User talk:Writer98

January 2009
Thank you for your valuable feedback. I will go back and add sources, where missing, as well as reword the section. I do have three requests of you as well, please do not attack me personally, do not question my motives, and, please always sign your name when leaving comments to me so that I can easily determine who left the comment.

I look forward to working with you to improve this article for benefit of Wikipedia. Thanks. Goldenlaker (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

December 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Robert Spencer has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\byoutube\.com' (link(s): http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=J34Ub8q2niE). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please provoide source for your reason
Hello. Thanks. Goldenlaker (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) You reverted one of my changes with a note that "Spencer says on his site he agrees with Lewis on "almost everything.""  I am requesting an exact source for this quote.
 * 2) Since you seem to have read all of the Spencer's material, please also read the latest book by Professor Bernard Lewis (titled "Islam", published in 2008), and reconcile Spencer's conclusions being diametrically opposite to that of Professor Lewis'? (I have read Spencer's books and do not see how he can agree on "almost everything" with Professor Lewis.  Instead his position (for example, in his book "Onward Muslim soldier," pg 5) he contradicts Professor Lewis' position, and Spencer wrongly states that Islamic jurispudence permits and encourages "violent Jihad".
 * 3) I have already followed Mr. Spencer's pieces on his blogs as well as the debate on Frontpagemag; so, no need to send me additional references.  My intention is not to chase every blog anyone has written for or against him, but rather focus on the position, and the "evidence" he represents in his books; I have access to and have read his books.

Your use of the Robert Spencer talk page as a discussion forum
Writer98, you have carried the discussion far beyond a discussion of what Spencer has said and done and what constitutes a criticism of Spencer. The discussion page is NOT a forum for you to express what you prefer to believe about Islam.[] If you wish to discuss these matters, then please do so on our talk pages, and if I have time, I will reply. Therefore, I have removed your reply to me from the Robert Spencer talk page and and pasted it together with my responses below, and I have asked that the other editors such as 1detour do the same.

Jemilan,

You say that Spencer is ignorant that the ordering of the Qur'an but are unable to provide any evidence of this. I note that he wrote the following two years ago: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015565.php


 * Wrong, I asserted that YOU said that the verses "were arranged from longest to shortest" in the context of the discussion of Tripkovich's criticism of D'Souza. I clearly stated that "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" So your point here is wrong, as I never once asserted that it was Spencer who had this problem, but you, when you were trying to criticize D'Souza.  Basically, your point amounts to "the pot calling the kettle black".

It seems that you agree that all the schools of Islamic Law mandate offensive warfare to implement Sharia over unbelievers who refuse to submit.


 * No, I do not agree with this view at all. I summarily described how it is interpreted as a defensive action, not an aggressive one. That may not be what you prefer to believe, but you are going to have to cite other accredited scholars to persuade me, not Robert Spencer or any other reactionary.  I specifically pointed out how Spencer's "expose" relies on cherry-picked texts rather than providing an inclusive, objective survey primary legal sources.  As I previously mentioned, he conspicuously omitted the Muwatta of Malik ibn Anas. Why?  Because it does not support his argument, despite the fact that it is the oldest Islamic legal text, and one of the most highly respected.

You agree with Spencer that at the present time this is not allowed on the technicality that there is no Caliph to call this offensive Jihad (you wrote, "the...problem remains that there is no justification without a Caliph"). That is not reassuring. That in itself is an enormously important point to concede.


 * Rather, I pointed to specific sources that state this. This is NOT a universally accepted concept among all of the schools of law as they are practiced today.

No other religion in the world mandates violence against people who are outside of its fold if they refuse to convert or submit to its political rule. Most of Spencer's opponents deny that any such thing is part of Islamic Law.


 * Only, as I previously stated, the Old Testament clearly mandates much the exact same thing, so Islam is then not the only religion to have (in the view of some legal scholars, not all) asserted this view.. So I now note that you chose to conveniently overlook that. or refuse to concede this very real point.  Nor do texts such as the Muwatta support your contention that "No other religion in the world mandates violence against people who are outside of its fold if they refuse to convert or submit to its political rule."  In fact, that is precisely why Spencer has so far refused to cite it.  In contrast, I criticized Spencer for asserting that Islamic injunctions are somehow more problematic than those in the Old Testament, which were in fact interpreted quite literally.  Please re-read what I previously posted.

If you read 1detour, above, you will see that he says "There are no mainstream Muslim School of thoughts [sic] who advocate Jihad warfare to implement Sharia." You, me and Spencer know better.


 * Nice job of using a straw man fallacy, and I stand by what I wrote above. In no way do I agree with either you nor Spencer on this matter, as I do in fact agree with 1detour.

You seem to concede that in the event of a Muslim land coming under attack, Jihad warfare is mandatory for all Muslims.


 * That was not a "concession", it is a fact as detailed in the cited sources. What I dispute is your assertion that "No other religion in the world mandates violence against people who are outside of its fold if they refuse to convert or submit to its political rule."

You claim that this is no justification for the acts of al-Qa'ida, however, because "the Shafi'i school would not endorse that al-Qa'ida was attacked, but rather the other way around." But the obvious response is that in the centuries of battles between Muslims and non-Muslims, ANY action at all could be framed as a "defensive response," and that is precisely what Islamists do.


