Best Robert Spencer book on Islam

cowboyBuilder

Hi,
Was wondering which Robert Spencer book on Islam I should read ,
he has a load of them.

The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran seems to be highly rated on amazon.

Lurkio

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Hi,
Was wondering which Robert Spencer book on Islam I should read ,
he has a load of them.

The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran seems to be highly rated on amazon.

It helps if you try to be more subtle.

cowboyBuilder

What's that ?
Any helpfull replies apart from this sarcastic crap above ?

Lurkio

Robert Spence is a notoroius right wing demagogue

"Spencer’s polemical attack is based on his personal study of Islam since he has no formal training in Islamic studies. Spencer employs a number of arguments and tactics in his polemics: projecting the actions of an individual as an inherent trait of the entire group, taking the most extreme opinions and interpretations of Islam and asserting them as correct, normative and mainstream, conflating culture with religion, guilt by association, regurgitating Orientalist ideas, and weaponizing, revisiting and at times forging history to suit his arguments. He consistently forwards conspiracy theories about “Stealth Jihad,” “Eurabia,” genocide in Bosnia never occurring or being exaggerated, eminent “Islamization of America,” and the infiltration of Congress by “Muslim spy interns.”
http://spencerwatch.com/about-robert-spencer/

"As the director of the Jihad Watch blog and co-founder of Stop Islamization of America, Robert Spencer is one of America’s most prolific and vociferous anti-Muslim propagandists. He insists, despite his lack of academic training in Islam, that the religion is inherently violent and that radical jihadists who commit acts of terror are simply following its dictates. His writing was cited dozens of times in a manifesto written by the Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik. Spencer was banned from the United Kingdom as an extremist in July 2013."
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/robert-spencer

"Wake up America!" With this cautionary phrase, Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) has sought to rouse public fears about a vast Islamic conspiracy to destroy American values.

The organization, created in 2009, warns of the encroachment of Shariah, or Islamic law, in the U.S. and encourages Muslims to renounce and leave the "falsity" of Islam. "The U.S. constitution is under attack from fundamentalist Islam and Shariah," reads SIOA's mission statement.

Consistently vilifying the Islamic faith under the guise of fighting radical Islam, the group has introduced a growing number of Americans to its conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda.

Headed by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, SIOA operates under the auspices of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI). It is modeled after a European organization with the same agenda, Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE)."
http://www.adl.org/civil-rights/discrimination/c/stop-islamization-of-america.html

An internationally recognised hate monger, with no qualifications or knowledge, just a knack for churning out bile.

cowboyBuilder

The fact that he has been banned from the U.K. Wouldn't put me off him , the U.K. Seems to want to become a sharia state anyway .

Lurkio

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

The fact that he has been banned from the U.K. Wouldn't put me off him , the U.K. Seems to want to become a sharia state anyway .

Utter rubbish with no foundation in fact. Theres enough to worry about in the real world without concocting scare stories for oneself.

cowboyBuilder

The fact that he has been banned from the U.K. Wouldn't put me off him , the U.K. Seems to want to become a sharia state anyway .

cowboyBuilder

Anyway , I'll do more research on spencer ...

Mark Tapley

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Anyway , I'll do more research on spencer ...

Nothing like a bit of confirmation bias with your lunch.

cowboyBuilder

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Nothing like a bit of confirmation bias with your lunch.

Brilliant

Cabaal

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Anyway , I'll do more research on spencer ...

I'm sure watching some Fox News might also help you reenforce your viewpoints also, after all they spout such utter crap and lies as this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_zF7nbEvwY

Michael OBrien

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Hi,
Was wondering which Robert Spencer book on Islam I should read ,
he has a load of them.

The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran seems to be highly rated on amazon.

As long as you don't rely on his writings solely, he is an interesting speaker on the topic. He is biased against Islam generally so he is not in anyway neutral, and you need to keep an eye on conspiracy thinking but his writings are worth noting.
As far as his detractors are concerned, anyone knocking Islam is marked down as bigots so you will not find any anti-Islam writer not hated by certain groups.
In general there are plenty of videos where you can listen to him and see what you think about his work.
As far as not being officially qualified to speak on the topic? There is no reason that is required, but it is used to knock him (or anyone negative on Islam). He has years of experience and studied Islamic history so he has merit to his statements, as long as you note that he is not neutral and so some of his conclusions are worth skeptical revision.

Don't trust any one point of view, as propaganda on both sides exist, but that is not the same as "its all lies". It just means that you need to be careful to research claims about Islam, as it is mired in myth and dogma for centuries.

Lurkio

Michael OBrien wrote: »

As long as you don't rely on his writings solely, he is an interesting speaker on the topic. .

He's a bigoted goon who is notorious internationally. He has never published anything that is in anyway rated by theolgians, historians, mainstream commentators or academics. He rants about muslims the way it was once fashionable to do against Jews, Catholics and other minorities.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

He is biased against Islam generally so he is not in anyway neutral, and you need to keep an eye on conspiracy thinking but his writings are worth noting..

Other than for their rabid views, no. Or is this worth noting

About Obama "he has never been questioned about this and challenged about this and so ultimately only he knows the answer to what he really believes, but certainly his public policies and behavior are consistent with him being a committed and convinced Muslim"

Truly a mind for the ages at work there.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

As far as his detractors are concerned, anyone knocking Islam is marked down as bigots so you will not find any anti-Islam writer not hated by certain groups...

Just to tease this out - you're stating that because some people automatically brand (according to you) "anti-islam" writers bigots he somehow gets a pass despite the content of his nonsense?

.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

As far as not being officially qualified to speak on the topic? There is no reason that is required, but it is used to knock him (or anyone negative on Islam). ...

Jesus forbid that a critique be built on reason and learning. It would make demagoguery far too difficult a field to break into.

.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

He has years of experience and studied Islamic history ...........
...

He has never formally studied Islamic history. Talking crap for years gives you years of experience of talking crap.

Michael OBrien

Lurkio wrote: »

He's a bigoted goon who is notorious internationally. He has never published anything that is in anyway rated by theolgians, historians, mainstream commentators or academics. He rants about muslims the way it was once fashionable to do against Jews, Catholics and other minorities.


Other than for their rabid views, no. Or is this worth noting

About Obama "he has never been questioned about this and challenged about this and so ultimately only he knows the answer to what he really believes, but certainly his public policies and behavior are consistent with him being a committed and convinced Muslim"

Truly a mind for the ages at work there.



Just to tease this out - you're stating that because some people automatically brand (according to you) "anti-islam" writers bigots he somehow gets a pass despite the content of his nonsense?

.

Jesus forbid that a critique be built on reason and learning. It would make demagoguery far too difficult a field to break into.

.

He has never formally studied Islamic history. Talking crap for years gives you years of experience of talking crap.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/about-robert
Exerts from his site:
Q: Have you debated Islamic scholars and spokesmen?
RS: Yes, I have debated imams and Islamic scholars including Anjem Choudhary, Omar Bakri, Moustafa Zayed, Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, and many others. I have discussed and/or debated various aspects of it with Jaafar Siddiqui and Salam Al-Marayati (twice) on the Michael Medved Show; Al-Marayati again on the Alan Colmes Show and Radio Islam; Hussam Ayloush on the Dennis Prager Show and another show; Hussein Ibish on CNN radio; As’ad AbuKhalil (the “Angry Arab”) on a station in San Diego; Muqtedar Khan on a Jamaican radio station; Ibrahim Hooper on MSNBC TV with Keith Olbermann; Abdul Malik Ali on Pax TV; two Islamic scholars on Michael Coren’s TV show in Toronto; Abdulaziz Sachedina and an Iranian scholar on the Lou Dobbs show; and Ayloush and AbuKhalil, as well as Khaleel Mohammed, in print. Others also.

Q: Do you hate Muslims?
RS: Of course not. Islam is not a monolith, and never have I said or written anything that characterizes all Muslims as terrorist or given to violence. To call attention to the roots and goals of jihad violence within Islamic texts and teachings, and to show how jihadists use those texts and teachings, says nothing at all about what any given Muslim believes or how he acts. Any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts. Any hate in my books comes from Muslim sources quoted, not from me. Cries of “hatred” and “bigotry” are effectively used by American Muslim advocacy groups to try to stifle the debate about the terrorist threat. But there is no substance to them.
It is not an act of hatred against Muslims to point out the depredations of jihad ideology. It is a peculiar species of displacement and projection to accuse someone who exposes the hatred of one group of hatred himself: I believe in the equality of rights and dignity of all people, and that is why I oppose the global jihad. Those who make the charge use it as a tool to frighten the credulous and politically correct away from the truth.

Some time ago here at Jihad Watch I had an exchange with an English convert to Islam. I said: “I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc.” Is all that “anti-Muslim”? My correspondent thought so. He responded: “So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims.”
In other words, he saw a call for equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies, including freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, and equal employment opportunities, as a challenge to his religion. To the extent that they are, these facts have to be confronted by both Muslims and non-Muslims. But it is not “anti-Muslim” to wish freedom of conscience and equality of rights on the Islamic world — quite the contrary.

