Why Robert Spencer's Ideology Demands Critical and Ethical Confrontation
By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof, New Age Islam
25 October 2025
This paper asserts the critical necessity of confronting Robert Spencer's rhetoric, not as mere absurdity, but as a significant force shaping public discourse, policy, and societal prejudice, particularly against Muslim communities. In an era often characterized as "post-truth," Spencer's narratives, which portray Islam as inherently subversive and incompatible with democratic values, necessitate sustained intellectual and moral engagement rather than simple ridicule. Such engagement is paramount to inoculating the public against the corrosive effects of his ideology and cultivating a society founded on pluralism, empathy, and reasoned discourse.
Urgency of Engagement
We must acknowledge the inherent dangers of the contemporary information ecosystem. Algorithms often prioritize emotional resonance over factual accuracy, allowing repeated falsehoods to solidify into accepted "facts." This paper contends that while directly reasoning with Spencer himself might prove futile, the strategic objective lies in reaching his impressionable audience. This includes students, policymakers, and uninformed citizens who are susceptible to deceptive narratives. Spencer's recurring themes—such as the notion of Islam being inherently subversive or Muslim practices being synonymous with "jihad"—are not benign. Rather, they are insidious, actively shaping perceptions and fostering mistrust.
Intellectual honesty mandates a public, reasoned counter to these narratives. Dismissive silence risks being misinterpreted as an inability to respond substantively, or even as a tacit acknowledgment of falsehoods. The emotional manipulation embedded in Spencer's rhetoric, akin to information warfare, has tangible consequences, including discriminatory practices and hate crimes, which laughter alone cannot dismantle. True dismantling requires the meticulous identification of distortions, tracing their origins, and replacing them with truths grounded in universal human values and, for those within the tradition, Quranic ethics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also Read: Upholding Universal Human Dignity in Islamic Thought- A Response to Robert Spencer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quranic Ethics as a Framework for Engagement
The paper draws upon Quranic ethics to advocate for reasoned refutation. Verse 25:63, often misconstrued as promoting passive withdrawal, is re-interpreted here as advocating for dignified restraint and a commitment to elevated, reasoned responses. Furthermore, Verse 16:125, which states, "Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in the best manner," is presented as a clear Quranic duty to engage intellectually with falsehood. Historical Islamic scholars, such as Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd, are cited as exemplary figures who understood the imperative of refuting unchallenged falsehoods. The Islamic concept of Hisbah—enjoining good and forbidding wrong—is thus extended to encompass the correction of dangerous misinformation. The author posits that responding to attacks on human dignity with a dignified, rational defence is the highest form of Salam, a public commitment to logos (reason and intellectual rigour).
The Ethical Imperative of Engagement
Further exploring the ethics of engagement, the paper emphasizes that while laughter can deflate arrogance, dialogue grounded in scholarship is what truly restores dignity. The life of Prophet Muhammad is presented as a model of meeting mockery with patience and persuasive argument. Spencer's audience, frequently composed of ordinary citizens misled by fear, deserves to encounter an articulate, ethical, pluralistic, and rational voice representing Islam. Engaging Spencer substantively does not legitimize his hatred; instead, it demonstrates respect for pluralism and reasoned dialogue, thereby fostering understanding and bridging ideological divides.
The paramount aim is to uphold universal human dignity, demonstrating that Islamic thought can successfully navigate modernity, unequivocally reject extremism, and affirm constitutional pluralism. A measured, detailed rebuttal serves as an intellectual inoculation for the broader public, effectively reaching the undecided and offering a bridge of reason and scholarship.
Ridicule without reason risks replicating the very contempt it purports to condemn, potentially forfeiting the moral high ground of compassion, justice, and truth. Intellectual critique fundamentally dismantles an ideology, whereas ridicule primarily entertains, rarely disarming an ideology's core tenets. The most potent refutation of Spencerism is a compelling demonstration, through both principle and practice, that Islamic civilization profoundly embodies human dignity. While satire has its place, it is most effective when the audience shares a foundational understanding of facts. In fragmented information ecosystems, mockery can inadvertently confirm Spencer's narrative to his followers, allowing him to portray himself as a victim. Dismissing Spencer as "beneath engagement" is framed as intellectual elitism, implicitly suggesting his audience is too foolish for reasoned persuasion.
