Spencer holds the view that "traditional Islam contains violent and supremacist elements," and that "its various schools unanimously teach warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers." He calls for Muslims to follow an interpretation of Islam that rejects violence and supremacism.. Although he believes Islam has violent elements in its traditional teachings, he rejects the idea that all Muslims must necessarily be violent people as a misunderstanding of his position. Calling attention to the roots and goals of jihad violence. "Any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts. Any hate in my books comes from Muslim sources I quote, not from me. Cries of "hatred" and "bigotry" are effectively used by Muslim advocacy groups to try to stifle the debate about the terrorist threat."

Spencer has expressed strong criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations as well as numerous other Muslim advocacy groups, in particular relating to their alleged close ties with jihadist organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and their employment of several Muslims who were convicted on charges relating to terrorism.

Spencer says that among moderate Muslims "there are some who are genuinely trying to frame a theory and practice of Islam that will allow for peaceful coexistence with unbelievers as equals," but he also argues that many so-called reformers are not interested in genuine reform, instead aiming to deflect scrutiny of Islam. Spencer feels that anyone pursuing his called-for reforms will face a difficult task, because "the radicals actually do have a stronger theoretical, theological, and legal basis within Islam for what they believe than the moderates do."

His work has been subject to criticism, for its "entrenched hostility" against Islam. His work has been treated dismissively by mainstream scholars, for its alleged mismanagement of basic facts and political activism, while it has been condemned as hate speech by Arab-American and civil rights groups. Spencer responds that criticism of him as Islamophobic is

only a tool used by Islamic apologists to silence criticism. My work is dedicated to identifying the causes of jihad terrorism, which of course lead straight back into the Islamic texts. I have therefore called for reform of those texts... I have dedicated Jihad Watch to defending equality of rights and freedom of conscience for all people. That's Islamophobic? Then is the fault in the phobe, or in the Islam?

In March 2010, Spencer endorsed the far-right English Defence League (EDL), which has been associated with violence and anti-social behaviour, and claims that "The EDL is standing up to violent thugs from both the Left and the increasingly assertive Islamic communities in Britain, and they deserve the support of all free people."

Support

Those with a positive view of Spencer's works include Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, Ann Coulter, Steven Emerson, Walid Phares, R. James Woolsey, Jr., David G. Dalin and Bat Ye'or.

Ibn Warraq has suggested that Spencer "tells the truth that few in the U.S. or Europe wish to face". Michelle Malkin suggests that Spencer "tells truths about jihadists that no one else will tell." Dennis Prager has said that Spencer's website, JihadWatch, "is one of most honorable Web sites that I know of monitoring jihad in the world today."

Daniel Pipes has said of Spencer that although they have "different emphases - he deals more with scriptures, I more with history - we have no disagreements." Reply to Pipes' reply to Rick H. - Reader comments at DanielPipes.org He has also endorsed Spencer's books The Truth About Muhammad and Onward Muslim Soldiers. Of Spencer's Stealth Jihad, Pipes wrote, "With his signature research, accuracy, and boldness, Robert Spencer has written a pioneering survey of this 'stealth jihad' whose ambition and subtlety threaten the continuity of Western civilization."

R. James Woolsey, Jr. said of Stealth Jihad, "Robert Spencer makes a solid case that the major threat to our way of life does not come solely from those radical Islamists who embrace violence and terrorism. It also comes from those who do not accept that they must live side-by-side on a basis of equality with those of other faiths in a civil society and who instead work in multiple ways toward obtaining special standing for Islam in our society and, ultimately, toward theocracy."

American writer Bruce Bawer commented in his book Surrender in support of Spencer and Spencer's critique of Karen Armstrong.

He has appeared with Ayn Rand Institute speakers on several occasions.

Criticism

Karen Armstrong wrote in her review of Spencer's books:

The late Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto called Spencer a "radical intellectual" and accused him of "falsely constructing a divide between Islam and West." Regarding Spencer's blog JihadWatch, she said he uses the Internet to spread misinformation and hatred of Islam and presents a "skewed, one-sided, and inflammatory story that only helps to sow the seed of civilizational conflict."

Dinesh D'Souza, of the conservative Hoover Institution wrote after his debate with Spencer that Spencer downplays the passages of the Quran that urge peace and goodwill to reach one-sided opinions. He further contends that Spencer applies a moral standard to Muslim empires that could not have been met by any European empire.

Robert D. Crane called Spencer's work "superficially scholarly". Spencer inverts Islam's true teachings by omitting text from passage he quotes or by using unreliable and extremist sources.

Louay M. Safi, Khaleel Mohammed, and Carl Ernst assert that Spencer is an "Islamophobe" who supports preconceived notions through selection bias; they suggest, "he has no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity". They have objected to what they describe as Spencer's method of taking a position they deem to be radical (on apostasy, women, etc.) and then attribute that position to all of Islam, rather than situating it within ongoing discussions.

French academic historian Ivan Jablonka, from École Normale Supérieure in Paris, in his study of similarities between the approaches to Islam of authors like Bat Ye'or, Robert Spencer, David Pryce-Jones and Daniel Pipes, argues that, to Spencer, "Islamist fundamentalists drive European politics" to such a point that "Zapatero's victory in Spain after Madrid blasts is presented by Spencer as an ultimate victory of jihadists." Such declarations, according to Jablonka, underline the similarities between Spencer's work and Bat Ye'or's views on "Eurabia." Jablonka notes that Spencer or Bat Ye'or's views lack academic seriousness; their purported historical and interpretative continuity between some data picked up from Middle Age Islamic civilization and modern activism is a political construction poorly substantiated. For Jablonka, writings of authors like Spencer or Bat Ye'or relentlessly intent to designate "new enemies for wars to come."

Among other individuals and groups which have criticized Spencer as unscholarly or bigoted are journalists Cathy Young and Stephen Schwartz, Professor Khaleel Mohammed, and various organizations such as The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. The websites "Spencer Watch" and "Loon Watch" critique and satirize Spencer and his Jihad Watch website.

On September 2, 2006 a video called "Invitation to Islam" appeared, featuring a lecture by al Qaeda operative Adam Gadahn, which referenced Robert Spencer and his work. According to Gadahn, "If the Zionist crusader missionaries of hate and counter-Islam consultants like Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Michael Scheuer, Steven Emerson, and yes, even the crusader-in-chief George W. Bush were to abandon their unbelief and repent and enter into the light of Islam and turn their swords against the enemies of God, it would be accepted of them and they would be our brothers in Islam." Both Pipes and Spencer have publicly declined to accept Gadahn's invitation to convert to Islam. Al-Qaeda Invites Me to Join Its Ranks [Weblog] - Daniel Pipes Jihad Watch: "To Americans and the rest of Christendom we say, either repent or suffer the consequences in this world and the next"

The government of Pakistan announced on 20 December 2006 its ban on Spencer's book, The Truth About Muhammad, citing "objectionable material" as the cause.

Best sellers

• Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion, Regnery Publishing, 2006 (NYT bestseller list - 2006-10-29) ISBN 1-59698-028-1
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam , Regnery Publishing, 2005. (NYT bestseller list - 2005-10-16) ISBN 0-89526-013-1

Others

• Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't, Regnery Publishing, 2007, ISBN 1596985151
• How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims (editor), Prometheus Books, 2005. ISBN 1-59102-249-5
• How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West, Regnery Publishing, 2003. ISBN 0-89526-100-6
• A Guide for Catholics (with Daniel Ali), Ascension Press, 2003. ISBN 0-9659228-5-5
• Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith, Encounter Books, 2002. ISBN 1-893554-58-9

Audio and interviews

• A 40 minute Interview with Robert Spencer
• Audio: Robert Spencer discusses "The Truth about Muhammad" on Shire Network News (Part 1) (Part 2)
• September 2007 Interview with Robert Spencer by The Liberal Institute
• News about Robert Spencer

Video clips

• Video of Robert Spencer on FoxNews
• Video of Robert Spencer At Brussels Counter-Jihad Conference
• Debate: Islam - Threat or Not? Debate between Robert Spencer and Professor Daniel Peterson
• Video: Robert Spencer discusses "The Truth about Muhammad" at Heritage.org - A one hour talk

Robert Spencer????? ??????Robert SpencerRobert SpencerRobert Spencer