| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
More fantasy-world moral and theological equivalence from the world's greatest dhimmi, Karen Armstrong. "The label of Catholic terror was never used about the IRA," from The Guardian, with thanks to Nicolei, Eric and Scaramouche:
Last year I attended a conference in the US about security and intelligence in the so-called war on terror and was astonished to hear one of the more belligerent participants, who as far as I could tell had nothing but contempt for religion, strongly argue that as a purely practical expedient, politicians and the media must stop referring to "Muslim terrorism". It was obvious, he said, that the atrocities had nothing to do with Islam, and to suggest otherwise was not merely inaccurate but dangerously counterproductive.
She was astonished, mind you, not because this analysis is absurd, but because she was amazed to hear it from the bull-necked hawks she expected to find. This is a common thing to hear, but no matter how common it is, it makes about as much sense as saying, "Now, we must not refer to 'Nazi anti-Semitism.'" The Nazis were anti-Semitic because of core Nazi teachings. The Muslim terrorists are committing acts of terrorism, by their own account, because of core Islamic teachings. Saying that we are supposed to ignore that is tantamount to saying that we must ignore what the enemy tells us about himself, who he is, what he wants, why he is fighting. Which is tantamount to saying that we should surrender. We cannot defeat an enemy we are afraid to name.
Rhetoric is a powerful weapon in any conflict. We cannot hope to convert Osama bin Laden from his vicious ideology; our priority must be to stem the flow of young people into organisations such as al-Qaida, instead of alienating them by routinely coupling their religion with immoral violence. Incorrect statements about Islam have convinced too many in the Muslim world that the west is an implacable enemy. Yet, as we found at the conference, it is not easy to find an alternative for referring to this terrorism; however, the attempt can be a salutary exercise that reveals the complexity of what we are up against.
I see, Karen: "Lie about Islam or you will make more Muslims into terrorists." Got it. Ignore the elements of Islam that give rise to terror, and they will stop giving rise to terror. Got it. I contend on the contrary that if we are to have any hope of stemming "the flow of young people into organisations such as al-Qaida," it can only come from speaking forthrightly about what it is in Islam that makes them flow into such organizations, and calling upon Muslims who call themselves moderate to renounce those Islamic teachings, while alerting non-Muslims to the existence of such teachings so that they can take realistic actions against the threat in its true dimensions. No problem can be fixed by denying that it is a problem.
We need a phrase that is more exact than "Islamic terror". These acts may be committed by people who call themselves Muslims, but they violate essential Islamic principles. The Qur'an prohibits aggressive warfare, permits war only in self-defence and insists that the true Islamic values are peace, reconciliation and forgiveness. It also states firmly that there must be no coercion in religious matters, and for centuries Islam had a much better record of religious tolerance than Christianity.
It is not enough any longer, if it ever was, simply to assert that the terrorists "violate essential Islamic principles" and talk about self-defense and peace. The jihadists have again and again characterized their struggle as defensive. Let Ms. Armstrong demonstrate, if she can, from the Qur'an or Islamic tradition why their characterization is in this case inaccurate, and how moderate Muslims today can refute it. But I do not think she can.
Like the Bible, the Qur'an has its share of aggressive texts, but like all the great religions, its main thrust is towards kindliness and compassion. Islamic law outlaws war against any country in which Muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely, and forbids the use of fire, the destruction of buildings and the killing of innocent civilians in a military campaign. So although Muslims, like Christians or Jews, have all too often failed to live up to their ideals, it is not because of the religion per se.
Lots of sleight-of-hand in that paragraph. In the first place, the problem within Islam is not that of a few aggressive texts in the Qur'an, just like the Bible has. In the Bible there are indeed aggressive texts, but there is no open-ended and universal command to all believers to make war against unbelievers, a la Qur'an 9:29. Nor is that an isolated text: Islam, unlike Christianity, has a developed doctrine sanctioning and calling for this warfare.
Also, look closely at her wording: "Islamic law outlaws war against any country in which Muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely." This is similar to the statement of Mufti Ebrahim Desai of South Africa: "if a country doesn't allow the propagation of Islam to its inhabitants in a suitable manner or creates hindrances to this, then the Muslim ruler would be justifying in waging Jihad against this country, so that the message of Islam can reach its inhabitants, thus saving them from the Fire of Jahannum. If the Kuffaar allow us to spread Islam peacefully, then we would not wage Jihad against them."
A central part of the Islamic religion is its prescriptions for governance. Would opposition to Sharia be hindering Muslims from practicing their religion freely? The problem with such statements -- both Armstrong's and Desai's -- is that they are so elastic as to be meaningless in terms of restricting Muslims from waging war. The "war on Islam" rhetoric coming today from jihadists is a case in point. They assert that America is waging war on Islam, despite Bush's dhimmitude, and thus justify waging war against us.
Likewise Armstrong's statement that "Islamic law...forbids the use of fire, the destruction of buildings and the killing of innocent civilians in a military campaign." Innocent civilians. Were the office workers in the World Trade Center innocent? Osama says no. Can Armstrong refute him on Islamic grounds?
We rarely, if ever, called the IRA bombings "Catholic" terrorism because we knew enough to realise that this was not essentially a religious campaign. Indeed, like the Irish republican movement, many fundamentalist movements worldwide are simply new forms of nationalism in a highly unorthodox religious guise. This is obviously the case with Zionist fundamentalism in Israel and the fervently patriotic Christian right in the US.
Indeed. It was not essentially a religious campaign. The IRA was not claiming to blow things up in the name of their religion, justifying their actions by reference to Christian scripture, etc. The jihad terrorists today, however, explain that they are acting in the name of Islam, and quote Qur'an copiously.
Nor was the IRA an international movement with a program calling for the subjugation the world under its system of law and societal mores. Islamic terrorism is.
In the Muslim world, too, where the European nationalist ideology has always seemed an alien import, fundamentalisms are often more about a search for social identity and national self-definition than religion. They represent a widespread desire to return to the roots of the culture, before it was invaded and weakened by the colonial powers.
Quite so. That's what concerns me.
Because it is increasingly recognised that the terrorists in no way represent mainstream Islam, some prefer to call them jihadists, but this is not very satisfactory. Extremists and unscrupulous politicians have purloined the word for their own purposes, but the real meaning of jihad is not "holy war" but "struggle" or "effort." Muslims are commanded to make a massive attempt on all fronts - social, economic, intellectual, ethical and spiritual - to put the will of God into practice.
They call themselves jihadists -- mujahedin. I do not call them that because I think they do not represent mainstream Islam, but because that is their own usage. Nor does the multiplicity of meanings of the word "jihad" in Islamic tradition amount to anything: jihad as warfare is an unbroken tradition since the time of Muhammad.
Sometimes a military effort may be a regrettable necessity in order to defend decent values, but an oft-quoted tradition has the Prophet Muhammad saying after a military victory: "We are coming back from the Lesser Jihad [ie the battle] and returning to the Greater Jihad" - the far more important, difficult and momentous struggle to reform our own society and our own hearts.
Ms. Armstrong, Osama and his ilk would say precisely that a military effort is a regrettable necessity today in order to defend decent values. Please explain how Muslims can refute that, if they can.
And as for that Hadith, Ms. Armstrong may not be aware that attacks upon it form a central part of jihadist polemic. Abdullah Azzam and Hassan Al-Banna argued that it was a weak hadith, and thus should not be followed by Muslims. They argued that jihad was primarily warfare and that Muslims should understand it as such. And indeed, this statement of Muhammad does not appear in the hadith collections that Muslims consider most reliable. Ms. Armstrong, please explain why you accept this as an authentic hadith, and how Muslims can refute the arguments advanced by Azzam and Al-Banna.
Jihad is thus a cherished spiritual value that, for most Muslims, has no connection with violence. Last year, at the University of Kentucky, I met a delightful young man called Jihad; his parents had given him that name in the hope that he would become not a holy warrior, but a truly spiritual man who would make the world a better place. The term jihadi terrorism is likely to be offensive, therefore, and will win no hearts or minds.At our conference in Washington, many people favoured "Wahhabi terrorism". They pointed out that most of the hijackers on September 11 came from Saudi Arabia, where a peculiarly intolerant form of Islam known as Wahhabism was the state religion. They argued that this description would be popular with those many Muslims who tended to be hostile to the Saudis. I was not happy, however, because even though the narrow, sometimes bigoted vision of Wahhabism makes it a fruitful ground for extremism, the vast majority of Wahhabis do not commit acts of terror.