A Synergistic Approach: Light and Heat
Truth must not abdicate the stage to falsehood, as silence inevitably creates a void that charlatans eagerly fill. Engaging Spencer intellectually is, therefore, an act of defending society's moral fabric. In an era of viral ignorance, truth must be as persistent and amplified as falsehood. If scholars refuse to articulate a sophisticated counter-narrative, misinformation will undeniably prevail. The mission extends beyond merely silencing Spencer; it involves educating those he misleads, demanding patience, sustained scholarship, and a willingness to engage with his distorted claims and the underlying anxieties he exploits. Arguments must be meticulously dismantled for the benefit of a wider audience.
A thoughtful, synergistic approach combining "light and heat" is advocated, where humour and satire complement serious, reasoned arguments. Satire can expose absurdity, but it cannot constitute the entirety of the strategic response. An intellectual bulwark of reason and truth must be constructed, responding to error with meticulously articulated and rigorously defended truth, thereby demonstrating an unwavering commitment to universal human dignity. This dual approach effectively engages diverse audiences, appealing to both rationality and humour. Combating Islamophobia requires a multifaceted strategy, including interfaith dialogue, community outreach, and public education to diminish prejudiced narratives.
Ultimately, cultivating societal resilience against extremist narratives through critical thinking and education about Islam is paramount. A well-informed populace is significantly less susceptible to fear-based rhetoric. Strategic responses should aim to enlighten and empower others to critically evaluate such rhetoric. The deeper struggle is civilizational: truth versus sensationalism. Humour can accompany reason but must never replace it. In the post-truth environment, where emotion and visceral reactions are rewarded, restoring cognition and elevating reasoned thought is a moral imperative. Each scholarly response is an act of "Jihad Al-Qalam"—striving of the pen—against digital demagoguery. True victory lies in enlightening and empowering the crowd, not just silencing the purveyor of falsehood. Satire can serve as an embellishment, not the foundation, of the response. The battle for human dignity is won by relentless reasoning anchored in faith, ethics, and shared humanity. Victory lies in illuminating minds, not merely silencing a voice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Divisive and Dehumanizing Nature of Spencer's Work
Spencer’s work actively fosters division, demonization, and the denial of complexity. His narratives are meticulously crafted to mobilize fear, justify exclusion, and cultivate a siege mentality, thereby actively undermining the fundamental values of human dignity, religious plurality, and peace.
Spencer presents Islam as a monolithic, unchanging, inherently violent, and supremacist ideology. Muslims are systematically reduced to symbolic agents of an existential threat, with their internal plurality, theological complexities, reform movements, and diverse lived experiences systematically ignored. This deliberate strategy effectively disables contestation and eliminates nuance, rendering any moderate Muslim voice seemingly deluded, complicit, or deceptive. This creates a false dilemma for Muslims: either submit to his critique or vanish into conspiracy
Spencer's discourse is replete with military tropes such as "stealth jihad," "invasion," and "civilizational assault." These metaphors transform religious and cultural differences into a battlefield, reframing peaceful migration as infiltration and interfaith encounters as tactical positioning in an ongoing conflict. By portraying every Muslim presence as a potential "fifth column," Spencer cultivates a constant state of emergency, foregrounding an existential binary where "we" are under attack and must defend ourselves. This effectively forecloses space for ordinary civic life and perpetually perpetuates anxiety and distrust.
Spencer selectively quotes Quranic and Hadith passages in isolation, completely devoid of hermeneutical or historical context. Violent-sounding verses are foregrounded as definitive proof of Islam's inherent nature, while the vast tradition of contextual exegesis, countervailing verses, and reformist scholarship are systematically omitted. This creates an illusion of transparency, suggesting the text is self-evident, and bolsters a narrative of inevitability that Islam must inherently produce violence. This method is demonstrably polemical, not scholarly.
Spencer structures his discourse around a pervasive threat narrative: Islam is omnipresent, conquering through stealth, and Western civilization will collapse without immediate, decisive action. Muslims are consistently reduced to latent enemies. Any action seen as de-escalation, such as interfaith dialogue, is portrayed as capitulation or complicity. His rhetorical logic is circular: efforts to avoid confrontation are "evidence" of weakness, while aggressive confrontation is "evidence" of an escalating threat. This rehearses a war-of-attrition strategy, where conversion, forced submission, or exclusion become acceptable justifications.
