Robert Spencer?

[robwar]

No contest there, Rob. I would say the same about Islam. But I have heard how a Muslim would explain about heaven, women dressing and wife beating. And about men having maximum of four wives. They say there are conditions when these can be done. I am not defending Islam nor the Quran. Even without the conditions, I do not believe in polygamy, wife beating and child marriage. However, when you present Islamic belief like the above, you have not told the whole story. I have no problem with that either.

But if I have to dialogue with Muslims I would have to admit their full belief and I would still do not agree with them. But concede what they actually believe. Like I would gladly refute if a Protestant says it is wrong to pray to Mary, which we are (praying to Mary), rather than them saying we worship Mary, which we do not.

Spencer’s academic knowledge on Islam is helpful for us but him generalizing Muslims as violent or being terrorists is not. When he is right, he is useful for us; when he is wrong then he is not. We have to be careful in that when we disagree with Spencer’s approach, it does not mean that we disagree with his knowledge when he is right nor it means that we support Islam.

When dealing with people of other religions like Muslims, we as Catholics have to show respect to their belief without having to agree with them. We are taught to.

I appreciate your response but I have read most of all Mr. Spencer’s books and he never advocates being rude or disrespectful to any Muslim. He even states this in the opening chapter of his latest book. Likewise, he does make an effort in his books to talk about the “moderate” Muslims which when they do get vocal, they are actually driven out as apostates. You ought to read this link about famous quotes on Islam which include Winston Churchill, John Wesley, Bishop Fulton Sheen and the most damaging John Quincy Adams which is quite long. John Quincy Adams was a Unitarian Christian and he himself in capital letters said this about Islam. “THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST:TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE”. I wouldn’t exactly call John Quincy Adams a conservative Christian.
topix.com/forum/religion/islam/T9VLFM30K16SAHC66

 

[Reuben_J]

I appreciate your response but I have read most of all Mr. Spencer’s books and he never advocates being rude or disrespectful to any Muslim. He even states this in the opening chapter of his latest book. Likewise, he does make an effort in his books to talk about the “moderate” Muslims which when they do get vocal, they are actually driven out as apostates. You ought to read this link about famous quotes on Islam which include Winston Churchill, John Wesley, Bishop Fulton Sheen and the most damaging John Quincy Adams which is quite long. John Quincy Adams was a Unitarian Christian and he himself in capital letters said this about Islam. “THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST:TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE”. I wouldn’t exactly call John Quincy Adams a conservative Christian.
topix.com/forum/religion/islam/T9VLFM30K16SAHC66

Certainly we can learn from Spencer about Islam if it helps to enhance our understanding though for those who already known Islam quite reasonably, Spencer may be an option as a source of reference. By the way, other than his books, what do you think about his personal debate/presentation with regards to this topic?

As I mentioned in another thread, Spencer seemed to advocate confrontation rather than the scholarly diplomatic approach. He ‘enjoyed’ being provocative (by his own admission).

Another Catholic expert on Islam is Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, a Jesuit priest. I followed his work some ten years ago but sort of become disinterested after about five years later when I realized that I should focus more on my spiritual life rather than trying to rebut Islamic theology. In any case, I think Fr. Pacwa’s is less belligerent. One of the rules in dialoguing with Muslims that he espoused was not to antagonize them. That’s mean we have to understand correctly how Muslims view their own religion, not how we see it, then to go on from there as to why Islam is not compatible with Christianity or why it is false, if we may.

So perhaps, if you want to examine this thread further, you may want to give some points in what Mr. Spencer really advocates vis-à-vis Islam. For example, are Muslims terrorists, and if so, how, why? You mentioned that moderate Muslims are driven out as apostates once they get vocal. Would this by the true Islam or the extremists in their midst? It is important to differentiate the two rather than to confuse them. Otherwise, when we argue along that line, we would be shot back that such extreme do indeed happens in our own backyard. And we are Christians.

I would suggest find an area where Christians are on moral high ground that Muslims do not have and argue it from there. I am as much interested to know if there is any new territory on this which I have not known already.

 

[aspirant]

For those critics of Mr. Spencer, I am wondering if any of you can defend how the Koran and Islam treats and teaches about women.

This request makes no sense. No one needs to agree with or defend, anything the Qur’an teaches about women in order to criticize Robert Spencer. In fact, people are quite free to believe both that the Qur’an is wrong about women and that Robert Spencer may be doing serious damage to Christian-Muslim relations and improved Christian understanding of Muslims for the sake of fruitful interreligious dialogue, interreligious cooperation, and evangelization.

