Robert Spencer Interview

25 thoughts on “Robert Spencer Interview”

1. In all honesty, because of one of Robert Spencer’s books co-written with Daniel Ali, I really don’t know what to make of this guy.
   The book in question was titled “Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics”. I devoured it as the truth about Islam, and I looked further into the contradictions in Islam that the co-authors point out, only to find out that they actually took quotes from the Koran out of context. At least some of the contradictions aren’t really there. As Catholics, we know how that happens to Catholicism.
   There is an Islamic website in progress, pointing out what Islam and the Koran teach–with the full contexts–in order to explain what Christian missionaries often mistake for contradictions. I’m led to think that Robert Spencer wasn’t always being completely honest, or that his understanding of Islam was lacking and that therefore, he should have researched more before writing this book.
   There are other ways to debate the soundness of Islam. I really don’t suggest you try to do it until you first have a firm grounding in your own faith. But I also don’t personally recommend trying to do it based on Robert Spencer’s writings.

2. I don’t remember for certain, but I think it was Robert Spencer who said that until the Balfour Agreement, Muslims didn’t make much of a deal of the Crusades. They were after all the victors in holding onto the Holy Land. Even Saladin’s tomb had fallen into such disrepair and neglect, they weren’t even sure where it was located. Now it’s a restored shrine. It was only after the break-up of the Ottoman Empire that the Crusades became a rallying cry against the West.

3. Wasn’t that a book of the Gospels that Pope JP2 kissed and not the Koran at all?

4. I’ve read “Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics” and recommend it unreservedly. Spencer and Daniel Ali provide ample context for the sections of the Koran they discuss and spend considerable time explaining Islam’s rejection of Trinitarian theology, Mary, and the divinity of Christ.

5. I’ve read “Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics” and recommend it unreservedly. Spencer and Daniel Ali provide ample context for the sections of the Koran they discuss and spend considerable time explaining Islam’s rejection of Trinitarian theology, Mary, and the divinity of Christ.
   You *think* that, and I thought that, until you hear some of the answers to those contradictions, and read the related sections of the Koran for yourself.
   I haven’t heard all of the answers to those contradictions yet–the apologetic website is still a work in progress–but I know enough now to doubt Robert Spencer’s knowledge of the Islamic faith. He’s a credible writer, if his book is *all* you read. There are some partial truths in what he says about Islam, but the book is simply not reliable. No honest apologist should read it and let the buck stop there. If you want to refute Islam, I suggest not using this book.
   I’m a very strong Catholic with no pluralistic leanings whatsoever, but honest is honest–and Spencer really seemed to cite Koranic passages in a selective way, without citing the paragraphs in their entirety. If you’re strong enough in your faith, look up “contradictions in Islam” on Google and you’ll probably find the site I’m talking about–for obvious reasons I won’t post the URL here. As you read, you’ll acquire the same kind of mistrust I do about Robert Spencer’s work. For just one example, the supposed contradiction: Pharoah repented and was saved, vs. Pharoah did not repent and was not saved. The verses in question, taken with other verses around the ones Spencer selectively quotes, explain that Pharoah repented at the last minute, and suggest it was not a sincere repentance, and so Pharoah perished–and that his *body* was saved and used as a warning to others. You have to read all of the verses, including the ones that Spencer seems to have deliberately left out, in order to see how Spencer misrepresents the whole thing.
   It’s a shame to me that Spencer would use his position as an authority to distract people, if that’s his intention. One should want the truth about Islam, not a deliberate warping of it or a misunderstanding of it. Only with the truth about Islam can you begin to debate it soundly. Believe me, I would love to convert a Muslim friend, if God ever sent me an opportunity. But I couldn’t do that honestly using this piece of “work” for support. Apologetics has to proceed from honest truth, and this book simply isn’t reliable. I’m ashamed I believed everything I read in it, particularly the appendix listing the “contradictions”. This book is just intellectually *SLOPPY*.
   (For those of you not grounded enough in your faith, yes, there are other ways to refute Islam; look into them.)

6. Suzanne,
   The consencus is that JP kissed a copy of the Koran. I tried to research this issue (I sent emails to a biographer of JP II and an allged confidant) but couldn’t find anything definitive.

7. Rosemarie contributed the following on Mark Shea’s blog:

   As for the Koran-kissing incident; I’ve said this a jillion-and-a-half times now on various blogs, so please bear with me if you’ve read it before:
   My husband and I have a friend who is a Coptic Catholic. He grew up in Egypt, he is no friend of Islam and knows Middle Eastern culture very well.
   He tells us that it is a Middle Eastern custom, when someone gives you a gift, to kiss the gift as a gesture of respect toward the giver. It does not necessarily mean you are reverencing the gift, it is just a sign of respect for the person who gave it to you.
   The Koran in question was a gift, given to the Pope by a group of Iraqi Muslims. He accepted the book and kissed it, using an Eastern gesture of respect toward the givers. He did not intend to reverence or worship the Koran, just to honor the gift-givers.
   Thus my Coptic Catholic friend has no problem with the Pope’s action, even though he rather dislikes Islam and the Koran himself. He understands the Pope’s gesture as it was intended, while we Westerners erroneously judge it based on our own cultural biases.
   In Jesu et Maria;
   Rosemarie

8. More info from Rosemarie & Mark Shea.

9. So if someone from the Middle East gave the pope a copy of the New World Translation, Mein Kampf, Das Capital or the Protocols it would be ok to kiss said book? It would only be a sign of thanks for the gift? I’d like to see a little more evidence than one guy from Egypt.

10. Excerpt from Mark Shea:

    For the life of me, I don’t see why people couldn’t just read Rosemarie’s note and say, “Oh! Well that’s reasonable. Okay.” and move on. But I know perfectly well that there is a certain percentage of people who don’t *want* to move on because they don’t, at the end of the day, want to be charitable. They want to be angry.
    Update: As if to oblige me, one my comment box Inquisitors retorts to Rosemarie:

    What proof do you have for the statement: “He accepted the book and kissed it, using an Eastern gesture of respect toward the givers”?

    That’s right Rosemarie! Just what *evidence* do you have that we should not put the absolute worst possible construction on what the Pope did? Don’t tell me you are one of these pantywaists who thinks we should extend charity or presume innocence until guilt is proven! The burden of proof is on *you* Rosemarie to show why the Pope should not be condemned! The Inquisition has spoken.

11. Pha,
    The issue isn’t putting the worst possible spin on what the pope did. The question is whether it is wise to kiss the Protocols or the Koran just because someone from the Middle East gives it to you.

12. Catechism of the Catholic Church

    OFFENSES AGAINST TRUTH
    Christ’s disciples have “put on the new man, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.” By “putting away falsehood,” they are to “put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander.”
    ….Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor…. To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

    Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved. (St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, 22)

13. The question is whether it is wise to kiss… the Koran just because someone from the Middle East gives it to you.
    The givers of the gift and all those who live in that culture understood the gesture. If you refuse to understand the gesture in context, the shortcoming is not John Paul II’s.

14. Pha,
    Why is it rash judgment to say that, whatever the pope’s motives, it isn’t be wise to kiss the Protocols or the Koran?

15. It is rash judgment to assume moral fault where insufficient evidence exists, period.

16. If the Moslem cleric handed the pope a copy of a fatwa on Cardinal Ratzinger and the pope kissed the fatwa, you’d say “no big deal – just a sign of respect for the giver”?

17. What is the point in speculating about such hypothetical scenarios?

18. It shows that regardless of his motives, even JP II could do things that might give a mistaken impression.

19. Such hypotheticals “show” nothing since neither pope has done either.

20. Again: The givers of the gift and all those who live in that culture understood the gesture. If you refuse to understand the gesture in context, especially after it has been explained, the shortcoming is not John Paul II’s.

21. As far as the context goes, we just have one unamed Egyptian guy who allegedly said that it is nothing more than a respect to the gift giver. That’s pretty thin grule to claim that “all those who live in that culture understood the gesture.”
    If an Arab Mormon gave the pope a copy of the Book of Mormon and he kissed it, would you say it’s no big deal?

22. What is the point in speculating about such hypothetical scenarios?

23. What’s so hypothetical about it and why won’t you answer the question?

24. What’s so hypothetical about it
    Hypothetical: “imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true.”
    Hypothetical: “involving something that exists as an unproven idea, theory, or possibility; e.g. the hypothetical existence of a Loch Ness monster.”
    Hypothetical: “Based primarily on surmise rather than adequate evidence, a ‘hypothetical situation’ – conjectural, divinatory, hypothetic, supposed, suppositional, suppositious, supposititious.”
    why won’t you answer the question?
    It serves no good purpose.

25. K.,
    It is you who are misrepresenting the Spencer-Ali book. I checked the Koran and the ‘Appendix’ of contradictions, and found that Spencer quotes the full passage in both instances of the Pharoah story, and leaves nothing out.
    I found this book to be very useful although Spencer’s other books go more in depth.
    Charles

Comments are closed.