Robert Spencer v. Peter Kreeft: “The Only Good Muslim is a Bad Muslim”

Kreeft and Spencer after tummy tuck

Robert Spencer had a “debate” at Thomas More College recently with a former professor (and ping pong partner) of his, Catholic Theologian and apologist Peter Kreeft. It was quite evident that the two were friends and they were quite chummy with one another, in fact it was pointed out by Kreeft that this wasn’t a debate as much as it was a “dialogue” or “discussion,” I thought of it more as good ole’ Muslim bashing.

The “Debate”:

The resolution being debated was that “the only good Muslim is a bad Muslim.” Imagine the reaction if it had been “the only good Jew is a bad Jew” or the “only good Christian is a bad Christian.” Of course yours truly Robert Spencer, affirmed the resolution, defending it with the usual canard of ‘any Muslim who truly practices his faith is potentially dangerous and a threat to society.’ The “debate” was interesting as it exposed even more vividly the inherent biases and prejudices held by Spencer, the deep lack of understanding and knowledge of Islamic theology, belief and history as well as his limited command of the Arabic language.

Kreeft who didn’t provide much of a challenge to Spencer and who showed brightly his Ultra-Conservative Catholic belief essentially agreed with 95% of what Spencer was saying. While it is clear that Kreeft regards Muslim devotion to, and confidence in their faith in high esteem he nevertheless believes Islam is a “primitive,” “defective,” and “false” religion that has caused “more bloodshed” than Christianity.

Instead of challenging Spencer’s consistent distortions of Islam and Islamic teaching (he deferred to Spencer as an “expert on Islam”) he pivoted the argument to say that the greater threat to Catholicism is the Enlightenment and the Sexual Revolution.

Surprisingly, Spencer agrees with Professor Kreeft regarding the Enlightenment being a threat to Catholicism though he didn’t explicitly say that Islam was less of a threat. I can see how Ultra-Conservative Catholics may rail against the Enlightenment, it was the era which saw a secularist revolt in the name of Reason against the Catholic Church and which led to formulas for the Separation of Church and State, it also witnessed the decline of the power of the Catholic Church in the temporal realm.

However, it is quite hypocritical for Spencer to agree with such a premise, especially considering Spencer claims to be a defender of the West. Agreeing that the Enlightenment is bad is like saying that the Separation of Church and State is bad, or that Constitutional government is bad, all the things that Spencer claims to champion! (but which we have frequently shown is just a front for his own anti-Freedom supremacist beliefs).

A few other points were likewise revealed in this debate:

Spencer’s terrible command of Arabic and very poor articulation of Arabic. This has been revealed on other occasions such as when Danios slammed Spencer and one of his JihadWatch groupies‘ faulty understanding of the word dhimmi, which Spencer was trying to pass off as meaning “guilty people.”

Spencer said during the course of the dialogue on the topic of Islamic views of marriage that,

In Islamic marriage the woman is essentially chattel, and actually the word for marriage in Islam is an obscenity in Arabic, I am not making this up, the theological word for marriage in Islam is not a word that people say in polite company.

(Gasps from the crowd)

It’s because its a very degraded idea.

In this instance Spencer says that the theological word for marriage in Islam is actually an obscenity! A ridiculous notion that underscores the willful and deliberate ignorance of the so-called “scholar of Islam.”

The word that Spencer is likely referring to is *”Nikah” which simply means in Islamic theological terminology “marriage.” In claiming that “Nikah” is an obscene word that cannot be uttered in polite company, “scholar” Robert Spencer is committing a laughable gaffe that underscores yet again the shallow nature of his knowledge of Arabic and Islamic terminology. He is confusing a classical Arabic word Nikah, with the colloquial word (“Neik”), a different word, just because they sound similar. This would be like Spencer suggesting that Richard is an obscene word, because a colloquial subtract “Dick” is used as a derogatory word for penis. Well, here Spencer is arguing that Richard is an obscene word. That’s your scholar.

Also, when Spencer attempted to say Arabic words such as madhab, nasikh, mansukh, etc. it sounded like an Arabic 101 student struggling with pronunciation, it was quite embarrassing.

Kreeft, in one of the rare instances where he pushed back against his buddy Spencer said,

Kreeft: Doesn’t the Qur’an say that you can only have four wives if you respect them and treat them equally?

Spencer: It doesn’t say respect all of them, I have it here, it says you can have four wives if you treat them all equally, in other words if you treat them all the same, if you’re beastly to all of them then you can have them. It doesn’t say anything about respect.

