Stanford student Ben Maldonado complains that I apparently have “nothing better to do than read and rant about college newspapers.” Apparently Ben Maldonado has nothing better to do than read and rant about Jihad Watch, and that’s fine. In any case, this is the way it is with campus fascists, and fascists in general, as well as Islamic supremacists: they feel free to savage one’s name and reputation, but if you dare to respond, they start whining and claim victim status.
Still, I have to hand it to Ben Maldonado: he has gone farther than most other Stanford students who have protested against my scheduled appearance there Tuesday: he has actually read some of what I’ve written, although I doubt that his perusal of Did Muhammad Exist?, The Truth About Muhammad, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) amounted to more than riffing through their pages in the stacks at Stanford, or looking through the Amazon preview pages. Still, I give him credit for attempting to appear more fair than his comrades, although he has an apparent indifference to or inability to meet basic evidentiary standards.
Somewhat off-topic: I’ve just learned that while Stanford has barred non-students from the event, there is room for a small number of invited guests who are not students. If you’re in the area and would like to come, email me at director@jihadwatch.org.
Much more below.
“Let’s talk about Robert Spencer,” by Ben Maldonado, Stanford Daily, November 9, 2017:
Let’s talk about Robert Spencer. As some of you know, Spencer has recently been invited by Stanford College Republicans to give a talk funded by Stanford on November 14 about the dangers of radical Islam. This has expectedly led to criticisms from other campus groups, often portraying Spencer as an Islamophobe who twists historical fact for a political agenda.
What political agenda? Which twisted historical fact? Young Mr. Maldonado is long on assertions and short on evidence. “Islamophobe”: a propaganda term designed to intimidate people into fearing to oppose jihad terror and Sharia oppression.
His credentials are, truthfully, less than astounding: his formal area of study is Catholic history and all of his books have been published by fringe publishers and lack academic peer review.
My formal area of study is not “Catholic history.” Ben didn’t do research himself, he just hit the usual smear sites, and repeated their lies. “Fringe publishers”: “fringe” by what standard? Non-adherence to Leftist propaganda norms? They’re so fringe, they got the books on the New York Times Bestseller List. “Academic peer review”: here is how much academic peer review is worth in these days when universities aren’t institutions of higher learning, but centers for Leftist indoctrination.
However, he has worked with the United States government and military on Islamic issues and has appeared on various news networks. Because of this, I decided to read some of his more recent books for myself.
Young Mr. Maldonado cares not for basic facts. He says he reviewed some of my “more recent books”: the most recent book Maldonado “reviewed” was published in 2012. The other two he hits were published in 2005 and 2006. Since 2012, I’ve published six books, and am working on another now, when not answering Stanford smear propaganda.
“Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into into Islam’s Obscure Origins”
Despite the rumors of Spencer’s Islamophobia, I was — daresay, pleasantly — surprised reading this book.
I’ve often received this response from college students who hear the propaganda about me and then hear what I actually say. It is to Maldonado’s credit that he acknowledges this, although he doesn’t maintain his stance on the high ground, and presently starts flinging mud again.
Published in 2014,
In reality, Did Muhammad Exist? was published on April 23, 2012. Ben carelessly checked the publication date of the paperback edition only; that one did indeed come out in 2014. It’s a minor point, but when someone is skewering a writer for supposedly twisting facts, he should get his own facts straight.
“Did Muhammad Exist?” exams [sic] and challenges the orthodox historiography and the historicity of the prophet.
“The prophet”? Are you a Muslim, Ben? If not, why call him “the prophet”? Or would not doing so be “Islamophobic”?
While orthodox historiography argues that the early Muslim conquests of the sixth and seventh centuries were done by a unified Muslim empire, Spencer claims that the theology of Islam only appeared after the conquests and the formation of empire. However, this is essentially all he does: despite the editorialized title, Spencer rarely challenges the actual existence of Muhammad. Furthermore, the actual historical argument is unconvincing, relying on minor documents that merely obscure the conventional narrative instead of disproving it. His claim is simply too large to support with the evidence he supplies. With its editorialized title and unconvincing arguments, the text is simply a weak attempt at a historical analysis.
All this is debatable, and I’ve debated it with Muslims and non-Muslims. Unfortunately, however, Maldonado presents only general, sweeping statements, not any specific inaccuracies on my part. No “twisting historical facts” yet, much less any “Islamophobia” or “hate.”
“The Truth about Muhammad: The Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion”
If you can’t tell by the title, this book has a far more apparent agenda. Published in 2006, this text has three goals: to show the truth of the prophet’s life and actions, to explain how the prophet’s life influenced the development of Islam, and to advocate for these two discussions to influence our modern relationship with Islam. Like in “Did Muhammad Exist?” Spencer uses certain texts and documents to poke small holes in the orthodox historiography while failing to really reveal anything groundbreaking. Despite the editorialized title (a common trend with his works), this is not a biography of Muhammad. Instead, it’s merely an outline focusing on the more negative and controversial aspects of the prophet’s life without making any new developments in the historiography of Islam. The attempt to discuss America’s current involvement with the Middle East, however, is far more interesting: completely ignoring literally centuries of political, material, and religious developments, Spencer attempts to directly link Muhammad’s life and contemporary Islamic developments to the United States’ relationship with Islam and the Middle East today. This is an obvious example of bad historiography.