 * I cited a leading contemporary Shafii jurist who openly disagreed with Osama bin Ladin et al, and characterized it as "extreme". Basically, you are asserting that the interpretations of Osama bin Ladin et al "could be" right (and you provide no source to support this, you just assert a hypothetical), and in doing so, you imply that other leading contemporary jurists are somehow wrong.  Precisely what legal source do you base this upon?  It seems to me to be little more that your own personal opinion.

By framing their violent actions in this way, they can plausibly declare them as mandatory under Islamic Law! According to Islamic Law, Muslims do not need to wait for the authority of a Caliph to engage in such so-called defensive violence.


 * As previously mentioned, that is the view of al-Qa'ida, but it is clearly not at all endorsed by all of the Islamic schools of law, especially as they are practiced today.

Attacks on the Great Satan can be justified via Islamic Law by reference to American aggression in Islamic Lands. This is exactly what happens - see "The al-Qaeda Reader" by Raymond Ibrahim.


 * That is Raymond Ibrahim's opinion, not the opinion of leading contemporary Jurists, such as Shaykh 'Ali Goma'a or 'Ali Tantawi.

What is needed is for Muslims to reform these teachings about Jihad warfare rather than pretend they don't exist and pretend that Islam is the "Religion of Peace".


 * As if they aren't in fact doing that??? It seems to me that you have bought into the rhetoric that "Muslims aren't doing anything", when in actual fact, they very much are.  Look at the "Islam and Controversies" tab to see the names of several Muslims who have criticized these conventions, and that's just for starters.

I don't see that you have actually disputed the main substance of what Spencer has written.


 * Perhaps that is due to the fact that your reading comprehension appears to be conveniently limited? Do re-read what I posted.

You say that you hope you have answered my questions. Let's see how you did:

'''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.'''

OK, I grant that you addressed this, but so far as I can see you did not actually manage to name one.


 * I specifically noted how Spencer did NOT cite a Maliki text!!! He cited a work of HISTORY, not a text of jurisprudence.  Had a Maliki text such as the Muwatta of Malik ibn Anas contained such an injunction, Spencer would have cited it, but he didn't, RIGHT???

'''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).'''


 * Only it has been repeatedly mentioned how he has cherry-picked verses on which to focus, and downplayed others that contradict his views. He obviously does the exact same when it comes to citing the sources you mention.  You seem to refuse to acknowledge this, although it has all been discussed in detail.

Do you really claim that the Islamic authorities you cited have more lasting authority than these?


 * That's a bit like insisting that Christians still rely upon the legal authority of Justinian. Certainly, the code of Justinian is of considerable importance in Western legal history, but that does NOT mean that all Christians adhere to those standards today (which command forcibly converting Jews, killing pagans, seizing their property etc etc).  Much as Christians no longer follow Justinian to the letter, so to do Muslims discuss what is relevant for them today.  Extreme fundamentalism is not the only interpretation of Islam, despite your insistence that it is.

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

No response - stony silence.


 * Perhaps you are not aware that the term "dhimmitude" is a Western construct? What does this mean exactly? For example, one of the features of this was to pay a poll-tax, called the [jizya]], was it not?  Well, let's take a look at this.  The jizya was abolished by the Emperor Akbar, and was only revived by his great grandson Aurangzeb.  This and other precedents were described in detail by Dinesh D'Souza in his criticisms of Spencer.  Today, would you believe, that not one Muslim country imposes this tax? In Iran, this was banned in 1884 by the Qajar ruler Naser al-Din Shah, and despite the advent of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, it was never re-instituted. Nor does Saudi Arabia levey this tax today.  So, your strident unwillingness to educate yourself beyond your preferred, exceedingly biased-even reactionary- sources is causing you no end of trouble when it comes to understanding the way that Islam is in fact practiced in most of the world today.  You continually assert that the most violent extremists are somehow justified in their views, while the moderates aren't.  This is teh same argument that Spencer makes, and I for one, beg to differ.

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.


 * Again, you're asserting a nice straw man fallacy. Do ALL Muslims all over the world in fact assert this? Excuse me, but no, they do not.

Writer98, you are basically asserting that Spencer's views are correct in your view because... it's what you prefer to believe. I have in fact given you examples of Muslims who have disputed the assertions made by al-Qai'da and other extremists, which Spencer deems to be "authentic", as opposed to their critics. You really haven't bothered to read these Muslim critics of extremism, and so it seems you refuse to educate yourself beyond your preferred biased sources, as has been previously asked. In fact, I even pointed you to on very complete essay by Muslims servicemen working in the US military who have studied these issues extensively. Did you neglect to read that? I should say so. too?Jemiljan (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert Spencer: Discussion of his methodology
Writer98, if you wish, we can continue Spencer's methods here. I have copied and pasted discussions from his talk page here.

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!!! 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.

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. 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.)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.

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.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 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.Jemiljan (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC) [edit] 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 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!! 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.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.

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: 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. “…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)”

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.

“…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)”

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

"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)

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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. 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? 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:

“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.”

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.

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. 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. 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)!

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.

1detour (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So, no response from Spencer yet to your questions? 1detour (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Please set up an email address in your profile. I had a very important message for you that you will like to hear and which I cant give out here. Setting up email is easy. Just click on Preferences above and enter your email address. Then check your email and click on the confirmation link. After that just remove this message I've left you and I'll send you the email. --Justpassingthrough2 (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)