New book on Muhammed

[cestusdei]

Sorry pal, I don’t find Carl credible. You are going to have to prove to me that he is. Don’t ask me to prove him wrong. That is what I asked you to do with Spencer. You would not. Show me why I should trust him.

 

[pro_universal]

Sorry pal, I don’t find Carl credible. You are going to have to prove to me that he is. Don’t ask me to prove him wrong. That is what I asked you to do with Spencer. You would not. Show me why I should trust him.

He’s the head of a university department for studying this field, that’s why. If that doesn’t make one trustworthy, what does?

Now, why can’t you answer my question?

is it possible to use original sources wrongly, to construct a biased picture?

Are you going to answer that?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Reliance on the criticism of Carl Ernst is an argumentum ad verecundiam particularly as Ernst’s “expertise” is on Sufism. Islam is not Sufism. In his latest book, ‘Following Muhammad’ Ersnt whitewashed/sidestepped Muhammad evil biography. This shows he is nothing more than an apologist and not someone I would consider trustworthy.

 

[pro_universal]

Reliance on the criticism of Carl Ernst is an argumentum ad verecundiam particularly as Ernst’s “expertise” is on Sufism. Islam is not Sufism. In his latest book, ‘Following Muhammad’ Ersnt whitewashed/sidestepped Muhammad evil biography. This shows he is nothing more than an apologist and not someone I would consider trustworthy.

Well, why don’t you take a look at his CV and published works if you don’t think he’s qualified to write the biography:

unc.edu/%7Ecernst/index.html

He’s certainly not even in the same league as Reverend Spencer, that’s for sure.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

You’re right. For once I agree with you. Carl Ernst is not on the same league as Robert Spencer - he’s far below Spencer in fact. But thanks for pointing that out. Much obliged.

I have had a look at Ernst’s publication list - he’s top heavy on Sufism. His latest book “Following Muhammad” skirts over (i.e. whitewashes) Muhammad’s biography as he knows we can see how evil Muhammad was.

 

[pro_universal]

You’re right. For once I agree with you. Carl Ernst is not on the same league as Robert Spencer - he’s far below Spencer in fact. But thanks for pointing that out. Much obliged.

I have had a look at Ernst’s publication list - he’s top heavy on Sufism. His latest book “Following Muhammad” skirts over (i.e. whitewashes) Muhammad’s biography as he knows we can see how evil Muhammad was.

Look at his education in addition to his publication list. If you want to continue asserting things about “Following Muhammad”, please link us to a credible review of the book that asserts this. If you think you’re credible to do it, just tell us what journal you’re going to publish your refutation in and we’ll watch for it.

I used the phrase deliberately. The two men are nowhere near the same league as each other. Ernst is a respectable Scholar, Rev. Spencer is about as well educated as most community college graduates.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Ernst is an Islamist apologist. His work is top heavy on Sufism. Not real Islam.

Ernst is a Muslim. You can tell that from his books. His books are written from the Muslim point of view by claiming that Muhammad is the seal of the prophet and whitewashing his entire biography. Do we see an honest analysis of Muhammad’s immorality, his war-mongering, his genocide of the Jews, his call to jihad against disbelievers? No.

Therefore, Ernst is not credible. I have read the Quran several times, as well as Bukhari and Muslim and various Islamic biographies including by Haykal and Mubarakpuri. I have lived the life under Islam and among Muslims for more than 20 years. I have heard Muslims speak about their religion first hand. I don’t need any Western convert to tell me lies about Islam.

 

[pro_universal]

Ernst is an Islamist apologist. His work is top heavy on Sufism. Not real Islam.

Hey look: More assertions, no proof. This is you claiming things about Ernst’s expertise that are belied by a simple look at his CV.

Ernst is a Muslim. You can tell that from his books. His books are written from the Muslim point of view by claiming that Muhammad is the seal of the prophet and whitewashing his entire biography. Do we see an honest analysis of Muhammad’s immorality, his war-mongering, his genocide of the Jews, his call to jihad against disbelievers? No.

This is just ridiculous. Did you ever think that maybe the reason you don’t see a war-mongering genocidal picture is that…perhaps, professional historians don’t actually agree that this is a fact?

Hmmm, there’s a novel idea. Maybe the explanation is that Rodrigo Bivar is wrong, and Ernst (the one with all the degrees and peer reviewed publications) is right. Is that a possibility?

