Spencer and Hahn as Catholics do not affirm the centuries old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So their views on Islam represent those of the liberals.The position of the SSPX and the sedevacantists would be different.
Robert Spencer's approach to Islam is secular-humanist and Scott Hahn cannot say all Muslims, Protestants and Orthodox Christians are on the path to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.He cannot say that this teaching is magisterial.For me the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus would be magisterial. It is magisterial according to Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus interpreted with Feeneyism and not Cushingism.
Spencer and Hahn are Cushingites. For them the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to explicit cases, visible and known in 2016. So they are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
For me the baptism of desire etc are invisible cases in 2016. So they are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old ecclesiology, on Islam.
I am affirming magisterial documents interpreted with the Feeneyite theology, the old ecclesiology. The present magisterium, the Vatican Curia of the popes and cardinals, though, like Hahn and Spencer interpret magisterial documents with Cushingism. So for all of them there is known salvation outside the Chruch and so Muslims can be saved in 2016 without having to enter the Church. This is the new doctrine in the Church. It comes from the objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in which invisible cases were assumed to be visible. The mistake was repeated in Vatican Council II and has now conditioned Catholic theology and teachings.