This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robert B. Spencer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robert B. Spencer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
True, although it does in sense that the subject makes their living proffering themselves to be a reliable source, especially in comparison to others whom he criticizes, hence the criticism of him that he necessarily engenders. As there are very clear guidelines delineated at WP:BLP, we should be careful, expecially when it comes to criticism, praise, and self-published materials.Jemiljan (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More about the reliability of Robert Spencer on discussions concerning Islam, Quran, etc.
I have been reading one of his books. His claims about Islam may be irritating to some, but I found that Robert Spencer
(a) does not use esoteric sources in the citations that he bases his arguments on,
You might like to refer to the link above to the discussion regarding why he is not considered a reliable source. As for your points, he has been routinely accused by cherry picking by his critics. You might like to look in the discussion archives for more examples of this. Sure he doesn't use "esoteric sources", cites the Qur'an, and also Islamic scholars, but he also tends to overlook, disregard, or downplay verses that provide certain caveats to the material he criticizes. That is what in logic is called confirmation bias, and unlike what you have asserted, that very constitutes a form of fallacious reasoning.Jemiljan (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If he is using the same cherry picking method (naskh) as Islamic scholars do routinely when they read Quran, then is it really cherry picking at all? --Uikku (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Another book he has written The Complete Infidels' Guide to the Koran discusses in length those peaceful passages and how they have been understood by some of the great Islamic commentators through history. Take Ibn Kathir on some peaceful verses: (2;109; Many of the People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) wish that they could turn you away... But forgive and overlook, till Allah brings His command.) was abrogated by the Ayah, (Then kill the Mushrikin wherever you find them) (9:5), and, (Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day) (9:29) until, (And feel themselves subdued) (9:29). If he is really so unreliable why aren't his critics able to demonstrate the distortions and half-truths in his work, but resort to personal attacks and moral equivalence? Many of the people and organisations in the criticism section have no substance in their criticism and in regard to Karen Armstrong and CAIR from a demonstrably unscholarly and bias source. Davidelah (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that so, David? Have you read, for example, the criticisms of [[ http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/the_politically_incorrect_guide_to_robert_spencer/%7CSheila]] [[ http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/robert_spencers_10_points_of_obfuscation/%7CMusaji]] and Robert Crane for yourself to verify that is in fact the case? They were included in the criticism section until they were deleted simply for being published on a blog, even though Spencer, is essentially a blogger himself. Are those criticisms just "personal attacks"? Also, is Armstrong "demonstrably unscholarly"? According to whom? Spencer? Do I hear Spencer's pot calling the kettle black? So, even though Spencer's academic background in these matters is nil, we are to trust his "exegesis" as "scholarly"? Why? Because you are predisposed to concur with his polemics even before objectively researching these matters in an impartial fashion? What's amusing is that if you were to spend even a few minutes researching these topics, you would readily find specific disagreements with his desired narrative. For example, There is nothing in the traditions to show that 9:5 abrogates 2:109, and then interpretation of 9:29 is debated. See Sheila Musaji's article on this matter.Jemiljan (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly think that Robert Spencer's work is essentialy about the historical and traditional teaching of Islam. Take one of the leading historians on Islam, Bernard Lewis. He says that jihad is an obligation that the overwhelming majority of theologians, jurists and traditionalist understood be a militarily one, a war particularly against non-Muslims, not limited to time or space, with the objective to either have the world converted a submitted to the power of an Islamic state, and which can only be resolved by final victory(page 72-77). This is pretty much irrefutable, and Spencer just makes the reasonable argument that jihadis like Islamic Jihad are able to recruit peaceful Muslims by referring to this and presenting them-selves as the true Muslims, but he has never actually said that they are. But of course many of the Muslim critics that object to him just denies that these things have ever existed. Maybe you should read some more on this topic in an impartial fashion? Anyways, Daniel C. Peterson has been very critical of Armstrong comparing Muhammad with Gandhi. Armstrong has also said it was the crusaders that made up the idea that Islam was violent. How does that square with the most respected historian on the subject? Another respected historian on the Middle East has said that some of the most important research on the this topic is being done outside the academy due to a very big shift in that academic field over the years[1].