Here Spencer reveals more of his biases and readings of his own prejudice into Islamic text. He believes the Qur’an calls for men to treat their wives “beastly.” Can he provide us a quote, a single verse that says anything remotely near that claim? In fact his claims are belied by the fact that the Qur’an and Islamic teaching specifically call for love, harmony, and respect between a husband and wife.

Take this verse (30:21),

“And amongst His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquility in them; and He placed between you love and compassion. Indeed in that are signs for a people who contemplate.”

or this one (2:228),

“And they (women) have rights similar to those (men) over them in kindness…”

or this (2:187),

“They (women) are your garments and you are their garments.”

or take the saying of Prophet Muhammad,

“The best amongst you, are the best for their wives”

So much for all that chattel nonsense.

More disturbing was when the question shifted from one in which Islamic belief is questioned to questioning the mere presence of Muslims in the West.

In reply to a commenter/questioner from the audience who basically asked “what will we do with Muslims in the West, since they are in our midst now,” Spencer replied,

Anyone who professes the Islamic faith, if he delves into the teachings of his own religion, he can end up being someone who is very dangerous to us. Now that doesn’t mean that people should be round up into camps and such but we need to enforce our own laws about sedition and formulate some sane immigration policies and recognize that this is an ideological conflict and not a problem of racism.

Oh thank heavens! At least Spencer isn’t calling for camps! Though his buddy Michelle Malkin does. Muslims need to *just* be aware that for merely professing to follow Islam they can be convicted of sedition! That is really the import of what Spencer is saying, he is calling for Muslims to be locked up and denied entry to the USA. Very Geert Wilders-esque.

The moderator asked the horrid question earlier to Kreeft and Spencer,

Couldn’t we learn from Muslims what we need to learn from reading their books but nevertheless energetically fighting their attempts to assert themselves in American society, restricting their entrance into our countries and just generally fighting political Islam, protecting our own religious freedom and our own political freedom by aggressively imposing our own values on our own societies. In other words, not permitting them polygamy, not permitting them honor killing, or wife beating or any of the other aspect of Sharia that they are asserting. In other words couldn’t we get all this from your book, your book tells us what we need to gain from Islam, and so, ok, fine, they can go home now?


The framing of the question is terrible, which Muslim or Muslim group is asserting Sharia? Who is calling for polygamy and honor killings? Then look at the condescending way in which the moderator asks “why don’t we tell them to go home now?”

So I ask you who is for freedom? Democracy? Who is viewing the “other” as foreign and not belonging?

Kreeft who is supposed to be the “counter” replied,

the long and complete and nuanced version of my answer to your question is ‘yes.’

Spencer answered the question without any caveats simply saying,


Spencer also asserted that there are “20-30,000 polygamous groups of Muslims in the USA” but he didn’t provide any independent evidence. This is in fact all conjecture to further the “stealth-Muslims-in-our-midst-who-are-trying-to-advance-creeping-Sharia’ conspiracy theory.”

To cap it all off a Thomas More student who is joining the Israeli Army said,

You’re probably familiar with the supremacy clause in the Qur’an, “In order to honor Allah you must kill all the infidels, first the Saturdays and then the Sundays.”

Spencer replied accurately (he had no choice) for once, thereby sparing himself further ridicule from us that “such a verse doesn’t exist in the Qur’an,” but unable to help himself he went on to say,

There is a hadith, it isn’t in the Qur’an that says the Muslim must kill the Jews, and the Jews hide behind trees and the trees cry out and say, O’ Muslim there is a Jew behind me come and kill him, that is an authenticated hadith, and so it is considered to be a laudable practice for a Muslim to kill a Jew because it is something that hastens the coming of the end times in which all things will be consummated, but its not specifically in the Quran like that.

Unbelievable. A colossal falsity, an absurd statement that ventures on the ridiculous and is certainly slanderous. In this instance Spencer is attempting to advance the notion that a tenent of Islam is that the End Times can be hastened and brought quicker by killing Jews.

In fact, Spencer should focus more on his Christian brethren in the Evangelical movement who believe they can hasten the second coming of Christ by planting the seeds of the second Armageddon.

Such a theological precept doesn’t exist in Orthodox Islam. In fact it runs counter to Islamic theology to say that one can hasten the End Times, and if anyone were to claim they could they would be immediately considered a heretic. However, I will deal with this claim in more depth in a future article. Suffice it to say that it is a despicable statement that underscores Spencer’s profound ignorance of Islamic theology and belief.