Therefore, Ernst is not credible. I have read the Quran several times, as well as Bukhari and Muslim and various Islamic biographies including by Haykal and Mubarakpuri. I have lived the life under Islam and among Muslims for more than 20 years. I have heard Muslims speak about their religion first hand. I don’t need any Western convert to tell me lies about Islam.

Oh yes. “Ernst might be muslim, therefore, he’s probably lying and not well educated.”

Hahah, whatever credibility you might have had on this board, I’m confident that this post has thrown it in the toilet for anyone who reads your posts. You’re accusing a highly acclaimed American academic of being a secret Muslim, who must be “wrong about Islam” because of what Rodrigo Bivar says.

Like I said, I’ll wait until we see your published papers refuting Ernst. Might as well, if you have the qualifications, make yourself famous and debunk the “myths” at the same time, right?

Or is there some reason why you can’t refute Ernst’s work yourself in the peer reviewed literature?

 

[amoxoxoma]

I have asked you several questions. For example show me where Spencer got it wrong. You have not. However, I showed you where he got something right. Of course I have the advantage having read the book. Something you will never do. So my challenge stands. Show me. You can also comment on my point of Spencers thesis and try to prove that wrong. Please do.

PS: I am answering your question by showing Spencer was right. Didn’t you notice that? He is trustworthy because what he wrote was true. If it is not then again, show me.

www.jihadwatch.org/spencer/

When one speaks a self-evident truth there is no “authority” in the world, no matter what “credentials” they may offer, that can contradict that truth. The truth is that Muhammad ordered not one, but any number of his detractors to be put to death, merely for speaking against him, or writing satirical poetry. You know it’s true. This is the kind of uncomfortable truth about Muhammad that Spencer doesn’t fear to speak. Thank God!

 

[pro_universal]

When one speaks a self-evident truth there is no “authority” in the world, no matter what “credentials” they may offer, that can contradict that truth. The truth is that Muhammad ordered not one, but any number of his detractors to be put to death, merely for speaking against him, or writing satirical poetry. You know it’s true. This is the kind of uncomfortable truth about Muhammad that Spencer doesn’t fear to speak. Thank God!

Oh yes, and how do we know this is true? Based on Reverend Spencer’s reading of the sources that he can’t actually read until someone else translates them.

The fact is, this characterization of Muhammad’s battles and administration is rejected by every single scholar of the field. Find someone credible, and you’ll find a picture of Muhammad that does not include “killing just for satirical poetry” or any similar thing.

 

[amoxoxoma]

I just posted the comment by a real scholar on Spencer’s credibility. Spencer claims to “expose the real Islam” with sources; in reality, he’s got zero authority to speak on this whatsoever.

Ernst only criticized Spencer’s academic credentials because he can’t justifiably criticize the actual content of Spencer’s writing.

 

[pro_universal]

Ernst only criticized Spencer’s academic credentials because he can’t justifiably criticize the actual content of Spencer’s writing.

Great, want to show some proof of this?

Ernst is the one with the credentials. I can’t possibly see how you would assume he can’t justifiably criticize the content of Spencer’s writing. Did it ever occur to you that maybe his assessment that Spencer doesn’t actually write academic pieces might have something to do with the fact that Ernst doesn’t bother to give an academic response?

 

[amoxoxoma]

Pro, why are you making such a big deal about Spencer’s religion? While he doesn’t deny he’s Catholic he certainly never writes about it. Why do you use the characterization “evangelistic” to describe his writings? They are not promoting christianity in particular - they are critical of extremist jihadists who have hijacked Islam, and of course, all those muslims who support the jihadists, as well as the source texts they refer to in the Quran and hadith to justify their religio/political ideology.

 

[amoxoxoma]

Great, want to show some proof of this?

Ernst is the one with the credentials. I can’t possibly see how you would assume he can’t justifiably criticize the content of Spencer’s writing. Did it ever occur to you that maybe his assessment that Spencer doesn’t actually write academic pieces might have something to do with the fact that Ernst doesn’t bother to give an academic response?

Maybe I wasn’t clear. What I meant was that particular article you linked did not have any specific crticism of content, just as you never do. Just a general condemnation. It was focused on credentials, and publishers.

Looking at Ernt’s CV it’s clear that his interest has been in mystical Sufism. All his books except the one on Muhammad were about Sufism. To spend that much time and effort in one’s life studying that one thing with great love and you expect us to believe that he doesn’t consider himself a sufi also? Give me a break. He doesn’t come from an independent and objective point of view. He comes from a strongly pro-Islamic/Sufi point of view and is clearly an apologist.

 

[amoxoxoma]

Great, want to show some proof of this?

Is this something your father always required of you? You always want proof, yet you frequently offer nothing more than your own opinion about things. Perhaps you would do better in life to go to graduate school, get that MA, then PhD, and write the next great academic best seller.

Ernst is the one with the credentials. I can’t possibly see how you would assume he can’t justifiably criticize the content of Spencer’s writing. Did it ever occur to you that maybe his assessment that Spencer doesn’t actually write academic pieces might have something to do with the fact that Ernst doesn’t bother to give an academic response?

He’s a Sufi, and an Islamic apologist. He may have a highly educated opinion, but it is just an opinion. Sufism is one of the products of Islam I actually respect the most, as it’s closest to mystical christianity. But, there were academics who supported Hitler too. Big deal. Academics can be wrong.

 

[Montalban]

Pointing out that a man who claims to be educating people on history, has no historical credentials and isn’t even capable of reading the sources he uses in their original language, is not an “attack on the man.”

It’s pointing out the obvious: that reading his books on history are a waste of time.

Even now you manage to avoid discussing what he has to say

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Hey look: More assertions, no proof. This is you claiming things about Ernst’s expertise that are belied by a simple look at his CV.

Wrong, buster. Look at his CV - have you read his publication list? All except one of his writings are on Sufism.

unc.edu/%7Ecernst/scholarly.htm

Let’s see, shall we?

Sufi Martyrs of Love: Chishti Sufism in South Asia and Beyond

Teachings of Sufism

Ruzbihan Baqli. The Unveiling of Secrets: Diary of a Sufi Master

The Shambhala Guide to Sufism

Ruzbihan Baqli: Mystical Experience and the Rhetoric of Sainthood in Persian Sufism

Eternal Garden: Mysticism, History, and Politics at a South Asian Sufi Center

Words of Ecstasy in Sufism

---

So 7 out of 8 books are on Sufism. Why don’t you get your facts right, bud? He’s a Muslim with a heavy bent on Sufism. I won’t be surprised if he’s a Sufi.

So why would I accept his argumentum ad verecundiam when I can read the Islamic texts for myself, and ask my Muslim relatives about Islam, and have lived under Islam for 20 years?

 

[pro_universal]

What do you know…a real scholar says Reverend Spencer has no credibility.

What does everyone do? Claim the real scholar is a liar, muslim, etc etc etc.

It is really a tired old tactic. You are all only determining credibility based on whether or not other people agree with your views.

The fact that the only real expert discussed in this thread thinks Spencer is a clown and doesn’t write books that slam Islam is proof that you all are wrong, not that there is a secret conspiracy of Muslims to dominate academic institutions.

 

[pro_universal]

So 7 out of 8 books are on Sufism. Why don’t you get your facts right, bud? He’s a Muslim with a heavy bent on Sufism. I won’t be surprised if he’s a Sufi.

So why would I accept his argumentum ad verecundiam when I can read the Islamic texts for myself, and ask my Muslim relatives about Islam, and have lived under Islam for 20 years?

Yeah, you’re not looking at his full CV. His full CV includes education and scholarly articles (which are more numerous than books). The CV is a word doc that you download.

You can read Islamic texts for yourself, in translation, and without a complete picture of the context or anything else remotely approaching a deep historical study. That means you read the sources badly.

 

[pro_universal]

Is this something your father always required of you? You always want proof, yet you frequently offer nothing more than your own opinion about things. Perhaps you would do better in life to go to graduate school, get that MA, then PhD, and write the next great academic best seller.

How do you know that’s not what I’m doing right now?

He’s a Sufi, and an Islamic apologist. He may have a highly educated opinion, but it is just an opinion. Sufism is one of the products of Islam I actually respect the most, as it’s closest to mystical christianity. But, there were academics who supported Hitler too. Big deal. Academics can be wrong.

An Islamic apologist? What? A sufi? Huh???

Well, let’s see the proof of that.

Anyway, if your argument is that academics can be wrong, therefore, Spencer is credible…well, that’s a terrible argument. Academics can be wrong; polemicists almost always are wrong.