Moderate Muslim voices are systematically dismissed as "useful idiots," apologists, or "Trojan horses." Any viewpoint deviating from his adversarial worldview is cast as deception or cowardice, systematically delegitimizing internal Islamic projects for reform or pluralism. This creates an epistemic closure where only his conflict-driven framing holds legitimacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also Read: How to Silence a Spencer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spencer's Quasi-Terroristic Mind-set
Spencer's discourse mirrors propaganda logic, albeit without accusing him of direct physical incitement.
Spencer's discourse dehumanizes Muslims, portraying them as monstrous, existential threats, fundamentally alien, or merciless. His language—"agents," "infiltrators," "conquerors"—depersonalizes them, making rhetorical violence acceptable and paving the way for legitimating hostility or aggression. This demonization is a psychological prerequisite for accepting violence.
Spencer echoes the extremist rhetoric of justifying pre-emptive violence by portraying Islam as perpetually on the offensive, an unceasing aggressor, implying nonviolent defence is insufficient. He promotes surveillance, exclusion, and aggressive countermeasures as "self-defence," clearing the moral and rhetorical ground for pre-emptive repression and potential violence, even without explicit calls for physical attacks.
Spencer's rhetoric follows the propaganda pattern where any resistance or challenge is re-interpreted as proof of the "enemy's" duplicity, and peace efforts are dismissed as weakness or conspiracy. This self-sealing logic disallows genuine trust or negotiation, guaranteeing perpetual conflict and reinforcing initial threat premises.
Spencer rarely claims direct responsibility for acts of hatred or violence inspired by his work, yet he implicitly normalizes a worldview justifying suspicion and aggression towards Muslims. The fact that Anders Breivik, the arch terrorist and mass-killer, cited Spencer's work 64 times underscores the dangerous permeability between polemical discourse and actual violence. This outcome, even if unintentional, is morally perilous.
Spencer's lexicon is inherently militaristic ("combat," "defeat," "expose the enemy," "covert war"), even when addressing "nonviolent" Islamism. This discursive militarization of faith is an act of symbolic violence, transforming dialogue into confrontation and preparing the ground for escalating conflict.
These structural traits, the author argues, justify describing Spencer's rhetorical posture as embodying a "quasi-terroristic logic" characterized by siege and symbolic aggression rather than open conversation or shared humanity.
The Counter-Discourse
A "Counter-Discourse" rooted in humanitarianism, interreligious fraternity, and inclusion should be forged, specifically drawing upon the statements of Pope Leo XIV in the provided links. Humanitarian ethics unequivocally insists on the inherent dignity of every human being, regardless of faith or origin. Spencer's pervasive and often generalized devaluation of Muslim identity directly contravenes this foundational ethic, reducing complex individuals to monolithic stereotypes.
Pope Leo XIV consistently calls upon Catholics and all people of goodwill to actively welcome and assist migrants as a concrete and tangible translation of Christian charity and universal compassion [1, 2]. The deeply rooted tradition of refugee and migrant advocacy within Catholic social teaching—a tradition directly linked to the parable of the Good Samaritan, the sacred duty of hospitality to the stranger, and consistent across numerous papal encyclicals—is explicitly invoked to reclaim the paramount moral priority of inclusion. The Pope consistently emphasizes that migration should never be treated purely as a policy problem or a logistical challenge, but rather as a profound site of moral responsibility. He exhorts, "opening our arms and hearts to them, welcoming them as brothers and sisters," [7] encapsulating a discursive posture of profound solidarity, not one of pervasive suspicion or xenophobia.
One of Spencer’s most significant argumentative omissions is his consistent failure to recognize that religious difference can genuinely be a space for enriching encounter rather than an inevitable source of conflict. However, principled Christian leadership—powerfully illustrated by the papal voice—has repeatedly and unequivocally affirmed that interfaith engagement is not a mere optional extra, but an essential and non-negotiable imperative in our increasingly interconnected global age.
