User talk:Goldenlaker

You need to read what Spencer's views of Islam are actually based upon. They are not based on his opinion of anything in particular from the Qur'an, but the views of mainstream and widely respected Islamic commentators about those verses, such as Ibn Kathir and commentaries such as the Tafsir al-Jalalayn. I take it that you have read these commentaries?

He also makes reference to what is taught by all the schools of Islamic Law:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018752.php

To quickly get a better understanding of his position online see below...

A talk on freedom of speech and Islam: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2241550816112243907&ei=KHJdScfIL4rojgKimqGwDw&q=robert+spencer

Just added a link to the following one hour talk which is a clear presentation of many of his positions: http://multimedia.heritage.org/content/wm/Allison-111406.wvx

A debate with a professor of Islamic studies: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6PdJnYJc1bk&feature=related

[NB Peterson says near the end of one of the later parts "we are not disagreeing on all that much"]

His views on CAIR (which ought to be included in his "views"): http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=J34Ub8q2niE

I recommend you listen to all this material to get a good grasp of his position.

-

My claim that Spencer says on his site he agrees with Lewis on "almost everything" was not correct. I should have said he claims that "my areas of agreement with Lewis are much larger than any areas of disagreement I may have with him" and that Lewis is a "leading and justly renowned authority." These quotes can be found here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/015022.php

I will read Lewis' new book when I get the chance. You say that Lewis denies that "Islamic jurisprudence permits and encourages "violent Jihad"." Unless Lewis has completely changed his mind recently I find that quite remarkable. For example Lewis writes: "The overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense." (The Political Language of Islam (1988) p.72). Can you produce a quote from his new book to back your claim up?

You wrote (of Spencer) "I have access to and have read his books." This is good. In any section critising his views it would make sense to quote from his books, since he often claims that critics misreprent him. Can I also request that you do not put a section critising his views before the section clarifying what his views actually are (as was done previously). That is not a logical ordering.

Writer98 (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC) -

I have undone your last section of changes for the following reasons:

1. The section "Spencer's Views Challenged" comes before "Spencer's Views." That is not a logical ordering.

2. You suggest that Lewis denies that violent Jihad is an element of Islam, but that is not the case. Lewis writes: "The overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense." (The Political Language of Islam (1988) p.72). At bare minimum such sentiments should be included to provide balance.

3. You say that Lewis writes: "At no time did the (Muslim) jurist approve of terrorism." This would only be of any relevance to Spencer's views if Spencer had somewhere claimed that the Jurists approved of terrorism. Can you produce such a quote? By including this in a section where Spencer's views are "challenged" you are implying Spencer disagrees with all this.

4. You say that Lewis writes: "Muslim are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hosilities, and to honor agreements." Again, by including this in a section where Spencer's views are "challenged" you are implying Spencer disagrees with all this. Substantiation of this claim is needed, via a quote from Spencer's work.

5. You say that Lewis writes: "The emergence of the now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century. It has no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition." Again, some quote is needed from Spencer. So far as I recall, Spencer claims is that Jihadists appeal to the elements of Islam which approved of martyrdom to try to justify suicide-bombing. Since he rarely gets into what Islam "really teaches" but often just refers to how some Muslims have use the Sunnah, it is hard to show that this conflicts with Lewis. If you have some quote, however, it might be a good example of an area where Spencer (and many others) disagree with Lewis.

6. You say that Lewis writes "The alleged choice--conversion or death--is also, with rare and atypical exceptions, untrue." Spencer has explicitly denied that Islam was "spread by the sword" and your implication that he does think that Muslims offered only conversion or death (which he denies) is most definitely a misunderstanding. Spencer claims that ISLAMIC LAW was spread by the sword. He denies that forced conversion was permitted and the passage you quote of his no way implies that conversion to Islam was required. Many conquered peoples were able to retain their own religion under Muslim protection (dhimmis), but were subjugated as second-class citizens under the rule Islamic Law. This is very clearly documented in Spencer's work.

7. You say that Lewis writes that The Quran states explicitly: "There is no compulsion in religion" (Quran 2:256)" and that "Muslim understanding of application of this verse was as an "injuction of tolerance."" Spencer's view is that when Mohammed began his prophetic career, he taught tolerance, not warfare. It is not clear how the passage you cite conflicts with with Spencer's position, unless Lewis went on to say that there was no development of the doctrine to permit warfare under certain circumstances. I don't think Lewis has ever claimed any such thing, but if you have a quote to show otherwise then bring it forth.

8. You say that Lewis writes: "Generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom until the rise of secularism in the 17th century." Again, to have relevance you would need a clear quote to show that Spencer has anywhere claimed to the contrary. His thesis about Christianity and Islam is about what the founder, the core texts and mainstream theology and the mainstream commentators have attributed to the religion. He maintains that insofar as Christians have been ill-behaved through history (which they have) that is contrary to their religion. This in no way implies that at any specific time in history life in Christendom was preferable to life under Islamic rule. Maybe you can show that Spencer believes this by quoting him, but you are yet to do so.

Writer98 (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Writer98 on Robert Spencer, Again
I see that you debated Writer98 before, and he is back. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to address all of his "points", but had he bothered to read what was posted in reply, perhaps he would not have found it necessary? What to do?Jemiljan (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)