Exposing Robert Spencer

There's scholarship and then there's Dershowitz scholarship. Dershowitz scholarship is shoddy at best, maliciously devious at its worse. Robert Spencer, the head of Jihad Watch, falls under the latter category. He follows in the footsteps of other "anti-terrorism experts" like the disgraced Steve Emerson. Spencer, whose knowledge of the Qur'an extends to translations by Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, and Muhammad Asad, doesn't seem to rely on the more authoritative exegesis of Qurtubi, ibn al-Arabi, or Imam al-Tabari, to name a few. I guess he didn't learn that at UNC when he was studying the nature of Jesus Christ.

In any case, Spencer has personally studied Islam and has focused much of his attention on issues focused upon the treatment of Christians and Jews under Islamic rule as well as on what he terms the "jihad ideology" - radical Islam, extremism, etc. Spencer declares that jihadists have a sounder theological framework based upon classical Islamic sources. He also asserts that Christians and Jews were treated as second class citizens during the period of classical Islam. All of this is easily refutable. Spencer likes to portray himself as a calm, smooth intellectual who has really dug deep into classical Islamic scholarship to discover and expose the real dark nature of Islam. All he really does in essence is demonstrate his lack of qualifications for such an endeavor.

For the purposes of this blog I will simply show a few of Spencer's scholarly blunders. Later on I'll show more. I'll probably never get around to his books because I'm not about to waste money on garbage so I'll just wait until I get back into school and see if my library carries his garbage.

The first one is about an article he wrote about Surah al-Tawba (Chapter 29). In this article (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/09/blogging-the-qur%E2%80%99an-sura-9-%E2%80%9Crepentance%E2%80%9D-verse-29-part-2/), Spencer cites a pact between "the Caliph Umar" whom Spencer says lived from "634 to 644" and a Christian community. Based upon these dates, Spencer seems to be suggesting that the pact was between Umar ibn al-Khattab (the second khalifah) and a Christian community. He cites ibn Kathir as his source for this pact. The pact is harsh on the Christians, by today's standards.

Now, as any historian should know, you don't just take something at face value. You must investigate whether your primary source is authentic or not by studying the secondary literature. Spencer apparently did not do that because all I had to do was Google "Pact of Umar" and lo and behold I got a nice article about the pact on Wikipedia (yes, I know, it's not exactly scholarly, but I don't have the resources as of now to do a more serious investigation).

Whatever our opinions about Wikipedia, it does offer important information, especially in regards to this subject. So, firstly, Spencer says that it was the Caliph Umar who ruled from 634-644. Accordingly, that is incorrect as Wikipedia cites a number of Western specialists on Islamic history stating that:

"Western orientalists doubt the authenticity of the Pact, arguing that it is usually the victors, not the vanquished, who propose, or rather impose, the terms of peace, and that it is highly unlikely that the people who spoke no Arabic and knew nothing of Islam could draft such a document. Academic historians believe that the Pact of Umar in the form it is known today was a product of later jurists who attributed it to the venerated caliph Umar I in order to lend greater authority to their own opinions. The striking similarities between the Pact of Umar and the Theodesian and Justinian Codes suggest that perhaps much of the Pact of Umar was borrowed from these earlier codes by later Islamic jurists. At least some of the clauses of the pact mirror the measures first introduced by the Umayyad caliph Umar II or by the early Abbasid caliphs."

So, it was not written by Umar ibn al-Khattab as Spencer erroneously suggests. Second, the document itself is under scrutiny by Western historians, something Spencer wholly misses. Instead, Umar ibn al-Khattab has his own authentic pact with the Christian community of Syria when the early Muslims conquered Jerusalem. It is called the Umarriya Covenant:

"In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Beneficent. This is what the slave of Allah, Umar b.Al-Khattab, the Amir of the believers, has offered the people of Illyaa’ of security granting them Amaan (protection) for their selves, their money, their churches, their children, their lowly and their innocent, and the remainder of their people. Their churches are not to be taken, nor are they to be destroyed, nor are they to be degraded or belittled, neither are their crosses or their money, and they are not to be forced to change their religion, nor is any one of them to be harmed. No Jews are to live with them in Illyaa’ and it is required of the people of Illyaa’ to pay the Jizya, like the people of the cities. It is also required of them to remove the Romans from the land; and whoever amongst the people of Illyaa’ that wishes to depart with their selves and their money with the Romans, leaving their trading goods and children behind, then their selves, their trading goods and their children are secure until they reach their destination. Upon what is in this book is the word of Allah, the covenant of His Messenger, of the Khulafaa’ and of the believers if they (the people of Illyaa’) gave what was required of them of Jizya. The witnesses upon this were Khalid ibn Al-Walid, 'Amr ibn al-'As, Abdur Rahman bin Awf and Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. Written and passed on the 15th year (after Hijrah)."

Spencer cites the wrong Umar. He quotes a potentially fabricated document and asserts that it speaks for all of "Islamic law." He then goes on to quote radical Islamic thinkers like Syed Qutb and Mawlana Mawdudi to reinforce his argument that Muslims/Islam want to subjugate Christians and humiliate them (gee, isn't that circular logic?). He quotes only ibn Kathir as his primary classical Islam scholar, likely because that's where he found the explanation of Surah al-Tawba and because he doesn't read Arabic.

Quoting Qutb and Mawdudi is strange, indeed. If you wanted to show that Islam was truly radical then I would assume you would want to quote some great Islamic scholar from the classical period, such as Abu Hanifa or Malik - not modern Muslim activists like Qutb and Mawdudi who are well known for their hostility to non-Muslims, even some Muslims. That's like if I wanted to show why the Miami Dolphins are the greatest NFL franchise in history and I only interviewed Dan Marino and Don Shula.

Spencer goes after "Islamic law" regularly stating that because there are books or Muslim scholars who wrote harsh things about Christians and Jews a thousand years ago or even last year then that means Islam is really hostile to Jews and Christians. He fails to recognize the difference between texts and known history. Has Spencer ever wondered what the condition of Muslims were under Christians? Essentially, that's not even a subject of study because Muslims couldn't dream of living anywhere in Europe or Russia before the Enlightenment. Jews had a terribly difficult time living under Christianity, but Muslims are rarely know to have ventured into Christian lands because of the likely fact that they would have been forced to convert or killed. Christians on the other hand who lived under Islam's authority, though having to live as second class citizens, could still live and practice their faith, which was unheard of for minorities in the Christian world prior to the Enlightenment.

Were Jews and Christians treated as second class citizens under Islamic rule? By today's standards of freedom and equality, of course. Anyone with an objective outlook will see that clearly. But what is Spencer comparing? Is he comparing the 13th century Muslim world with today's world? How is that a valid comparison? If you were going to make a proper comparison you would compare the status of minorities in Europe under Christian rule with the status of minorities under Islam. How does that pan out? It's not even a comparison. Spencer knows that full well, but he likes to make faulty comparisons so he can sell books.

I will stop here. Spencer likes to focus on Surah al-Tawba quite a bit so I'll carry on refuting his shoddy scholarship tomorrow, if God wills.