Dawood, one of our Loonwatchers points out,

“nikah” (نكاح) and “neik” (نيك) are completely different words, having no relation to each other in structure. As can be seen above (for those who don’t speak Arabic), only 2 letters are the same (ن ك). Unless Spencer is implying the Arabs simply decided to drop off a letter, which is something I have never heard of before!

The root term for “nikah”, means union, or the coming together of two things. He is obviously implying that it is a term meaning the sexual act, and in a lewd way, but it simply is not. It could definitely allude to it – as you can see from the meanings above – but it can also mean, as most people understand it, the coming together and union of two people in marriage. If we check the major lexicons, such as Hans Wehr and Hava, even the older texts such as Lane’s Lexicon, they support this interpretation clearly.

91 thoughts on “Robert Spencer v. Peter Kreeft: “The Only Good Muslim is a Bad Muslim”

  1. I actually saw some of this on JW–not a debate at all.

    He’s probably trying to save face after running away from real debate. No one’s convinced Spencer…

    • He’s giving his readers the illusion that he’s taken up a real debate whereas all he has done is get together with a like minded Catholic extremist to fight Islam together. His professor would be a bit moderate whilst Spencer acts like the tough Islamophobe. Kinda like “Good Cop, Bad Cop”.


    Apparently, Robert Spencer was his student! Now it all makes sense…”The circle is now complete. When I left you I was the learner, now I am the master”.

    By the way, the article was magnificent. My question to the morons who organised this is: Where are the Muslims? Why the hell would you get two Catholic extremists who dislike Islam to debate about what constitutes a Good or a Bad Muslim?

    • What constitutes a Good Muslim or a bad Muslim is a wonderful debate! I am now eager for the next installment: what constitutes a Good Black Man or a Bad Black Man? Moderated by Glenn Beck!

      Disclaimer: Black people’s opinions will not be acceptable.

  3. You were too judicious Garibaldi: “nikah” (نكاح) and “neik” (نيك) are completely different words, having no relation to each other in structure. As can be seen above (for those who don’t speak Arabic), only 2 letters are the same (ن ك). Unless Spencer is implying the Arabs simply decided to drop off a letter, which is something I have never heard of before!

    The root term for “nikah”, means union, or the coming together of two things. He is obviously implying that it is a term meaning the sexual act, and in a lewd way, but it simply is not. It could definitely allude to it – as you can see from the meanings above – but it can also mean, as most people understand it, the coming together and union of two people in marriage. If we check the major lexicons, such as Hans Wehr and Hava, even the older texts such as Lane’s Lexicon, they support this interpretation clearly.

    The irony being that the Islamic tradition and Qur’an itself is known for using oblique and polite language to refer to the sexual act. This is why Muslims differ over such everyday things as ablution before prayer, for example. The Qur’an mentions the “coming near” or “touching” of the opposite gender, for example, but is decidedly not explicit in its terminology. This is why the Shafi’i school (madhhab) necessitates remaking ablution upon coming into any physical contact with a woman, whereas the Hanafi school doesn’t, seeing these terms as referring to intercourse, not any other type of accidental contact.

    His duplicitousness is simply outstanding!

    • Thank you for the added note.

      One point. I never said that Nikah and Neik have any relation, either etymologically or linguistically. Just pointing out that part of the reason for the willful confusion between the two words could be the similarity of the way they sound.

      Of course Spencer is attempting to link Nikah to something it doesn’t mean theologically or in the Arabic. He has a track record of trying to do such things, just like he tried to do with the word dhimmi.

      In fact the real meaning of the word Nikah refutes the hypothesis that Spencer is trying to forward, as it refers to an “intertwining.”

      • Oh for sure, I agree completely with you Garibaldi, and I didn’t mean to suggest you implied they were connected. I was just pointing it out further for those who don’t have knowledge of Arabic or its morphology etc. Keep up the great work! 🙂

      • By the way, it was because of your example using Richard and Dick; Dick is considered the short form of Richard (though I have no idea why!?), often also used as a name outside the slang connotation. I wanted to emphasis that nikah and neik were in no way connected and were, in fact, separate words entirely.

  4. I find it so hyporcritical that it is ok for an American Citizen to go to Israel and fight in their Army.. Seriously????? SERIOUSLYYYY?????? Despite me being a Muslim, I still have to say WTF.. America allowing our citizens to fight in other Militaries.. that is a dirty shame 🙂

      • Easy, because millions of your fellow coreligionists are hell bent on destroying the only bastion of democracy and Western society in that Islamic cesspool known as the Middle East.

          • Funny you say that, when your religion offers no real freedom of religion at all. You either convert, become a second class citizen, or get murdered. That’s the Islamic way as Muhammad taught it.

          • Lies. What about the Christians that recently unveiled the “World’s largest cross” complete with lights in Lebanon? What about the Jews and Christians that happily reside in Turkey?

            What about the Palestinian Mosques near Israeli settlements that have so totally not been burnt down by peace-loving Israelis? Oh wait. They have. Interesting thing for a democratic country to do….

        • Anhi, why would you, as an atheist, defend Spencer? You do realize he views the enlightenment negatively?

          It seems to me that you never read the article…*sigh*

          Surprisingly, Spencer agrees with Professor Kreeft regarding the Enlightenment being a threat to Catholicism though he didn’t explicitly say that Islam was less of a threat.

        • Ridiculous. Israel routinely violates international law, and one of its laws, the Law of Return, is not only in defiance of international law, but can be considered racist. Basically, any Jew who immigrates to Israel is immediatly entitled to citizenship. However, the Palestinian refugees (who number in the millions) have to go through naturalization and other procedures, even though according to international law, they should also be entitled to immediate citizenship. Not very democratic. And don’t even get me started on the occupation.

        • Pulling shallow numbers out of thin air, conspiracy theorizing, and name calling is all a Spencer groupie can come up with after seeing how utterly stupid his overlord looks. Can’t say I’m not surprised.

        • Seriously, you actually call Israel a democracy? What are you like stupid or something? In what way is Israel even remotely a democracy? Do Arabs hvae equal rights? Are they treated fairly by the law?

          Anyone who goes to fight for an army of another country should have their citizenship revoked, simple as that. Especially if it is for an army, that is a persistant violater of human rights, international law and enforcing a illegal occupation that is illegal, and 1 that has been found guilty on numerous counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

          Of course we all know that will never happen. These Zionists only have allegience to Israel, and only use America for their own needs.

        • Sorry Ahni, while we may have agreement on the ME not being the best place in the world, it’s far from a cesspool. And nor is Israel all that great, ever been? I advise you to take a look around. Democracy? Israel? Two words that shouldn’t go together with out a negative modifier. Not only does it flout international regulations and suchlike, it is a bully and fiend with all the top cover it could need from the US. I’m all for the Jews to have somewhere to stay, but I won’t support Israel in it’s current form.

        • “only bastion of democracy and Western society in that Islamic cesspool known as the Middle East.”

          You mean the country that has illegally occupied Palestine and routinely oppresses its people. Don’t forget Israel’s acquisition of Nuclear weapons whilst bypassing international law, supporting the apartheid state in South Africa, regular racism against Arab, Blacks and Haredi Jews occurs in Israel…the Israeli doctors caught selling Palestinian organs, the settlers caught poisoning Palestinian wells and illegal settlements that have diverted water away from Palestinian villages. The list could go on and on about the extraordinary things that happen in the only ‘democracy’ in the Middle East.

          Face it, Ahni, you only like Israel because it kills Muslims and gets away with it.

          • Oh crap, the Israelis are getting into the whole water jihad thing too? Well, they learned from the best.

          • It’s amazing how much animosity and hatred you all feel towards Israel and Jews…. you try so hard to act like regular, moderate, everyday Muslims who wouldn’t dream of acting out the extremist elements of your religion… yet it’s clear you have the same Jew hatred that your murdering coreligionists have all around the world.

          • Classic Zionist Loonacy.

            Just because I criticise Israeli policies it doesn’t make me an anti-semite. Would you call the Left-wing Israeli political parties that also speak out against Israeli policies, anti semites. What about the Jews in the USA and abroad that speak out against Israel? What about Neturei Karta? What about the recent flotilla into Gaza containing Jewish activists and 1 Holocaust survivor?

            The term “anti-semitism” is being used to silence criticism of Israel in the same way that you claim “islamophobia” is being used to silence criticism of Islam.

          • Apparently criticizing Israel= feeling hatred and animosity towards Jews. By that logic, you, Robert Spencer, and every “critic” of Islam and Muslims show “hatred” and “animosity” towards Muslims. A far cry from somebody who scoffs at being called a bigot.

            But hey, what else can you say when certain Muslims don’t fit into your narrative of “all Muslims are violent extremists waging Jihad, or non-violent extremists waging stealth Jihad“? I’m sure it dumbfounds you that such Muslims exists (and are actually the majority ZOMG!!), so you desperately try to find a way to fit them back into your fantastic narrative. I love this guy.

            I thought Atheists were supposed to be smart? So much for that narrative aswell :D.

  5. Spencer’s real professor, Carl Ernst, has said:

    “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.”

  6. I have nothing intelligent to add, other than to say this was a fantastic article. I’m glad people are speaking out against this man.

  7. By the way, great find on Kreeft, especially the part in the link where he states:

    “Europe is a spectacular example of a sophisticated, cultured, sensitive, advanced, compassionate continent that is dying because it has repudiated its “primitive” roots. It will soon be a Muslim continent—necessarily so, because it is uprooted while Islam is rooted, and only rooted plants grow.”

    Another defender of the West, it seems. We see the real reason for his interest in Islam next:

    If we want to grow the Christian field, if we are to expand Christ’s Kingdom [!!!], we must recapture those roots, that fear, that absolute abandonment and awe-struck adoration, that “Jesus-Shock” (to quote another book title). We can re-learn it from our separated Abrahamic brothers: from Orthodox Jews and from pious Muslims.”

  8. That Spencer is a Catholic fundamentalist should give pause to his non-Catholic cohorts.

    What is really interesting to me is that he admitted that he viewed the Enlightenment as a bad thing. Someone might want to let Pamela Geller, the Gates of Vienna, and whatever other sundry of imbeclies still cling to Spencer’s big belly about this since many of their arguments are rooted in the notion that the West is superior to the Muslim world because it went through the Enlightenment.

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an intellectual lightweight in her own right, has made similar claims, but Spencer is keen to hold her up as some sort of paragon.

    Of course Hirsi also conducted immigration fraud to get to the Netherlands, and considering the extreme anti-Latino racism (masquerading as anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric) that comes out of the camp that supports Spencer, we see yet another example of willful ignorance.

  9. Spencer was pulling things out of his ass like crazy. For example—when referring to naskh—he claimed that Muslims don’t follow it when they are in the minority, and follow it when they are in the majority. First of all, he has absolutely no proof for this claim. Second of all, scholars like Qardawi reject abrogation (I believe Dawood mentioned that once; correct me if I’m wrong), and Jamal Badawi even said…

    While some scholars have claimed that hundreds of verses of the Qur’an were abrogated, the majority of scholars reject that claim.

    Note that these Muslim scholars are foreigners, not Americans—according to Spencer their views would be different.

    The only reason Spencer claims the aforementioned is to push his ‘stealth Jihad’ quackery.

  10. Qaradawi actually spends a significant part of his recent book Fiqh al-Jihad arguing against abrogation as a viable juristic tool, especially regarding the “sword” verse and so on that everyone likes to bring up in these types of discussion.

    I would encourage everyone to listen to Prof. Sherman Jackson’s keynote lecture titled “Re-Thinking Principles: Sh. Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Ayat al-Sayf.” at the 2009 Rethinking Jihad conference, held at the Centre for the Advanced Study of the Arab World at the University of Edinburgh.

      • Of course, and there is definitely ikhtilaf on this. My point being that for any of these loons to claim abrogation exists as a definite principle in deriving rulings etc., then they have to essentialise a complex area of scriptural exegesis and its related methodologies.

        Even if they acknowledged the different types and grades of naskh, and even takhsis etc., nevermind the disagreements over exactly which verses abrogate what, that would be a start and give some credence towards the religious tradition, but they refuse to and instead use simplistic sound-byte arguments.

        • Uff, ‘abrogation’, it’s just a convenient tool to use against Muslims. Never mind that it is a complex device that I have never seen explained satisfactorily, never mind that many don’t agree on it, never mind that debate on the topic takes up whole books…. all that matters is it can be twisted to say ‘never trust a Muslim, they go back on their word’. Like a lot of this stuff, the ‘problem’ comes from trying to simplify it.

          • I don’t think I’ll ever be able to wrap my head around the fact that some of Allah’s words cancel out the others. I think Stephen G. Parker explained it quite well.

  11. At about 1:32:30, Spencer unequivocally claims that fatwas are binding. That’s weird, because according to Sherman Jackson’s book …

    …such statements constitute mere legal opinions (fatwas), not binding decisions…

    In fact, I couldn’t find even one source that said fatwas amongst Sunnis were binding—all of them said the exact opposite, often calling fatwas “opinions”, for example.

    • Can’t believe you managed to watch it that far. You definitely have a stronger stomach than I do. I wish there was a transcript or something; my internet is so slow right now that I can hardly do everyday things let alone watch video clips and lectures etc.

      Thank God for small mercies! 😀

    • I would recommend reading this section of that particular book for more detail regarding exactly what a fatwa is and isn’t., and how it differs from a hukm issued by the judge (qadi). The import of al-Qarafi’s work (the essence of Jackson’s book) relies in his exposition of this important yet subtle distinction of Islamic juristic and legal practice.

    • Considering Samuel Huntingdon is a favourite amongst Islamophobes including Robert Spencer so this quote is especially interesting.

    • If you look at Huntington’s civilizational map of the world, one thing is immediately obvious – that the Islamic civilization has an extremely long frontier.

      Perhaps that’s the real reason why so many civilization conflicts involve Muslims?

      • World War I and World War II, the bloodiest conflicts in human history, were the result of Islam.

        Wow, they should really change those school textbooks.

        Do explain, GCarty, the numerous “civilization conflicts” that involve Muslims. Yes Islam has a long frontier that touches with so many different cultures and Christian countries border the sea, mostly, but then why have Christian countries been the site of more bloodier warfare?

        • Just coming back to this thread:

          I was arguing that most wars between civilizations involve Muslims. The two world wars were largely conflicts within Western civilization. (At least Western civilization in its most inclusive sense — Huntington seems to split off the Orthodox Christian world into a separate civilization.)

          Perhaps it’s telling that the military supremacy of Western civilization is so great that for several centuries the main threat to Western countries was other Western countries.

  12. Debate? what debate? I tortured myself watching the whole video hoping to see a good debate all the way to the end but it left me hanging like watching an M. Shyamalan’s movie “The Happening”. I was better off watching paint dry.

  13. What did God say about Spencer’s ilk? Surah 3, Verse 7:
    “He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:” and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding. ”
    God Knows Best. ‘Nuff said.

  14. Garibaldi, simply amazing deconstruction. Spencer seems to be caught with his pants down at least a dozen times by you. It’s so telling that he’s madly afraid to debate you guys.

    Oh and what happened to the tummy tuck, I see a belly in the video.

  15. Yo Garabaldi, great article.

    Also, a good work on what a good muslim is meant to be like would be by Imam Bukhari called ‘Al adab al mufrad’ dunno if you’ve read it or not, but i’m certain it’d be a valuable resource for you to use, seeing as how people like Robby, like to frequently make absurd claims about the more we know about our religion the more dangerous we are, and its okay to treat women badly etc

    You can read it online here:

    It will completely refute the lies that the one who treats his wife or daughter or female relative in a bad manner is being a good muslim, as well as it is acceptable to treat non muslims badly which is nonsense.

  16. Just a follow up, i have some other hadiths you can add to your article as well as a source for 1 you mentioned

    Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “I urge you to treat women well.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 331; Muslim, 1468.

    And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “The best of you is the one who is best to his wife, and I am the best of you to my wives.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 3895; Ibn Maajah, 1977; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.

    And a few others related to this:

    It was narrated from ‘Ubaadah ibn al-Saamit that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ruled, “There should be no harming nor reciprocating harm.” (Narrated by Ibn Maajah,, 2340)

    This hadeeth was classed as saheeh by Imaam Ahmad, al-Haakim, Ibn al-Salaah and others

    It is narrated that the women of the Sahaabah used to argue and debate with them, and indeed this is the way in which the Mothers of the Believers [i.e., the Prophet’s wives] used to act with our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab said to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “We Quraysh used to control our women, but when we came to the Ansaar we found that they were a people who were controlled by their women. So our women started to adopt the ways of the Ansaari women. I got angry with my wife and she argued with me and I did not like her arguing with me. She said, ‘Why do you object to me arguing with you? By Allaah, the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) argue with him…’” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4895; Muslim, 1479.

    Al-Haafiz ibn Hajar said – discussing the lessons to be learned from this hadeeth –

    “This indicates that being harsh with women is something blameworthy, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) adopted the way of the Ansaar with their women and forsook the way of his people.”
    Fath al-Baari, 9/291

    Hope you find some use for them.

  17. I dont really understand the point of this debate unless it was to simply slag off Muslims .
    Two turkeys debating the joy of Christmas or Thanksgiving.

  18. “I find it so hyporcritical that it is ok for an American Citizen to go to Israel and fight in their Army.. Seriously????? SERIOUSLYYYY?????? Despite me being a Muslim, I still have to say WTF.. America allowing our citizens to fight in other Militaries.. that is a dirty shame”

    i don’t get it. spencer attacked the hadeeth account quoted above but didn’t quote the following passage in the jewish bible:

    Deuteronomy 7:20 Moreover, Yahweh your God will send the hornet among them until even the survivors who hide from you have perished.

    is this not saying the same thing as the hadeeth?

  19. Seems someone else did not get the message:

    How does that square with what you wrote above?
    Where did the presenter get such a reprehensible view of women?
    That sure does sound like he really “respects” women!

  20. Although the whole “debate?” has seemed to me as a big fat joke,the following observations may be of interest:

    (1) All three,Robert Spencer,Peter Kreeft and the “Moderator?”, have appeared and sounded,to me,complimenting one another with an obvious and distinguished bigotry,each by his own way-but the bigotry was there,for sure.

    (2) Spencer has exposed his EVIL INTENT even more,against all Muslims,when he mentioned that when Islam appeared in Mecca,the Muslims were minority among Pagans and hence they claimed they were peaceful,but when their number had increased in Medina(called Yathrip then)they became violently bent.

    (3) Spencer went further to say that what happened in Medina would happen in Europe and U.S. as the Muslims number increased in both.

    (4) The following observation has nothing to do with the so-called “debate?” but rather with the phoniness involved in the whole sordid affair that took place at the Thomas More College: I wish to know what was the purpose of the shelves full of books were doing OUTSIDE in the photograph in which Spencer and Kreeft posing at the top of the Featured Article? Out of profound respect,I keep my books INSIDE to protect them from bad weather.

  21. Is it that easy to be a scholar ? I suppose if you reiterate what every Islamophobe says, your an intellectual. Screw that. That is not an intellectualism I want to be part of it. By the way, good piece.

  22. All Hadiths genuinely stated by the Messenger of God,Muhammad(PBUH),must be revevered by all good Muslims. The difficulty is in the fact that not all RECORDED Hadiths are considered genuine. Hence the problem arises: how an average Muslim can tell which Hadith is genuine and which one is not,when haters of Islam start using some Hadiths for the sole purpose of demonizing Islam and Muslims?

    One way out of such a dilemma is through a truly Islamic education conducted by those who have the necessary Islamic knowledge,especially the knowledge about the Hadiths,or review what some Islamic scholars had said about the Hadiths. Such a scholar and knowledgeable person is Al-Bukhari.

    Al-Bukhari was a man of piety who spent years in studying all Hadiths and came up with the following conclusions:

    * The total number of all recorded Hadiths is approximately 600,000.
    * Out of the 600,000 Hadiths only slightly more than 4,000 Hadiths are considered authentic by Al-Bukhari.
    *Approximately half of the authentic 4,000 are redundant,according to Al-Bukhari.

    Therefore,when an anti-Islam and Muslims starts using some of the recorded Hadiths as a tool or an instrument to demonize Islam and Muslims,please make sure the Hadith is truly authentic,since the trends of the haters of Islam and Muslims are to make the Hadiths more important to Muslims than the Qur’an. Such trends must be challenged by the pens and tongues of those who know better.

    • Garo,

      My apologies for the late comment moderation, and this goes for anyone else who had similar issues. We all have real jobs, and are unable at times to moderate the comment section proficiently.

  23. This was fitting…a pretend debate for pretend scholar Robert Spencer.

    The worst part was when Spencer said that Islam has no moral system and that everything good in Islam came from Christianity—it was extremely repugnant. Off the top of my head…Islam forbade racism (unlike previous religions), the burying of female infants, demanded charity, etc, etc…

    PS: Islam doesn’t contradict any of the Ten Commandments.

  24. It sounds to me like it is simply them warning of one type of “supremacism”, whilst wanting to overtake the world with another.

  25. Spencer probably relies on Christian Arab apologists who hate Islam such as Sam Shamoun and that funny looking Coptic TV evangelist.

    Looking at my Hans Wehr this is what it said:

    نكاح: marriage; marriage contract; matrimony, wedlock.

    the verb, n-k-h: to marry, get married. III to become related by marriage IV to give in marriage.

    Spencer is such a sham.

  26. Garibaldi,
    The apology accepted and the reason behind the delay well understood.
    I will always remember reading a master-piece about “Dhimmy” which you or Danios wrote about two years ago. Because it is an outstanding and fully documented research paper,I had printed it out and filed it with other outstanding articles written by knowledgeable persons like yourself and Danios,about Islam. I have accumulated such a file through a life time of learning.

    Knowledgeable and dedicated people like yourself/Danios can spare humanity from falling into the abyss of Armageddon because of the hatred and bigotry of the Robert Spencers of the world.

    Please forgive the length of my expressed appreciation. I have meant ever word and felt I should let you know how I thought of your dedicated efforts. Much appreciated,indeed.

    • True, I find Loonwatch’s articles more informative and interesting than those written by other Muslims about the same subjects.

  27. Great article. Those loons should be exposed for who they are. They call that a debate? Give me a break…

    I’m curious though, about the origin of the word ‘nikah’. I’ve always thought that it’s a pre-Islamic Arabic term thus not a necessarily Islamic one, and that it can also be applied to the union of ideas/philosophy/etc. Can somebody clarify this for me?

    • Hi Alex,

      As I said above, when we look in the more established dictionaries and lexicons (such as Lane, click ن on the list, and then scroll down to نكح on the second list of words), we don’t find any reference as to its origin. In fact, the only reference to pre-Islamic times supports the view that it refers only to marriage. Lane states that “in the Time of Ignorance, when a man demanded a woman in marriage he said, انكحيني; and when he desired fornication, he said, سافحيني.” (Lane, 2848) [i.e. completely different words]

      And as for Spencer’s claim, once again repeated in his most recent follow-up regarding “nikah” with a few nice personal anecdotes to further support the claim in the comments, there is no proof found in these authoritative lexical sources whatsoever. As I said, it can definitely allude to intercourse, as Lane himself mentions, but there is no evidence that it is a) lewd, or b) inappropriate in nature. Lane specifically states that using “nakaha” in the sense of “he married, took in marriage, or contracted marriage with”, is “used only in this sense in the Kuran.” (Lane, p. 2848) So even if it became something lewd in the colloquial spoken Arabic sense (which I have never heard of from any Arab, and heard “nikah” used in everyday conversation regarding marriage all the time, in various existent dialects including the Levant, Egyptian, North African and the Gulf), it does not mean it was so either a) in the Qur’an, or b) in the technical language of Islamic law.

      When we see that the term actually means a coming together or union of things, then it’s understandable why it can allude to intercourse (the Qur’an is notoriously oblique in making direct reference to the act). As Lane explains, the initial verb “nakaha”, which Spencer states contains the lewd meaning, can be used to mean “the rain co-mingled with the soil”, amongst other things, hardly something rude!

      The various derivatives of the verb we see on that page and those related to it all support the case that it refers to marriage and not the act.

    • Sorry to say all that in response to your question – only the first part is relevant to you 🙂 – but ignorance of the language like Spencer is displaying makes me very upset.

  28. “I would not say the word نكاح in polite company..I would go even futher, a polite muslim friend of Arabic ethnicty once joked to me that while in a business trip in Pakistan, while staying in a five star hotel he saw signs leading to a ballroom wedding party labeled “نكاح party”. the word نكاح indeed denotes the act of sexual intercourse, hence the very basic concept of marriage in Islam being sexual service relations hip in exchange for monetary compensation, and accordingly relative indemnity when service is broken or interrupted”.
    This is more garbage spread by one of robert spencer’s loyal fans.
    he goes by the nickname capotic kaffir and loving it.
    spencer still insits his telling the truth lol.

  29. spencer is a hypocrite if it wants to talk about inappropriate language in a religious text then maybe he should look no further than the bible.
    I’m not a bigot and I have nothing against christians in general but hypocrites like robert spencer make my blood boil.

  30. Pingback: Cyberpath Robert Spencer has a Weird Fetish For Reza Aslan | Spencer Watch

  31. Pingback: Spencer's Friend Joel Richardson on Glenn Beck Pushing Myths about Islam | Spencer Watch

  32. Pingback: Robert Spencer Admits “Islam Makes” Most Muslims “Very Moral” | Spencer Watch

  33. Pingback: A Syllabus of Errors « reorientationism

  34. Pingback: Robert Spencer's Attacks on #MyJihad Campaign Debunked | Spencer Watch

  35. Pingback: Exclusive: Reverend Deacon Robert Spencer of Our Lady of the Cedars Church | Spencer Watch

  36. Pingback: Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer Thinks Garibaldi is Nathan Lean | අපෙන් news

  37. Pingback: Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer Thinks Garibaldi is Nathan Lean | Spencer Watch

Leave a Reply to NassirH Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *