New book on Muhammed

[cestusdei]

I don’t think pro has a doctorate in Islamic studies. I think his major problem is that Spencer exposes the bloody truth about Islam. So he attacks the messenger rather then the problem.

 

[pro_universal]

I don’t think pro has a doctorate in Islamic studies. I think his major problem is that Spencer exposes the bloody truth about Islam. So he attacks the messenger rather then the problem.

Alright, maybe you can tell me then:

What makes Rev. Spencer credible on Islam?

What indication is there that you should believe he is using “islamic sources” correctly in his book?

 

[cestusdei]

What makes you credible pro? Why is he any less capable of commenting then you? How is your arabic compared to his? What errors has he made in his book? Keep in mind he uses your Islamic hadith, ones that are accepted across the board in Islam. The Melkites have suffered under the Islamic yoke, so I value their (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[pro_universal]

What makes you credible pro? Why is he any less capable of commenting then you? How is your arabic compared to his? What errors has he made in his book? Keep in mind he uses your Islamic hadith, ones that are accepted across the board in Islam. The Melkites have suffered under the Islamic yoke, so I value their (name removed by moderator)ut.

I’m not the one selling a book on Muhammad am I?

Nor am I claiming to speak for what Muslims believe.

Spencer’s arabic doesn’t exist. He doesn’t know the language.

So I’ll ask you again:

What makes Rev. Spencer’s work credible? Using sources does not prove anything…he could, as pointed out to you, use them badly.

So how do you know that Rev. Spencer is giving you an honest, accurate look at the sources?

 

[cestusdei]

I see. He is not allowed to comment on Islam, but you are. Because…you don’t like what he says. I get it now.

He uses sources that all Muslims would agree on. He quotes them profusely. He did that on purpose to deal with people like you. So when he deals with Aisha for example he uses your own hadiths and early Islamic sources. No one questioned these until someone said, “hey wasn’t she a bit young?” Suddenly the topic became off limits. Even though it is a historical fact that he consummated a marriage with a 9 year old child. Is that an act that you would approve of? Remember Muslims use Muhammed as a guide to their behavior TODAY. So it isn’t just a historical oddity. It means that they can, and do, do the same thing.

I have read the book and found nothing in there that wasn’t backed up by Islamic hadith or the quran. The burden is on you to find anything that is incorrect. That would mean…gasp…you would have to read something that doesn’t make Muhammed look like a saint. It might even make you question your faith.

 

[pro_universal]

I see. He is not allowed to comment on Islam, but you are. Because…you don’t like what he says. I get it now.

He uses sources that all Muslims would agree on. He quotes them profusely. He did that on purpose to deal with people like you. So when he deals with Aisha for example he uses your own hadiths and early Islamic sources. No one questioned these until someone said, “hey wasn’t she a bit young?” Suddenly the topic became off limits. Even though it is a historical fact that he consummated a marriage with a 9 year old child. Is that an act that you would approve of? Remember Muslims use Muhammed as a guide to their behavior TODAY. So it isn’t just a historical oddity. It means that they can, and do, do the same thing.

I have read the book and found nothing in there that wasn’t backed up by Islamic hadith or the quran. The burden is on you to find anything that is incorrect. That would mean…gasp…you would have to read something that doesn’t make Muhammed look like a saint. It might even make you question your faith.

You are dodging the question.

You realize that using sources doesn’t mean anything. Jack Chick uses Catholic sources sometimes too.

Answer the question:

What reason is there to believe that Rev. Spencer is writing a good piece of historical investigation?

He’s an evangelist. He has no education in history at all. He doesn’t even read the language of the sources he’s claiming to understand. Yet you keep repeating that he’s right because of his conclusions.

How do you know his conclusions are right? Is there any serious study that supports his claims? No.

 

[Sufi]

Oh God. Another un educated book on the Prophet(saw)

Saladin shakes his head.

 

[cestusdei]

You are dodging the question. If his sources are wrong or bad then tell me why? You haven’t read the book. You won’t. You are playing a lawyer game, think I can’t see that? You just don’t like the truth about Muhammed. If you really think he shouldn’t write such a book then you had best stop posting anything about Islam or Catholicism yourself since you are not an expert. I have the degrees so I get to comment on religion. You are just playing a game.

 

[pro_universal]

You are dodging the question. If his sources are wrong or bad then tell me why? You haven’t read the book. You won’t. You are playing a lawyer game, think I can’t see that? You just don’t like the truth about Muhammed. If you really think he shouldn’t write such a book then you had best stop posting anything about Islam or Catholicism yourself since you are not an expert. I have the degrees so I get to comment on religion. You are just playing a game.

There you go again, dodging the question.

The issue isn’t whether he uses bad sources. The issue is whether he uses his sources to paint an accurate picture of the religion. Using sources proves zero; using them correctly is what makes a good book on history.

This is not a lawyer game. I’m asking you again:

What makes Rev. Spencer credible as a historian of Muhammad? Why would you waste your time reading a book by an evangelist with no training in history?

It’d be nice if you could just answer the question. For all this accusation of lying, etc etc that you do, you sure are tough to get a straight answer from.

 

[cestusdei]

Oddly I am having the same trouble from you. But I am not surprised. Since you can’t deny what he says you must attack him. A typical Muslim tactic.

 

[pro_universal]

Oddly I am having the same trouble from you. But I am not surprised. Since you can’t deny what he says you must attack him. A typical Muslim tactic.

You are just sidestepping here.

Of course I am denying what he says. I’m saying that what he says has no credibility, because he’s not a historian and displays no remotely convincing credentials to indicate that I should take his book seriously.

That is most definitely denying that what he says is true.

Now, please answer the question:

Why should we take Rev. Spencer seriously on history? What indication is there that his books on history are likely to be correct?

 

[cestusdei]

Why? Because what he wrote is verifiably true. I am not a math scholar but if I post 2+2=4 then I am correct. When he says that Muhammed ordered the deaths of poets who were sarcastic about his own surahs then Spencer is correct. Muhammed did do that and muslims do not deny it or see a problem with it. That is why he should be taken seriously. He tells the truth. Read his book and start a thread that shows where he was wrong. I will happily debate you on it. But why should I take you seriously since you are no scholar?

 

[pro_universal]

Why? Because what he wrote is verifiably true.

Who verified it? What credible scholar agrees with Rev. Spencer on his points about Islam?

He tells the truth. Read his book and start a thread that shows where he was wrong. I will happily debate you on it. But why should I take you seriously since you are no scholar?

Again, how do you know he’s telling the truth?

What indication is there that Spencer is both:

1. Even interested in an honest book

and

1. Capable of producing an accurate historical account?

Why can’t you just answer the questions?

I’m not here posting about Islam. I am posting now about whether or not a particular work is credible. That’s something I’m certainly competent (and so should you be) to judge. So let’s see your answer, instead of more confusing the issue.

 

[pro_universal]

unc.edu/courses/2004spring/reli/026/001/spencer.htm

Here’s what a real academic has to say about Reverend Spencer [comments by Carl Ernst at UNC Chapel Hill, Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations]

In particular, the lectures given by authors such as Spencer on college campuses may be misunderstood as being equivalent to scholarly research. While it certainly may be acknowledged that scholarship has political implications, independent research needs to be distinguished from hired polemics.

The publications of Spencer belong to the class of Islamophobic extremism that is promoted and supported by right-wing organizations, who are perpetuating a type of bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice. They are to be viewed with great suspicion by anyone who wishes to find reliable and scholarly information on the subject of Islam. I make these remarks because Spencer was invited to speak at UNC-Chapel Hill in the spring of 2004; I shared these observations with UNC students at the time to indicate that his views have no basis in scholarship (he has no academic training in Islamic studies whatever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity).

Rev. Spencer is considered to be totally without credibility by real scholars of Middle East and Muslim history.

 

[cestusdei]

How do I know it is true? Because he quotes valid hadith and Islamic sources. You are dodging the issue. Attack the man so you don’t have to deal with what he says. My challenge stands. Show me where he is wrong. Do it or admit you can’t.

 

[pro_universal]

How do I know it is true? Because he quotes valid hadith and Islamic sources. You are dodging the issue. Attack the man so you don’t have to deal with what he says. My challenge stands. Show me where he is wrong. Do it or admit you can’t.

I just posted a piece by a scholar in the field who said Spencer is completely without credibility.

What on earth more do you want? A notarized letter from Jesus?

More than once now it’s been explained to you that quoting sources does not mean quoting them correctly. Do you understand that concept? Yes or no?

 

[cestusdei]

I posted a specific example from the book to show he is correct. That Muhammed had poets killed in retaliation for their critique of his own surahs. Did Muhammed in fact do that? Yes or no?

If yes, then Spencer was correct.
If no, then he was wrong.

Now, answer up or give up.

 

[pro_universal]

I posted a specific example from the book to show he is correct. That Muhammed had poets killed in retaliation for their critique of his own surahs. Did Muhammed in fact do that? Yes or no?

If yes, then Spencer was correct.
If no, then he was wrong.

Now, answer up or give up.

This is a ridiculous yes or no.

No, it is not correct, no one was killed for critiquing surahs. Furthermore, such examples are used by Spencer in service of a silly polemic, rather than a real scholarly work.

Now, answer mine:

Does quoting sources prove that a book is correct?

Do you recognize that sources can be used improperly?

Yes or no?

“Answer now or…uh uh uh”

 

[cestusdei]

Abu Afak was killed for lampooning Muhammed. Salim Omayr did at on the orders of Muhammed.

Asma Marwan was killed by Umayr bin Adi for the same thing. He then joined in morning prayers with the happy prophet.

Spencer was right. You may offer your apologies now.

 

[pro_universal]

Abu Afak was killed for lampooning Muhammed. Salim Omayr did at on the orders of Muhammed.

Asma Marwan was killed by Umayr bin Adi for the same thing. He then joined in morning prayers with the happy prophet.

Spencer was right. You may offer your apologies now.

Both of those assertions are false.

Now, why didn’t you answer the question?

What I claimed is proven. Spencer has no credibility on historical matters.