New book on Muhammed


Robert Spencer has written a new book on Muhammed called “The Truth about Muhammed.” It is taken entirely from the quran and hadith’s that are accepted and used by Muslims themselves. I recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about Islam and it’s creator.


The Reverend-Deacon Spencer is a polemicist with a religious agenda, not a historian.

He’s a Reverend in the Melkite Church, and spends all of his time writing Chick-esque tracts against Muslims and in support of his Church.

He’s about as credible on Islam as Fred Phelps is on Catholicism.


Or you on Catholicism? He uses Islamic sources that Muslims use. If he is wrong then so are they.


Funny, there are no Muslims who agree with his take on their theology.

Who is more likely to be right about what Muslims believe? Muslims, or a Melkite reverend masquerading as a historian?


Sure there are Muslims who agree with him. Many of them. Osama for one agrees wholeheartedly with what the book says. Spencer btw has to take precautions as his life has been threatened. Guess who is doing the threatening? His book is quite factual. Unless you want to dump the hadiths.


The truth about Mohammed is that he was a brutal killer who founded a religion of lies, deception and violence.


I will repeat: Rev. Spencer is just that, a reverend with an agenda.

We don’t know what Osama thinks of his books, but he gets even Bin Ladenite theology wrong.

He is not a real scholar. He’s not even taken seriously enough by real scholars to be a part of the debate.

He’s a reverend who writes religious tracts aimed at people who share his religion to defame another. No more.


Can you show us a mistake in his Muslim theology?



On his website, he states: “In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.””

In fact, Islam contains no such command.

Here are two articles by different Sheikhs that give professional takes on the subject (and others that Reverend Spencer covers in his religious tracts):

Sunnis do not conceive of Islam as an organization dependent on a centralized leadership,

The traditional view understands the role of politics in terms of what the Qur’an teaches. It indicates that prophets were sent to humans to teach them truths about God, ethics, ways to achieve prosperity in this world, and beatitude in the hereafter, and to warn about the consequences of injustice and sinfulness.9 A prophet who is called to preach in a stateless milieu has to assume a role of political leadership; this mantle fell on Moses, as it did to Muhammad (peace be upon both of them). Islamic tradition teaches that when this happens, the two roles are combined by accident; political leadership is not a necessary element of the prophetic mission.


The upshot is, whether one likes it or not, the decision and discretion and right to declare war or jihâd for Muslims lie solely with the various authorities as represented today by the respective Muslim states - and not with any individual, even if he is a scholar or a soldier (and not just anyone is a soldier or a scholar) - in the same way that an authority (such as the qâdî in a court of law: mahkamah) is the only one with the right to excommunicate or declare someone an apostate [murtad]. Otherwise, the killing would be extra-judicial and unauthorized.

Reverend Spencer again, is not undertaking a serious attempt to report Muslim theology. He is writing religious pieces consistent with his position as a Reverend.


Ridiculous. Anti-Catholics use Catholic sources all the time–they just use them very badly. It’s incredible to me that you can’t see this.

I don’t agree, BTW, that Spencer is on a level with Chick. That’s an absurd charge. Maybe he’s on a level with Boettner or White (I’m not sure of that, but it’s a reasonable accusation), but certainly not Chick.

However, the fact that he uses “Islamic sources” says nothing about how good the book is. In fact, if he’s publicizing this as guaranteeing the authenticity of the book, then the book is most likely bogus. People who are using sources well don’t need to publicize the fact that they are using them at all. If that’s noteworthy to him, he’s miles from being a decent historian.



None of the Chick Tracts I have ever seen make any attempt to present the catholic side of the story or use genuine catholic sources to make claims.

Boettner likewise uses almost no catholic sources.

It may not be news that legitimate history requires proper citation and reference, but it IS news when claimed scholarship lacks it. The comparison with Chick or Boettner falls flat.

I have looked up Spencer’s Dhimmi-watch and Jihadwatch websites. My impression is that this fellow is quite alarmed by what he sees going on in the Islamic culture and nearly desperate to get the word out as to what he sees. Such people are often mighty tempted to over-generalize or exaggerate. But that doesn’t mean they haven’t made any genuine observations.

I think I’ll read it and THEN make up my mind. Any of our Islamic posters have a suggestion for a counter-point for folks to read? One that presents what you believe to be the REAL Islam while not pretending that folks like Osama and Hamas don’t exist?


So Islam has given up on a Caliphate? Suddenly no more dar el Islam vs. dar el harb? Islam has attempted to expand itself politically since day one. It has done so primarily in a military fashion.

Spencer uses Islams own sources to avoid being portrayed as a Jack Chick. If you reject his sources you reject a great deal of Islam. Pro, you just don’t like the fact that he got Muhammed right.


Don’t you hate it when someone outside your religion tries to tell you what your religion is about? Personally, it drives me crazy when a non-jew tries to teach me something about judaism (which hasn’t happened to me here). I own a copy of the Koran and have read just enough to know that I can’t come to any conclusions about Islam from just reading its holy book. Text is a springboard, I think. A starting point. Not a final explanation.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.


If Spencer is wrong then so is Islam.



If that is the case, is their god our God???


Philosophically? Theologically? Actually? No. Not exactly.


Where did you get this from? show me a link

Not that it makes a big difference if he is a “Reverend-Deacon”/“Reverend” but, where did you get this from (that Spencer is a “Reverend-Deacon”/“Reverend” in the Melkite Church)?

What is a “Reverend-Deacon”/“Reverend” in the Melkite Church anyway? Are you saying he is a priest or deacon in the Melkite Church (which one)?


As an Arab Christian Spencer has unique insights about how it is to live in Muslim society. A voice that should be heard. He certainly doesn’t want to be a dhimmi.


Hi pro_universal,

We don’t care about what Muslims believe in this thread. Their belief, as is yours, are irrelavent.

We are just trying to learn about the man, Muhammed. If you are so adamant that Spencer can not teach us about Muhammed, then perhaps you can enlighten us.

There are one billion muslims in the world. If we want them to learn about Jesus, then we should set the example and learn about Muhammed. Is it wrong to ask questions about Muhammed?


On his website, he states: “In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.””

In fact, Islam contains no such command.

Not in those words, no. But Islam sure does contain commands of that nature. For example:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386:
Narrated Jubair bin Haiya: 'Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. … Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute)…

What is this, ‘fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya?’

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit