are no mainstream Muslim School of thoughts who advocate Jihad warfare to implement Sharia. I have asked you to read the original sources for yourself, and not to copy Spencer verbatim. But you continue to repeat the selective quotes from Spencer. It's you who is ignoring a simple challenge to prove by reading the sources yourself, in their context. Crane and others have clearly documented how Spencer misrepresents Quran and other Islamic sources.
:Here is the link to Assad's commentary: http://www.geocities.com/masad02/
:What's more, the issue is disproving a negative. How does one disprove the lies that Spencer tells? By uncovering one lie at a time. That's what Crane has done remarkably well.[[User:1detour|1detour]] ([[User talk:1detour|talk]]) 03:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

::Writer98, Just because Spencer has a blog about the Qur'an in no way means that he blogs all of it. He may label each of his entries to appear systematic and thorough, but it's fairly obvious when you read the entries that he doesn't discuss all of the verses at all! He's just guilty of cherry-picking the verses he wants to discuss and emphasize as I pointed out before. Even a casual look at his posts proves this. Secondly, D'Souza's points are valid, no matter what his mistake about the ordering of the verses may have been, as 1detour has pointed out. The fact the al-Fatiha is shorter than Surat al-Baqrah proves my point that Spencer's reply about the verse order being "from longest to shortest", only shows that he is himself ignorant of the verse order.
::Finally, you like to keep insisting that Spencer's assertion that what was written in the "Reliance of the Traveler" about Jihad is applicable to all of the schools of law, but here again, the assertion is extremely problematic. First of all, he cites section 9.8, which states: "...the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians...until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” (Needless to say, anytime you see repeated ellipses used in this manner, it's a red flag that should alert you to be skeptical about what the person is choosing to skip over). Spencer continues to mention a comment by Sheikh Nuh ‘Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence that "... the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)...while remaining in their ancestral religions.” Spencer then concedes that "Of course, there is no Caliph today, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they [al-Qa'ida] explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. Note that he's basically citing a Shafi'i text to assert that the position of al-Qa'ida, which is universally deplored as extreme, is in fact justifiable, while the Shafi'i school would not endorse that al-Qa'ida was attacked, but rather the other way around. Of course, the fact that contemporary Shafi'i scholars like Sheikh [[Ali Gomaa]] have openly and vigorously disputed the views of these extremists should be proof enough of this. Spencer continues to state that "A Hanafi manual (al-HIdaya) of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions", but again, he fails to acknowledge that once again in that work, the same problem remains that there is no justification without a Caliph. Spencer then goes on to discuss the Maliki school. Rather than cite the principle work of the school, the Muawatta of Imam Malik, he cites instead a historian, Ibn Khaldun. Spencer claims that Ibn Khaldun was trained as a Maliki legal theorist, but what he doesn't tell you is that the work he cites, the Muqaddimah, or introduction, is considered a work of HISTORY, and is in NO WAY considered a valid Maliki legal text. Are those views in teh Muqaddimah accepted by the Maliki schools? Then one wonders why Spencer couldn't find an authentic Maliki text to justify the claims? It's not like the Muwatta' isn't available in English. Even so, he quotes Ibn Khaldun as stating "in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” Funny enough, what Spencer does is to eliminate the following sentence in which ascribes this to - what now? - the royal authority of the Caliph. I found that here again Spencer didn't even cite his quotation, but it's in the Muqaddimah, Vol. 1 page 473. Finally, he cites Ibn Taimiyya for the Hanbali's. Yes, Ibn Taymiyya is one of the most extreme jurists. Yet how even he would define "Lawful Jihad" is never mentioned by Spencer, as once again, he provides no citation. Did Ibn Taymiyya also feel that it was only something that the Caliph could pursue? Actually he is known to have redefined it to address the Crusader and Mongol invasions.
::So, when you contrast Spencer's cherry-picked views with the more nuanced view of jurists today, anyone with a brain can see that he really has a lot to explain for himself. For example, this article entitled [http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume3/march_2005/3_05_1.html|Islamic Rulings On Warfare] by Youssef H. Aboul-Enein and Sherifa Zuhur pulished in Strategic Studies Institute in October 2004, and available from the US Army website, takes a FAR more nuanced view citing far more sources in support of it in comparison to anything that Spencer has ever published. So, who to believe? Spencer? Or Muslims who can demonstrate that they have a far deeper understanding of their own faith, and who vigorously oppose al-Qa'ida and who like most Muslims today, would never accept Spencer's assertions that al-Qa'ida's claims are valid under Islamic law, but are a perversion of it? The answer seems pretty obvious to me.
::Of course, if you point out that the Bible contains equally controversial verses, Spencer always demures and claims that Jesus promoted mercy, etc etc, as if the presence of such verses had no consequence. That's just a tactic he uses for sake of absolving himself and promoting his own religious ideology, but that is not really a true reflection of HISTORIC Christian legal thinking. In actual fact, many of those controversial verses (including the outright killing of non-Christians) were directly cited in Christian laws as codified by Justinian, which were in use for centuries. Of course, most Chriistians today repudiate these views, but they cannot repudiate that they were used historically to justify the massacre of non-Christians. Yet apparently according to Spencer, if a Muslim takes a similar view, we're to believe his assertion that they are not truly living according to the precepts of their religion? How do you know if he's right? Who can independently verify this? You really have to wonder about the mindset of someone who is so willing to pose so many straw man fallacies and then use cherry-picking to justify them. I hope that I have answered your questions, and that you will try and learn to read MORE about Islam from a wider range of authors rather than only the ones you are inclined to agree with just because they say what you like hear.[[User:Jemiljan|Jemiljan]] ([[User talk:Jemiljan|talk]]) 02:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

===Tafsirs===
Write98,
you said that Spencer uses Tafsirs from reputable Muslim scholars. But, this claim yours turned out not be true, i.e. a lie. (Definition of a lie, according to my good friend Dennis Prager: "A lie is when someone knowingly tells something he know not to be true. And, I don't use that word lightly."). Spencer ignors what they really wrote and inserts his own ideas while incorrectly referencing the Tafsirs. (I am sure that there is a word for this kind of practice). For example, you can read the complete Tafsir yourself that you say Spencer uses for Chapter 9:1-6, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, here: http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=4&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2. You will see that it contradicts what Spencer wrote in his book. For verse 4, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn says: "Excepting those of the idolaters with whom you have made a pact, and who have not diminished [their commitment to] you in anyway, with regard to the terms of the pact, nor supported, assisted, anyone, from among the disbelievers, against you; [as for these] fulfil your pact with them until, the completion of, the term, to which you have agreed. Truly God loves those who fear [Him], by fulfilling pacts."