Women are to be covered except for their hands… So someone like Mr. Spencer comes along, quotes and points out all this ugliness…

I need only drive down the street to discover that this claim, for example, is absurdly inaccurate. If Spencer is the source of such a generalization, he is simply wrong. In fairness to Spencer, since you did not cite him as a source, I suspect that you yourself are the source of this particular misinformation.

Spencer does engage in his own misleading statements, however. For example, “slaveholding, a topic of perennial reproach in the history of the United States, is today practiced not within the former bounds of Christendom, but only in Muslim lands.”

This statement is extremely misleading. Surely Spencer cannot be speaking of legal slavery? Mauritania was the last country to abolish slavery (in 1981). I am not aware of any nation in the world in which there’s not some law(s) on the books prohibiting slavery.

But if he means that illegal slavery only exists in Muslim lands today, or that conditions which may rightly be called slavery but are not deemed so by law exist only in Muslim lands today, then Spencer is very, very wrong indeed. Illegal slavery is practiced here in the United States, in Europe, and in many other places around the world, and certainly not exclusively by Muslims. Denying this does not help anyone’s understanding of Islam so much as it harms their awareness of profound injustices taking place right under our noses. And conditions which may rightly be called slavery but are not deemed so by law exist in plenty of non-Muslim nations, such as forced penal labor in North Korea.

As far as I can tell, the only purpose Spencer’s statement serves is to prejudice readers against Islam, which makes the complaints we’ve read about Spencer’s work understandable. And the negative impact of such a statement may reach much further than Christian-Muslim relations, inasmuch as it can discourage reader awareness of the profound need to address slavery in non-Muslim lands as well as Muslim ones.

 

[aspirant]

Another Catholic expert on Islam is Fr. Mitchell Pacwa… I think Fr. Pacwa’s is less belligerent. One of the rules in dialoguing with Muslims that he espoused was not to antagonize them. That’s mean we have to understand correctly how Muslims view their own religion, not how we see it, then to go on from there as to why Islam is not compatible with Christianity or why it is false, if we may.

This is my preference. There is no need for Spencer-esque belligerence. If I want to know more about Islam, I’d far rather consult more reasonable Muslim, Catholic, and other sources.

 

[robwar]

Certainly we can learn from Spencer about Islam if it helps to enhance our understanding though for those who already known Islam quite reasonably, Spencer may be an option as a source of reference. By the way, other than his books, what do you think about his personal debate/presentation with regards to this topic?

As I mentioned in another thread, Spencer seemed to advocate confrontation rather than the scholarly diplomatic approach. He ‘enjoyed’ being provocative (by his own admission).

Another Catholic expert on Islam is Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, a Jesuit priest. I followed his work some ten years ago but sort of become disinterested after about five years later when I realized that I should focus more on my spiritual life rather than trying to rebut Islamic theology. In any case, I think Fr. Pacwa’s is less belligerent. One of the rules in dialoguing with Muslims that he espoused was not to antagonize them. That’s mean we have to understand correctly how Muslims view their own religion, not how we see it, then to go on from there as to why Islam is not compatible with Christianity or why it is false, if we may.

So perhaps, if you want to examine this thread further, you may want to give some points in what Mr. Spencer really advocates vis-à-vis Islam. For example, are Muslims terrorists, and if so, how, why? You mentioned that moderate Muslims are driven out as apostates once they get vocal. Would this by the true Islam or the extremists in their midst? It is important to differentiate the two rather than to confuse them. Otherwise, when we argue along that line, we would be shot back that such extreme do indeed happens in our own backyard. And we are Christians.

I would suggest find an area where Christians are on moral high ground that Muslims do not have and argue it from there. I am as much interested to know if there is any new territory on this which I have not known already.