Wow. So even the Wahhabis, with their violent contempt for non-Muslims, are good guys to Armstrong. But in any case, the idea that Wahhabism is violent and the rest of Islam is peaceful is simply false. The doctrines of violent jihad are found among all Muslim sects.
Bin Laden was not inspired by Wahhabism but by the writings of the Egyptian ideologue Sayyid Qutb, who was executed by President Nasser in 1966. Almost every fundamentalist movement in Sunni Islam has been strongly influenced by Qutb, so there is a good case for calling the violence that some of his followers commit "Qutbian terrorism." Qutb urged his followers to withdraw from the moral and spiritual barbarism of modern society and fight it to the death.
It is at least good of Armstrong to acknowledge that Qutb was not a Wahhabi. Other Islamic apologists are not so willing to do so.
But what Armstrong has not demonstrated, and cannot demonstrate, is that "Qutbian terrorism" represents in any way a departure from traditional Islamic teaching.
Western people should learn more about such thinkers as Qutb, and become aware of the many dramatically different shades of opinion in the Muslim world. There are too many lazy, unexamined assumptions about Islam, which tends to be regarded as an amorphous, monolithic entity. Remarks such as "They hate our freedom" may give some a righteous glow, but they are not useful, because they are rarely accompanied by a rigorous analysis of who exactly "they" are.The story of Qutb is also instructive as a reminder that militant religiosity is often the product of social, economic and political factors. Qutb was imprisoned for 15 years in one of Nasser's vile concentration camps, where he and thousands of other members of the Muslim Brotherhood were subjected to physical and mental torture. He entered the camp as a moderate, but the prison made him a fundamentalist. Modern secularism, as he had experienced it under Nasser, seemed a great evil and a lethal assault on faith.
Precise intelligence is essential in any conflict. It is important to know who our enemies are, but equally crucial to know who they are not. It is even more vital to avoid turning potential friends into foes. By making the disciplined effort to name our enemies correctly, we will learn more about them, and come one step nearer, perhaps, to solving the seemingly intractable and increasingly perilous problems of our divided world.
I couldn't agree more, Karen. Let's name our enemies correctly. And speak the truth about Islam.
Posted by Robert at July 11, 2005 10:33 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Is she mental?
Posted by: DCWatson![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 11, 2005 11:58 AM
Koran Armstrong is positioning herself to become dhimmi Regent of England when Islam takes over.
Posted by: nuh at July 11, 2005 12:11 PM
DC:
In a word, yes.
By her own account Armstrong had something of a significant
"crisis" that led to her leaving the religious order under which she became a nun.
at July 11, 2005 12:38 PM
I know that Robert doesn't like off topic posts, but I have to say that I saw a piece in The Guardian online, in which a christian minister in the UK said "call them criminals, call them terrorists, just don't call them muslims."
Another useful idiot.
Posted by: Voltaire at July 11, 2005 12:38 PM
DC:
In a word, yes.
By her own account Armstrong had something of a significant
"crisis" that led to her leaving the religious order under which she became a nun.
at July 11, 2005 12:39 PM
Karen Armstrong..... What a butt ugly, mentally deranged fraud she is. He latest book was about her years spent in deep depression.
at July 11, 2005 1:53 PM
If the same number of Christian groups were committing the same number of extremist and terrorist acts around the world, I dare say Leftists would not be so stingy about calling them, and their acts, "Christian".
Posted by: metaxy at July 11, 2005 1:54 PM
Is she mental?
As much as Muhammed, the great Arabian hallucinator.
Posted by: dennisw at July 11, 2005 1:55 PM
If terror groups call themselves things like 'Islamic Jihad' or 'Hizbollah' which means the party of Allah, defining themselves through Islam, why shouldn't we be allowed to do the same?
Karen Armstrong talks about Jihad meaning a 'spiritual struggle'. In the 48th surah, called 'victory' it says 'It shall be no offence for the blind, the sick or the lame to stay behind (from jihad)'. If jihad is a spiritual struggle, why would these groups of people be exempt?
Posted by: Elephant at July 11, 2005 2:05 PM
"Because it is increasingly recognised that the terrorists in no way represent mainstream Islam.."
-- from Karen Armstrong above
What can she be talking about? When she
"studied" Islam, what did she study? Which texts did she read and re-read? What does she think the Qur'an is all about, and what does she think the Sunna offer as model behavior, from Muhammad and his Companions? Has she actually read the Western scholars of Islam? Armand Abel ring a bell? Fagnan? Snouck Hurgronje? Margoliouth? Schacht? Any of these? What did she read, what does she know? It is a fantastic situation -- someone who knows absolutely nothing about Islam, wrote a book called "Islam" which was published in this country by a major publisher, and it was bought by many people after 9/11, and this woman presumes to get on radio shows and tell us all about Islam. One would like, desperately, to get on a show with her, and simply to ask her a few questions about what she thinks Muslims think the Qur'an and Hadith and Sira tell them. Let's start with the most popular explicator of Sunni Islam in the world today, Al-Qaradawi. What does he think Islam says? And what, according to Al-Qaradawi, justifies Jihad? What defines "self-defense"?
She needs to be locked up. Wormwood Scrubs for treason, or the Laughing Academy for being absolutely ga-ga. Whichever is closest.
Posted by: Hugh at July 11, 2005 2:15 PM
This is the kind of crap that makes Guardian
readers feel good about themselves. Moral
judgement upon the west, while explaining
to us all that what really happen in London
was a spiritual journey, Islamic growing pains.
It took Islamic terrorism for the guardian to
refer to any religion as great. Guardian readers
live on a steady diet of dhimmitude, Armstrong
gives us all a history lesson worthy of Abu Hamza.Melanie Phillips on the other hand is a journalist that has a real grasp on our current strife with the Islamic world. Britain’s media is in crisis about how to cover the war on terror, because up until friday they weren’t sure it was for real, it appears Karen Armstrong still needs to be convinced.
at July 11, 2005 2:20 PM
"There are too many lazy, unexamined assumptions about Islam..."
How can she write these things with a straight face? Even John Esposito wouldn't stoop to this, even Tariq Ramadan. Yes, there are "too many lazy, unexamined assumptions about Islam." Every single sentence she writes is instinct with those "lazy, unexampined assumptions about Islam" to which she dares to allude.
Not a rose of Gulistan, not a Second-Hand Rose, but a Tokyo Rose, is Miss Unpleasant-in-all-respects Karen Armstrong. And the bloom has long been off that particular rose, a truly hideous cultivar.
Posted by: Hugh at July 11, 2005 2:24 PM
So this is reallya War Against "Incorrect Statements About Islam"?
I guess her next book will be:
"A HISTORY OF ODD".
Posted by: BigSleep at July 11, 2005 3:15 PM
I am so glad that Karen is helping us understand Islam. What would we do without her? I do think she is mentally ill.
Like Merryl, she has decided to emphazize the kindest interpretation or 'decoding' of the Quran and hadiths while the real people in charge, the mullahs/muftis/ayatoallahs have the 'harshest' interpretation. Too bad they consider her 1/2 of a man, and, as we all know, women advising muslim leaders is quite unthinkable in the Muslim world. So, she spews her BS at us infidels, and I guess we are supposed to gulp it down. Pass.
Posted by: reset at July 11, 2005 5:15 PM
Hey everyone; Come and vote on the book review I just wrote for Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad" in Amazon.com under the pseudonym "Nelson Mondragon" (The title is "Goebbels couldn't have said it better"). Here it is:
While you are at it, you might vote on my review for Michael Scheuer's "Imperial Hubris" (The title is "Cognitive Dissonance"). Here it is:
at July 11, 2005 6:00 PM
By the way. I should like to point out that you need to scroll down quite a ways to see my review (You will have to scroll past the incredibly stupid rave reviews first).
BTW: I noticed that Robert Spencer's "Islam Unveiled" has the same average score (3.5 points) as Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad." Let's make Spencer's book a winner and vote on that too (or write a review).
Posted by: Andrei Rublev at July 11, 2005 6:23 PM
Example of how dominant the PC Leftist disease has become:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, 3d ARMORED CAVALRY REGIMENT
FORT CARSON, COLORADO 80913
1 November 2004
MEMORANDUM FOR Brave Rifles Leaders
SUBJECT: Brave Rifles Reading List for Operation Iraqi Freedom
Arab and Islamic Culture and History: Our ability to interact effectively with the Iraqi
population and partner with those who want to build a peaceful and prosperous future for their children will depend in large measure on our sensitivity to and respect for cultural and religious differences.
a. A History of the Arab Peoples by Albert Hourani.
Hourani covers 12 centuries of Arab history. This book is comprehensive and detailed.
b. The Arab Mind by Raphael Patai
A classic in the field of Arab studies. This book gives very insight [sic] observations into the complex and volatile society of the Arab nations. The author portrays the Arabs too
stereotypically and may over generalize.
c. The Arabs in History by Benard [sic] Lewis.
This is a fairly short book that covers Arab history from the Queen of Sheba to the early
1980s.
d. Islam: A Short History by Karen Armstrong.
This is a quick and easy read on the history of Islam.
at July 11, 2005 6:35 PM
Andrei, I couldn't access your review of "Imperial Hubris" by clicking your link -- all I found were other people's reviews of it.
Posted by: metaxy at July 11, 2005 6:45 PM
It's the third review from the bottom (I used the pseudonyn "Nelson Mondragon").
I think my review of Armstrong's "Muhammad" really got some people upset (unlike most of the reviewers who panned the book, I actually read it! Needless to say, I never bought it. I got it in the library.). Two people voted against it on the same day I posted it, and the very next day some idiot gave a very sappy 5 star review without even getting into the specifics details of the book!
Posted by: Andrei Rublev at July 11, 2005 9:02 PM
Well I didn't read the whole thing. I only read the 4 or 5 pages provided at Amazon months ago and just read again, and that was more than enough for me. In that brief encounter, I had way more than enough. She is a history revisionist. In those 4 pages, she goes on and on about that fabulous Caliphate where Andalusia was full of religious harmony and the arts flourished, and on and on and then the 'primitive' (her word) Western civilization destroyed it. Well you get the idea. She's a SuperDhimmi! Not many reach this level - Bernard Lewis being another.
Posted by: reset at July 11, 2005 9:54 PM
"Bernard Lewis being another"
-- from a posting above
This is unfair to Lewis. He is nothing like Armstrong. Perhaps he can be likened to Claude Cahen, but with a suppler prose. She is nothing at all. He, Lewis, is formidable, but fatally flawed by his refusal to see the awful truth about what happened to non-Muslims who were subjugated. This is a complicated question. He, Lewis, identified the problem of Jewish Orientalists who helped to present Islam in a rosier light, perhaps -- he suggested -- as a way to score points against Western Christendom. But what he so keenly perceived in others, and described, he himself may suffer from. And personal vanity, the desire not to offend powerful and generous hosts (Prince Hassan, half of scholarly Istanbul) by telling the truth about Islam, the full truth, the truth even Bassam Tibi or Magdi Allam or any of those almost-truth-telling Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslims, not quite ex-Muslims but practically there, held back by filial piety for the most part, and a final refusal to see Islam plain, to see it whole, that too has played its part.
But put Armstrong and Lewis dans la meme galere is not fair to Lewis, and far too flattering to the completely despicable, nearly-illiterate Armstrong.
Posted by: Hugh at July 11, 2005 10:10 PM
Why do you guys suppose the US Army is putting Karen Armstrong on the reading list of officers and soldiers in Iraq?
(see my post above, where the US Army reading list editorializes about choosing another author, Raphael Patai, that "The author portrays the Arabs too stereotypically and may over generalize" which = he is not multi-culturalistically "sensitive" enough.
Why is the US Army making official comments like this, and why are they recommending Karen Armstrong books?