I would like to read Sheila Musaji's article but as you know we can't use unscholarly self-published blogs on Wikipedia. - Davidelah (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also according to Ibn Kathir there is a sahih hadith that Ibn Abi Hatim recorded Usamah bin Zayd saying: The Messenger of Allah used to forgive them [disbelievers and the People of the Book] and was patient with them as Allah ordered him, until Allah allowed fighting them. Then Allah destroyed those who He decreed to be killed... - Davidelah (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading introduction
I scoured the source of the introductions' comically biased last sentence for a description of Spencer as 'influential in promoting anti-Islamic sentiments in the United States', and the closest thing I could find was: 'While the amount of anti-Muslim sentiment hasn't shifted much since a spate of homegrown terror attacks and the furor over the mosque, Muslim American leaders worry that it could. They accuse the bloggers of fueling religious hatred.' 'Muslim American leaders', whatever they are, are not The Washington Post, and it's pretty clear therefore that the purpose of that sentence is to promote anti-Spencer sentiments in the minds of the gullible - so I've removed it. You may not like what Spencer says/writes, but it's unfair to portray him as a hatemonger; I've read his stuff and he seems respectable enough. Logos384 (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While your criticism of the wording in question may be appropriate, what seems "comically biased" to me is your characterization of Spencer as "respectable enough", simply because you have "read his stuff". You might like to look at the immediately previous discussion entry with the reference to the consensus on why he is not to be considered a reliable source.Jemiljan (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guilt by association?
In connection to the 2011 Norway attacks, there isn't anything to suggest that Spencer's raising of concern about Islamic doctrines and advocating they be subordinate to human rights would lead to violence any more than other democratic political advocacy. Al-Qaeda has approvingly spoken of Noam Chomsky and Robert Fisk for example and this is not mentioned in those articles. Davidelah (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations made towards Robert Spencer come from notable people (journalist Max Blumenthal and former CIA officer and terrorism consultant Marc Sageman) and cited by what WP regards as a reliable reference, the New York Times. I added Spencer's response as well that he thinks he was unfairly blamed. I see no violation or OR here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your description of Spencer's blog as one that criticizes only Islamic doctrines, not Muslims (whether groups or individuals) is not only grossly inaccurate but also irrelevant. The fact is, notable people have made accusations towards Spencer and Spencer responded. This interaction needs to be documented in the article regardless of whether the accusation had basis or not, or whether Spencer's response was honest or not and regardless of your views of his blog as one that allegedly defends "human rights". I'm reinstating the removed material for now. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main article of the Norwegian murderer states the following under Anders Behring Breivik#Writings (and it doesn't look like there has been objections to it):
Major parts of the manifesto are attributed to the anonymous Norwegian blogger Fjordman. The introductory chapter of the manifesto is a copy of Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology by the Free Congress Foundation. The New York Times described American influences in Brevik's writings, noting that he mentions the anti-Islamist American Robert Spencer 64 times in his manifesto and cites Spencer's works at great length. The work of Bat Ye'or is cited dozens of times in his manifesto.
There are also notable people who have deconstructed those accusation in a very simple way as I have above. This is not a violation of OR but of BLP, which says that these kinds of accusations should editors be particularly aware of, as I think I have been here. The quote from the Anders Behring Breivik article does not make the conclusion that Spencer made him violent.
This article is already very much below BLP standard and have been even more in the past, so please respect the guidelines even though you may be critical of this person, thanks. Davidelah (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems rather premature to me. I'm not fan of Robert Spencer, and IMO people like him should take responsibility for what they write but this event is still hot and there wont be any meaningful and thorough analysis of these types of issues for some time. I say delete the section.Griswaldo (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sageman's comment was not really an accusation of links with the terrorist, rather it is pointing out what he sees as the hypocrisy of Spencer and similar minded bloggers that love to correlate things together with it comes to Islam and Muslims (like his allegations against Feisal Abdul Rauf). An accusation of hypocrisy needs to be listed under the criticism section. Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I vote that the Norway attacks section be moved to the "Controversies" section, with the present wording, which makes no conclusion as to whether Spencer "influenced" Breivik, but simply reports that he was quoted.Jemiljan (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