How? If Muslims are committing acts of violence and justifying them by invoking Muhammad’s example, as I demonstrate in the book, how is that “bad historiography”?
While the events of the sixth century
Ben, Ben, Ben. “The prophet,” as you call him, was, according to Islamic tradition, born in 570 and died in 632. He didn’t proclaim himself a prophet until 610. So absolutely nothing that has to do with Islamic teachings took place in the sixth century. Couldn’t you have cut your Diversity Seminar just for one afternoon and done some basic reading up on Islam?
of course have influence on our modern cultures and politics, to draw a straight line between the two while not even mentioning anything that has happened in between is at best misguided and at worst disingenuous.
Ben, what you’re neglecting here is that it is not actually I who am drawing a “straight line” between Muhammad and contemporary events, but jihad terrorists who are doing so. In any case, as for “what has happened in between,” you’re in luck: I’m currently working on a book called The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS. Barring unforeseen circumstances, it should be out next year. Just yesterday I finished the section about the Battle of Manzikert, and I’m happy with how it’s coming along. Ben, send me an address (write to director@jihadwatch.org) and I’ll send you a copy when it comes out, free of charge.
Furthermore, it is poorly written and quite redundant: Spencer feels the need to repeat himself countless times over the text, perhaps making up for his lack of actual content.
Aw, that one really hurts, Ben. Any examples of this poor writing or repetition? No? Hmmm. In any case, people can read the book for themselves. It’s based on the earlier Muslim biographies of Muhammad, by Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sa’d, as well as the biographical material in the canonical hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim. Plenty of content in there for those who are not disposed to reject it without consideration.
“The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)”
If the previous two books were the entirety of Spencer’s bibliography, I’d be willing to agree that he is simply a bad historian instead of a bad historian with an overwhelming political agenda against Islam. This guide, however, makes it clear where his opinions on Islam lie: Spencer openly claims that Islam is a fundamentally violent religion and that both historic and modern conflicts of the West with Islam are justified responses.
Leftists frequently employ this tactic: they state something that is true as if it were self-evidently false, without bothering to provide any evidence. I suppose it’s a good rhetorical trick, as it cows the unwary reader into thinking that any sane or informed person would agree with the assertion. Unfortunately, however, the claim that Islam is peace remains, at best, unproven. I set out some evidence here.
Written less like an academic text and more like a manifesto, this 2005 text is an addition to the “Politically Incorrect Guide” (or “P.I.G.”) series which includes gems such as the unapologetically unscientific “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design” and the Neo-Confederate “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War.”
This is guilt by association, another cheap rhetorical trick. I didn’t write those books.
Spencer’s addition fits in perfectly with this motley crew: though never explicitly false,
Game over, Ben.
this guide twists legitimate historiography and neglects to mention anything that would potentially harm his argument. For example, Spencer argues that Islam spreads through violence while Christianity spreads peaceful conversion. However, this section of the book (which does not contain a single citation, an all too common theme in this text)
In reality, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) contains 357 citations in 228 pages.
completely neglects to mention the enslavement and forced conversions of the native peoples of the Americas by Christians.
Right. You know what else, Ben? It also doesn’t mention the procedures of open heart surgery. The book is about Islam and the Crusades, not about the native peoples of the Americas.
Spencer also attempts to construct an intricate retelling of the Crusades. He claims that Christians were forced to defend themselves from an expanding Muslim empire — an exciting theory which has the potential to be groundbreaking historiography if only he supported it with any actual evidence.
Poor Ben: did the Amazon preview pages not include pages 121-125? There is a detailed explanation of the Seljuk Turks’ advances in Anatolia, leading the Emperor Alexius Comnenus to appeal to the Pope for aid, as well as details about the persecution of Christians in the Holy Land. The book also contains expositions of the 450 years of jihad attacks that preceded the First Crusade, and conquered and Islamized what had been half of Christendom. If our intrepid researcher had actually read the book, he would know all this was in there.
The question of the Crusades and their justifications is a large debates in Western historiographic tradition. Unfortunately, Spencer adds nothing to it. He oversimplifies the Crusades to a Muslim versus Christian conflict (a clear result of him trying to make a political statement about the two religions as a whole) while the actual contemporary political and religious milieu was far more nuanced. Spencer simply refuses to use the nuance necessary to perform historical research and relies on ham-handed oversimplifications and generalizations to make his point.
Once again, nary a single example. We’re supposed to take the august Mr. Maldonado’s word for it.
I could go on, but I won’t. The rest of his books follow the same pattern: pseudo-intellectual texts that add nothing to the current discussion (e.g. “A Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity is and Islam Isn’t”)
Actually, the title is Religion of Peace?, not A Religion of Peace?. Details, like black lives, matter — especially to someone who is claiming a superior knowledge and commitment to accuracy.
alongside polemic manifestos with no academic or historical significance (e.g. “The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and its enemies)”).
One day, sooner than he knows, Ben Maldonado may regret so cavalierly dismissing the war against the freedom of speech, but by then he won’t have a platform upon which to voice his regret.
