Customer Reviews

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)

5 star:		(335)
4 star:		(59)
3 star:		(25)
2 star:		(12)
1 star:		(127)

 

 

This book obliterates simplistic, politically correct views about Islam. The word-for-word comparisons between the teachings of Muhammed and the teachings of Christianity, Buddhism, and other religions, are stunning. Take, for example, the famous story of Jesus' intervention when a crowd was about to stone an adulterous woman. His words, to let the person "who is without sin cast the first stone", sent the mob retreating in shame. He then told the woman to, "Go and sin no more." As the autor quotes from the Quran, Muhammed was confronted with a similar situation. A pregnant adulterous woman had come to him requesting that he pray with her for forgiveness. He sent her away until the baby was born. When she came back months later, he sent her away until the child was weened. When she came back as directed, he took the child and gave it to one of his men as a gift. Muhammed then ordered the mother buried up to her shoulders and stoned to death. It really is time for media pundits, college professors, and self-serving politicos to stop making shallow moral equivalence statements about Islam, the Quran, and the Crusades. This book needs to be read and studied by those who now are in a position to give away our birthright. It took the ancient Greeks, the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Magna Carta, the U.S. Constitution, and hundreds of years of Western Civilization to produce the most beneficent and free society in history. Here, Muslims and others can practice their beliefs without fear. We must insist that spokesmen and apologists for Islam demand that this "religion of peace" grant its neighbors the same rights the Western democracies have gladly given to them. Read the book. Its an eye-opener.

I just finished this book, and I think it's worth reading as a balance to a great many works out there which are slanted in the other direction (ie: "Christians bad - Muslims good, yada, yada). I'm not a scholar on any of the subjects Spencer covers here, so I will allow that he might not be 100% right on every point. After reading many of the other reviews here, I'm convinced that many of these folks have not read the book at all. Spencer certainly has serious misgivings about Islam and, yes, I think one could call him "biased" to some extent. But what's wrong with that? I personally don't believe there is any such thing as a completely unbiased scholar, so I just try to get my information from multiple sources (this is the 3rd book on Islam I've read this year). That's why I bought this book - to get another view - one that is not heard much in our ever increasingly PC world. Why do some reviewers have such a problem with that? Some seem to think that only one view is valid (theirs), and that Spencer should not be allowed to enter the debate at all. If you believe some of these reviewers, anyone who says anything positive about this book is just one step away from picking up a sniper rifle and heading over to the nearest mosque. What condescending idiocy is that? I'm not a "hater", or a "bigot" or a "narrow-minded zealot", just a seeker of multiple points of view. That used to be called being "liberal".
I was particularly amused by one typical negative review written by Ms. Martie D. Kelley. It sounds to me that she's more biased than Robert Spencer, just in the other direction. Kelley trumpets her "higher education" and status as a "scholar" holding a BA in Religious Studies (doesn't say from where), but Robert Spencer holds an MA (that's a master's degree, Martie!) in Religious Studies from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and has been researching and writing on the subject of Islamic theology, law, and history for 27 years! So, by any objective standard, Spencer is a scholar, and he deserves to say his piece without being labeled a bigot! If he's wrong about something, then let's hear the counter argument - not dismissive insults. The only bit of evidence Ms. Kelley offers to show that Spencer is wrong is the laughable assertion that, "in the Qur'an it is explicitly stated that it is the duty of Muslims to protect People of the Book (Jews & Christians)" Now why does this tidbit come as no comfort to me? Would Ms. Kelley defend a male chauvinist who says that patriarchy states that it is the duty of every man to "protect" women? I doubt it. If Ms. Kelley had bothered to do more than just "skim through various parts" of Mr. Spencer's book, she would have realized that this inane comment plays right into one of the more salient points Spencer talks about in his section on Dhimma (chapter 4). The Muslim idea of "protection" of non-muslims is a far cry from what most Westerners know as religious tolerance and freedom of worship. It's more like how the Mafia dons used to describe shaking down the store owners in the neighborhood. "We're not taking their money and making them live in abject fear. No, we're just offering these good people 'protection'. There's no injustice going on here". Tell me, Ms. Kelley, just who should the other "people of the Book" be protected from, hmmm? I'm also wondering what kind of comfort and assurance Ms. Kelley would offer to a Hindu, Buddhist or an Animist (or any other person not "of the Book") because as Spencer points out, these people have been regarded as no better than animals by Muslims. How can any intellectually honest person make such excuses for a religious system that claims to be religiously tolerant, yet is so narrowly selective in it's tolerance? It just amazes me how far some "educated" people will go to defend the indefensible. Is Ms. Kelley saying that we need not be concerned about how the other religious groups are treated by Muslims as long as the Christians and Jews are "protected" (whatever that means)???
This book might not be the last word on Islam, but it is worth a read, and I think Spencer is bringing some good points to a very important contemporary debate. I recommend the book but, by all means, keep reading and decide for yourself.

The cover of this study carries the declaration that the contents refute "popular myths" and reveal "facts" that will not be heard on the news.

From the outset this proves to be very much the case as the reader is taken into a courageous investigation of Islam.

Replete with references as well as quotations and examples direct from former practising, learned Muslims, the claims that Islam is a "peaceful" and "tolerant" religion are examined in considerable depth for a book of this nature.

Many quotes are provided which reveal fundamental differences between the statements made by Jesus Christ and Muhammed. This is done with the declared intent of providing the reader with an opportunity to visualise what is cited as the "fallacy" of those who claim that Islam and Christianity are basically "equal" in their ability to inspire good or evil.

Furthermore, these quotes are provided for the reader to understand that a "distinction" can be drawn between what are described as the "core principles" that guide faithful Muslims and Christians.

Beginning with an examination of the life and character of Muhammed himself, the study proceeds to discuss a plethora of other subjects including the alleged Islamic "oppression" of women, historical revisionism, the Crusades, the purported "dangers" of criticising Islam, "Islamophobia" and "Jihad".

The reader is provided, in no uncertain terms, with a visualisation of what allegedly faces the US, Europe, the West & indeed the International arena, should we fail to come to terms with the consequences of what is described as the "real" message and implications of Islam, which are purportedly being denied the public by the powers that be.

One former Muslim is quoted as saying that the theory and practice of Jihad was "....not concocted in the Pentagon....it was taken from the Koran, the Hadith and Islamic tradition...".

This statement is then elaborated and clarified by stating that it is the "divinely ordained duty" of Muslims to fight in the literal sense until man-made law has been "replaced by God's law". (The latter being described as Sharia and Islamic law).

Further to the subjects already mentioned, the book analyses a series of issues which many readers will find disturbing, such as the investigation of the much-publicised promise of "virgins" in Paradise to Islamic martyrs.

Many concerns are echoed towards the end of this work, including a call for what is described as "responsible reporting" from the media and honesty from law enforcement officials about jihadist attacks in the US. This is made whilst still recognising the need to confront an official fear pertaining to vigilantes who would victimise innocent Muslims should certain information be publicised.

Concern is also expressed with reference to the post September 11th statement by US President Bush who warned the world that "...you are either with the terrorists or you're with us...". The book alleging an official refusal to acknowledge who the terrorists really are and what they are fighting for that has subsequently seen the US administration still counting as friends and allies, many states where jihadist activities are extensive.

Many will perceive this book and it's message to be highly contentious and perhaps even offensive, but I feel that it is required reading at this time, irrespective of the reader's personal views. Thank you.

Before I saw this book title (I can't remember where I first ran across it), if asked, I would have said that Islam was a peaceful religion, that, like many other religions in history, has been hijacked by evil-doers. But when I saw this book, I wondered. Could he be right? I decided to read it, and give the author a chance to make his point.

I am acquainted with some American Muslims who would argue against this, but I wonder if they aren't plagued by their own bias. After all, who wants to think badly of their own religion and/or ethnic ancestors? I was shocked to learn that many non-Arab Muslims have not actually read (don't understand) their own holy book, that they merely recite passages from it in the original Arabic.

This book seems very well researched. The author appears to be conscious of the likelihood of an anti-Muslim bias, and I believe it inspired him to study his subject harder. He gives many suggestions for further reading. He explores the current media line on Islam, the history of Islamic/Judeo-Chrisian relations, makes conclusions, and provides his evidence at every step. And in a feature I loved, he presents ideas for defeating the enemy.

Another person that picked up my copy commented that it was very repetitive - the author says some of the same things over and over. I agree this is true, however he has a purpose. In his discussion of an individual point he presents the evidence that backs it up. Some evidence applies to multiple points. I did not find any repitition to pointless, only mildly tedious on occasion. Additionally, the prose is highly readable.

One thing I found somewhat annoying in this book is that the author uses a comparison of Islam and Christianity as part of his framework. I myself am of Christian ancestry, but was not raised in any particular faith. I have spiritual beliefs, but they do not match closely enough with any specific religion for me to join one. My annoyance was b/c I felt he was assuming his readership to be Christian. However, if his intended audience is the American public, that is not statistically unreasonable.