Here is an article written by Spencer about Obama where he states he does not think he is a muslim.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/02/robert-spencer-in-frontpage-why-obama-wont-call-the-jihadis-islamic

"And it does seem most likely that Obama is indeed not a practicing Muslim, despite the remarkable persistence of rumors and suspicions to the contrary. It is extremely unlikely that a Muslim would publicly proclaim himself a Christian over and over, as Obama has. While it is possible that this would be justified under Islam’s doctrines of deception, there is no evidence that Muslims have ever behaved this way. Ground Zero Mosque imam Faisal Abdul Rauf did say several years ago, “I am a Jew,” but he only said it once, in the context of ecumenical generosity; he didn’t try to pass himself off as one. There is a way in which a Muslim could say he is a true Jew or true Christian because he follows the true teachings of the Torah and the Gospel, but there is no known case of a Muslim behaving this way in a sustained manner. If Obama were a secret Muslim, he would be the first Muslim to carry out such a sustained deception of claiming not to be a Muslim."

Lurkio

Michael OBrien wrote: »

https://www.jihadwatch.org/about-robert
Exerts from his site:.............

....yeah, and your point is....?

stunmer

Lurkio wrote: »

An internationally recognised hate monger, with no qualifications or knowledge, just a knack for churning out bile.

Does anyone have any examples of Robert Spencer being a hate monger?

I don't know him but I am always wary of people who label anyone who is critical of the islamic faith as hateful, racist or bigots. This is the same label which has been applied to Sam Harris usually by regressive leftist and islamist apologist types to have no problem with lying to smear the name of anyone who criticise the set of ideas that is islam.

Don't get me wrong, he may be a hateful, racist bigot but any examples of this?

Lurkio

stunmer wrote: »

Does anyone have any examples of Robert Spencer being a hate monger?

I don't know him but I am always wary of people who label anyone who is critical of the islamic faith as hateful, racist or bigots. This is the same label which has been applied to Sam Harris usually by regressive leftist and islamist apologist types to have no problem with lying to smear the name of anyone who criticise the set of ideas that is islam.

Don't get me wrong, he may be a hateful, racist bigot but any examples of this?

Well if you're so rabid even the ADL thinks you are a bigot, its never a good sign
http://www.adl.org/civil-rights/discrimination/c/stop-islamization-of-america.html#.VynM2f3mrDA
and please read
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/robert-spencer

Michael OBrien

Lurkio wrote: »

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/robert-spencer

Actually that is an interesting read.
Did you read it?
"Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist who slaughtered 77 people, mostly teens, in Oslo and the nearby island of Utoya on July 22, 2011, referenced Spencer’s writings dozens of times in his 1,500-page manifesto. He believed that Islam was destroying Western civilization. In response to media reports about the connection, Spencer likened the situation to Charles Manson’s statements about drawing inspiration from the Beatles."
This is a slur by association. To blame or attempt to blame Spencer because his work is REFERENCED in some nutbag's manifesto is fallacious. Spencer does not call for violence.

"In her 2008 book, Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West, the late prime minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, pointed out that Spencer is “falsely constructing a divide between Islam and West,” and that he presents “a skewed, one-sided, and inflammatory story that only helps to sow the seed of civilizational conflict.”"
yes its a pity she was assassinated in a suicide bombing. She might have a different opinion today.

The article includes quotes from Spencer. Judge for yourself how "crazy" they are:
In His Own Words:
"Osama [bin Laden]'s use of these and other [Koranic] passages in his messages is consistent … with traditional understanding of the Quran. When modern-day Jews and Christians read their Bibles, they simply don't interpret the passages cited as exhorting them to violent actions against unbelievers. This is due to the influence of centuries of interpretative traditions that have moved them away from literalism regarding these passages. But in Islam, there is no comparable interpretative tradition."
— The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), 2005

"Of course, as I have pointed out many times, traditional Islam itself is not moderate or peaceful. It is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers."
— Jihad Watch blog, Jan. 14, 2006

“Islam is not a religion of peace. It has an inherently political character that is being brought to the West by immigrants, and will cause more trouble in the future. The jihadists have not hijacked it. Peaceful Muslims should be encouraged but do not have a sufficiently influential voice in the Islamic world to allow them to be counted on. The jihadists will not be bought off by negotiations or concessions. This is the revival of a 1,400-year-old war, and we need to be prepared for the fact that it will not end anytime soon – and prepared to defend ourselves militarily and ideologically.”
— Interview with the Liberal Institute, September 2007

The points made above are all correct and chilling accurate with the rise of ISIS.

The doctrines of Islam are far from peaceful.