Fr. Mitch Pacwa did the forward for one of Robert Spencer’s books so I’m not sure when I see this or other posts say the Fr. Mitch Pacwa thinks differently then why did he do an intro for one of his books. Fr. Pacwa has been in the “hot seat” before with fundamentalists, in fact that is how he got started trying to defend the Catholic Church on one of John Ankerburg’s shows. He is not a confrontational type with his personality and style. To compare the personalities between Robert Spencer and then Fr Pacwa and imply that one is better or the better way is disingenuous. I’ve liked Robert Spencer when I’ve heard him. We have had already 1600 years of dialog with Muslims and that end up with Christians being killed and on the run. I have never seen Muslim’s cleric encourage Muslims to go visit a Christian Church or read the Bible to better understand us. I have never ever seen Muslim clerics go to a Catholic Church to pray to get along or peace like I have seen Catholic Bishops do. In fact, Muslims are told not to read the Bible and attend a Christian Church because we are apostates in not submitting to Allah. Likewise, too many want to see Islam in what we encounter in Muslims that are in a western tolerant society. Muslims countries are not tolerant at all, even the more 'modern" ones like Turkey.

 

[robwar]

This request makes no sense. No one needs to agree with or defend, anything the Qur’an teaches about women in order to criticize Robert Spencer. In fact, people are quite free to believe both that the Qur’an is wrong about women and that Robert Spencer may be doing serious damage to Christian-Muslim relations and improved Christian understanding of Muslims for the sake of fruitful interreligious dialogue, interreligious cooperation, and evangelization.

I need only drive down the street to discover that this claim, for example, is absurdly inaccurate. If Spencer is the source of such a generalization, he is simply wrong. In fairness to Spencer, since you did not cite him as a source, I suspect that you yourself are the source of this particular misinformation.

Spencer does engage in his own misleading statements, however. For example, “slaveholding, a topic of perennial reproach in the history of the United States, is today practiced not within the former bounds of Christendom, but only in Muslim lands.”

This statement is extremely misleading. Surely Spencer cannot be speaking of legal slavery? Mauritania was the last country to abolish slavery (in 1981). I am not aware of any nation in the world in which there’s not some law(s) on the books prohibiting slavery.

But if he means that illegal slavery only exists in Muslim lands today, or that conditions which may rightly be called slavery but are not deemed so by law exist only in Muslim lands today, then Spencer is very, very wrong indeed. Illegal slavery is practiced here in the United States, in Europe, and in many other places around the world, and certainly not exclusively by Muslims. Denying this does not help anyone’s understanding of Islam so much as it harms their awareness of profound injustices taking place right under our noses. And conditions which may rightly be called slavery but are not deemed so by law exist in plenty of non-Muslim nations, such as forced penal labor in North Korea.

As far as I can tell, the only purpose Spencer’s statement serves is to prejudice readers against Islam, which makes the complaints we’ve read about Spencer’s work understandable. And the negative impact of such a statement may reach much further than Christian-Muslim relations, inasmuch as it can discourage reader awareness of the profound need to address slavery in non-Muslim lands as well as Muslim ones.

My brother lived in Saudia Arabia for a year. They still practice slavery. What you are claiming is not true at all and Muslims were one of the biggest in the slave trade, more so than any European.

 

[manualman]

This is my preference. There is no need for Spencer-esque belligerence. If I want to know more about Islam, I’d far rather consult more reasonable Muslim, Catholic, and other sources.

Now that I’ve criticised Spencer I figure he deserves some defence too.

What seems to drive Spencer is his (legitimate) observation that Westerners in general have been hoodwinked by muslim apologists that jihad terrorism is a fluke that has occurred independent of Islam and totally unrelated to it. This is patently absurd. Jihadis find a ready source of encouragement for what they do in the writings and teachings of Muhammed. That’s a real and genuine problem with Islam that shouldn’t be swept under the rug and ignored by Westerners. We somehow need to develop an approach to Islam that neither naively presumes Islam to be no more harmful than Mormonism (for example) nor unfairly assumes that any given muslim is a likely terrorist just because he’s a muslim.

I’m not sure of the actual answer yet myself, but the way Americans have mostly polarized into one of two of the above camps is not encouraging. Islam may have it’s positive points, but if we really do believe in an objective standard of good and evil, we need to get over being squeemish about saying out loud that Islam has some serious innate problems that rationalize and even lionize certain evil concepts and principles, which makes it an innately inferior basis of a culture compated to christianity. Saying so, however, is the closest thing there is left to a mortal sin in American civil culture.

 

[pietro1]

robwar wrote:

My brother lived in Saudia Arabia for a year. They still practice slavery. What you are claiming is not true at all and Muslims were one of the biggest in the slave trade, more so than any European.

