Talk:Robert B. Spencer

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)

• See also the recent discussion here. —Cesar Tort 18:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

• • • 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)

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)

Religion

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Then we should also necessarily trim the "Spencer responds to his critics" section right along with itJemiljan (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Among others, I found this. TwoHorned (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• • 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)

question...

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

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)

---

Questioning references

I omitted large sections of this article because they were either copied verbatim from Mr. Spencer's website (for example, entire paragraphs of his biography) or the article referenced his website exclusively. Using this one individual source is problematic because it relies on an individual with a clear agenda as a sole reference. The article claimed that Mr. Spencer was a guest on a range of political talk shows but substantiated this claim with one reference to his website. Surely his exact work can be traced. Many of his arguments are thought to be dubious and I thought it was inappropriate to have a rebuttal section so I preserved his ideas section, part of his supporters' arguments (those not sourced from his website), and the opposing views. The final section seemed completely irrelevant.