Posted by: metaxy at July 11, 2005 11:10 PM
Oh, Karen...in re: "We need a phrase that is more exact than "Islamic terror". We? We do? No we don't. You might. If you NEED this phrase so badly, I can think of several.
Terror by any other name is still terror.
Islam by any other name is still Islam.
NO ONE else doing the terror = leaves the ball in the lap on the Islamic terrorits, hence, you're stuck with the name.
Lay down your weapons or wear the badge. Instead of "A" on your forehead, we can let you have Extreme Islamic Terrorists, aka EIT on your forehead; how does that suit you? Well, the terrorists are extreme, (better than a George Lucas movie could produce); they are Muslim, (so the name Islam fits) and there's no doubt, THIS is terror. EIT. There. You have it.
New name. SAME PROBLEM.
Posted by: JW gal at July 11, 2005 11:18 PM
Why can't the US Army see that, JW girl?
Posted by: metaxy at July 11, 2005 11:29 PM
Why can't the US Army see that, JW girl?
Posted by: metaxy at July 11, 2005 11:29 PM
Andrei,
I found your review -- excellent.
"I find it profoundly disturbing that a former high level agent can succumb to this level of cognitive dissonance. How many more nuts like Michael Scheuer are still in the CIA?"
Probably the majority of people in the FBI, CIA, all three branches of the US government, the US Military as a whole, the American news media, American universities, American entertainment celebrities & pundits, and all the "blue states" (along with a significant minority throughout the "red states") suffer from the disease of PC Leftism which in Michael Scheuer's case acts as a kind of irrational warping mechanism to distort key aspects of his otherwise intelligent cognition.
Nota bene: You no longer have to be a Leftist or even a liberal anymore to suffer from the Leftist disease -- that's how dominant and insidious its sociopolitical hegemony has become.
at July 12, 2005 12:17 AM
Hugh, you are right. I meant to type John Esposito. How's that! Lewis is flawed but not a superdhimmi. I reread before I post but sometimes my brain is not fully engaged.
Posted by: reset at July 12, 2005 1:01 AM
Hugh, by 'superdhimmi' I do mean influence as well as what they write and say. Karen Armstrong definitely has influence. The Army has her book on their Islam reading list, not Robert Spencer or anybody else I respect. What's more, her book is likely mandatory reading for all the pivotheads in the White House that make sure our political 'machine' is well informed.
Something is very wrong here. I feel nothing but disgust for our leaders who refuse to see what is staring them in the face. Why is there NO ONE in this administration who is questioning all these assumptions about Islam that is spewing out of Washington, not to speak of London and Imam Blair. Do they have the guts? Do they? They can't face it, they simply cannot. The Islamists have woven themselves deep into London. Far deeper than what has occured in the US. It is very disturbing.
I'm asking for a first step. Severly curb Muslim country quotas for immigration slots. Just a first step like that. Oh there's a lot more I want, but just a step, that's all I ask.
Posted by: reset at July 12, 2005 1:15 AM
reset,
"by 'superdhimmi' I do mean influence as well as what they write and say. Karen Armstrong definitely has influence."
Karen Armstrong's influence is not her doing. Karen Armstrong is not strong-arming the culture around her: our culture around her warmly supports and nourishes her views. Karen Armstrong doesn't have to lift much of a finger to influence the culture around her. Look at the US Army using her book as recommended reading for our warriors in Iraq, for crying out loud!
(The slight note of beleaguerement one detects in her is due more to her typical Leftist paranoia about the specter of the Right -- laughable in light of the Right's impotence with regards our sociopolitical culture.)
at July 12, 2005 1:34 AM
reset,
"by 'superdhimmi' I do mean influence as well as what they write and say. Karen Armstrong definitely has influence."
Karen Armstrong's influence is not her doing. Karen Armstrong is not strong-arming the culture around her: our culture around her warmly supports and nourishes her views. Karen Armstrong doesn't have to lift much of a finger to influence the culture around her. Look at the US Army using her book as recommended reading for our warriors in Iraq, for crying out loud!
(The slight note of beleaguerement one detects in her is due more to her typical Leftist paranoia about the specter of the Right -- laughable in light of the Right's impotence with regards our sociopolitical culture.)
at July 12, 2005 1:35 AM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)