Discion of the Criticism of Spencers scholoarchip and credentials.

Discussion[edit]

The "he didnt get a the right degree" and "he doesn't speak arabic" is a common criticism. I think it is falacious, but common none the less. If you disagree with the criticism. Improve the thesis or background section to summarize why the criticism are invalid. --Chalko 16:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read Classical Aribic[edit]

I think the doesn;t speak Aribic, is a terrible argument. But it is made and I want it left. My problem with it is that I can't question Islam. I find that completley unacceptable. I didn't bring my copy of spencers book here (I will be gone for several more months). Any one have a good spencer quote on speaking Aribic. Perhaps we can expand the why he didn't get a degree in "arabs studies" or whaterver it is called. --Chalko 16:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These are feeble attempts at deligitimizing him, I don't suppose that having a Master's degree in Religious studies from UNC has quite registered. Oh he has not mastered classical arabic script, how many people have? How many people are there around who have even mastered classical Shakespearean English? Does that mean that no one can truly understand Macbeth or Hamlet? His books show a profound understanding his topic and speak for themselves.--CltFn 17:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I concur but that does not stop his critics from making them. So let the feeble attempts stay, and point them out as feeble.--Chalko 17:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

actually no , lets not , we are trying to write clearly written , helpful encyclopedic articles , not cluttered messes of two bit nonsense .--CltFn 17:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"two bit nonsense" should cut out the IST video and threat., but back on this topic I see your point. If I can not find a "reputable" party making that assertion I will let it go.

It is completely not a feeble or irrelevant point. Spencer claims to be familiar with all mainstream schools of Islamic thought. There are centuries of scholarship around this, all in Arabic and other Middle Eastern languages (e.g., Farsi) which have never been translated into English. So it is very relevant. And he does make claims in many of his articles as to "correct" translations vs. ones that he views as misleading. Again, without a knowledge of Arabic, his claims are feeble, to use Chalko's words. If he relies on third party scholarship, he should say so, but he doesn't - he makes definitive statements that make his readers believe he has first hand knowledge.

This is very different from understanding Shakespeare if you don't speak Elizabethan English. Nobody is claiming that Spencer cannot make his points. But several of his points hinge on an understanding of the language. You cannot fully appreciate the scholarship around ancient Hindu texts without a knowledge of Sanskrit and Hindi. The issue is not Spencer's right to say what he wants; it is his claim of thorough scholarship that is actually impossible.

Lastly, we shouldn't be pointing out criticisms as feeble. We should be providing the sources and letting people make up their mind. And we should not decide who is reputable - I think, despite what you might personally think of them, the people that Spencer is debating were considered to be worthy of debating by Spencer himself. You can think they are right or wrong, but that is irrelevant to the purposes of this article --Yalto 22:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For example, on his bio, he states "That led to in-depth forays into tafsir (interpretations of the Qur'an), hadith (traditions of the Prophet Muhammad), and much more about Islamic theology and law." He also says "The Arabic doesn't say to beat them lightly, it just says to beat them. Pickthall's is generally accurate." when discussing the Quran, which implies a knowledge of Arabic he does not have. The criticism is completely fair. --Yalto 22:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- It doesn't imply he has knowledge of Arabic. It implies he has knowledge or has read somebody that does. The question of does he reference properly is a seperate criticism. --Chalko 09:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding claims made above that Spencer does not claim to know Arabic, that may be true - I don't read a huge amount of his work. Following the sources linked at the article, however, finds him saying things like "Even using your translation of Sura 4:34, please note that "strength" is in parentheses because it is not in the Arabic, which says only "given the one more than the other." on the third page of the article linked. [1]. So Spencer does claim knowledge of Arabic, at least selectively; and in my mind it certainly makes the criticism "relevant", although again I don't think it is for us to decide if it is relevant or not.

Reputabel source[edit]

Regarding the "reputable source", again looking at the article linked, the sources of the charges there include a CAIR representative (think what you want of them, but they are still the "largest Muslim-American civil liberties group" and so should be considered reputable) and a "professor of political science at California State University at Stanislaus, and adjunct professor at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of California at Berkeley." Seems like a reputable source, regardless of whether you agree with their opinions.

Frankly, I think the article as written is pretty fair and balanced... Having a strong criticism section is important with a controversial person, as is having a strong thesis section. The current article portrays both sides well. I have no objections to strengthening the thesis section if someone wants, but I was about to recommend that we remove the neutrality disclaimer if there are no objections. --Yalto 04:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the Berkeley professor mentioned above, here is a nice summary (from a quick Google search) of his views on Spencer (unfortunately not easily quotable as it is a review article on many books) from the Middle East Quarterly - again, think what you will, but a respected academic journal. I can't find an original link, but the article is posted here [2]. --Yalto 04:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate quote[edit]

put the items back in and marked them as disputed. Lets settle it hear instead of just having a revert war. --Chalko 07:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok "read the source" they are not my sources, I am just trying to slow down a revert work by marking "disputed" War here and then settle. Perhaps the sources are not releavant. Then Yalto or some one should find a better or remove the quote. But please lets not just delete each others stuff. This page deserves the actuall criticism that are used. --Chalko 07:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is part of a somewhat related quote "whole science in Islam called the revelation context (Asbab An-Nuzool) in which the history, timing, and occasion of each verse is explained. Without this knowledge, no scholar would be able to interpret the Qur’an correctly." [3]--Chalko 07:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look its not complicated. The quote should match the claim . Don't be claiming A and produce a source which says B. --CltFn 07:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - Concur. Lets get the right qoute to match the right criticism. However I think deleting the section was unwaranted, given the dispute notice. --Chalko 07:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exact Quote[edit]

Added a exact quote, but it needs to cleaned to speak more directly to Spencer.--Chalko 09:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]