Spencer seems to be continuing this trend of manifesto-esque drivel with his upcoming book: “Confessions of an Islamophobe.” (Isn’t it a little odd that all this controversy is occurring right before Spencer’s book drops? Almost like he needs controversy to convince people to buy it, since no one would buy it based on merit and quality.)
Who created the controversy? It was you and your fellow Stanford fascists, not I. You’re the ones who have published no fewer than eight articles in the Stanford Daily, and more in the Stanford Review, attacking me and ascribing all sorts of evils to my name without a shred of evidence or justification. If you fascists hadn’t been so hysterical and so outrageously mendacious, there would be no controversy: I would have just gone to Stanford and spoken, offered some thoughts for consideration of thoughtful people, and left. You have made that impossible. I’m still coming, and I will stand and confront anything you fascists throw at me, but to blame me for a controversy that you are entirely responsible for stoking and creating is simply more of the baseless victimhood propaganda that you folks have been shoveling by the bucketload.
It is painfully clear that Robert Spencer is only popular due to the topics of his books and not their quality.
I like to think it’s because of my dashing good looks.
Because of this, I’d like to address Mr. Spencer directly, who, judging by his website, apparently has nothing better to do than read and rant about college newspapers.
Thank you for visiting Jihad Watch! I hope you keep coming back. You might learn something!
You severely lack academic credentials and have the historical nuance of an elephant.
Prove it. You haven’t in this piece.
It is completely understandable why none of your texts have been academically peer reviewed and published, since they would be shot down in seconds.
As for peer review, see the link above. And if your claim is true, then why couldn’t you yourself produce even one specific example of an inaccuracy in the books you perused?
However, despite this, I must congratulate you on your success commodifying the anger and hate pervading this country with your manufactured controversies.
Ask Mohamed Atta, and Nidal Malik Hasan, and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and Omar Mateen, and Syed Rizwan Farook, and Tashfeen Malik, and Sayfullo Saipov, and all the rest about who exactly is manufacturing a controversy over Islam and jihad.
It truly takes some form of talent to sell such shoddily written and poorly researched texts.
Thanks, dude! Judging from your research skills as evidenced in this piece, I am not going to be crying myself to sleep tonight.
I also have a question for the Stanford College Republicans who actually bought Spencer’s snake oil: Why him? All religions including Islam should be discussed and criticized in an academic environment, and there are countless scholars and academics critical of modern Islam, some of whom were even raised in the religion and have firsthand experience with the negative aspects.
Pious posturing. I am certain that if Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Ibn Warraq or Wafa Sultan or Nonie Darwish or any other ex-Muslim came to speak at Stanford, you’d be just as much in a froth.
You could have had your choice of any of them and held an insightful and respectful talk that actually contributes to the discussion of religion on campus.
We could have done that Tuesday, if you and your fellow fascists had not poisoned the environment.
Yet, you elected to invite someone whose books add nothing besides generalizations and spite.
Why couldn’t you quote even one example of either one?
Have you simply not read his books?
You know what they say about glass houses, Ben.
Is this an attempt to be controversial instead of providing actual intellectual content? Do you seriously believe Robert Spencer is the best face for conservatism at Stanford? If so, go ahead. But don’t complain when no one takes you seriously.
Again, you know what they say about glass houses. I hope you come Tuesday. In fact, I hope you will come early, Ben, and we can have a cup of coffee and crack open some of my books, and you can show me the inaccuracies in them that you have failed to provide any details of here. But you won’t.
Kay says
“Pious posturing. I am certain that if Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Ibn Warraq or Wafa Sultan or Nonie Darwish or any other ex-Muslim came to speak at Stanford, you’d be just as much in a froth.”
I hope these “liberals” take on this suggestion.
Nice rebuttal, Robert, to articulate sophistry.
gravenimage says
When Nonie Darwish spoke at Berkeley a few years ago, aggressive protesters screamed, threatened, and drowned her out, and her speech had to be cut short.
Voytek Gagalka says
Because they only pretend to be “open-minded” and crash instantly if confronted on that lie.
J D S says
open minded? they’re mind has been bent. they have been going to mind-bending classes too long. mind bending professors at the helm.
gravenimage says
Some are open-minded there–I am an alumnus myself–but all too may are anything but.
Greyhound Fancier says
Not too articulate. The young man needs a good proofreader.
pnina says
Indeed. This article is guilty of every sin it accuses Spencer’s books of: shoddy writing, extra light on facts, and half the facts it does cite are inaccurate, no intellectual substance – it just repeats tired cliches, adds absolutely nothing new or useful to the discussion, offers no evidence to support any of its assertions, and is clearly motivated by a political agenda.
P.S.
It’ll be funny if you spot spelling errors in a comment accusing someone else of shoddy writing, but the flimsy mobile I type on has no spellchecker, and English is neither my native nor my day to day language, so I apologize in advance.
Aron says
STANFORD IS A STUPID UNIVERSITY? OR HOW COME SO MANY MORONS @ STANFORD CANT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN =FASCIST AND ANTI-ISLAMOFASCIST?
