Robert Spencer, while having a degree in theology, specialises in christian theology. His works regarding Islam are not peer-reviewed and are often published by conservative institutions and publishing houses. Furthermore, he has a very public anti-islam stance and was even criticised within Catholic Church for his radical Islamophobic views, this happened while he was still catholic.
Given all this, he is hardly an unbiased researcher, I would argue that due to all this and his membership in conservative movements such as anti-jihad, he has a vested interest in criticising Islamic history and institutions, regardless if the criticisms are valid or not RelativeCombinationYeß (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Upon further examination, I think that Yehuda Nevo's work should also be removed, the methodology is flawed and authors seem to jump to conclusions and rejecting every traditionally held view in the western historiography. All the positive reviews on his article are from conservative think tanks that are also failing to comment on the content of the article, opting to praise it in vague terms instead.
- I fail to see the benefit of adding such fringe and poorly evidenced works that are clearly biased. While there are scholars that doubt the historicity of early Islam, these additions do more to discourage any sort of discussion, since they seem to be politically charged RelativeCombinationYeß (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- I know that the scholarly consensus is that Muhammad existed. But are there other sources for that claim? In terms of Spencer, is that view is fringe then it probably should be removed. See WP:FRINGE for some guidelines. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- "conservative institutions and publishing houses" A bit more context is needed here. Does "conservative" here translate to affiliation with a conservative party, or adherence to Christian fundamentalism? The last thing we need is treating religious propaganda as a reliable source. Dimadick (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- His book about Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was published by Bombardier Books owned by Post Hill Press, provided is the quote of their mission statement:
- "In a time when the media and much of America’s elite tries to limit and stifle debate in the name of sensitivity, safe spaces, and political correctness, now more than ever we need writers with courage and conviction—and the gift to be able to express themselves with intelligence, eloquence, and good humor. Now is the perfect time to unleash a torrent of provocative thought onto the political and cultural battleground.
- This is the mission of Bombardier Books. Because sometimes you need to drop rhetorical bombs from 40,000 feet to get people to hear new ideas. Other times you need to target bad policies with laser precision to take them out before they do too much damage. And occasionally you need a tailgunner to defend your comrades-at-arms from sneak attacks."
- Why a publishing house employs an openly jingoistinc and militaristic language is beyond me. They also clearly state that they view themselves as soldiers in the culture wars. Not to mention Post Hill Press itself, a Christian fundamentalist publisher RelativeCombinationYeß (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- There are a few other sources from other publishers (as you pointed out with Nevo from a questionable antireligion publisher), not just Spencer on such a point. Perhaps some context should be included that nonexistence theories are not considered a mainstream position. Otherwise you still have other sources that push the point. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
