Pages
-
What They Say About Robert Spencer:
"The principal leader…in the new academic field of Islam-bashing."
"Spencer's readers are carefully steered away from all contact with the Islamic interpretative tradition, which equals or exceeds that of any other religion, because any scholarly knowledge about Islam would expose all his extremist interpretations to ridicule."
- Robert Crane (Ex-Nixon Aide, author)
______________________ "[Robert Spencer] has no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity"
“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.”
- Carl Ernst (Islamic Scholar UNC)
______________________ “[Robert Spencer] uses the Internet to spread misinformation and hatred of Islam and presents a ‘skewed, one-sided, and inflammatory story that only helps to sow the seed of civilizational conflict’."
- Benazir Bhutto (Late Prime Minister of Pakistan)
______________________ “When it comes to Robert Spencer scholars of Islamic studies outright dismiss him and his body of work. They call him an unreliable ideologue at best and a divisive bigot at worst.”
- Michael Kruse (Writer St. Petersburg Times)
______________________ “After looking at your website, I was quite surprised to see how much hate, venom and misunderstanding you are fostering.”
- M. Cherif Bassiouni (Law Professor, Scholar, Humanitarian)
______________________ “Robert Spencer is an extremist, right-wing anti-Muslim rabble rouser.”
- Robert Dreyfuss (Nation Magazine Editor, Contributor to Rolling Stone and Mother Jones)
______________________ “Mr. Spencer espouses a view of Islam as a system of belief which is essentially violent, undemocratic, totalitarian, exclusive and at war with all non-Muslims. Mr. Spencer in fact goes as far as to equate Islam with fascism.”
- Group of ALA Librarians, scholars and academics
______________________ “There is no doubt The Little King [Robert Spencer] ‘plagiarized,’ and therefore is a ‘plagiarist’.”
- Andrew Bostom (Close friend, ally and blog collaborator)
______________________ “Robert Spencer is an anti-Muslim blogger…And yes, I do mean ‘anti-Muslim’ — Spencer long ago crossed the line from simply criticizing radical Islamists to relentlessly demonizing all Muslims. And the bigoted, hateful comments he allows at his website are beyond disgusting.”
- Charles Johnson (Former Ally, Friend and Blog Collaborator)
______________________ “Spencer's historical argument is dubious. It emphasizes violent passages in the Koran, while downplaying the passages that urge peace and goodwill. It applies a moral standard to Islamic empires that certainly could not be met by the Roman empire or the empires established by the Portuguese, the Spanish, the French and the British. In the Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella, for example, Jews had three choices: convert to Christianity, leave the country, or be killed. No Muslim empire legislated or systematically enforced such a policy toward its religious minorities."
"Spencer glibly jumps over entire centuries in linking, say, the savagery of the Ottomans in Constantinople with the savagery of Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Taliban in Afghanistan."
- Dinesh D’Souza (Conservative scholar, pundit and author)
______________________ “According to Mr. Spencer, Judeo-Christianity is fundamentally and qualitatively superior to Islam, so to suggest that there could be a degenerative least-common-denominator into which all three religions could converge under any conditions, reeks of cultural relativism, because it denies Judeo-Christianity’s irreducible superiority.”
“I find it curious that Robert Spencer closes both eyes to atrocities perpetrated by Serbs, because if it had only been Muslims on their receiving end, I would understand now (but of course not justify it) seeing where Spencer is coming from, but Serbs have also fought against Croats and Slovenes —their fellow Christians. Yet he takes the side of the most historically aggressive representatives of his own ‘Religion of Peace.’ Could it be that while ostensibly and quite irrationally denying any violence within Christianity, he in fact secretly and perhaps subconsciously admires violent Christianity?”
- Kejda Gjermani (Commentary Magazine author)
______________________ “Robert Spencer, a prolific anti-Islam writer and a leading Islamophobe who is bent on distorting Islam and demonizing Muslims, has persistently argued that violence and terrorism employed by Muslim extremists is rooted in the Quran and its message. Spencer calls the Quran, a book sacred to Muslim, ‘the jihadists’ Mein Kampf,’ in reference to Hitler’s memoir.”
- Louay M. Safi (Islamic Scholar)
______________________ “The widespread ignorance about Islam in the West makes many vulnerable to Spencer’s polemic; he is telling them what they are predisposed to hear. His book is a gift to extremists who can use it to ‘prove’ to those Muslims who have been alienated by events in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq that the west is incurably hostile to their faith."
- Karen Armstrong (Author)
______________________ “Spencer thinks, ‘Islamist fundamentalist drive European politics’.”
“Spencer and Bat Ye’or “lack academic seriousness.”
- Ivan Jablonka (Scholar)
______________________ “Words like Islamophobia and phrases like anti-Muslim bigotry are bandied about too liberally…But the real thing does exist, and it frequently takes the cover of anti-jihadism. Jihad Watch...traffics fairly openly in such stuff.”
- Cathy Young (Writer with Reason Magazine)
______________________ -
Categories
Archives
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- April 2009
Tag Archives: war
“We’re at War!” — And We Have Been Since 1776: 214 Years of American War-Making
The U.S., in the name of fighting terror, is waging seemingly Endless War in the Muslim world. The “We are at War” mentality defines a generation of Americans, with many young adults having lived their entire lives while the country has been “at war.” For them, war is the norm. Continue reading
Jewish Law*: One Israeli Soldier Worth More Than 1,000 Palestinians
Israel recently agreed to release over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for 1 captive Israeli soldier. The soldier’s name is Gilad Shalit: he is neither a high-ranking military official or anyone of national importance. Then, why did Israel agree to ransom him with over a thousand men? Why is he worth so much? Continue reading
The Top Five Ways Jewish Law Justifies Killing Civilians; #4: TERRORISM!
Pro-Israeli apologists are certainly “quick to point out the violence inherent in” Radical Islam while simultaneously dismissing “the perniciousness of Jewish fundamentalism to peace.” MEMRI is one such group: this Israeli propaganda machine churns out cherry-picked translations from Arabic texts, in an attempt to magnify the threat of Radical Islam. Meanwhile, these same sorts of pro-Israeli elements levy the charge of “Self-Hating Jew” and “Anti-Semitism” against all who would point out similar radicalism in the Israeli/Jewish community. Continue reading
The Top Five Ways Jewish Law Justifies Killing Civilians; #3: Promoting Ethnic Cleansing (II)
On the previous page, we saw how Halakha obligates Jewish armies to “leave one side open” when they attack a Gentile city; this is to allow civilians the opportunity to flee the city. The corollary to this is that any civilians who don’t flee are automatically considered “combatants” and “human shields” who can be licitly targeted and killed. Not only has this concept been used by Israel to promote the ethnic cleansing of Palestine but it is also used to absolve Israel of any blame for indiscriminate violence against civilian populations. Continue reading
The Top Five Ways Jewish Law Justifies Killing Civilians; #3: Promoting Ethnic Cleansing (I)
We have seen previously (see pages I, II, III, and IV) how Halakha permits collective punishment. It is perhaps no surprise then that ethnic cleansing, the logical conclusion of collective punishment, is also facilitated. Continue reading
The Top Five Ways Jewish Law Justifies Killing Civilians; #2: Collective Punishment is Kosher (IV)
We have just seen how the mainstream, Orthodox Jewish rabbinical leadership in Israel justifies collective punishment. Continue reading
The Top Five Ways Jewish Law Justifies Killing Civilians; #2: Collective Punishment is Kosher (III)
Far from teaching an ethos of forgiveness, Jewish law–as understood by Orthodox Judaism in Israel–encourages revenge and retaliation. In this vein did Chief Rabbi of Safed in Israel, Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, call for “state-sanctioned revenge” against Arabs. Continue reading
The Top Five Ways Jewish Law Justifies Killing Civilians; #2: Collective Punishment is Kosher (II)
In The Treatment of Hostile Civilian Populations: The Contemporary Halakhic Discussion in Israel, Prof. Ya’acov Blidstein cites Rabbi Yoezer Ariel’s opinion that the Israeli government–but not the Israeli citizen–is permitted to target and kill civilians in order to incur a collective punishment on the enemy population. Blidstein notes that this is accepted as the “moderate” opinion–and the mainstream one–in Religious Zionism. It is moderate in relation to the more extreme view taken by the Jewish Underground, which permits individual Israeli citizens to take the law into their own hands. Continue reading
The Top Five Ways Jewish Law Justifies Killing Civilians; #2: Collective Punishment is Kosher (I)
As I documented in the previous article, the first way in which Jewish law justifies the targeting and killing of civilians is by classifying civilians as combatants if they indirectly take part in the war effort–even if by “mere words.”
But what about civilians who neither directly or indirectly participate in the war effort? Surely they will be protected, right? Continue reading
The Top Five Ways Jewish Law Justifies Killing Civilians; #1: Civilians Are Really Combatants
The first way in which Jewish law justifies targeting and killing civilians lies at the very heart of the issue. The starting point of the just war theory (and international law) in regards to jus in bello (just conduct during war) revolves around the definition of combatant and civilian. Jewish law (Halakha), as understood by mainstream Modern Orthodox Judaism in Israel, utilizes very different definitions for these two words. Continue reading