Aron
The stupidity we see displayed by a section of hysterical students of Stanford tells us a lot about the level of intelligence required top attend these premiere Universities.
A section of the student community think Robert Spencer is a Fascist- forgetting I*Islamic Fundamentalism he opposes is nothing but Arab Supremacist fascism!
If you cant talk freely against Hitler=- same goes with Mohammad- in fact worse-
atleast you can get away with poking Hitler outside opf Germany-
but the Journalists of Charlie hebdo discovered you would be chopped to death even in your own country!
These students represent the Lowest point any human can reach as far as IQ is concerned.
Nobody with minimum intelligence will accept terms like ‘
Fascists’ about somebody without substantiating the charge he is in fact Fascist or How so?
Same way people who have minimumj intelligence will Not Fail to see the enormous problem humanity is having with Islam and Islamo-fascists!
You have to be pretty really dumb not to see Islam is in fact a very serious existential threat to Free World.
Instead these stupidos from Stanford want people top believe it is infact Robert Spencer who is the Problem and Danger-
1. not perpetrators of 9/11
2. Not saudis who keep exporting that brand of wahabi islam
3.Not Iran that helped with 9/11
It is the dedicated Critics and watchdogs of that Global Jihad who are the problem and menace.
We really wonder how prestigious Universities have come out a crapper with so many buffoons
RichardL says
Phronesis in every phrase, written, I am certain, without having to think much. Well done, Robert, you truly are an exceptional man!
As always: many thanks for defending freedom and sanity so elegantly.
Maybe I should claim to be Ben Maldonado. I bet there will be dozens of them wanting that tete-a-tete.
Emilie Green says
From Ben on why the Crusades came about, “He [Spencer] claims that Christians were forced to defend themselves from an expanding Muslim empire — an exciting theory which has the potential to be groundbreaking historiography if only he supported it with any actual evidence.”
If only Ben could wrench himself away from his Play Station,
THE CRUSADES IN CONTEXT, By Dr. Paul Stenhouse, 2007,
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Stenhouse/crusades.01.htm
Frank Scarn says
Ben and others might like to see a visual of the Grand Jihad conducted in the name of Islam, beginning just after Mohammed’s death. Bill Warner does an easily understood job of it here (in about 5 minutes),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo
Terry Gain says
Frank Scarn
PLUS 1,000
Diane Harvey says
And what does Ben & company know about about the Muslim African slave trade which began in the 7th C. (when the Grand Jihad began) and lasted into the 20th C. In fact slavery still persists in certain parts of the Muslim world. This slave trade was larger in terms of sheer numbers and longer in terms of time duration than the Atlantic slave trade. The principal areas affected were northern and eastern Africa, but the booty and slave raiding encompassed all of the Mediterranean basin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world
Slavery is sanctioned in Islam; several verses authorize it. To choose and example, Quran (33:50), “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee”
That phrase “whom thy right hand possesses” is found in several places in the Quran, each time referring to human booty captured in a raid.
I don’t mind that these Stanford “scholars” want to write, but it really would be helpful if they first knew what they were talking about. Americans are really quite under-educated when it comes to Islam and its history.
Westman says
Slavery was eliminated in the US and still exists in Islam, yet it is the US that is branded “racist”. Bizarre
The state that keeps on twisting US arms, threatening to leave the US, and telling us all what to do, has finally lost its marbles. The NAACP of California is calling for the removal of the “racist” National Anthem.
https://www.snopes.com/california-naacp-want-replace-national-anthem/
Maybe “Ben” could tell us the erudite Stanford view of this in impressive multisyllable language.
CogitoErgoSum says
Here is something for Ben to ponder concerning the Muslim slave trade in Africa:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WolQ0bRevEU
gravenimage says
Frank, this is especially brilliant work from Bill Warner. I have seen this video around before, but this is the first time I have had time to watch it. Thanks for the link.
Terry Gain says
Thanks for the link Emilie but Maldonado seems to lack reading comprehension skills. It might be easier for him to understand the truth about the Crusades if he visited Dr. Bill Warner’s website Political Islam. He would then understand that the current consensus about the Crusades is the “EXCITING THEORY”.
Wellington says
This is what I would really like to see: Ben Maldonado in a one-on-one debate with Robert Spencer. It would be a slaughter. Spencer would eat his lunch, dinner and the next day’s breakfast.
This young man, if he just read above what Robert Spencer wrote, should know way down inside he is out of his league. But the capacity for being really truthful about oneself is woeful in so many so it wouldn’t surprise me that Maldonado still wouldn’t grasp that he has been bested. Based on the truly pathetic statements above by Maldonado, arguably most pathetic of all being that he makes sweeping generalizations with no examples, my guess is that he might never understand the wisdom spoken by Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry, to wit, “A man’s got to know his limitations.” Don’t think Ben Maldonado does, but his limitations are glaring for others to see. Boy, are they ever.
Santa Voorhees says
Of course Robert would win! What can you expect from someone that cannot even tell the 6th and 7th centuries apart?
Mo says
I asked the writer to demonstrate what Robert has written in any of his books that is false, and upon what basis he’s making that claim. I did it in the comments section, but now I noticed his email address (bmaldona@stanford.edu.)
I’m also going to write him an email. I suggest you all do the same. As always, be above reproach in your comments, so that he can’t use anything against us. He still may try, so don’t give him any more ammunition than what he can invent!
As always, I know I will not receive a response. (At least, not one that answers that question.)
Here is my full comment, posted in the comments section and also sent by email:
“Furthermore, it is poorly written and quite redundant: Spencer feels the need to repeat himself countless times over the text, perhaps making up for his lack of actual content.”
Quite like this mass of baseless and fact-less accusations here.
Which statements in which of his books did you find to be false, and upon what basis do you say that? What study have you done of Islam in order to make any such claim?
Answer me. Do not play your games. Answer me. People such as yourself feel that you can just slander people and their work in this manner, and that you bear no responsibility for backing up your accusations with facts.
I find that reprehensible.
[Full name (in email)]
Terry Gain says
“Spencer openly claims that Islam is a fundamentally violent religion and that both historic and modern conflicts of the West with Islam are justified responses.”
No Maldonado. Rpbert Spencer proves that Islam is doctrinally and historically violent and explains why with direct reference to jihad doctrine and the example of Mohammed ( the role model).
Maldonado’s criticism of Robert Spencer consists of nothing but insults and false accusations.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Never explicitly false? Well, that’s a start, but stops short of saying Spencer’s writings are true. Saying that would amount to acknowledging reality, Moslem reality.
It’s gotten to the point where fascist is the second most misunderstood word in the world, thrown around all over the place, almost always misapplied, as if the identifier doesn’t understand what the word means because the accused is not a fascist, he may be this or that, but not a fascist.
The first most misunderstood in the world is Islam. Unfortunately it’s miisunderstood by eager Infidels, and not by Moslems.
gravenimage says
Stanford student: Robert Spencer’s books “never explicitly false,” but…
……………………
In other words, everything Robert Spencer has to say is true, but Ben Maldonado doesn’t like it…
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
+1
TheOldOligarch says
Yes, that’s a perfect summation of all of this bitter squealing.
Norger says
You know, this kid is at least a potential step in the right direction. He’s at least willing to engage in a quasi-dialogue. Maybe he’ll actually show up and engage,
I thought the college Republicans made a strong case for why they invited Spencer;
“[Apologetics for and denial of the theological base for Islamic terrorism constitute]conventional wisdom on college campuses and form the perspective that Stanford students are constantly exposed to. Stanford students have not had heard their professors provide alternate causal explanations. They have never been made to consider the role that certain passages in Islamic texts play in providing the ideological underpinning and inspiration for radical Islamic terrorism. This perspective is routinely dismissed as Islamophobic and thus deemed illegitimate.”
They go on to say that an hour has been devoted to Q&A and that they are hoping for a robust discussion. That would be a start.
gravenimage says
True–this is actually better than most of what we have seen from Stanford.
Benedict says
Spencer “claims that Christians were forced to defend themselves from an expanding Muslim empire —“
Here is how Bernard Lewis “recognized around the globe as one of the leading authorities on Islam” sums up the crusades:
“The Crusades were a *late*, *limited*, and unsuccessful imitation of the jihad—an attempt to *recover* by holy war what had been lost by holy war. It failed, and it was not followed up.”
Pretty much in agreement with Spencer’s “claims”. Don’t you think so Ben Maldonado?
gravenimage says
Fine post.
Jim says
Except Jihad is offensive, not defensive. It may appear from time to time to be defensive, but that is only to further the relentless offensive. No, the Crusades were a failed attempt to reclaim Christian (and Jewish) lands from the jihadi Islamic invaders. We are suffering now because they failed through internal dissension and limited goals/aims. The aim should have been to crush Islam once and for all, but they only wanted land back. They had a chance crush them if they had only gone to Damascus, but dissension among the leaders caused them to not attempt it, then it was too late. Mr Maldonado’s problem is that he thinks he is educated because he is in college. However, it is obvious that he has not studied Islam in depth or the history of Islamic invasions over its 1400 years of history. Bone up on those, then get back to us.
John S. Obeda says
Ben is acting his age and doing so especially in college. Mr. Spencer is also writing according to his own age of knowledge and experience and is being patient with him. God bless Mr. Spencer with a quick mind and with the ability to answer all of the people well even as Jesus answered well his gainsayers. And, as we all know, some people simply don’t want the truth. Jesus knew how to answer them too and God bless Mr. Spencer also with the same ability and courage and boldness to answer them too
eduardo odraude says
Robert Spencer has been shooting fish in a barrel with these Stanford students, and it has been pretty entertaining the last couple of days.
Seems that universities are too unselective these days. Maldonado’s writing and thinking is a poor imitation of the posture and rhetoric of someone literate. He’s all tropes and no substance, and he doesn’t even execute the tropes well. Reading his work is like reading some slightly better than average high school student’s book report. I hope some Stanford professors are embarrassed.
Norger says
It is shooting fish in a barrel.
And I suspect that at least one reason why Spencer is posting such excellent responses to these articles is because this is likely to be his only chance to engage with most of these impressionable (and incredibly naiive ) young minds.
eduardo odraude says
Bernard Lewis on Islam’s inherent totalitarianism
From the essay “Communism and Islam” in International Affairs, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Jan., 1954), pp. 1-12:
eduardo odraude says
http://www.quotingislam.blogspot.com
Benedict says
?eo:
Allah is a no-God and Muhammad is his prophet.
This demonic duality will bring the rage and the hate of Muslims to a level that surpasses everything nazism and communism could ever produce. And again the Jews will be the ultimate target.
Greyhound Fancier says
Allah is Satan and Muhammad is the Antichrist. There, I fixed it.
Lydia says
Same thing as during the nazi rise to power. They came for higher education too!
So glad I’m done with my higher degree in theoretical math, with a minor in logic, with a 4.0!
(no sarcasm there)
These days with all the indoctrination and propaganda and liberal agendas, you only go to universities to get dumber!
St. Manuel II Palaiologos says
Nowadays, academics mean completely nothing. It’s sad that civil society hasn’t actually learned that the value of College is nothing.
Lydia says
And all they learn how to do is to deny reality, truth, and logic as they lose critical thinking skills, reasoning, open debate and dialogue skills, and IQ scores!
MFritz says
I really admire Robert’s patience in this case! Most of my professors would have LAUGHED Maldonad out of their offices for – obviously – not doing any proper research before starting to accuse a scholar like this.
Or does this actually show what’s wrong with the education – and the educators – at Stanford? Politicial agitation first?
mgoldberg says
The sad and eerie reality is that all these articles about the attacks upon Robert Spencer, so well responded to by him, likely have been utterly ignored, by those who really should sift and winnow thru them. The idea that they, the fascists, are the faux peaceniks, and tyrants against free speech and seriousl enquiry would shatter their egos beyond immediate repair. That is why I’m fairly certain that only a very few people at the once upon a time distinguished U. at Stanford, have actually read and considered the replies and have measured the information.
They would be too scared to rebut the inane acusations against Mr Spencer, lest they be scorned as
inherently biased, bigoted, and ‘Islamophobic’
Norger says
“The idea that they, the fascists, are the faux peaceniks, and tyrants against free speech and serious enquiry would shatter their egos beyond immediate repair. That is why I’m fairly certain that only a very few people at the once upon a time distinguished U. at Stanford, have actually read and considered the replies and have measured the information.”
I completely agree that this is a major shift in world view, I don’t harbor any illusions that Spencer’s excellent responses will necessarily change any hearts and minds. But I am cautiously optimistic that at least some at Stanford are reading some of the materials on this site and that this will cause at least some to question the “Islam is peace” narrative.
Jon Sobieski says
Ben Maldonado said he read these books, but scanning sounds more appropriate. Stanford is supposedly one of the great universities of scholarship and research. Ben Maldonado is front and center an example of Stanford’s pride. These students are so tied up in their political correctness and diversity is strength memes they cannot think objectively. I did not know how bad our campuses were until these Stanford students proved how stupid and shallow our university students are. Thanks Ben and the gang.
Salome says
The student demonstrates the limits of his frame of reference and hence his immaturity. He is judging Mr Spencer’s books as if they are a doctoral dissertation–no new contribution–fail! He doesn’t realise that, just because you’re only meant to refer to ‘peer reviewed’ and not ‘trade’ books in academic essays, that non-academic publications don’t have use or merit. If Mr Spencer were seeking to make ‘original contributions’ in the academic manner, he’d be in some dusty archive studying justifiably forgotten manuscripts and writing books and articles for a readership of hundreds, at best. As I understand it, Mr Spencer takes a critical look at knowledge that’s been out there for a long time, re-presents it and packages it so that it is relevant today (which is a significant original contribution) and helps us understand why things are the way they are. And that is far more necessary and helpful work than a lot of academics (indeed most) are getting up to. I expect that, if the student were to hear an eighteenth- or nineteenth-century symphony in which the composer quotes from an earlier composer’s work, or uses a technique developed by a previous composer, in the way in which composers did that sort of thing (before copyright litigation got silly), he’d scream ‘plagiarism’, because he doesn’t really know what that means either. And I have a hunch that if this little student were to read some trashy book questioning Christian orthodoxy or casting doubt on the historicity of Jesus, he’d swallow it whole in a second!
Salome says
Sorry–should have proofread myself. Should be “He doesn’t realise that, just because you’re only meant to refer to ‘peer reviewed’ and not ‘trade’ books in academic essays, that doesn’t mean that non-academic publications don’t have use or merit.” Oops.
Greyhound Fancier says
I have done a bit of research and written peer-reviewed material. Your characterization is correct. Mass market books are not peer-reviewed. Articles for scholarly journals are peer-reviewed.
Mass market publications like Robert’s books are for the non-specialist, to acquaint them with the subject and provide a basic knowledge. The books are well-referenced, in my opinion.
Many peer-reviewed articles in medicine, nursing, etc., deal with topics so specific to a certain disease or condition that they are of interest to only a small subset of medical professionals. That type of writing is not appropriate for mass market and wouldn’t be well-received, as it tends to be pretty dry and dense for
anyone who doesn’t find it addresses a question of importance to their own research or clinical practice.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Ben who?