:* You also wrote that Spencer quotes from other scholars such as Tafsir of Ibn Kathir; Ibn Kathir's Tafsir also contradict's Spencer's explanation of the Quran. Here is Ibn Kathir's Tafsir, http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20744. For verse 9:4, Ibn Kathir wrote: "So anyone who had a treaty with Allah's Messenger, it lasted until its specific termination date. However, those in this category were required to refrain from breaking the terms of the agreement with Muslims and from helping non-Muslims against Muslims. This is the type whose peace agreement with Muslims was carried out to its end. Allah encouraged honoring such peace treaties, saying,(Surely, Allah loves those who have Taqwa) [9:4], who keep their promises."
:* If you thought that Leopold Weiss, having been a European Jew, "whitewashes" Islam's teaching, as some on the right to like claim so they don't have to think nor engage in debate, then review the Tafsir of someone whose politics were Salafist: [[Maududi]]. His tafsir also contradicts what Spencer writes. You can read his Tafsir here: http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/9/index.html.
::Maududi explains this passage (Quran 9:1-12): "This portion deals with the sanctity of treaties and lays down principles, rules and regulations which must be kept in view before breaking them, in case the other party does not observe them sincerely." (Note his comment, "IN CASE when the OTHER Party does NOT observe them." Something that Spencer forgets.)
:* Also note, nowhere do any of the Tafsirs say that Muslim have blanket permission/orders for war and it also does not say that they can break their treaties without cause, contradicting Spencer. In-fact it says to be aware of God and fulfill your promises and pacts to earn God's love.

:* More important than knowing on how the Quran is organized is knowing that the approximately 6,000 verses of the Quran were revealed few verses at a time over a 23 year period. Two main implications of this fact: #1: verses should be looked at in their passage, not one or 1/2 a verse at a time as the bigots like to do. #2: There is a historic context to each passage which cannot be ignored to understand its true meaning. In this case, as editor [[User:Jemiljan|Jemiljan]] pointed out, this passage was revealed in the year 9 of Muslim calendar when some of the tribes were breaking their treaties and applies to these tribes because they broke the treaties.
::* So, a Muslim or a non-Muslim scholar, if they truly were a scholar, would know this and would interpret the verses in their context using these 2 pieces in their analysis.
:* Stop wasting everyone's time by repeating Spencer's writings. Let this be a real-life lesson to you on how easily ignorance & hatred can be spread. Start to think for yourself and read any of the links for yourself. The emperor is naked!!
[[User:1detour|1detour]] ([[User talk:1detour|talk]]) 02:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


Writer98, why are you so quiet all of a sudden? Did you have more questions, or examples that you wanted to share? I thought you were convinced of Spencer's garbage. Perhaps Spencer would like to show himself and respond to Dr. Crane's exposure of him. I doubt that he will even attempt to explain his way out this time.[[User:1detour|1detour]] ([[User talk:1detour|talk]]) 02:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


---------------------

1detour,

You claim that Spencer cites various tafsir and "lies" about what they wrote. Although you manage to quote various tafsir, you don't actually manage to quote Spencer, let alone quote him doing any "lying." That seems to be a rather big omission. Try again?

You say that "where do any of the Tafsirs [sic] say that Muslim [sic] have blanket permission/orders for war and it also does not say that they can break their treaties without cause, contradicting Spencer." I have read Spencer's work an I know he never claimed that "Muslim [sic] have blanket permission/orders for war" and I have never seen him cite the passages you provided as evidence that Muslims can "break their treaties without cause." You need to become familiar with what Spencer has actually written, rather than working with a straw man of your own invention.


How did you fare with the questions I asked?

'''I asked the other discussants here to provide me with the name of a mainstream school of Islamic jurisprudence which does not advocate Jihad warfare for the purpose of implementing Islamic Law over nonMuslims who resist it.'''


You only came up with the canard that Islamic Law nowhere says anything about permitting offensive Jihad warfare! You need to educate yourself on this issue. Maybe Jemiljan can set you straight?


'''I hear from the discussants, including you, that Spencer only selectively refers to commentaries on the Qur'an which make Islam look bad. I noted that Spencer refers to the most respected commentators in the Islamic world, who are taught in madrassas all over the world. I asked for the names of tafsir more widely respected and read than the ones Spencer refers to (e.g. Ibn Kathir, Tabari, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, the Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas, Ibn Arabi and Zamakhshari).'''


You claim that Spencer misrepresents them, but you don't manage to actually come up with any examples of him doing this.


'''Which widely respected Islamic authorities openly repudiate and condemn the notion of dhimmitude for unbelievers, enshrined in Islamic Law?'''

No response - stony silence.

'''Which mainstream Islamic organisation anywhere in the world has repudiated or teaches against the idea (openly expressed by Muslims all over the world even today) that Islamic Law must ultimately once again rule supreme (which entails dhimmitude for unbelievers)?'''

No response.

[[User:Writer98|Writer98]] ([[User talk:Writer98|talk]]) 16:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

---------------------


'''Writer98''', first of all, welcome back! Hope all is well. Editor Jemiljan has done right by moving pieces of conversation not relevant to this article to your talk page, access them here: [[User talk:Writer98|talk page of Writer98]].

As far as your questions, I will address only the portion relevant to this article here and will refer you to answers already posted by Jemiljan on your talk page for general criticism you raised about Islam. I would hope that you would read his answers with an open mind. He put in a lot of effort to give you detailed and direct responses.

You deny this, but the Tafsirs do contradict Spencer's claim what I wrote above and you are not even aware of it. Infact one of the Tafsir's is from the same scholar you said that Spencer relies on, Ibn Kathir. You need to learn your Spencer better.
Here is what Spencer says about this passage: From his book: “The Truth about Muhammad (PBUH)”, page 161:

:“Muhammad also gave the unbelievers four months to leave Arabia (Quran 9:1-3). For Pagans the choice was only conversion or war. He (Muhammad) noted that only those unbelievers who converted to Islam would be able to maintain the alliances they had established with the Muslims. The Muslims were to kill the others after the four months guarantee of safety had ended.”

:Spencer then quotes verses 4, 5, and 6 of chapter 9 from the Quran, but still upto his old tricks, uses ellipsis and completely ignores the middle verse, 9:5.

<blockquote>“…if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (Quran 9:4-6)”</blockquote>

:Spencer concludes his explanation of this Quranic passage by writing, “only conversion to Islam would save the lives of the lives of the unbelievers and only hope that they would accept Islam gain them mercy from the Muslim, for their sins were egregious.”

Writer98, as you can see, what I wrote about Spencer’s position was indeed correct and you need to read Spencer for yourself.

You say that I use straw-man, so here is a structured analysis of Spencer's claims, the [[scientific method]].

Step 1: Hypothesis: Spencer's explanation of Quranic passage 9:1-13 - “Only those unbelievers who converted to Islam would be able to maintain the alliances they had established with the Muslims. The Muslims were to kill the others after the four months guarantee of safety had ended.”

Step 2: Conduct the experiment: Read the specific Quranic passage for yourself: (Chapter 9, verses 1-13) http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/009.qmt.html

Step 3A: Observe: Note Spencer’s use of ellipsis on page 161 of the same book when he quotes verses 4 through 6. He omits verse 5, which clearly says that the Muslim can't break their treaties unless the non-Muslim break their treaty first, without any exceptions.

<blockquote>“…if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (Quran 9:4-6)”</blockquote>

Step 3B: Observe: What verse 5 from the Quran says:http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/009.qmt.html

<blockquote>"Excepting those of the idolaters with whom you have made a pact, and who have not diminished [their commitment to] you in anyway, with regard to the terms of the pact, nor supported, assisted, anyone, from among the disbelievers, against you; [as for these] fulfil your pact with them until, the completion of, the term, to which you have agreed. Truly God loves those who fear [Him], by fulfilling pacts."(Quran 9:5)</blockquote>

:Verse 5, if Spencer had not omitted it, clearly would not have supported Spencer's claims that Quran teaches to kill the unbelievers who didn't convert or to wage war on them.

Step 4A: Analyze Tafsir (commentary) of Ibn Kathir. Link is provided above.

<blockquote> Ibn Kathir’s a classical scholar, one you said Spencer approves of. Even he contradicts Spencer’s explanations of the Quran. </blockquote>

Step 4B: Analyze Commentary by Leopold Weiss. Link also provided above.

<blockquote>Analysis of this same passage by a European Jew and survivor of the holocaust contradicts Spencer as well. He would not hide intolerance if it were present in the Quran after having been through what he and his family had been through at [[Aushwitz]].</blockquote>

Step 4C: Analyze Commentary (Tafsir) of this passage by a Modern Day Salafist, [[Maududi]].

<blockquote>He also contradicts Spencer. [[Maududi]] founded Jamaet-i-Islami and was not one to sugar coat anything. Again, his explanation contradict Spencer.”</blockquote>

Step 5: Conclusion: Reject the hypothesis (i.e. Spencer's explanations are opposite of what Islam teaches.)

You ask for even more sources. Jemilan has already pointed out that Spencer omits the oldest and one of the most respected sources, Muwatta of Malik ibn Anas because they contradict his conclusions. Infact, if you looked at top 1000 Tafsirs, 999 of them would contradict Spencer. Go ahead and try for yourself. I aleady gave you link to 3 of them.

'''Challenge for Spencer''': In his next book, write the whole Quranic passage he wants to explain and stop using ellipsis to cherry pick words to make his point. Let the text drive the conclusion and not the other way around.
[[User:1detour|1detour]] ([[User talk:1detour|talk]]) 04:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
-------------------------------

1 detour, quite apart from the minor error that you keep mixing up verses 4 and 5 (referring to 5 when you mean 4), your argument must be rejected for the simple reason that it is a ''non sequitur.'' Even if all the premises were true, it would not follow that "Spencer's explanations are opposite of what Islam teaches." At best it would follow that "Spencer was inaccurate in his one specific claim that Mohammed wanted all pagans in Arabia slain after four months. Instead Mohammed wanted them slain after four months, with the exception of some, who got slightly longer before they were to be slain."


Whether you have established even that more modest conclusion I am uncertain - I will send Spencer an email and will get back to you if he responds (I am sure he gets a ton of email). But what I will note for now is the '''utter triviality''' of your objection. The book of Spencer's you mention is packed full of damaging material about Mohammed and Islam, and the best you can do is quibble over the time limit Mohammed set before slaying pagans. Talk about not being able to see the wood for the trees! Suppose I tell you that John Doe murdered fifty people in three hours, because of their religion, and so would be a dangerous person to emulate. Suppose someone were to mount an argument that in fact John Doe murdered those fifty people in ''three and a half hours'', so I am wrong about him. What are we to make of a response like that? I would have thought the fact that Mohammed gave every pagan a time limit to be out of Arabia, and murdered any who remained, is very much the point here. Do you try to deny this? Of course not.

I'll get back to you if Spencer responds to the small quibble on Mohammed's deadline for killing all the pagans who remained in Arabia! In the meantime, is there any criticism of his work of any substance? I would have thought that his work would be full of false statements about Islam and Mohammed if he is as bad as you claim. Can you '''quote''' him saying anything else which you regard as false, or is your view that his work is 100% accurate with this one exception you claim to have found?
[[User:Writer98|Writer98]] ([[User talk:Writer98|talk]]) 18:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)



'''Writer98,''' I clearly say that he left out verse 5, by using ellipsis. So you at least think that Spencer may have left something out. I'll take that as progress. But, you don't seem to have internalized the extent of Spencer's lie: he is not simply claiming that this passage allowed Muslims to break their pacts, but that this passage actually led the Prophet (PBUH) to force people to become Muslim and this is the bigger lie and his example of calling the prophet intolerant and the basis of his book. (Just curious about how you did in you critical thinking classes in college?) Here is Spencer's claim again:

<blockquote>“Only those unbelievers who converted to Islam would be able to maintain the alliances they had established with the Muslims. The Muslims were to kill the others after the four months guarantee of safety had ended.”</blockquote>

Because of this, I am not convinced that you really read what I write. So, before I give you even more examples, I need to know that you are sincere.

'''To prove your sincerity, simply point out the tafsirs (commentaries on the Quran), from the list of classical scholars '''you''' told me that Spencer uses, which '''actually support''' Spencer's claims. Remember we are looking for explanation of passage (Quran 9:1-13) for now, and ones which support Spencer's claim that this passage allowed Muslims to break their peace agreements and this led to non-Muslim being forced to convert to Islam or to kill them. And, please leave out the modern day extremist Wahabis and terrorists as your source. Remember to provide links and copy and paste the quote here.'''

There are numerous other examples of Spencer's lies waiting for you, but first show me you are sincere.

'''I have already given you links to tafsirs by cross-section of Muslim scholars whom Spencer contradicts. Now it's your turn.''' I bet you that you won't find any which are remotely close to Spencer's claims. And you are only interested in whitewashing Spencer's lies and being an apologist for him.

I am hoping that you understand this assignment.....but I doubt that you or Spencer will provide a direct response instead continue to choose to create false straw-man arguments.

[[User:1detour|1detour]] ([[User talk:1detour|talk]]) 23:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


1detour,

Can I request that you leave ad hominem comments out of this page? If your position has any merit you shouldn't need them. You claim that I have produced a "straw-man argument" but you seem not to understand what that means, because you do not articulate how the view I attacked is any different to your own.

Spencer's book claims on p161 that Mohammed said that all pagans who were not out of Arabia after four months would be killed. You claim to have produced commentators who say that all pagans who were not out of Arabia after four months would be killed, with the exception of those who had made peace treaties with the Muslims, who would be killed as soon as their peace treaties had expired, if they did not leave Arabia. What you seem to have totally ignored is the utter triviality of this objection, even if it is correct (which I will only decide on after I see Spencer's response). As I said,'' "Suppose I tell you that John Doe murdered fifty people in three hours, because of their religion, and so would be a dangerous person to emulate. Suppose someone were to mount an argument that in fact John Doe murdered those fifty people in ''three and a half hours'', so I am wrong about him. What are we to make of a response like that?"'' You totally ignore this point!