Pope Leo, in his poignant remarks concerning the protracted Israeli–Palestinian conflict, implores leaders to earnestly pursue peace, unequivocally condemns antisemitism in all its forms, and voices profound sorrow at the immense suffering endured by all parties. He insists with moral clarity that "we must reduce hatred, we must rediscover the ability to dialogue, to seek peaceful solutions" [3, 6]. Furthermore, in his fervent calls for world leaders to commit to a lasting peace deal in Gaza, the Pope appeals to the principles of justice and the urgent release of hostages, emphatically rejecting the logic of military triumph as the sole solution [5]. The Pope also explicitly and robustly condemns anti-Semitic hatred, recognizing it as a grievous wound to human dignity itself: "I express my concern about the rise of anti-Semitic hatred in the world… in the dramatic situation in the Middle East … we must..." [9]. This unequivocal stance exemplifies precisely the kind of religious leadership that courageously transcends entrenched divisions and profoundly affirms our shared humanity across religious and cultural lines. Thus, the papal discourse offers not a simplistic retreat from difficult conflict, but a principled posture of courageous engagement: a commitment to justice rooted in an eternal belief in human dignity, rather than a pursuit of dominance or superiority.
Pope Leo powerfully highlights that migrants and historically Christian communities represent a profound mutual enrichment: "the presence of many brothers and sisters from the world’s South should be welcomed as an opportunity … renewing the face of the church". He decisively rejects the divisive narrative of "us vs. them" and unequivocally invites Catholics to perceive migrants not as liabilities or burdens, but as invaluable colleagues and partners in spiritual and social mission. Moreover, Pope Leo vehemently protests that the Church "cannot stay silent before injustice" when migrants are oppressed, marginalized, or subjected to inhumane treatment [8]. This rhetorical insistence is a direct and powerful repudiation of securitized exclusion, challenging the notion that national security concerns should override fundamental human rights and dignity.
The Just Use of Boundaries Without Fear
Critics, including Spencer, frequently contend that interfaith and inclusive rhetoric signifies inherent weakness or a dangerous compromise of security. However, ethical inclusion does not, by any means, imply the absence of necessary boundaries; rather, it entails the judicious setting of boundaries without simultaneously demonizing difference. A just society can, and indeed must, preserve its legal norms, democratic rules, and civic virtues, while simultaneously warmly welcoming pluralism and diverse communities. The fundamental key here is not to mistakenly perceive difference itself as an existential threat.
Papal teaching provides a profoundly useful model for navigating this complex terrain: nations undeniably possess the right to maintain order and secure their borders, but they are morally obligated to act with unwavering justice and uphold fundamental human rights. The Vatican’s extensive tradition—exemplified by documents such as Exsul Familia under Pius XII, which affirmed the natural right of refugee families to migration and called for comprehensive care of émigré families—has long affirmed both national sovereignty and compassionate responsibility. This tradition powerfully illustrates that just boundaries and genuine hospitality need not be mutually exclusive or contradictory. Spencer’s posture, tragically, fails to make this critical distinction; his language consistently suggests that every difference constitutes an inherent breach or a dangerous weakness. The papal counter-discourse, by contrast, affirms the necessity of peaceful boundaries while simultaneously embracing a profound moral responsibility toward the vulnerable and marginalized.
Spencer vs. Papal Vision
To sharpen this critique and highlight the profound ideological chasm, we can juxtapose Robert Spencer’s worldview against the papal vision across several critical dimensions.
Spencer: Humanity is perpetually under threat; religions are immutable, warring blocs in an existential conflict; cultural difference is inherently a danger; and survival inexorably demands dominance or aggressive exclusion of others.
Pope Leo XIV:
Humanity is a shared vocation, calling us to common purpose; religious difference, while potentially challenging, is also a profound gift that enriches society; migrants, the poor, and minorities embody Christ’s presence and issue a moral call to deep solidarity (e.g., his powerful assertion that "Christ is present in every rejected migrant").
Spencer:
Places defence—manifested through securitization, pervasive suspicion, and an aggressive pre-emptive posture—as the absolute highest ethical value. Compassion, open dialogue, and genuine reconciliation are readily sacrificed in favour of suspicion and exclusion.
Papal Discourse:
Elevates mercy, comprehensive care, and robust justice toward the marginalized as non-negotiable moral imperatives. In his foundational text, "Pope Leo" critically scrutinizes economic systems that systematically marginalize the poor, emphatically emphasizing that the poor and migrants must always remain at the very centre of the Church’s mission [4]. Mercy, in this view, is not irrational softness, but a profound and absolute moral demand.
Spencer:
Systematically reduces difference to enmity: no genuine neighbourliness is permitted or even conceivable, only perpetual ideological vigilance and suspicion.