This is so untrue. You forgot a lot of things. How many black poeple are just in USA?
what about 500 years of colonization. What about nazi and fasist slaves? How about South Africa and apartheit there…
Is slavery legally in Saudi Arabia?
And if we talk about violence, we must not have any illusions - Violence (internal and external) in European history, and her colonies, has just no comparison with the rest of the world.
What about current situation in the world . who is the most violent?
I am not trying to say that islam is religion of peace, but the fact are that Europe was always far the most violent place in the world .
And Church was more or less always involved; with providing moral and ideological support for state violence and exploitation of conquered land and people.

As far as I can tell, the only purpose Spencer’s statement serves is to prejudice readers against Islam, which makes the complaints we’ve read about Spencer’s work

This all what I was trying to say in my thread and they cancelled the thread.

 

[pismopal]

Recommending a book by Fr. Samir, as Johann du Toit did in the post you quoted, is not a claim about Robert Spencer.

In my opinion, anything said about Robert Spencer should take into account what Spencer says about the subject, not about what someone else says about Spencer. The subject was Spencer… Just sayin’.

 

[Ismael]

I noticed he gave a talk at Franciscan university, so I figured that must make him a reputable individual. However, my Muslim sympathizing friends believe that because he has no degree in Islamic studies, has had associations with supposed known racist groups, that everything he says, despite some of it seeming to be true, is completely worthless. How should we feel about Robert Spencer?

Regarding ‘racism’ Robert Spencer wikipedia page quotes:

In September 2010, on ABC’s This Week show, Reza Aslan said that SIOA is an offshoot of SIOE, which he said had been referred to as a neo-Nazi organization by the European Union.[47] Spencer later challenged Aslan to produce any evidence of his claim.[48]

47.^ “Should Americans Fear Islam? pt.3”. Retrieved June 18, 2011.
48.^ Spencer, Robert (October 4, 2010). “Why is Reza Aslan taken seriously?”. Jihad Watch. Retrieved June 18, 2011.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer_(author

Besides even if neonazi’s or KKK would, in some way, quote Spencer, it wpould not mean Spencer would actually agree with the ideologies of those groups.

pietro1

was always far the most violent place in the world .
And Church was more or less always involved; with providing moral and ideological support for state violence and exploitation of conquered land and people.

That’s quite a STRETCH.

There had been violence in Europe but I think your observation " was always far the most violent place in the world ." is actually… very ‘eurocentric’ i.e. that you are looking ONLY at Europe and not the history of the whole world.

Western history is the most studied in the west, so we are more aware of the good and the bad in it…

And Church was more or less always involved; with providing moral and ideological support for state violence and exploitation of conquered land and people.

That’s also a stretch, that goes double if you are talkking about the Catholic Church.

I am not saying the Church never did anything wrong, but we also ought no fall in the usual stereotypes born out secular propaganda from a few centuries ago and now often overturned by modern scholarship.

 

[Bezant]

Seriously, have you really read any of his books? or are you just judging him because he has done the research and presents it very well and it goes against the popular concept that we are equal with Islam. For those that are critical of Robert Spencer, no one has actually pointed out in any specificity by quoting anything from him where he was inaccurate or unfair. But what the critics here have done is what they accuse Mr. Spencer of doing, making sweeping generalizations without any backed up evidence at all.

Given the fact that Robert Spencer has no degree in Islamic studies, why do you feel his research is credible?

Spencer is a director and major contributor of Jihad Watch. The website’s aim is to bring public attention to violent jihad and its threat to the West:

Why Jihad Watch? Because non-Muslims in the West, as well as in India, China, Russia, and the world over, are facing a concerted effort by Islamic jihadists, the motives and goals of whom are largely ignored by the Western media, to destroy their societies and impose Islamic law upon them – and to commit violence to that end even while their overall goal remains out of reach. That effort goes under the general rubric of jihad.

Jihad (Arabic for “struggle”) is a central duty of every Muslim. Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: the struggle within the soul, defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history and a central element of Islamic theology… No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad.

The rest of the mission statement can be followed below:

(jihadwatch.org/why-jihad-watch.html)

Despite its casual mention of non-militant interpretations of jihad the page neither discusses the reasons for them, nor any justification or explanation for its statement that “No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad.” Granted, you can only fit so much in a mission statement, but I found no articles with opposing viewpoints on the site at all. Given its accessibility and global mission, Jihad Watch is arguably Spencer’s most important scholastic contribution, and yet its focus is one-sided.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Boston Globe

"There is nothing hateful or bigoted about what I say. My work is in defense of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. Islamic supremacist groups like the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations make spurious charges of hate speech and anti-Muslim bigotry against anyone and everyone who dares to stand up against the human rights abuses and violence that are justified with reference to Islamic law by those who perpetrate them. It is a cynical tactic designed to fool people and intimidate them away from resisting jihad and Islamic supremacism.