You say that there are "numerous other examples of Spencer's lies waiting for you" but unfortunately you do not manage to '''quote him''' saying anything else which you regard as false. You simply say "X, Y and Z all disagree with Spencer," but seem incapable of quoting Spencer saying something which you regard as mistaken (except with the trivial example I have noted). Can you quote him saying anything else you regard as false? You seem to be supporting Spencer's point - that his critics (i) deal in ad hominems and (ii) struggle when it comes to finding specific inaccuracies in his work. I asked you a direct question last time: I would have thought that his work would be full of false statements about Islam and Mohammed if he is as bad as you claim. ''Can you ''''''quote'''''' him saying anything else which you regard as false, or is your view that his work is 100% accurate with this one exception you claim to have found?''

Spencer's book is full of claims about Mohammed ordering the assassination of political enemies, ordering raids, mistreating women, ordering the execution of those who leave Islam, etc, etc. Yet to "prove" that Spencer incorrectly paints Mohammed as intolerant, you can't find a false word in all that, and the best you can do is quibble over the time limit he set on starting a mass-execution of everyone in Arabia who had the wrong religion!

If you fail to produce quotations from Spencer's work again which you are claiming are false (except the trivial example we have discussed which Spencer may get back to us on) there will only be one reasonable conclusion here.
[[User:Writer98|Writer98]] ([[User talk:Writer98|talk]]) 06:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


'''Writer98,''' you are correct that Spencer's book contains many claims, but they are offered his opinions. Obviously you can't defend Spencer directly so you are resorting to ignoring Spencer's extensive quotes I provided. You also ignore the fact that Spencer states his positions as his opinions without providing any evidence from reliable sources. You also ignore that fact that to make his point Spencer leaves out a crucial verse (verse 5). You want to remain in denial. When you see the commentary of a cross section of Muslim scholars (from classical to coverts to Salafists) and they Spencer contradicts them, you belittle it.

My friend, it's you and Spencer who make claims against Islam. It's for you, then, to prove your claims.

You have a high bar, so I can understand why you can't do it!

::P.S. I told you that you were not even going to try.
[[User:1detour|1detour]] ([[User talk:1detour|talk]]) 14:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
--------------

1 detour,

For the third time you ignore what I wrote with regard the criticisms of Spencer you produced, and simply have no response:


'''"Spencer's book claims on p161 that Mohammed said that all pagans who were not out of Arabia after four months would be killed. You claim to have produced commentators who say that all pagans who were not out of Arabia after four months would be killed, with the exception of those who had made peace treaties with the Muslims, who would be killed as soon as their peace treaties had expired, if they did not leave Arabia. What you seem to have totally ignored is the utter triviality of this objection, even if it is correct (which I will only decide on after I see Spencer's response). As I said,'' "Suppose I tell you that John Doe murdered fifty people in three hours, because of their religion, and so would be a dangerous person to emulate. Suppose someone were to mount an argument that in fact John Doe murdered those fifty people in ''three and a half hours'', so I am wrong about him. What are we to make of a response like that?"'' You totally ignore this point!'''


'''Spencer's book is full of claims about Mohammed ordering the assassination of political enemies, ordering raids, mistreating women, ordering the execution of those who leave Islam, etc, etc. Yet to "prove" that Spencer incorrectly paints Mohammed as intolerant, you can't find a false word in all that, and the best you can do is quibble over the time limit he set on starting a mass-execution of everyone in Arabia who had the wrong religion!"''''''



You told me that there are "''numerous other examples of Spencer's lies waiting for you''" yet you once again fail to meet my challenge of quoting A SINGLE ONE of these "other examples" of his "lies"! To charge someone of lying is pretty serious, and you have told me elsewhere that Spencer's work is full of "ignorance." Yet you are quite incredibly only able to produce the most trivial quibble over Mohammed's '''timeline''' for executing every Arabian pagan because they had the wrong religion (and not that he '''''really did''''' want to expel or execute all those people for having the wrong religion!)


You say that Spencer's book "The Truth about Muhammad" is "offered [as] his opinions." That is entirely false. If you take the time to acquire a copy of his book, and actually read it, you will see that almost nothing is offered as an opinion. I doubt the phrase "In my opinion..." appears anywhere in the book. Spencer simply states what is known about Mohammed's life based on his earliest Muslim biographers. Everything he claims is contained ''in those biographies'' and is generally considered uncontroversial when it is stated by a Muslim. Many Muslims consider Muhammed's strong militaristic opposition to the nonMuslims to be a praiseworthy trait. Your inability to meet my challenge of finding anything false in Spencer's work (except for the quibble we await a response from Spencer on) can only be that:

(1) You have not read enough of Spencer's work to find a falsehood of any significance in what Spencer has written
(2) You don't know enough about the life of Mohammed to find a falsehood of any significance in what Spencer has written.
(3) You do know enough about the life of Mohammed to know there are no significant falsehoods in what Spencer has written.


Which of the three is the correct explanation? What other explanation could there be for your almost total silence on Spencer's alleged "ignorance"? Spencer has written many books and thousands of pages on Islam which make factual claims, which could in principle be shown to be false if they really were false. The fact that you have found only one trivial quibble (which we await a response from Spencer on) really speaks volumes.


Understandably, you are now trying to change the subject and now tell me that the burden is on me to "prove [Spencer's] claims." I do not understand what you are after here. Is the idea that I should go through ever sentence Spencer has ever written and produce an argument that each given sentence is true? Why would I need to do ''that''? YOU are the one who has claimed that his work demonstrates "ignorance." I would have thought the burden is on you to support YOUR claim, and not just with one laughable and trivial quibble about Mohammed's timeline for mass-murder of Arabian pagans (a timeline you apparently have conceded was a reality)!

[[User:Writer98|Writer98]] ([[User talk:Writer98|talk]]) 18:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

'''Writer98,'''

You write that Muslims themselves state this. If this is the case then give me a link to where mainstream Muslims specifically state what Spencer claims for this Quranic passage (9:1-13).

If you can produce such a link, I will gladly accept that I was wrong, acknowledge my mistake here, and stop editing Spencer's article on WP.

[[User:1detour|1detour]] ([[User talk:1detour|talk]]) 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:ENOUGH!!!! BOTH of you!!!! This discussion has gone far beyond the intended purpose of discussing what it PERTINENT TO THIS ARTICLE!!! If you want to discuss Spencer's methodologies in detail, then please feel free to use your own talk pages to do so.[[User:Jemiljan|Jemiljan]] ([[User talk:Jemiljan|talk]]) 06:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


== question... ==
== question... ==

Revision as of 23:54, 25 September 2009

WikiProject iconBiography Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconChristianity: Catholicism Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism.

Pov tag

I've added a tag in the section which collects lots of quotations critical to Spencer. A more balanced section ought to include more of Spencer's own reply to what he calls "Wikipedia gremlins". —Cesar Tort 16:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar, I can see that you are well intentioned. But, correct me if I am wrong, isn't it a conflict of interest to change a Wikipedia article about you or direct others to change it on your behalf (as Robert Spencer has done on his blog)? It's too late in this case, as someone has already changed this article based on Spencer's wording after you directed them to his blog. At least now let's go ahead and remove the NPOV tag. Thanks.

    • Is it necessarily WIKI policy to include a section for a living person to respond to their critics? This is the only entry for a living person where I have observed such a section. Normally, the views of the person are described, followed by criticism. As such, I think that adding the "response to criticism" section is actually already giving undue weight to Spencer, rather than NPOV.Jemiljan (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • By clicking on the link provided by Cesar Tort, one sees that Spencer is directing his associates to change Wikipedia.
      • I agree with what user Jemiljan has stated about this article being "unique" in terms of making exceptions for giving Spencer undue weight and to remove the NPOV tag since noone else has commented and this tag has beent here for over 4 months. 1detour (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving...

I am archiving the whole thing, including the past archives since they were archived under wrong names. Much of the old archived discussion is a real mess. From now on I would recommend to archive in Talk:Robert Spencer/Archive 2 the forthcoming posts until the page reaches, say, 250Kb. Just a suggestion; not a policy. —Cesar Tort 18:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Religion

Spencer is a Melkite(greek catholic) [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss-simworld (talk • contribs) 18:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic background

Any information? He fits the perfect stereotype of "Middle Easterner" and/or a fundamentalist Muslim, especially with that beard. The comment above would suggest that he is of Greek (maybe Turkish?) ethnic origin. It would also be interesting if someone could find out if he is ever often asked whether or not he is from the Middle East or is Muslim, considering his looks. IranianGuy (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC he's from a Middle East country but his family moved to the States when they were forced to do it. However, in this page we only discuss proposed improvments on the article. —Cesar Tort 16:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His family came to America from Turkey. He is a Melkite Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.212.191 (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as an Anti-Islam figure by FAIR

We should note that he has been listed as one of the twelve 'Smear Casters' by FAIR at SmearCasting.com. 70.56.82.177 (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How to write about scholarly errors by Spencer in this article

Dear admins/editors: I have several examples which show that Mr. Spencer's conclusion are not supported when the Quran is read in context, and are opposite of what Muslim and non-Muslim scholars conclude about the same passage. Since I am new to Wikipedia, I would appreciate some suggestions on making this a stronger article without having the writing reverted:

  • If the section is to the point and well referenced, would the following sequence of steps be correct:
  1. State the specific quote and example from Spencer's book (complete quote with page number and book title)
  2. Quote the Muslim view and contrast with that of Spencer's view (again referenced with direct quotes from one of his book as well as reference the Muslim book)?
  • Would I need to also need to state why Mr. Spencer's conclusion is wrong, or would that sound too much as my point of view?
  • How many examples can I show?

Thanks. Goldenlaker (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in seeing your comments, but this material should be added to Wikipedia only with a fair amount of caution. I don't see a problem with you adding two examples of direct references from a book by a Muslim contrasted with quotes from Robert Spencer. Explaining why Spencer's conclusion is wrong would probably cause POV problems; depending on the quotations, I'm not sure why it would be necessary.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nat that you should only proceed with caution here. In my view, it would be better if you are able to cite OTHER people who have criticized Spencer along the lines that you mention, you can go ahead and add it to the "criticism" section with a brief quote contrasting a statement of Spencer's with that of his critic. On the other hand, I also think that there is one issue that Spencer has been very outspoken, and which "Islamo critics" are not in full agreement, and that is that the concept of Taqiyya is somehow intrinsic to Islam and a tactic employed by all Muslims. In the discussion section on that topic, I noted how Spencer's friend Daniel Pipes appears to completely disagree with Spencer on this issue, despite a pronouncement that the two are in "full agreement".Jemiljan (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we need to adhere to WP's standards and that's what gives content of Wikipedia credibility. This means avoidng POV; however, some people delete any content which meets the above criteria but they may not like to see it on WP. At any rate, one should be able to post some examples here based on the ongoing discussion in this section. (WP's standards of ethics are something to maintain and uphold, especially when compared to what one finds on Spencer's own blogs and in his books.)1detour (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, the answer is, you don't. This is a biographical article on Robert Spencer; it is not supposed to be a critical analysis of his work. Significant controversies should be included, but as it is now, this article is largely reading as an attack piece. Significant retooling is required to the "Views on Spencer and his works" section; it comprises far too much of the article's total volume, in my opinion, creating undue weight issues. Frankly, as it appears now, this article is not really a biography at all; that's just a coatrack for attacking his work. And that's not what biographies are for on Wikipedia. — Hiddekel (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Coatrack!" What an apt description. I'm all in favor of trimming the "views" section. Ideally, the page should be a factual starting point with resources for people to use to make their own judgements, and not so much a pre-digested package that, by its nature, can't help but make subjective value judgements for the reader. As such, I'm not against naming a public figure's critics (any public figure), but we need not give them such an expansive, free platform for unanswered criticism. The "coatrack" article proves that's un-Wiki-like. Kebert Xela2906 (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should also necessarily trim the "Spencer responds to his critics" section right along with itJemiljan (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's absolutely fair. Both should be reduced (ideally eliminated, but I have a feeling that won't be the consensus here). — Hiddekel (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting more info on critic Ivan Jablonka

I've come up empty trying to find more information on Ivan Jablonka. While I realize it's possible that an academic based in France may simply not be well known in Anglophone circles, the apparent lack of information in any language would seem to call into question his relevance as a critic. Many people with advanced degrees criticize other people in print, and still many other people criticize others on the Internet. Lacking other compelling information, I question whether Jablonka's single, Web-published article warrants mention on this entry at all, let alone so much space. Kebert Xela2906 (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Among others, I found this. TwoHorned (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ivan Jablonka is relevant because of his scholarship and more importantly he is directly talking about the subject of this article. To remove his views would be taking away key examples which counter Spencer's claims that "no-one" has presented any specific examples of his errors. Due to this reason, removing Ivan's quote would be to make this article less useful. I don't think that you mean to harm WP.
Also, Spencer's writing appear on his own blog and books published by his organization. You should really quesion that since Spencer's views have never have been peer reviewed in any academic journal of any credibility, why should his un-substantiated claims be given much prominence in WP.1detour (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your objections sound more like you're making a case for deleting the article altogether. In any event, the raison d'être of any Wikipedia article is not to establish or dis-establish someone's credibility. In that event, it wouldn't be an encyclopedia, but rather an ideological guidebook. For that matter, the issue of publishing in academic journals is a red herring. That realm encompasses a very limited collection of writers and readers that is (clearly) not everyone's target audience. And by logical extension, equating merit and academic publishing implies that there is no truth value in any general-audience publication under the sun. Kebert Xela2906 (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is Robert Spencer's biographical article. Per WP:BLP, self-published information about the subject is acceptable when it has been written by the subject. Also per those guidelines, information disparaging towards the subject is to be held to a high standard of notability and verifiability. You have not established either the notability of "Ivan Jablonka", whoever he may be, nor of the publication his (non-english) article has been published in. Is it self-published (in which case it absolutely may not be included in the article)? Do you know? I'm sorry, but in my opinion this passage should be the first (and definitely not the last) part of this section to be removed. — Hiddekel (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, interpreting the piece into english in Spencer's article constitutes original research, I believe. — Hiddekel (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the section: "Views on Spencer and his works"

It appears that this section has become jumbled overtime. I propose making minor org change by adding 2 sub-sections with the following 2 sub-headings: 1. People who agree with him, 2. People who disagree with his views. This should make the article more readable.1detour (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and it would help to simplfy it. Contrary to prior comments, I do not think that this is a coatrackarticle attacking him, as there is plenty of "coatracking" in support of his views. Adding an entire section for Spencer's to respond to each of his critics is giving undue weight to his POV. The fact that he replied can be mentioned in connection with each critic, but these back-and-forth replies need not be quoted in full, but they should be appropriately linked.Jemiljan (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Improvements Required

A pressing issue that needs to be addressed with this article is that it has taken on overtones of an attack page. Personal attacks (and yes, allegations of "Islamophobia" or academic malfeasance most certainly qualify as such) are explicitly forbidden from dominating Wikipedia articles in general, but especially biographies of living persons. And it doesn't even matter if they are "true". Work has been done to improve the article in this area, and cudos to those who have worked to that end, but we need to quickly come to a consensus to resolve this persistent problem.

The first order of business, as I have suggested previously, is trimming off non-notable criticisms of Spencer. Not every academian, Muslim community leader, or political activist with a bone to pick with Spencer is worth noting, nor are their bones. Some notable controversies dealing directly with Spencer's work are certainly appropriate, and a good standard of notability to go with is mention in a third party, reliable media source. — Hiddekel (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the external link, "Notes on the Ideological Patrons of an Islamophobe, Robert Spencer". The "External Links" section of a living person's biolgraphy article is not the place to dump links to websites disparaging the article's subject. — Hiddekel (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have ample reason here for an npov tag at the top of the page. Kebert Xela2906 (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, please note the fact that this article is also used to disparage those ideas, religions, and groups that Spencer doesn't like. (As Hiddekel noted above, this article should not be used to pick "their bones" as well.)
Second, we should not allow someone to use this article at a "coatrack" to propogate hatred that Spencer holds. How do we as editors at WP walk this fine line of making this article a biography of someone rather than being a "repeater" of his views? MadisonTn (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does the article disparage ideas, religions, or "groups"? Please cite specific examples and we can work on improving those sections. — Hiddekel (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were couple of quotes without any references, despite the notice being there for several months. I just removed the quote until someone can find the reference. One of them started with "Spencer has criticized the discussion of Islam by Western political leaders, " (need page number and book or a URL with article name.) The second one was a quote attributed to Woolsdy; it was also without a reference.
I agree with Kebert Xela in creating an NPOV tag for this article. This article, in my understanding of WP:BLP, violates the WP polciy. For example, the section "Spencer's response to some critics" is self-serving, even-though there is already a section with Spencer's views and a section with those who agree with him. Also, Spencer's WP:COI is clearly documented here already. I also agree with Hiddekel's observation that this article contains a good dose of Spencer's views/counter views; but, this is understandable. There is not much else that is known about Spencer. We know him as someone who has written or blogged 1,000s of articles and at least 7 books Anti-Islamic books in the last 5+ years. So, one could argue that the only way to know him is through his views and counter views. What other sections do you propose that may be created here?1detour (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that question is being directed at me, then not only do I not propose adding new sections, I would propose deleting the "Views on Spencer and His Works" section in its entirety. It seems to me that its sole purpose is to be used by Spencer's proponents and critics to debate the merits of his writings on Wikipedia, and that's not what BLP articles are for; nor is it what Wikipedia itself is for. If people insist on having something like this in the article, then it should be a SMALL (as opposed to the largest in the article, as is currently the case with "Views of Spencer and his works") "Controversies" section that deals with notable controversies only... Notable meaning mention not in Spencer's blog or someone else's self-published journal, but a reliable media source. I'm going to quote directly from WP:BLP since people seem to be repeatedly missing the point:
Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
Keep that emphasized (by me) text in mind, and what it implies: Someone's blog entry is not acceptable. Someone's self-published editorial is not acceptable. Even someone's academic thesis is not acceptable. Find some notable, secondary-sourced criticism or controversies (an example might be the debates between Spencer and Khaleel Mohammed in Frontpage Magazine) and the rest should be cut out of here. — Hiddekel (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Detour that as this is a biography of a living person, who has generated a litany of self- published literature, and non peer-reviewed literature, that one has to rely on such sources for his views and counter views. At the same time, the WP:BLP explicitly states that:
"Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."
I think that in light of the above, a systematic review of the entire "views" section is in order, but I disagree that it be eliminated in the manner that Hiddekel has advocated above. All praise and criticism derived from self-published materials should be be eliminated, but I also think a healthy degree of caution should be exercised in doing so. After all, the man's primarily notable for the fact that he is a critic, and as such has been critical of other people. He is routinely cited by other political pundits and commentators, especially on the political right as an "expert", and others have criticized the nature of his expertise. Mention of his views, together with the criticism he has engendered in turn- including the accusation of academic malfeasance, that he is an "Islamophobe" and that he is even a polemicist- is entirely fitting, and as such merits inclusion within his biography, as it provides a greater range of views. As it stands, the criticism section is not, in my view, a "dominant" feature, as the article is in fact balanced by a preceding section featuring a chorus singing the man's praises, and then followed by an even lengthier rebuttal by Spencer, is it not? Is that really suggestive of an "attack" page? Rather, I wonder if those who are so terribly "concerned" about this issue are in reality solely concerned with reducing or even eliminating any published criticism of Spencer. Jemiljan (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First: I might also speculate that people want to keep this wholly unbalanced section in, simply because they want to use Wikipedia as a platform to "inform" readers as to the evils of Robert Spencer and why he should be disregarded--but then I wouldn't be assuming good faith. And it wouldn't be wholly true anyway: as I said above, the section is being used by both his proponents AND his opponents as a message board platform to analyze the validity of his work, using sources which are almost all unaccaptable by the standards we have quoted from WP:BLP. You need to look at the whole section--praise, criticism, rebuttals by Spencer--not just single out part of it, to determine whether a section is creating undue weight issues or simply causing the article to stray from its purpose. As of now, there is simply no denying the fact that this section constitutes the bulk of the article. If we aren't going to eliminate the section altogether, then I hope that we can at least achieve consensus that the stuff that does violate BLP policy in this section has to go.
To that end, I am proposing that the Ivan Jablonka stuff constitutes both original research (a translated analysis of a foreign-language article) and Also probably qualifies as self-published material. It should therefore be removed. — Hiddekel (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have, in fact, looked at the whole section, and this article for quote some time now. What I can say is that someone went back and added in VERY lengthy quotes from both supporters and critics. I think if you want to start reducing the weight of this area, then a great place to start is by reducing or abbreviating these complete quotes. They are published elsewhere, and links will suffice for many of them.Jemiljan (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hiddekel, I believe you have good intentions. But you have not made a good case for removing the Ivan quote. For translations, WP:OR has clear guidelines. It's not to remove, but to make sure that different editors can agree on the translation. Do you have a translation which is materially different than the one presented here? Here is what WP:OR says about Translations:

"Where English translations of non-English material are unavailable, Wikipedia editors may supply their own. If such translations are challenged, editors should cooperate in producing one they can agree on."

As far as cleaning this article, yes, we need to really work on it. Anyone can provide suggestion how to clean it up, change it, or add or delete parts of it. But, please provide a clear reason which is based on actual WP policies. Based on WP:BLP, this article is full of self-serving quotes, and other material which are from back of Spencer's books to help sell the book and are not relevant to WP. Therefore, I propose keeping, Spencer's views and His critics Views, while removing the other 2 view sections. Anyone disagree?MadisonTn (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that. I think that a quote reduction is in order too. They can be linked, or selective (say, 1 sentence tops). This is really why the article appears to be heavily weighted.Jemiljan (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this. Ideally his own opinions should form the bulk of the article since the article is about him and not what other people think of him. The article should be predominantly about what his opinions are, not about others' views of those opinions. I totally disagree with the suggestion that only the views of commentators critical of Spencer should be included. The fact that some of the positive quotes were used to promote his books hardly demonstrates they are not the opinions of the people who wrote them. If only critical opinions were allowed, and no positive opinions were permitted, the article would be essentially an attack-page. My proposal is that the section describing his views is expanded, and the sections praising and criticising be maintained but both reduced.

Writer98 (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not sure I wholly agree on all your points. Putting chiefly his opinions doesn't seem to make the article neutral and objective. It would run too close to being a collection of his quotes and might resemble something of a scrap-booked blog. In order to treat the subject--i.e., the person--objectively, you need both sides of the story, and you need third party sources. Obviously, there needs to be a balance. It can't be critical-only sources and it can't be positive-only sources. Just my two cents. Vincent Valentine 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Writer98 basically strays from a keeping the article as biographical in nature to one of promotion. Oddly enough, no one ever stated that "only the views of commentators critical of Spencer should be included". The article is not a place to collect opinions, rather an articulation of Spencer's views, and then criticism of those views, as is often found on other WP:BLP.Jemiljan (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is false. I certainly never said there should be no criticism of Spencer's views, only that there should be some sense of balance and that the agenda of some that this become an attack-page be resisted. In contrast, if you read what was proposed and you agreed with, you will indeed see that you agreed that the section involving praise of Spencer's views should be deleted. The proposal was "I propose keeping, Spencer's views and His critics Views, while removing the other 2 view sections." That would result in an attack-page, for it would only permit views critical of Spencer. Writer98 (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say that you did? Please show me where I said that. Also, I never said that the section of praise shoudl be deleted entirely, but that the extensive quoting be reduced and links inserted instead. Furthermore, I would ask if the article becomes predominantly about his views, is that "balanced", much less NPOV? How is it that an article in which the extensive quoting is pared back to simply outline his views, and a summarized criticism of them, together with links to supporters and detractors statements (rather than reproducing each and every statement in full) become an "attack page"?Jemiljan (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So, I spent a lot of time doing what we all said needed to be done: clean-up the article by trimming, reducing, and provide links for the material. But, someone named Kerbert just undid all the hard work. Can we please discuss here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1detour (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I had made my changes such that they were easy to track: 1 quote per change and then saving it. So, if someone wanted to track, edit, or undo, they could do that at one change at a time, rather than all of them. Also, I focused my changed to the criticism section only. If someone wants to edit the "Spencer's response to his critics" they can do that as well. I would hope that they would follow the same process I did of making small changes and then saving them. (Otherwise, I would be happy to edit that sub-section as well and leave it up to others to review and edit). This would go a long way in improving the layout and removing an eyesore on WP.1detour (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great start!, Detour. I still think that the full quotes from the supporters sections should be reduced as well. Most of them are taken from pages promoting Spencer's books anyway. It's OK to list those who support him, and I think that substitute links to that effect could be found for them as well, which are not self-serving book endorsements.Jemiljan (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussions on this page, NPOV tag was never really relevant to begin with; it's definitely not required any longer after recent changes. If someone has an issue with a specific area, they can discuss that here rather than tagging the entire article. MadisonTn (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Section: Controversies

Some of the editors have brought up specific controversies that should be documented here. As one editor noted above a controversies section would be the proper place to capture that info, so its time to start to identify them. Here are couple

the term "Taqiyya" and how Spencer (mis)uses it to accuse Muslims of lying when he disagrees with them, rather than responding to the facts they bring forward. While this practice may sound very much authoritative and fascist Spencer nonetheless practices it freely and without shame. Another controversy which could be considered: while on one hand Spencer claims his ideas of Islam comes from his own studies, on the other hand he refuses to consider conclusion by those who have been studying Islam and Islamic history for many 50+ years just because they contradict his ideas about Islam. For example, Bernard Lewis (see his 2008 book) has clearly come to an opposite conclusion that mainstream Islam does not tolerate terrorism. Should Spencer be considered a "bully" for continuing to push his mis-guided ideas and refusing conclusions of a neutral scholar who even he acknowledges is more qualified on this topic?Cspan viewer (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Use your common sense people--The fact that he has written 7 books and 1,000s of anti-Islamic articles, in about six years, doesn't pass the "smell-test". It's not very likely that he could have researched all the aspects of Islam and understood enough in such a short period of time, considering he was writing for a small-time Catholic magazine on Catholic topics until 2002.Cspan viewer (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer has mainly claimed that the mainstream texts of Islamic jurisprudence contain material which justifies violence against nonbelievers, which many Muslims around the world act upon. None of his critics can deny that this is true, or quote him saying anything false, because the material manifestly exists. It is incredibly striking that none of the critics quoted in the Spencer article has come up with a single specific claim or quote from Spencer which they dispute. As Spencer asserts, the criticisms are all of the vague and ad hominem variety. See the debate with Professor Daniel Peterson (linked at the bottom) and note how Peterson does not dispute Spencer's essential claims. Writer98 (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Writer98's comments about "vague and ad hominem" criticism, I just posted Dr. Crane's Criticism, very specific criticism of Spencer's views. If you know Spencer, please ask him to respond. 1detour (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Spencer is incorrect that Islamic jurispudence justifies violence. Just look at Spencer's debate with D'Souze, who is a practicing Catholic and has strong conservative credentials: a conservative voice, Fellow at the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank), dated Laura Ingrahm and Ann Coulter (per his WP Article), who clearly states that Spencer is guilty of Selection Bias by ignoring context and peaceful verses (therefore gives reason to dismiss him). Also, as far as Islamic jurispudence, Bernard Lewis (see his piece on Wall Street Journal's Opinion section after 9/11) clearly stated that 9/11 is not something that Muslim jurists would approve. Furthermore, you are asking us to view Spencer's debate with Peterson, but, I would ask you to view Spencer's debate with D'Souza to get the full picture. Or, read the Reference link, in the article, of Dr. Crane's criticism: you will find dozens more specific, not vague, examples and can research them for your self by reviwing the entire Quranic paragraph where the topic is discussed, not just by picking a verse here and half-a verse there. Otherwise, Spencer has every right to his opinion; but, it's just that: one man's opinion and as his critics like Crane and D'Souza pointed out, it's crafted carefully to mis-lead some who want to be mis-led.1detour (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, D'Souza is extremely ignorant of Islam and Islamic law. In his debate with Spencer he never denied anything Spencer said about Islamic jurisprudence, likely because he is not in a position to discuss such matters. In D'Souza's debate with Trifkovich we learn that D'Souza isn't even aware that the chapters in the Qur'an are arranged from longest to shortest... http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015527.php Spencer quotes mainstream commentaries, taught in religious scghools throughout the Muslim world, and the texts of Islamic Law, such as "Reliance of the Traveller" which clearly mandate warfare against nonbelievers and their subjugation under the rule of Islamic Law. You respond by telling me that none of this can exist because Dinesh D'Souza and Ann Coulter don't like Spencer? How does that follow? Bernard Lewis is indeed an expert, but so far as I can tell Spencer has never claimed that jurists would have any particular view over 9/11. Indiscriminate violence against nonbelievers is certainly not permitted in Islamic Law.

Please tell us which of the four mainstream Sunni schools - the Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanafi and Hanbali schools - do not permit warfare against nonbelievers who refuse to become Muslim and refuse to accept Muslim rule (signified by payment of the jizya tax).

As for Robert Crane, a refutation of his position is here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017126.php Writer98 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Writer98, Is Spencer really in any better position to cite Islamic Jurisprudence than D'Souza, much less even Bernard Lewis? I have only seen Spencer quote the Qur'an and Sunnah, but only very selectively from the quite voluminous pronouncements in the Islamic legal traditions. For one, your mention of the work translated as The Reliance of the Traveler leads me to point out the fact that it is a classic Shafi manual, which means that it was a text used by just one school of law; not all of them. For this reason, it is in no way "taught in religious schools throughout the Muslim world" as you implied, only Shafi institutions. Has any subsequent jurist of the Shafi school challenged the concepts therein that Spencer is so critical of? Good question. Next, what are we to make of Tripkovich's criticism of D'Souza's understanding of the chapter sequence, when if you pick up any copy of the Qur'an, you will find it begins with a very short chapter, called Surat al-Fatiha, which is composed of just 7 lines? Furthermore, does Tripkovich ever address D'Souza's explanation about Islam in India, which is derived from his own personal experience as a person of Indian origin? Or does Spencer? Next, you write that "Spencer has mainly claimed that the mainstream texts of Islamic jurisprudence contain material which justifies violence against nonbelievers, which many Muslims around the world act upon." That may be, and Spencer is right to highlight that; however, by emphasizing only those verses that support his conclusions, he willfully overlooks textual sources that either contradict, limit, or contextualize those passages. You wrote "It is incredibly striking that none of the critics quoted in the Spencer article has come up with a single specific claim or quote from Spencer which they dispute." Actually, they most certainly have, and it's manifestly clear that most of Spencer's critics are generally accusing him of one over-riding problem: cherry-picking. Verses supporting violence certainly exist, as do ones that advocate showing respect for the "People of the Book", negotiating truces, being merciful, and advocating peaceable coexistence. Such verses are often followed by a another which then modifies it- a standard feature of many Qur'anic chapters, which end with an appeal to mercy, etc etc. Spencer generally omits, overlooks, or when pressed, dismisses these verses, and it is this approach that has engendered the criticism. Sure, Osama bin Laden will use them to justify his positions. Yet when other Muslim religious bodies criticize him for doing so, when does Spencer take note of their arguments ad the sources that they cited? Regarding the exchange with Crane, Spencer never once addressed the point that he emphasized Chapter 9: 1-3, and conveniently overlooking verse 4 which effectively modifies the previous ones. That is a classic example of "cherry picking", and Crane has called him out on it. Why did Spencer avoid acknowledging this point in his lengthy reply to Crane's critique? Who cares if Crane is a former Nixon aide that shares the name of a famous television star? Instead of explaining why he omitted verse 4, we are instead treated with incessant innuendo about Crane's association with "Tricky Dick". As you've noted, Spencer has often replied to criticism made of him; but, so have critics in turn. To balance the article, shall we feature an additional section for this entry of the critics replying to Spencer's reply to their initial criticism? For example, the reply to Spencer's criticism of Mark LeVine's criticism of him engendered a rather interesting follow-up reply by LeVine, in which he states that "...it seems that you did not read most of what I have written before writing your critique of my work. I say this because I have discussed in detail most every thing you have accused me of not discussing--the origins of Hamas, the immorality and futility of suicide bombings, hatred for Israel and the like. It would be nice to be accused of something that I didn't do, instead of being accused of not doing something I have in fact done. Then at least I could learn from the criticism, which is always a good thing." Is that really a form of criticism of "the vague and ad hominem variety" as you implied? Finally, do you think that only people defending Islam are critical of Spencer? Think again. Here's a very interesting, more recent exchange with another notable conservative critic of Islam, Evariste, regarding Spencer's behavior. Evariste highlights Spencer's penchant for sliding into petty ad hominem attacks and diatribes rather than sticking to his argument. Spencer's treatment of Crane is quite similar; he cherry-picks the critiques made of him in favor of seizing the opportunity to lob a few more salacious references to the Nixon administration (which you should note, is another form of ad hominem fallacy). Is that really an approach that can be defined as "scholarship"? There are many credible scholars on Islam who take critical views (not only Lewis, but Patricia Crone, and more recent scholars like Donner, Berkey, Brown, etc etc) who generally do not share many of Spencer's sentiments. Spencer is a controversial figure, and has made his living out of it. Just as this article correctly highlights his views and criticisms, so should it highlight the nature of criticism made of him, irregardless of whether Spencer or his fans happen to like it or not. Isn't that NPOV?Jemiljan (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

question...

The article refers to his Christological studies, what the heck is Christological? Geo Swan (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term Christology refers to the philosophy of the nature of Christ. "Christological disuptes within Christianity are very old, and the topic of the early Church councils. The WP article is very well written and offers a concise overview of the topic.Jemiljan (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_B._Spencer&oldid=316218114"