Lurkio

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Actually that is an interesting read.
.............of ISIS.

Pig ignorant religious bigotry is never that interesting.

Michael OBrien

Lurkio wrote: »

Pig ignorant religious bigotry is never that interesting.

Its your own link I referenced. So you don't even read your own links?

stunmer

Lurkio wrote: »

Pig ignorant religious bigotry is never that interesting.

Again, examples?

I'm not discounting you but you still have failed to provide examples.

Lurkio

stunmer wrote: »

Again, examples?

I'm not discounting you but you still have failed to provide examples.

You didn't read the links I provided?

Lurkio

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Its your own link I referenced. So you don't even read your own links?

I do, but without the cherry picking. Why are you defending this goon?

stunmer

Lurkio wrote: »

You didn't read the links I provided?

Yup, but what examples do you have? You can copy and paste them from the links if necessary.

Lurkio

stunmer wrote: »

Yup, but what examples do you have? You can copy and paste them from the links if necessary.

I'm confused - did you not read the links provided? If you have, you've seen the examples referred to.

stunmer

Lurkio wrote: »

I'm confused - did you not read the links provided? If you have, you've seen the examples referred to.

Surely you can copy and paste examples into this thread of where you think he is the following:

"notoroius right wing demagogue"
"extremist"
"internationally recognised hate monger"
"bigoted goon".

If you are going to label someone with phrases like the above surely you can provide examples. Linking to another website with broad descriptions about someone is not providing examples as then I cannot agree or disagree with you as it is ambiguous which bits you agree and which bits you disagree with.

Let me be clear here, I'm not saying you are incorrect, it's just without providing specific examples I am not clear what you are basing this on.

I remember discussing with someone on Boards who described Richard Dawkins as "hateful" and when challenged they could not provide any examples where Dawkins has been hateful.

When we use labels to describe someone we should be able to back them up with evidence.

Lurkio

stunmer wrote: »

Surely you can copy and paste examples into this thread of where you think he is the following:

"notoroius right wing demagogue"
"extremist"
"internationally recognised hate monger"
"bigoted goon".

If you are going to label someone with phrases like the above surely you can provide examples. Linking to another website with broad descriptions about someone is not providing examples as then I cannot agree or disagree with you as it is ambiguous which bits you agree and which bits you disagree with.

Let me be clear here, I'm not saying you are incorrect, it's just without providing specific examples I am not clear what you are basing this on.

I remember discussing with someone on Boards who described Richard Dawkins as "hateful" and when challenged they could not provide any examples where Dawkins has been hateful.

When we use labels to describe someone we should be able to back them up with evidence.

I'm beginning to think you're taking the piss

"Spencer argues that radical Muslims, like Osama bin Laden, are interpreting the Koran properly. Peaceful and moderate Muslims, according to Spencer, either do not understand their own holy book or are faking their moderate stances. He depicts isolated incidences of extremism as normative and representative of the entire group. Critics have been quick to point out that Spencer’s argument requires an exceptionally narrow reading and that it exempts the Koran, hypocritically, from the benefit of interpretation granted to other religious texts, like the Bible. One example of this tactic can be seen in Spencer’s and Geller’s treatment of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the American-born project leader of the Park51 project aiming to build a mosque in lower Manhattan, near the site of the 9/11 attacks. By painting Rauf as a radical Islamist who was striving to build a “victory mosque” to celebrate the destruction of the World Trade Center, the two leaders of SIOA sought to block the project while portraying all Muslims as radical – an assertion simply not supported by facts. "
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/robert-spencer

Michael OBrien

Lurkio wrote: »

I do, but without the cherry picking. Why are you defending this goon?

I did not cherry pick. I quoted, in full, the quotes that the article stated Spencer said. What is so wrong about them? I responded to some other parts that I thought were worth commenting on. What part did I ignore that you wish me to address.

There are plenty of articles that like to bash anyone who disagrees with Islam. Spencer is not someone I consider an authority but he does make valid statements that should not be dismissed simply because he is biased and has some unfortunate conspiracy views at times. I agree fully he is not neutral on the topic as I stated from the start. But you seem to practically froth at the mouth at the mere mention of his name. That is completely over the top reaction to him.

If you decide to cherry pick negative articles on people that critic religion then Dawkins, Harris, Hirsi Ali, Mariam Namazie, Hitchens, Dennett, even liberal muslims like Maajid Nawaz and Khalid Duran or ex-muslims like Nonie Darwish, Walid Shoebat, Mosab Hassan Yousef, Salman Rushdie, Ali Sina and others can be dismissed as "bigots" or ignorant. There is no shortage of hate towards anyone who says anything negative about Islam. You can see that by simply looking at the comments on any video with Hirsi Ali in it.
Heck even little Malala gets torrents of hate and is called a puppet and a traitor from Muslims and she is still a muslim that wants women to be educated.

Lurkio

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I did not cherry pick. I quoted, in full, the quotes that the article stated Spencer said. What is so wrong about them? I responded to some other parts that I thought were worth commenting on. What part did I ignore that you wish me to address.

There are plenty of articles that like to bash anyone who disagrees with Islam. Spencer is not someone I consider an authority but he does make valid statements that should not be dismissed simply because he is biased and has some unfortunate conspiracy views at times. I agree fully he is not neutral on the topic as I stated from the start. But you seem to practically froth at the mouth at the mere me.....................

ntion of his name. That is completely over the top reaction to him.

He's a notorious scum bucket. He makes no valid statements, save by the broken clock phenomena.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

If you decide to cherry pick negative articles on people that critic religion then Dawkins, .....................

Pull the other one. He was banned from Britian because of his crap. Shoebat was debunked as a fantasist years ago, btw.

Michael OBrien

stunmer wrote: »

Surely you can copy and paste examples into this thread of where you think he is the following:

"notoroius right wing demagogue"
"extremist"
"internationally recognised hate monger"
"bigoted goon".

If you are going to label someone with phrases like the above surely you can provide examples. Linking to another website with broad descriptions about someone is not providing examples as then I cannot agree or disagree with you as it is ambiguous which bits you agree and which bits you disagree with.

Let me be clear here, I'm not saying you are incorrect, it's just without providing specific examples I am not clear what you are basing this on.

I remember discussing with someone on Boards who described Richard Dawkins as "hateful" and when challenged they could not provide any examples where Dawkins has been hateful.

When we use labels to describe someone we should be able to back them up with evidence.

He seems extremely reluctant to actually link to anything Spencer actually writes or says.
Here is a link to Spencer's own view of the NYC proposed mosque. If you are going to judge him, do it by his own words.

Here is an article about the current situation of the proposed NYC building that seems quite different than originally proposed.

Lurkio

Michael OBrien wrote: »

He seems extremely reluctant to actually link to anything Spencer actually writes or says.
.............

Despite having linked to a number of articles that include what he says and writes.......

Walter H Price

It often feels like you can freely criticize the teaching , practices , past scandals and on going cover ups in the catholic church , but as soon as you challenge Islam in any way shape or for you are an intolerant racist bigot.

I have no issue with individual practicing Muslims the same as i don't with individual practicing Catholics, so long as they keep their views to themselves and give equal respect to my non belief.

But fundamentally Islam the same as Catholicism or Orthodox Judaism or any organised religion is deeply flawed , repressive, oppressive, an affront to some of the most basic human rights and in its worst excesses violent and cruel. Islam is not a race its an ideology and all ideology's should be freely criticized and evaluated with out the fear of being labeled a narrow minded racist bigot.

Lurkio

Walter H Price wrote: »

It often feels like you can freely criticize the teaching , practices , past scandals and on going cover ups in the catholic church , but as soon as you challenge Islam in any way shape or for you are an intolerant racist bigot.

I have no issue with individual practicing Muslims the same as i don't with individual practicing Catholics, so long as they keep their views to themselves and give equal respect to my non belief.

But fundamentally Islam the same as Catholicism or Orthodox Judaism or any organised religion is deeply flawed , repressive, oppressive, an affront to some of the most basic human rights and in its worst excesses violent and cruel. Islam is not a race its an ideology and all ideology's should be freely criticized and evaluated with out the fear of being labeled a narrow minded racist bigot.

Not at all. I'm a staunch critic of Catholicism, for instance, as would be many of my age. However I would not share a platform with the late Ian paisley on the subject, and I firmly believe that's the kind of platform that mr spencer and his associates are on.

Michael OBrien

Lurkio wrote: »

Despite having linked to a number of articles that include what he says and writes.......

Cherry picking quotes placed in articles that aim to defame is not the same as linking to his own work so context and scope of what he says and when can be assessed objectively.
Despite that, even when I copy/pasted the quotes in full from one of your articles against him, I could not see any lies in them and you refused to engage with what is wrong with what he said in those quotes.

Here is a video I saw today by him, while I disagree on certain points (souls existing for example, although as an metaphor it works ok for his overall point of people having desires for larger purposes than living day by day for oneself), many of the things he says is accurate. To dismiss everything he says because he is wrong on a few points or biased against Islam is not a logical stance. Instead be skeptical of his statements and see if his references hold water. Some do, some don't.