Pope Leo:
Insists on perceiving migrants, minorities, and religious others as genuine neighbours: "welcoming them as brothers and sisters" is a consistently repeated and foundational theme [7]. Even within contexts of acute conflict (such as Israel–Gaza), the Pope steadfastly refuses to demonize entire peoples, opting instead to appeal to shared responsibility and universal human dignity [5].
Spencer:
If translated into policy, justifies discriminatory profiling, surveillance, exclusion, and punitive migration, thereby violating liberal-democratic norms.
Papal Rhetoric:
Calls for structural justice, reforming economic systems, protecting migrant rights, seeking ceasefires, condemning antisemitism, and encouraging peace, all while balancing common security and inviolable human dignity.
Spencer: Claims epistemic closure: his rigid framework allows virtually no room for doubt, ambiguity, or critical self-reflection. Any deviation from his predetermined position is immediately rendered suspect.
Papal and interfaith discourse: Approaches truth with profound humility: there is always ample room to learn, to adapt, to change, to listen deeply, and to genuinely repent. When "Pope Leo" unequivocally decries antisemitism, he speaks from a position of humility and moral clarity—not triumphal contempt [9]. When the Pope speaks of dialogue, he does so as a fundamental moral and spiritual necessity, an essential pathway to understanding and reconciliation [6].
Thus, Spencer’s discourse is demonstrably brittle, intellectually rigid, and fundamentally dehumanizing. The papal alternative, by striking contrast, is porous, relationally rich, and profoundly repairing.
The "Damage Done": Societal Risks and Moral Consequences
When Spencer’s ideas gain institutional prominence—finding their way into mainstream media, influencing policy discourse, or (as was once demonstrably the case) being incorporated into FBI training materials—they inexorably shift the Overton window, the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse, toward normalizing pervasive xenophobia and deep-seated Islamophobia. What was once considered extreme or fringe gradually becomes mainstream and acceptable. The insidious result is that overtly discriminatory public policy or publicly articulated rhetoric becomes increasingly acceptable and even commonplace. This process profoundly lowers society’s collective moral bar, eroding ethical standards.
While Spencer may not directly or explicitly call for violence, his extensive body of work undeniably contributes to creating an ideological environment that can powerfully feed and accelerate radicalization processes. Extremists who actively seek validation for their violent impulses frequently cite fear-based discourses, selectively drawing upon them to rationalize their actions. The fact that Spencer was cited by mass-killer terrorist Anders Breivik is not a mere incidental detail—it starkly demonstrates that such polemics become an integral part of the intellectual ecosystem of hate. Even if unintentional, this outcome is morally perilous and deeply irresponsible.
Spencer’s discourse systematically marginalizes moderate, pluralist voices within Muslim communities and interfaith alliances by asserting that only confrontational stances are authentic. This polarizes the public sphere, shrinking possibilities for reform and coexistence. Framing a religious group as inherently suspect leads to systemic discrimination, surveillance, exclusion, and denial of opportunities. This violates human rights, corrodes trust, and damages social cohesion, relegating minorities to second-class status based on manufactured fear.
Spencer’s worldview, rooted in distrust and exclusion, degrades moral imagination, reframing difference as a problem, compassion as weakness, and reconciliation as betrayal. It denies the possibility of encountering the divine in the "stranger" and militarizes religious identity. For people of faith, it undermines grace and spiritual growth. Given these stakes, religious thinkers, academics, and civil society have a moral obligation to engage in discursive accountability, scrutinizing and refuting harmful narratives as a profound act of resistance.
Summary Critique
This analysis synthesizes the critique into six overarching propositions, contrasting Spencer's fundamental flaws with the alternative offered by the papal vision:
Essentialism as Intellectual Violence: Spencer's reduction of Islam to a rigid monolith denies its inherent complexity and systematically dehumanizes Muslims.
Militarization of Discourse: His pervasive war metaphors transform citizenship and faith into battlegrounds, thereby rendering religious belief inherently suspicious.
Selective Textualism: Spencer manipulates isolated texts, deliberately omitting crucial context, to falsely portray Islam as inherently violent.
Siege Mentality and Demonization: His rhetoric actively fosters pervasive fear and systematically dehumanizes Muslims as insidious enemies.
Antagonism to Inclusion, Dialogue, and Empathy: His worldview fundamentally obstructs interfaith friendship and genuine solidarity.
Logical Affinity with Radicalizing Propaganda: His discourse shares structural characteristics with terroristic propaganda, including the demonization of the "other," the logic of pre-emptive strike, and epistemic closure.
In profound contrast, the papal narrative of "Pope Leo XIV" offers a compelling vision of compassionate inclusion, open dialogue, and unwavering solidarity, thereby acting as a formidable ethical counterweight to Spencer's pervasive fear-mongering. The ultimate choice confronting society is between fear-based division and hope-based fraternity.
Paths Forward
Proactive strategies are crucial to counter Spencer's narrative and build inclusive futures:
Uplift Diverse Muslim Voices: Actively uplift and amplify the voices of diverse Muslim figures—theologians, reformers, feminist scholars, peace activists—to shatter Spencer’s caricatures. This can be achieved through public engagement, interfaith panels, scholarly translations, and responsible media representation.
Humanize the "Other": Humanize the "other" through sharing everyday stories of migrants, documenting interfaith friendships, highlighting conversion narratives, and showcasing cross-cultural cooperation to dismantle the siege mentality and build enduring bridges.
Institutional Accountability: Institutions (media, universities, think tanks) must enforce rigorous ethical frameworks to clearly distinguish between genuine scholarship and prejudiced polemic. They must critically reassess vetting processes to actively prevent the institutionalization of bias.
Principled Religious Leadership: Religious leaders, exemplified by "Pope Leo XIV," must unequivocally advocate for inclusion, justice, and dialogue. Local interfaith initiatives provide vital grassroots models of resistance to Spencer’s divisive narratives.
Justice-Based Policymaking: Policymaking must rigorously resist Spencer's securitized logic, pursuing justice-based policies that include dignified refugee resettlement, equitable integration pathways, robust protection of minority rights, and international cooperation on the root causes of displacement, always prioritizing human dignity over fear.
Individual Moral Agency: Individuals must speak truth to power, confronting fear with reason and empathy. The absence of principled counter-speech creates a dangerous vacuum. Rigorous critique and consistent articulation of principled discourse are profound acts of moral agency.
The recent papal interventions offer an invaluable counter-narrative, powerfully illustrating how religious leadership can decisively pivot toward inclusion, foster peace, and actively pursue reconciliation. At its very core, humanitarian ethics unequivocally insists that every single human being, irrespective of their faith, origin, or circumstance, possesses inherent dignity and is fundamentally deserving of compassion and respect. A discourse that is truly rooted in humanity categorically refuses the logic of collective guilt or sweeping condemnation. Spencer’s pervasive and often generalized devaluation of Muslim identity directly contravenes this foundational ethic, reducing complex individuals to monolithic stereotypes.
Spencer weaponises discourse to instil fear, constituting a calculated assault on plurality and shared humanity. His influence is existential. The papal counter-narratives of "Pope Leo XIV" demonstrate that religious authority can resist fear and division, offering a vision of fraternity, hospitality, and moral solidarity. The collective task is to ensure this hopeful voice becomes audible and institutionally entrenched. We must reject the terroristic mind-set of Spencer disguised as realism and reaffirm human dignity, enriching difference, and the common destiny of all. Through unwavering commitment, we can resist demonizing discourse and reclaim a public sphere grounded in compassion, justice, and interreligious fraternity.
Bibliography
"Pope Leo XIV reminds Catholics of duty to welcome and assist migrants," Africanews.
"Pope Leo XIV Reminds Catholics of Duty to Welcome and Assist Migrants," Jihad Watch.
"Pope Angelus: Israel-Palestine Peace Negotiations, Antisemitism," Vatican News.
"Pope Leo: Poverty First Teaching," The New York Times.
"Pope calls on world leaders to commit to Gaza peace deal." Vatican News
"Pope on Oct 7 anniversary: We must learn to dialogue again." Vatican News
"Proclaiming the Gospel includes welcoming migrants." Chicago Catholic / Vatican
"Bishop Seitz shares migrants’ stories with Pope Leo." Chicago Catholic News
"Pope decries rise of antisemitic hatred, urges ceasefire and hostage release amid Gaza talks." Vatican News
-----
V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship.
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/spencer-ideology-critical-ethical-confrontation/d/137386
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism