158 of 188 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Distinctions which matter, August 22, 2007
This review is from: Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't (Hardcover)
Robert Spencer is a keen observer of Islam, and has been quite prolific, turning out a number of excellent books warning us about the danger which militant Islam poses. As he and others are want to point out, while there may be many moderate and peaceful Muslims, the real question is, what about Islam itself? Is it indeed a religion of peace, or is it in fact a religion fully compatible with, and the theological ground for, Islamist violence?
And how does Islam compare with Christianity on a number of key points, such as the nature of democracy, the treatment of women, and freedom of conscience? In all these areas, Spencer demonstrates that there is a very wide gulf indeed between the two world religions.
Consider just one important difference: the broader issues of politics, democracy and freedom. Leftist, secular critics argue that both radical Islam and conservative Christianity seek to impose a theocracy on the free West. They are half right. The Islamists are absolutely dedicated to this aim. The imposition of sharia law over the entire globe is clearly at the forefront of the Islamist agenda.
Indeed, leading Muslims are quite unguarded about their intentions here. Spencer sites many of these leaders, and their clear aims to wage holy war against all unbelievers, until a universal Islamic caliphate is established on planet earth.
In contrast, where are the Christians calling for an end to democracy and the establishment of a theocracy? In response, the critics usually point to the Christian Reconstructionists. But what about them? They are for the most part few in number, and hardly mainstream in the Christian community.
They are mainly confined to the United States, and there are plenty of leading Christian groups which have distanced themselves from the Reconstructionists. And there certainly is no global movement to replace secular law with Biblical law. By contrast, Islamist jihad is an international movement, with activist elements working to achieve their aims around the globe.
As Spencer notes, even if some Christians are arguing for a Christian America, they state that this is to be a voluntary outcome, achieved by Christian evangelisation and Christian persuasion. This is hardly at odds with the Constitution, as Spencer reminds us.
And for all the scare-mongering about the Christian Reconstruction movement, many associated with this group are really on about such harmless agendas as getting Christians to vote, and raise their voices in the public arena. This is clearly not an anti-democratic crusade.
And it was really Christianity that gave the modern world the notion of the separation of church and state. This goes straight back to the words of Jesus, when he said that we should render unto Caesar his due, and render to God his due. There has been a long Christian tradition of the concept of the two swords: the state and the church. Each is ordained by God, and each has its own sphere of authority and influence.
The fact that these two spheres may have become confused at times, or seen as one on occasion, does not minimise the basic Biblical position that the two are to remain separate, yet overlapping, authorities. This of course is quite the opposite of Islam. There is no separation of church and state in Islam. There is no secular sphere in Islam. All of life must come under sharia law and the will of Allah. That is why true democracy is hardy achievable in Muslim nations.
Spencer argues that even those Muslim states where democracy is more or less in place, such as Turkey or Indonesia, are a far cry from Western democratic nations. While Muslims enjoy the full range of rights and benefits in Western nations, Christians are at best second class citizens in so-called Islamic democracies. Persecution of Christians in Turkey and Indonesia is an ongoing problem, and their condition of dhimmitude, or servanthood, is well documented in such nations.
Spencer examines quite a few other major areas, and finds very clear differences between Islam and Christianity. In an age that seeks to minimise differences in the name of tolerance and getting along, this can only result in the denigration of Western democratic freedoms, and the blunting of a necessary criticism of Islamist jihadism.
There is a real war going on, and there is a real clash of civilisations occurring. Says Spencer, this clash between the Judeo-Christian worldview and that of Islam is about "two fundamentally opposed visions for society: one based on sharia - a true theocracy - and the other based on freedom".
And Spencer reminds us that Islam means submission, and that all people are to be the slaves of Allah. Jesus made a radically different claim: "I no longer call you slaves ... But I have called you friends." (John 15:15)
Freedom and responsibility characterise the Judeo-Christian view of personhood. Servitude and tyranny are the inevitable results of the Islamic worldview. The two could not be further apart, and it is time that these distinctions are heralded, instead of being covered up by the Christophobes and the appeasers of Islam. As such this book deserves a wide reading.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
249 of 299 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Brilliant, meticulous, humane, and scrupulously faithful to the facts, August 6, 2007
This review is from: Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't (Hardcover)
To the doctrinaire or rigid ideologist, facts are often inconvenient. But Robert Spencer, though superbly logical, is no ideologist. If there is any rigidity in him, it's only in his unbending faithfulness to facts despite frequent death threats made against him by Islamic jihadists. Spencer takes a reportorial, not ideological, approach to his subject. He often bends over backward to be fair in his statements.
The book is powerful, and provided one can suspend one's prejudices and stick with it, it grows increasingly powerful the further into it one reads. The book reveals anew the roots of our civilization, its central historical threads. It will be extremely valuable for those who want to see religious freedoms defended in a world where such freedoms are under global assault by a growing totalitarian religious movement with hundreds of millions of adherents.
Jihadists want to murder Spencer because he tries to tell the truth about Islam, warts and all. But at this point any violent action against him will only propel his books to stratospheric bestseller status. With his last two books, and now this new one, he has transformed the cultural landscape. Many leaders and elite opinion-makers in the U.S. have been increasingly influenced by reading him. That's especially true of his recent works, which have already been bestsellers: 1) The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, and 2) The Truth about Muhammad. Now The Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is And Islam Isn't also deserves bestseller status.
The book is a quick and fascinating read. I finished it within a couple of days of receiving it. Its length seemed just right to me: 210 pages, not including the notes and index at the end.
I found this book to be one of the most valuable ever for understanding the roots and development of Western civilization.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
87 of 107 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Shocking, Controversial, and Brave, August 27, 2007
This review is from: Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't (Hardcover)
As someone who has a degree in the secular and academic study of religions, I believe that this book's importance is matched only by its timeliness. This is a work that is shocking, unapologetic, and relentless. It is also rational, clear-spoken, and meticulously researched. This is neither an ethnocentric rant nor reactionary intolerance. Here is a man who knows history, the Qu'ran, and Islam both modern and medieval.
You may not find this book comfortable or politically correct. But the author rationally and cogently presents his argument, backing it up at every stage with quotations from Islamic scripture, mainline interpretation, and mainstream Muslim thought. The subject matter is not taken from the fringe, but from the very heart of the matter. And, much to Spencer's credit, he has preemptively addressed the legitimate criticisms leveled against him by critics and Muslim apologists.
Facts are facts, whether the postmodern West likes them or not. And really, that's the entire point of this clear, bold, brief work.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