MFritz says
Ben Neverheardfromagain.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
LOL
Warren Raymond says
Is there an “Islamophobia” university where Robert Spencer could get his books peer reviewed? Is there one, just one, critical book on Islam out there in the universe that Ben would consider for snowflake consumption? Is there one, just one university in the whole wide world where critical studies of Islam are conducted and the history of Islamic jihad taught, without whitewashing & absurd, immoral equivalence?
Little Ben sounds like one of these nutters who scream at the moon.
Ashley says
Poor Ben. He could barely get one detail correct and misspells the word “examines” as “exams.”
I’m sure you are reading here, Ben…cringing. Humiliated. Exposed. GOOD!
Feel free to pipe in here, Ben. Correct Mr. Spencer if you believe you’ve been misunderstood. Or your words were misconstrued in any way. Mr. Spencer is open to civil debate. Prove Spencer wrong and I have a favorite summer straw hat to eat…
You’ve read the Koran, right Ben? You can quote the passages, right? You’ve researched this site, right? You read the news, right? You’ve heard the term, Sharia, right? Jihad?
The floor is all yours, Ben.
We’re waiting…
Diane Harvey says
Obviously enough Ben bit off more than he could chew. Nevertheless there’s a silver lining for him, if he has enough wisdom. All the remarks given to him in this post contain a lot of good, solid information about Islam. Yeah, there’s some snark, but that can be ignored. Americans know so little about Islam and Muslim behaviors (which are remarkably consistent for the past 1400 years).
Will Ben or other Stanford students be wise and follow up some of the links in those comments?
Greyhound Fancier says
We were all young and foolish once, just not so publicly as Ben, in most cases.
Jim says
Mr Ben Maldonado’s article is a “masterpiece” of sly ad hominem attacks, straw men, and appeal to authority. Mr Maldonado should take some time (he is in college) to read the Koran and hadiths from beginning to end, and several times. I did it myself over 45 years ago when I was college. I didn’t wait for a professor to tell me, I just decided to do on my own. I read them numerous times, front to back, just to be sure I comprehended them. If, after reading the books, you, Mr Maldonado, think the books are joking, there is no hope for you. Also, Mr Maldonado, you need to brush up on your dark ages and medieval history with respect to Islam. You will find the bloody sword of Islam swept out of Saudi Arabia, into Jewish lands, across Christian North Africa, up in to Christian Spain, penetrating into France. (Who was the aggressor?). Their navy and marines swept across the Mediterranean Sea, capturing Rhodes, and attempted to conquer Malta and Sicily, but received a bloody nose at Malta. Their armies also swept through the Baltics, capturing Christian Constantinople, moving northwards eventually laying siege to Vienna. They would have taken the rest of Europe through the backdoor were it not for the Poles crushing and utterly routing them at Vienna. Oddly, the beheading of captives and other tortures are common throughout that 1400 years of aggression. Learn before you speak, Mr Maldonado.
mortimer says
Bravo. How can we convince young people to read Islam’s primary source texts and make up their own minds, rather than swallowing a predigested (and faulty) conclusion made by Marxist propagandists?
mortimer says
Ben Maldonado and his neo-Marxist group-thinkers have not read the primary source texts of Islam, but assume they already know what is in them WITHOUT READING OR STUDYING THEM!
This is preposterous.
Ben Maldonado and his neo-Marxist group thinkers have no idea about the TAQIYYA DOCTRINE that requires Muslims to hide the JIHAD DOCTRINE from kafirs so that the kafirs will remain unprepared and vulnerable to JIHAD.
BEN, PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING AND READ UP ON IT:
There are SIX DIFFERENT WAYS of deception that are permissible in Islam: 1) taqiyya, 2) kitman, 3) tawriya, 4) taysir, 5) darura, 6) muruna
•Taqiyya (Shia) or Muda’rat (Sunni): tactical deceit for the purposes of spreading Islam.
•Kitman: deceit by omission.
•Tawriya: deceit by ambiguity.
•Taysir: deceit through facilitation (not having to observe all the tenets of Sharia).
•Darura: deceit through necessity (to engage in something “haram” or forbidden).
•Muruna: the temporary suspension of Sharia to make Muslim migrants appear “moderate.”
Allah is the greatest deceiver – “Allahu khayru al-makireena” – K. 3:54; cf. 8:30
Infidel says
Why is Robert even trying to respond to these idiots… He is being too nice and gentlemanly which these worms do not deserve a bit..
Robert Spencer says
I am hoping that there may still be some students at Stanford who are capable of independent thought, and who will evaluate the case made on both sides.
I am aware that this may be a fond hope.
Jan Aage Jeppesen says
Dear Robert Spencer,
The decline in academic freedom and intelligent free thinking is documented in a peer reviewed research article by a Danish professor, Helmuth Nyborg.
Quoted from article in National Vanguard, April 15, 2016:
Professor: “Europe Has Three Options — Submission, Repatriation, or Civil War”
A DANISH professor has just published an article in which he says that escalating mass immigration gives Europe only three choices: submission, repatriation, or civil war.
Helmuth Nyborg (pictured), a retired professor of developmental psychology at Aarhus University, today in a debate published in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper, warned of the drastic effects of the current mass immigration into Europe from the Middle East/North Africa (MENA) region. Nyborg begins his article with the following words:
In 2012 I wrote the article “The Decay of Western Civilization: Double-Relaxed Darwinian Selection.” I estimated the impact on Europeans of mass immigration and mixture with low-IQ populations, and found that Westerners will soon be in the minority in Europe, and that the average IQ will then fall so much that prosperity, democracy, and civilization itself will be threatened.
Now, in 2016, the now almost complete conquest by immigration leaves us with only three options — submission, repatriation, or civil war. Unless Europe immediately begins to conduct responsible family, immigration, and integration policies — illuminated by the theory of evolution — civil war stands out as the most likely result.
Nyborg says further that it is the politicization of science that makes politicians fear to take biology — race — into account when deciding on European immigration policy. Nyborg argues that if biological knowledge is not taken into account, non-White immigrants with low IQs will destroy European society.
The argument for this, as Nyborg shows, is that human evolution over many thousands of years in the harsh climate of Europe caused Europeans to become more altruistic and intelligent than other races, and that is why Europeans became better at creating free societies, developing and upholding science, and creating less-primitive and less-superstitious religions than those developed by other human groups.
Nyborg writes that academics — together with bishops and priests, feminists, secular humanists, and charities like Save the Children and the Red Cross — failed Danish society by not recognizing the problems with what Nyborg calls “low-IQ immigration.” Nyborg describes non-White immigrants who are already in Denmark as “a potential subversive fifth column.” He says that young immigrants who, because of their low intelligence, are almost always “outsiders” in a school system adapted for Westerners, readily become radicalized and turned against society — because they simply do not fit in.
Around 2075, Nyborg predicts, non-White immigrants and their descendants will be in the majority in Denmark and then (if not long before) can, through “democracy,” introduce Sharia law as the law of the land. Before 2050, Nyborg states, children from the MENA region will be in the majority in Danish elementary schools. Therefore, says Nyborg, the Danes have to choose between just three options: submit to eventual extinction after a period of foreign rule; quickly rescue the situation by extensive repatriation; or fight a civil war.
Helmuth Nyborg is a retired professor of developmental psychology at the University of Aarhus. He is primarily known for his research on hormones and intelligence. Since 2005, when he wrote about the biological differences between men and women, he has been a controversial figure in Denmark.
In 2011, Nyborg participated in a seminar organized by a revisionist association in Denmark, where he spoke alongside the American writers and activists Dr. David Duke and Professor Kevin B. MacDonald.
Also in 2011, Nyborg wrote the article “The Decay of Western Civilization: Double-Relaxed Darwinian Selection” in a peer-reviewed academic journal. In the article, he says that the MENA immigration to the West has a dysgenic effect and lowers the intelligence of the population. This article was reported for “scientific misconduct” by anti-Whites and Nyborg was charged and legally harassed for years afterward. He was acquitted on four of six counts in 2013, and in 2016 successfully appealed the two remaining counts.
dumbledoresarmy says
I wonder what Ben Maldonado would do if someone sent him, free and gratis, a copy of ex-Muslim Ibn Warraq’s “The Islam in Islamic Terrorism” and challenged him to read and review it?
Alternatively, he could be sent a copy of the late Conor Cruise O’Brien’s brilliant article, “The Lesson of Algeria: Islam is Indivisible”, and asked why he thinks he knows better than that cosmopolitan and ferociously-well-educated Irishman.. who, back in 1995, at least eight years before ever Mr Robert Spencer had published anything at all, stated, flat-out, that “The Jihad is back”.
Anders says
Well, let’s analyze the student’s last name…
Mal–wrong, bad, poorly + donado–doted, given… need we say more?
Politicianphobia says
I am an Islamophobe. When The Supreme leader of Iran, The Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, the man who dominates everyone in that country, says “I spit on the soul of any man who says Islam is a religion of peace”, I believe him.
Politicianphobia says
I would like the students to read The Muslim Brotherhood’s plan for the world, The OIC’s plan and George Soros’s plan, aka Dr. Evil.
Davegreybeard says
Robert, I am among the “Rabble without Letters” who relishes your every debate, both for entertainment and instruction.
I suspect there are many, many more like me. I watch the way you craft your arguments and the facts of Islam that you call upon to counter each point. Much in the way that watching the moves of a Grand Master in martial arts instructs one not so accomplished, so too, watching your debates helps me to craft arguments to educate my fellow Infidels on Islam. “Wack a mole” is very useful indeed.
As for the current skirmish at Stanford, I would suggest a small booklet be published, containing all the arguments made by Stanford students, titled “Stanford’s Best Challenges Spencer the Islamophobe.” I think such a booklet would be irresistible for many if not most students at Stanford and it would greatly expand the longevity of the debate.
Thank you for all you do Robert, never doubt that there are many of us watching and taking note.
Politicianphobia says
Once they listen to him, they will discover that Robert Spencer is a sweet, charming, kind, knowledgeable man, with a great sense of humour.
UNCLE VLADDI says
Huh? What do “editorialized title,” mean?! Me not get it! Ugh!
😉