I wrote here about the extraordinary directive from the US Justice Department, banning the use of "Islam" in relation to any violent acts.
Robert Spencer does a better job of "outing" this ridiculous policy, here.
New readers may not have heard of the name Spencer, or perhaps have only heard negatives in the mainstream press, that he is "bigoted", an "Islamophobe", whatever. He is none of these.
But the criticisms continue from Islamic apologists: classic ad hominem, attack the man, don't take on the message.
This ad hominem happened in the comments after his article linked above.
I wrote a defense of Spencer:
Robert Spencer does a better job of "outing" this ridiculous policy, here.
New readers may not have heard of the name Spencer, or perhaps have only heard negatives in the mainstream press, that he is "bigoted", an "Islamophobe", whatever. He is none of these.
But the criticisms continue from Islamic apologists: classic ad hominem, attack the man, don't take on the message.
This ad hominem happened in the comments after his article linked above.
I wrote a defense of Spencer:
Spencer has a body of published work which is subject to scrutiny. I have
read it all and find it informative and where I've had reason to check
it against authoritative Islamic texts, it has stood the test. He is
scrupulous in quoting sources fairly and accurately, knowing that the
slightest slip will be pounced on by Islamic apologists.
I have also seen him in public debate with Islamic apologists where he
always gets the better of them, for he's profoundly knowledgeable on
Islam and has a prodigious memory of the relevant sources.
I have also seen him on numerous TV interviews where he performs well
and knowledgeably.
I'm not rosy-eyed about him though. At times his books (especially
"Stealth Jihad") could use some more rigorous editing. And he trends
to be a bit prickly about criticism, rising to the bait a bit too
often.
But he's clearly, by any measure of reality, thoroughly erudite on
Islam. If he has concluded -- as I had even before coming upon his
writings 8 years ago -- that Islam is not the "Religion of Peace" that
it's hyped to be, but is instead supremacist, sectarian, anti-Semitic,
homophobic and misogynist, then that's because the texts and doctrines
of Islam are so; not because Spencer says it's so.
In other words, don't attack the messenger.
It is exactly trying to kill the messenger that is being practiced by
these attacking Spencer for his critiques of Islam, and of the Administration's
policy on [not] speaking the truth about it.
[I just went back to copy/paste my comment, and see there's follow up comment: "Excellent post, Peter. Another intelligent blogger for our side :-)"]