Although I would rather that the author's hypothesis were not true, at this time, I believe the author has made his point. I now intend to investigate the issue further, and am very grateful to have had this possible truth brought to my attention. I have already acquired some additional reading, on both "sides" of this issue, in addition to a translation of the Quran.

I would recommend this book to everyone as a starting point for exploring this potentially (if he's right) vital issue.

Like most other Americans, I knew little about radical Islam before the shocking horrors of September 11, 2001. I probably knew a bit more about the religion in general thanks to a few history classes I took at the university. A course on the Crusades introduced me to Saladin and a rather neutered conception of jihad, and a survey class on world history covered the rise of Mohammed in the seventh century, the five pillars of faith, and the highs and lows of the Ottoman Empire. I learned more about how Islam operates as a ruling system when I read a few things about Albanian history. None of these classes or books mentioned Al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden. Nor did they talk about the number of extremely troubling verses in the Koran or the commentaries associated with that document. If we had learned about these things, problematic questions certainly would have arose. Why does Islam seem to revolve around warfare and the subjugation of non-Muslim lands and peoples? Why the hostility to Jews, Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists? Robert Spencer, an expert on radical Islam, tries to answer these questions in "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam." The book is an eye opening experience for those who always thought Islam a religion of peace.

Spencer goes back to the earliest days of Islam, to the rise of the prophet Mohammed and the first teachings of Allah, and discovers that this religion bases most of its fundamental tenets on warfare against infidels. The Koran specifically tells followers that they must never take unbelievers as friends, must never trust unbelievers, and must always strive to spread Islam to lands populated by unbelievers. Treaties with non-Muslims are acceptable, but only as a means to regain strength in order to attack again later. Any method of overcoming the infidels is acceptable, including assassination and ambush. Islam does accept the presence of unbelievers, incredibly considering the endless references to war and conversion, but a host of oppressive laws and regulations ensures that Christians, Jews, and others (called "dhimmis" by Muslims) will never possess enough power to challenge Allah's hegemony. Spencer argues convincingly that history has shown that non-Islamic groups tend to gradually diminish in size and power the longer they live under the Muslim yoke. In other words, forget about multiculturalism, pluralism, and western conceptions of civil rights under an Islamic state. They don't exist because the main goal of Islam is to make the entire world Islamic. Period.

"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" goes on to discuss the Crusades in some depth. The standard explanation of these historical events in our universities, according to Spencer, leaves much to be desired. Professors and organizations espousing political correctness try to paint the Crusades as an attempt by the West to colonize the Middle East, or as religious wars aimed at forcibly converting the Muslim world to Christianity. Not so. They were, in fact, a concerted effort by Europe to roll back centuries of jihad expansion into Christian territories. Moreover, once the crusaders established states in the Levant, they made little effort to convert the native population to Christ. Anyone remotely familiar with European history ought to know this. As late as the seventeenth century, Islamic forces were attempting to penetrate deep into the heart of Europe. The Battle of Vienna in 1683, where Polish forces repulsed a Muslim army, represented the last great jihad into Europe. Until now. As the last part of the book relates, the new jihad has taken on different forms. Massive Muslim immigration into Europe has given the jihadists of Al-Qaeda many recruits to fashion a new army and thus finally bring a significant portion of the West to Allah.

I generally liked Spencer's book. He not only covers many of the fundamental beliefs and history of Islamic expansion, but also calls attention to the horrible treatment of women in many Muslim societies. Sidebars in the text often call attention to the difference between Christianity and Islam by placing quotations from the New Testament next to ones pulled from the Koran. Several "Books You're Not Supposed to Read" sidebars point the reader to further titles that will better explain key points. I commend the author for taking great pains in pointing out the differences between moderate Muslims and the radical fringe. Spencer acknowledges that many Muslims don't advocate violent jihad against the West, nor do they support suicide bombings or the other atrocities carried out by Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al-Qaeda. Nonetheless, he believes that trouble will exist as long as war against "infidels" lies at the center of Koranic teaching. The author laments the fact that moderates have not made an appreciable dent in their efforts to recast the Koran in a better, more peaceful light. If this book is any indication, we've got a long stretch ahead of us if we wish to defeat radical Islam wherever it exists.

"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" stumbles in spots. For example, referring to Meir Kahane as an Israeli "political activist" doesn't tell the whole story. Kahane was a Jewish supremacist and supporter of a "Greater Israel" whose government labeled one of his organizations as racist and banned it from the Knesset. The United States declared his other group, the Jewish Defense League (JDL), a terrorist organization and jailed many of its members for acts of violence against the Muslim community. Another problem in the book is the tendency to ignore extremely hostile comments found in Christian and Jewish writings. A close reading of the Talmud, for example, will uncover several horrific statements about gentiles. Nonetheless, Spencer's book is a must read in this day and age. Don't let the government and America hating academics define Islam for you. Read a wide range of books and make up your own mind.

After reading some of the reviews below I am prone to wonder how many of the frothy critics of this book actually read it. Even from the far left (the ever stalwart supporters of all those who hate America) I hear the droning mantra bewailing the supposed characterization of Islam by the extreme acts of an anomalous few. But Spencer does not make such a characterization. Most of this book does not examine the actions of extremists but instead the tenets of Islam itself. His conclusions are well reasoned and documented; and horrifying! If you have ever wondered why the millions of "peace-loving" Muslims have not condemned en mass the Jihadists who spew hatred and spill the blood of innocent people all over the world, then get this book and find out. Spencer concludes that violence is a natural outgrowth of the intolerance taught by Islam. Of course, many of us were taught the myth of Muslim tolerance, yet the Quran famously commands any faithful Muslim to "Slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them. Seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them? (Quran 9:5) It is a verse that is not lifted out of context or a rare anomaly or mitigated by the larger body of teaching (as the nonviolent verses of the New Testament clearly abrogate the descriptions of violence contained in the Old Testament) but, is in fact, only one of many such incitements to violence. Spencer believes that such violent leanings are endemic to Islam and explain the complicity of silence we see from the Muslim world when innocents are murdered by Jihadists.

Spencer also deals fairly with the perennially festering topic of the Crusades. It is bizarre and questionable that any present day political ideology should be driven by events that took place a thousand years ago. What's more, I wonder why so many Westerners collapse into a guilt coma at the mere mention of the Crusades without asking some important questions. How did the ancient birth place of Christianity, the stomping grounds of the Apostle Paul, St. Augustine, and the incubator that produced the creed most Christians repeat on Sunday mornings become Muslim in the first place? It was the result of Muhammad's war of conquests which lasted almost a thousand years that swallowed the birthplace of Christianity and then stomped out the light that once burned so brightly there. The Crusades were a belated, misguided, and often ignoble response to hundreds of years of Islamic "crusades." That march of brutal Islamic imperialism and colonization in the name of Allah ended at the gates of Vienna on a date that should mean something to the world: September 11, 1683. To be a good Muslim is to long for the renewal of that conquest of Europe and the West.

Spencer explains many of the draconian and intolerant beliefs of Islam without the incoherent contortions that Islamic apologists give to such issues as the sickening mistreatment of women and girls or the Nazi-like (complete with yellow patches on the clothing) Dhimmi status (a form of slavery) required of Christians and Jews in Muslim lands. Some treatment is also given to Muhammad, who, had he lived today in any western nation would be considered a pedophile due to the fact that his eleventh (and favorite) wife was 6 years old when they married and 9 when the marriage was consummated (the loving husband was 52.) That's really not very much like the historical Jesus, which is one of many examples where the moral equivalency between Christianity and Islam touted by the left crumbles in the light of inconvenient facts. Spencer is required reading for people seeking the truth about Islam and the emerging conflict which will likely define the 21st century.

Spencer's P.I.G. to Islam plays an important corrective role in the current discourse, or lack of discourse, regarding Islamic ideology and the problem of Islamism throughout the past 1400 years and throughout the world today. I recommend strongly that this book be read as an introduction to Islam, along with the Koran, the Sira (life story of the prophet first told by Ibn Ishaq), and selected Hadith. Spencer also includes in this book many valuable references to critical books on Islamic ideology and history.

Much has been said already in the way of praise, and Spencer richly deserves it. Spencer is not only an expert on Islam, but he is also an excellent and clear writer. And he comes across as a likeable, decent person who is genuinely disturbed by the facts. He's not out to demonize anybody; Spencer makes the Islamic texts and the Islamists speak for themselves.

Here I will explain why I gave "only" four stars instead of a perfect 5.

1. The Koran (and Hadith and Sira) contains far worse, far more offensive material than is presented in Spencer's book. The Koran contains a doctrine of hate, religious imperialism, religiously-based apartheid, misogyny, and bellicose terror. Much of that material is probably not suitable for a general audience which could include young readers. This may seem hard to believe for those who have been exposed to the Karen Armstrong and John Esposito apologetics. But readers should make up their own minds about the Quran: This link gives some indication of what the Quran is all about http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
Note that the Hadith and Sira are also available at other websites. Besides a lot of the blood, gore, rapes, etc., that Spencer does not include, you will also not find in Spencer's book mention that there are perhaps 300 separate verses in the Quran condemning non-Muslims to hell-fire/eternal doom, and there are dozens of verses expressing terrible insults against non-Muslims. Spencer does not discuss this thorough demonization of non-Muslims in the Quran, but it is in part this demonization, this hate propaganda, that prepares Muslim believers to more readily kill and mistreat non-Muslims. Possibly, Spencer may show us these even darker regions of Islam when he writes his biography of Mohammad.

2. I was not particularly troubled by the relative lack of so-called "good" verses, because many of the good verses and Hadith reports only apply to Muslims. There's nothing good for non-Muslims. Spencer does briefly address a couple of the most famous so-called good verses, but he does not go sufficiently into depth to expose the fact that these good verses are not what they appear to be. Although the format of the book requires that Spencer deal with a broad array of topics without getting into too much detail for each, I would have liked to have seen a critical exposure to show that certain often-cited good verses are not so good after all, and are of no help to non-Muslims anyway.

3. Spencer's claim that our present-day western society, with its rights and freedoms, is based in Judeo-Christianity, is somewhat irksome. These rights and freedoms were more due to the contributions of the ancient Greeks and the European renaissance and enlightenment period thinkers. Many advances were (and still are) opposed by Judeo-Christianity.

4. Critical reviewers who say Spencer is not critical enough of Christianity have a point. For example, the Old Testament (Leviticus, 24:10-16) requires the death penalty for blasphemy. Islam has the same or similar policy: Those who mocked or critised Islam were executed or assassinated under Mohammad's orders. However, I've read the Bible and the Quran, and Spencer's argument that Christianity is morally superior to Islam in some key respects is correct. This is most glaringly obvious when one compares the known words and deeds of Jesus versus those of Mohammad--and Spencer shows us several of these comparisons.

5. Spencer rightly challenges the false trumped-up accusation of "Islamophobia." But I would have liked to have seen a more thorough dismantling of this Islamist-propagandist tool. A strong case can be made that the Koran promotes "Infidelophobia"--an irrational fear and hatred of all non-Muslims (who are considered "beasts," "evil," "wicked," "perverse," "unclean," "friends of Satan who are fighting against Allah," "ignorant," "fools," "liars," and so on.

Bottom line: This is an excellent book that provides much-needed wake-up call to those who are interested in defending modern human rights and freedoms, including freedom of expression, equal rights for women, freedom from persecution for religious minorities, freedom to change religions or to choose no religion, and of course, the right to physical security and safety. Unless you are already an expert on Islam, if you are a non-Muslim or progressive Muslim, you should buy this book.

I served as a Foreign Service Officer in a Middle Eastern country where I witnessed black African slaves in Arab households in 1978. I am also familiar with the history of the forcible domination of Middle Eastern and North African Christian and Jewish societies by Islamic hoards launched by the Mohammed himself, the 800 year Islamic domination of Spain , the brutal Islamic domination of Orthodox Christian societies in Greece and the Balkans until less than 100 years ago and the despicable treatment of non-Muslims in every Islamic-majority country down to the present.

So what? Well... I am constantly and increasingly amazed and dismayed how many friends and acquaintances, many with postgraduate educations, have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what Islamic societies are actually like (subjugation of women, honor killings, etc.) or that any of the events I describe above actually occurred. Just a week ago an intelligent, educated friend who often visits Europe said words to the effect, "Yes, yes, Islamic terror is awful but didn't we start it all with the Crusades?" I was appalled he had no awareness that the Crusades were a much-too-late response to Muslims overrunning the Holy Land 500 years earlier or anything about the historic Islamic quest for world dominance at the expense of all other belief and social systems.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) is a useful "second opinion" about to Islamic dogma, thought, tradition and history for those have only heard the version presented by PBS, the BBC and various Islamic apologists. It will enlighten any non-Muslim who wants to understand what Jihad is all about. While arguably superficial by necessity because Spencer covers so much ground in a relatively small space, it provides enough information for most people. This book can also serve as an introduction for those inclined toward deeper study of religious, historical and comparative social analysis books that treat Islamic topics more comprehensively.

I'm buying copies of this book to give to friends and business associates who need this information. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) should be on the desk of President Bush and every one of his cabinet officers.

I thought for some time about this book. How would I like to see a politically incorrect guide to Paganism? Or even to Christianity, Buddhism or Judaism? There are plenty of negative things one could say. And some of them are indeed politically incorrect, even in today's society. How would I like to be a Muslim and see my religion blasted away at like this? What would my Muslim ancestors have thought of this book?

For me, the key question is whether this book adds or subtracts to our understanding of Islam today. And I think it adds to it, although I think it could have done a better job of it by being less one-sided.

Spencer reminds us that Mohammed was a military leader and that he advocated war against non-Muslims. Moreover, Islam today appears to be acting in a similar manner, with its leaders often advocating war. The author says that it is a PC myth that "Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a few extremists." As Spencer says, there are some moderate Muslims who don't regard Islam as a religion of war. But I think Spencer is making a good point here: nothing inherent in Islam is stopping Muslims from trying to convert or rule the whole world by force.

There is a section on the Crusades which I do not entirely agree with. But I think it makes the point that Islam was not just an innocent victim but an aggressor in much of this period. And that in any case, there is no need for Christians to make additional and unilateral concessions to Islam on the basis of Crusades of long ago, especially when there are more recent jihads by the Muslims.

This book is at its best when it points out that Islam has been (and still is) a religion of intolerance that oppresses women. And that Islam clearly opposes what most of us would regard as human rights for all. Spencer reminds us of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which gives every human the right to freedom of thought, including the right to change his (or her) religion or belief. Islam does not share this view.

Now, what is to be done? I think we need to separate the sheep from the goats here. Those people who can't abide human rights for their neighbors are a problem. They'll have to obey the laws of the nations they live in. But let's see what Spencer's advice is. And let's also see if it is Islamophobic. Does it make unreasonable demands on Muslims, or attack law-abiding people as well as criminals?

Well, no. Spencer does want us to tell the truth about Muslim organizations in the United States. Truth is always a good idea, and it certainly fits right in with separating the sheep from the goats. He wants us to tie global foreign aid to Muslim countries to their treatment of non-Muslims. That is certainly fair. He wants us to reconfigure our global alliances and friendships the same way: those who support jihad won't be our allies. And we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, a smart idea no matter who controls it.

I feel that Spencer's recommendations are reasonable. I think they would make life easier, not harder, for all Americans, including American Muslims. And they would make it easier for us to isolate our enemies and discourage people from joining with them.

To the reviewer below who speaks of the "sad state of things": I'd say people writing reviews of books they obviously haven't read is pretty sad. Does this guy actually think Spencer doesn't deal with the absurd "jihad refers merely to internal struggle" argument? Or that he doesn't address the supposed "no compulsion in religion" argument?

Spencer's book is not the product of ignorance. Calling Islam the "religion of peace" is the product of ignorance.

Spencer clearly notes that most Muslims are neither evil nor inclined toward terrorism. What he does say is that everything a jihadist needs from an ideological point of view is just waiting there in Islamic teaching for him to exploit.

And don't give me the argument that Christians have had their faults too, since that proves you haven't read the book. Spencer answers this argument. If you disagree with his perspective, fine, but if you're going to prove to me that you read the book you at least have to acknowledge that it exists.

The fact is, whenever a suicide bombing occurs these days, no one says, "There go the Methodists again!" Why is that, exactly? And what exactly is wrong with at least posing the question?

As for the "no compulsion in religion," Spencer shows that major Islamic scholars consider those peaceful verses to be "cancelled" today. Islamic apologists like the one-star reviewers here then cite the peaceful verses, without mentioning that they've been "cancelled," and then have the nerve to accuse SPENCER of taking Islamic verses out of context!

Read this book for yourself and see which side of this debate is really playing fast and loose with the facts.

(Oh, and by the way, although most Muslims are indeed not terrorists, imagine this: suppose 9/11 had been perpetrated by Mother Teresa's nuns. We'd never hear the end of all the Catholic apologies. Catholics would be heading up all the relief efforts, would be coordinating anti-terrorist seminars, going after Catholics who teach terrorism, etc. The response would be swift and systematic. In the Muslim world, on the other hand, we get the occasional muted protest -- with the notable recent exception of the Lebanese -- that is always hedged by qualifying phrases and excuse-making. Why are we permitted to draw no conclusion from this?)