If you have any further questions, I can be reached at my email" Robert Spencer

 

[aspirant]

We have had already 1600 years of dialog with Muslims and that end up with Christians being killed and on the run.

A bizarre claim, given that Islam has not even existed that long. I think it might be reasonably suggested that you’re not really helping a case for Robert Spencer.

Of course, Spencer doesn’t really help his own case, either. He too makes statements that conflict with reality, as mentioned above regarding slavery.

I have never seen Muslim’s cleric encourage Muslims to go visit a Christian Church or read the Bible to better understand us. I have never ever seen Muslim clerics go to a Catholic Church to pray to get along or peace like I have seen Catholic Bishops do.

Earlier in the thread you claimed that “{Muslim} Women are to be covered except for their hands,” clearly demonstrating that you have practically no firsthand experience with Muslims. So it should not surprise anyone when you say you “have never seen” Muslims doing something. Whether you have seen it really doesn’t tell us anything about whether it happens.

In fact, some Muslims do visit Catholic churches for the purposes of improving interreligious understanding and dialogue, to increase peace between adherents.

In this photo, for example, an imam and Catholic priest meet in the church that hosts part of the interreligious education and dialogue series they have planned with a local rabbi. Participants from all three congregations, as well as the broader public, are encouraged to attend these meetings at the church as well as the mosque and synagogue. This imam happens to be one of many who attended a Catholic university as an undergrad. So now you can never again say you’ve “never seen” it. Similar Catholic-Muslim-Jewish interreligious education and cooperation meetings happen regularly in my area as well.

Of course, cooperative projects are not limited to education and dialogue. Several Muslim students from Georgetown university, together with their imam, used their Thanksgiving break to go on a service project at St. Mark’s Methodist Church in Chattanooga, where they helped to restore the church’s buildings and playground. In the words of one of the Muslim student participants, “We bonded over a shared goal as we re-painted rooms together, cleared weeds and trees and brush, and laid down mulch in the Church playground, side by side. We attended each other’s religious services, and even attended a Jewish Shabbat service together. As we worked, ate, and prayed together, we grappled with common misconceptions on both ends of the table, highlighting the many overlapping areas of our philosophies without forgetting the important distinctions.” These Muslim students and their imam also frequently participate in interfaith projects with Catholics at Georgetown.

My brother lived in Saudia Arabia for a year. They still practice slavery.

Slavery was officially abolished in Saudi Arabia in 1962. I do not doubt that the practice continues in Saudi Arabia despite the law. Abolition has, unfortunately, not put an end to slavery. It continues around the world, including right here in the United States and across Europe, as I mentioned. Claiming that this happens “only in Muslim lands,” as Robert Spencer has done, does a profound disservice to people enslaved in many other nations, including our own.

What you are claiming is not true at all

An estimated 30 million people are enslaved across the world today, on every populated continent. This is most definitely not something that happens “only in Muslim lands” or among Muslims. You need to educate yourself.

Is slavery legally in Saudi Arabia?

It was abolished in 1962. I’m sure it does continue despite abolition, just as it continues here despite abolition. It is profoundly unjust, especially unjust to people enslaved in non-Muslim nations, for Robert Spencer to claim that it only happens in Muslim lands.

 

[manualman]

… Given its accessibility and global mission, Jihad Watch is arguably Spencer’s most important scholastic contribution, and yet its focus is one-sided.

Um, yes? Your critique of Jihad Watch boils down to “This group exists solely to document and point out that the roots of Islamic terror are, in fact, Islamic, not merely pathological.” So? Spencer himself admits that fully. He appears to consider it his mission to debunk the politically correct notion that holds the West hostage that all religions are fundamentally the same and that their content doesn’t matter as long as the people that make it up are wholesome and law-abiding. This foolish notion innately assumes that people are not affected by the doctrines and teaching of the religion they belong to. That may, in fact, be the case commonly among Westerners, but it is fatally naive to believe that this is a universal feature of humanity.

The reality is that the doctrine and dogmas of a religion MEAN something and affect the way the people raised in that belief system turn out. Spencer’s contention (perfect though he is certainly not) is that it is NOT a coincidence that global terror is heavily Islamic flavored. This is the case because of terrible flaws in the doctrines of the religion itself, not just a fluke of economics and geography.

As I granted above, it’s awfully hard to articulate that point without suggesting that we suspect any and all muslims of being terrorists. But if we continue to fall into the typically binary errors of complacency and bigotry, we’re going to all end up being dhimmis. Again, I don’t have all the answers and I’m not convinced Spencer does either, but the guy makes some rather important points along the way.

 

[pietro1]

Ismael:

There had been violence in Europe but I think your observation " was always far the most violent place in the world ." is actually… very ‘eurocentric’ i.e. that you are looking ONLY at Europe and not the history of the whole world.

I am not sure for the whole history but for the last 1000 years this is certainly true.
In Europe war had become science and was constant and 20th century was just… I mean 1st world war, 2st world war… These are called world wars but only because they were first European wars. There wasn"t constant warfare anywhere else, this is just a fact.

Catholic church developed in collaboration and support of rullers through centuries.
For example: Constantine was the head of the church and state, and he (for political reasons) demanded one creed which is what we have today…

 

[pietro1]

aspirant:

It was abolished in 1962. I’m sure it does continue despite abolition, just as it continues here despite abolition. It is profoundly unjust, especially unjust to people enslaved in non-Muslim nations, for Robert Spencer to claim that it only happens in Muslim lands.

This is another example of Spencer"s hate speech against Muslims.
Was this what Jesus preach?

 

[Denise1957]

I listened to Robert Spencer for the first time on the radio yesterday. I didn’t detect anything hateful at all. Extremely concerned, yes; hateful, no. One of the interesting things he said was that Muslims will have different information that they will give to non-Muslims from that which they share with other Muslims. He only uses sources/info which is meant to be used between Muslims. He said that info given by Muslims to non-Muslims is meant to misinform, and that it’s intentional. He stressed the concern that there are former Christian countries that are now Muslim countries. How did the Muslims take over the formerly Christian countries? I don’t recall that he explained it, but I wasn’t able to listen to the entire interview.

 

[aspirant]

One of the interesting things he said was that Muslims will have different information that they will give to non-Muslims from that which they share with other Muslims… He said that info given by Muslims to non-Muslims is meant to misinform, and that it’s intentional.

Anti-Catholics have accused Catholics of doing the same for centuries. I can’t help but think of the accusation faced by Blessed John Henry Newman: “I am henceforth in doubt and fear, as much as any honest man can be, concerning every word Dr. Newman may write. How can I tell that I shall not be the dupe of some cunning equivocation, of one of the three kinds laid down as permissible by the blessed Alfonso da Liguori and his pupils, even when confirmed by an oath, because ‘then we do not deceive our neighbour, but allow him to deceive himself?’ … It is admissible, therefore, {for Catholics} to use words and sentences which have a double signification, and leave the hapless hearer to take which of them he may choose.”

{Spencer} only uses sources/info which is meant to be used between Muslims.

And, yet, when people here recommend that we should read Muslim sources firsthand in order to better understand the religion, they are accused of promoting Islam. Why would Spencer get a pass and the rest of us be forbidden?

 

[murraymuzz]

I believe he is pointing out that not all Muslims are bad people, but that the religion itself has and teaches some serious errors. As Catholics we know by faith that we have the complete and absolute truth, and so the Catholic faith must be the standard we use to compare other religions to. These errors that Spencer points out may not be practiced by all Muslims, the point is however there are violent Jihad extremists that commit atrocities, and they do so because that is what they where taught to do, and he simply is pointing out that they are taught to do those things because Islam itself condones the practices, and he also points out that the mentality within Islam to commit violent crimes against non-Muslims is the majority understanding, while the Muslims that preach peace and tolerance for non-Muslims are a very large minority on the global scale.

I think people need to remember that there is only one truth, While you should love a person who is a Muslim (and all other people from different faiths) we need to stand up against false teachings that cause pain to people in the world. There may be some elements of truth in Islam, but the things Spencer points out are the errors that people need to be aware of.

 

[aspirant]

There may be some elements of truth in Islam, but the things Spencer points out are the errors that people need to be aware of.

As I’ve mentioned before, I think there are much better sources for information about Islam, including its errors.