Several Jihad Watch readers have informed me that the Wikipedia wars have broken out again, with apologists for jihad dredging up anything negative anyone has ever said about me and putting it into my biography there, while editing out anything positive. Those who may be interested can read Jihad Watch News Editor Anne Crockett's account of earlier campaigns here. I have also heard from several other prominent anti-jihadists that their biographies have been targeted recently also.
I am not too interested in Wikipedia, although I appreciate the efforts of all those who are trying to keep it balanced; its free-for-all editing policy makes it too easy a prey for propagandists, such that it would not be worth bothering with at all were it not for the odd fact that many seem to take it seriously. I am more interested in the recurring phenomenon of critics making blanket dismissals of my work without providing a single particular example of its inaccuracy. The current version of the Wikipedia entry (which may, of course, be much changed by the time you read this) quotes something written several years ago by Dr. Carl Ernst, author of Following Muhammad. So I just wrote Dr. Ernst this letter:
Dear Dr. Ernst,I had the honor of meeting you briefly several years ago when I spoke at the University of North Carolina.
Shortly thereafter it came to my attention that you had written a criticism of my work, not on the basis of what it actually says, but on the basis of my publishers, alleged political agenda, and lack of credentials.
I made no response to this and confess I had quite forgotten about this until recently, but recently it has come to my attention as part of a larger-scale attempt to discredit my work.
Accordingly I added this reply to the FAQ section at my website, www.jihadwatch.org: "I present the work not on the basis of my credentials, but on the basis of the evidence I bring forth; evaluate it for yourself. One example: after I spoke at the University of North Carolina, Professor Carl Ernst of the university wrote a piece about me warning that my books were non-scholarly and were published by presses that he believed reflected a political agenda of which he did not approve. That kind of approach may impress some people, but Carl Ernst did not (and cannot) bring forth even a single example of a supposed inaccuracy in my work. I would, of course, be happy to debate Carl Ernst or any other scholar of Islam about Islam and jihad; this is a standing invitation. Also, as this site has shown, I am always open to new information."
And to your charge of bigotry: "It is not an act of hatred against Muslims to point out the depredations of jihad ideology. It is a peculiar species of displacement and projection to accuse someone who exposes the hatred of one group of hatred himself: I believe in the equality of rights and dignity of all people, and that is why I oppose the global jihad. And I think that those who make the charge know better in any case: they use the charge as a tool to frighten the credulous and politically correct away from the truth."
The invitation to a debate remains open. If you accept, we will, of course, need to agree on the precise subject, but I suggest something concerning the nature of jihad in Islam, the role of Muhammad's example as al-insan al-kamil in contemporary jihad recruitment, or some related topic. My own schedule permitting, the debate can be at a time and place, and in a format of your own choosing.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kindest regards
Robert Spencer
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." -Theodore Rooseveldt
You're not going to fail. My ‘hero’ list fell from four to three in 2006. Standing re-supplied.
I suspect the "format of his own choosing" will be the problem. :)
As a source of tehcnical and cultural info, Wikipedia is good (convinient, easy to use and more than accurate enough for the layman).
As a reference for politics or anything controversial, it's almost worse than useless.
Robert, How will you find the time to debate with Carl Ernst, what with your debating schedule already being filled with Dean Esmay, and Ibrahim Hooper.
What is wrong with Robert's credentials? I thought he was well qualified.
Dear Payingattention:
These are things I have studied on my own. I make no secret of that, and do not apologize for it. You can see more on that here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/spencer/
I do not have an advanced degree in the field of Islamic studies, which my critics latch onto -- but if it weren't that, it would be something else. Given the state of higher education these days, and the utterly politicized nature of the Middle East Studies Association, I do not regret my decision not to pursue such a degree.
In any case, this is why I exhaustively document from Islamic sources the assertions I make in my books, so that anyone can check up on the accuracy of what I am saying. Also, I continually invite critics of my work to be specific and point out actual errors in it, as well as to debate me on the relevant issues. That they have chosen to do neither is highly revealing in itself.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
"lack of credentials..."
-- from Carl Ernst's list of charges made against Robert Spencer
Ah yes, "credentials." The "credentials" you will find -- the doctorates all in place, the thesis written that neither the writer nor anyone else will ever wish to read -- at, for example, the MEALAC Program of Columbia. "Credentials" whether of the kind awarded to Rashid Khalidi (the quick, no coursework required D. Phil. that for decades St. Antony's under Hourani, a plump abbot dispensing his favors, would distribute in its Middle Eastern annex, not to be confused with its legitimate Russian section, nor with real Oxford colleges with real dons, demanding real work), or to Hamid Dabashi (every single one of whose books are simply endlessly detailed compilations with not the slightest sign of a mind at work -- and if you want sign of Hamid Dabashi's mind at work, simply google "Edward Said" and "Hamid Dabashi" for his ex-ungue-leonem treacly tribute), and Joseph Massad the full-time propagandist, and so many others, all with their postcolonial credentials, their postcolonial anti-hegemonist credentials intact.
Too many people have gone through what passes for higher education in the Western world, in the United States, too many of them have gone on to graduate s
I wonder how much of it is an attempt to discredit Mr. Spencer versus an issue of their own self esteem, trying to validate all their time spent at the feet of their mentor, Prof. Knowitall at PCU.
God forbid someone may reach a level of knowledge through sheer effort of self-guided will, work, and control of ego to research a topic thoroughly.
Knowledge is only valid when a student or their mommy and daddy or the government pay through the nose for it, only when filtered through already ackowledged "experts in their field".
Reading is not enough. One must be told whatto read, the context in which to read it, and it must be explained by another who has already read it and sorted it according to their own worldview.
Only when Prof. Knowitall is satisfied that his little piece of software has been properly transmitted and installed to the next generation will he confer the sheet of paper, resplendent with PCU's seal of approval, which exclaims to the world, "Hey everybody, pay attention to this guy! We've decided that he knows what he's talking about!"
After all, if one could actually learn about a subject on one's own without spending tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars, it would seem kinda silly to throw all that money away.
Wouldn't it?
If possession of "credentials" are not a guarantee of someone's being a guide to anything, what of the absence of such "credentials"? The crazed autodidact is one thing, the person with his wild theory about the ancient Egyptians, or some such. But the person who specializes as an undergraduate and then as a graduate student in a field, learns a good deal, and also learns what it is about the current teaching and scholarship in that field that make it so hard to pursue what would once have been so easy, is quite another. Imagine someone who quite unsuspectingly enrolls at Columbia to do graduate work in Islamic and Middle Eastern studies. Imagine that that person enrolls in 1950, or 1960, so that he will be taught by Arthur Jeffery, or by Joseph Schacht. Now imagine that same trusting student, trusting that is in the reputation of Columbia, whose presumed luster, like the light from distant stars that arrives long after the emitter of that light has died, and in that department, that once had Schacht, and Jeffrey. And after a year or two of nonstop indoctrination, that student decides to drop out of the doctoral program. Then what? If that person does not drop the subject, but continues to study, and to write for a non-scholarly audience, pointing out things which may be regarded by some as "polemical" (a sneer word that could be employed to dismiss the works of Edward Gibbon on Rome, Michelet on the French Revolution, and Macaulay on everything) but which would have been taken as the most obvious obviousness by Jeffrey, by Schacht, by Tisdall, by Snouck Hurgronje.
I'd reverse it. I'd say that anyone who has a "credential" obtained by listening to the likes of most of the members of MESA Nostra, and who then goes on to produce a thesis suitable for such people -- "The Construction of Palestinian Identity" or "Postcolonial Discourse in Pre-Colonial Palestine" or "Portable Seclution or, The Burqa as Liberator" or "Donny George. Matthew Bogdanos, and the Post-colonial Seizure and Rape of Muslim Antiquities" -- has a negative credential, and carries with him his own warning flag: if you want to find out about Islam, its doctrine and its practice, and how it is relevant in the modern Middle East, stay away. And well away, and welladay.
If possession of "credentials" are not a guarantee of someone's being a guide to anything, what of the absence of such "credentials"? The crazed autodidact is one thing, the person with his wild theory about the ancient Egyptians, or some such. But the person who specializes as an undergraduate and then as a graduate student in a field, learns a good deal, and also learns what it is about the current teaching and scholarship in that field that make it so hard to pursue what would once have been so easy, is quite another. Imagine someone who quite unsuspectingly enrolls at Columbia to do graduate work in Islamic and Middle Eastern studies. Imagine that that person enrolls in 1950, or 1960, so that he will be taught by Arthur Jeffery, or by Joseph Schacht. Now imagine that same trusting student, trusting that is in the reputation of Columbia, whose presumed luster, like the light from distant stars that arrives long after the emitter of that light has died, and in that department, that once had Schacht, and Jeffrey. And after a year or two of nonstop indoctrination, that student decides to drop out of the doctoral program. Then what? If that person does not drop the subject, but continues to study, and to write for a non-scholarly audience, pointing out things which may be regarded by some as "polemical" (a sneer word that could be employed to dismiss the works of Edward Gibbon on Rome, Michelet on the French Revolution, and Macaulay on everything) but which would have been taken as the most obvious obviousness by Jeffrey, by Schacht, by Tisdall, by Snouck Hurgronje.
I'd reverse it. I'd say that anyone who has a "credential" obtained by listening to the likes of most of the members of MESA Nostra, and who then goes on to produce a thesis suitable for such people -- "The Construction of Palestinian Identity" or "Postcolonial Discourse in Pre-Colonial Palestine" or "Portable Seclution or, The Burqa as Liberator" or "Donny George. Matthew Bogdanos, and the Post-colonial Seizure and Rape of Muslim Antiquities" -- has a negative credential, and carries with him his own warning flag: if you want to find out about Islam, its doctrine and its practice, and how it is relevant in the modern Middle East, stay away. And well away, and welladay.
Funny. I myself made a correction last month to Wiki's article on Islam Unveiled, but it was a syntactical correction, which has stood without objection. At the time I was amazed by the polemics going on behind the scenes. Let me say, there is nothing in this blog entry today to prepare one for the fierce fighting surrounding Robert and his work. I determined then that there is no use contributing to these bellicose exchanges, and I agree that Wiki's open format is predisposed to this problem in any controversial subject areas. At any rate, at least Robert has them taking notice, as usual. I can hardly wait to see the editing of the entry for Robert's upcoming book, the subject of which ought to have them wrangling to death.
Ernst's email address can be found here:
http://www.unc.edu/%7Ecernst/contact.htm
Hi Robert thanks for the reply. I had already read that part of your web site as I think I have read much of it now anyway. I think how you conduct and present your work to be a great example to both lay people and academics.
Best Regards
I am very much...
Payingattention