Customer Reviews

Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't

5 star:		(41)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(22)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

I read "Religion of Peace?" pretty much at one sitting. Dr. Spencer's depth of scholarship is spell binding, yet easy to read. He covers areas from anti-Semitism to Nazism, contrasts of tolerance or intolerance between religions, calls for war for religious beliefs, Jihad, the Crusades and the Papacy, to reason versus dogma, to equal human rights for both men and women.

Modern multi-culturalism's efforts to take all religions on equitable footings are unsupported by historical events, or a religious fervor to conquer the world for Allah; which is a world dominating jihadic dream of sharia law for all the lands of the Earth. The weakness of arguments for such jihadic conquests are exposed, showing how no such equivalence exists in Christianity, or any other world religions. To a reasonable person this spells the centuries old conflict for world domination on religious grounds, not Judeo-Christian but Islamic, which is only once more raising its ugly scepter after a lull of relative religious peace. But reason has no place in such a conflict, because it comes from non-reasonable religious assumptions, that Allah gave the world the Law, the Sharia, and our humanly agreed upon laws, our freedoms by Social Contract, is null and void in the Muslim mind. A personal faith can be equated with Christianity, given large latitudes of tolerance, but an Islamic politicized mandate to conquer the world for a religious belief system, by force if an invitation to Islam is rejected, has no parallel in any other religious beliefs. Our tolerance of other religions is unrequited in the Muslim belief system, and this in its politicized jihadi format makes it a violently dangerous cult-like system for the world. Sharia is not equal to the rule of law. Slavery is not equal to freedom. And Islam is not equal to any other religions if it is mandated to subdue rather than be subdued. Religion of Peace? Christ's perhaps, but Mohammed's? Let the reader decide. I did.

Can there be dialogue between Islam and the Western ideals of liberty based on our Christian values? Dr. Spencer's excellent treatment of this dialogue dilemma is handled with balanced reason and facts. Is our civilization worth defending? Yes. Because we conquered slavery, and support human equality, equality of genders, and we believe in human rights, while the world of Sharia still harbors inequality and slavery.

Ivan Alexander
www.humancafe.com

Everone needs to read this book by Spencer! I was friends with many Islamic students back in graduate school, but this was a real eye-opener.
Spencer points out what the modern practice of Islam has actually been, and cuts through the rhetoric. Modern followers are simply following the teachings and practice of Islam, and let me tell you, folks, it isn't pretty.

No, not everyone who is Islamic is a suicide bomber. Far from it. But after 9/11, there were an awful lot of Islamic people celebrating in the streets. Therefore, you know that there is a lot of sympathy for acts of Jihad in the world.

Threats, fear and intimidation, often leading to murder, are praticed on an ongoing basis in the world today. Most of this is glossed over or ignored completely by the secular media. If that's where you are getting most of your information, you especially need to read this book to get a balanced perspective.

Truth often makes perpetrators very angry, and that is why the author lives in a safe and undisclosed location today.

As I said in my review of the autho's book about Muhammad, my best friend in graduate school was a man from Pakistan working on his PhD. Most of the students in my office spoke Arabic as a first or second language, and were very helpful when I took that course. We ate in each others's homes.

However, when Mulim's gain power through politics, conquest, or becoming a majority demographically, Sharia Law becomes the law of the land, and it's a whole new world. It's a world, my friends, in which you will convert to Islam, become a second class citizen, or be killed. Oh, and by the way, in practice, you may be killed even if you accept second class citizenship, even though that is contrary to the teachings of Muhammad. If you don't adhere to a monotheistic faith such as Christianity or Judaism, the option of accepting second class citizenship is off the books.

See for yourself by checking out Spencer's citation of the Koran, if these things are true. Or else believe on account of the actions of Muslims in the world today. Spencer makes a compelling case supporting the thesis and title of his book.

We live in a world today where Jihad against infidels (those of us who are non-Muslims) is a fact of life. Forewarned is forarmed.

Robert Spencer's "Religion of Peace" is important, accurate, easy to read and worth reading. It exhibits exceptional courage.

Spencer's Islam apologist critics are battling straw men. That is, Spencer's critics insist that Spencer has said things that he has never said.

Spencer's critics attempt to besmirch Spencer as part of an ongoing effort to squelch any intelligent discussion of Islam. This is an intellectual tragedy and must be resisted. Spencer's critics can't be allowed to win. We need intelligent discussion of Islam.

Spencer's critics call him a "racist." His critics do not adduce a shred of support for this charge. Rather, they erect a wall around Islam and insist that it must never be discussed. One Must Not ask, for example, if the amputation of a thief's hand, or the execution of a Muslim who converts to another faith, is the best course of action. Ironically, many of the Islam apologists who insist that Nothing Negative May Ever Be Said about Islam delight in making the most negative, and often slanderous, statements about Christianity and Judaism. If you say something critical about Islam, you are a "racist." If you say something critical about Christianity, you are a "scholar."

Spencer makes NO assertion about the "racial" nature of Muslims. Rather, Spencer is critiquing *Islam* -- a system of thought.

If we were to apply the skewed "logic" of Islam apologists to other intellectual enterprises, scholars who critiqued the Catholic Church would be silenced; scholars who critique capitalism or communism would be silenced; indeed, scholars who critique Nazism would be silenced. By this skewed "logic," there would be no books analyzing the Catholic Inquisition, no books comparing capitalism to communism, not a single volume that so much as suggested that putting human beings in gas chambers was a bad idea. All such books would be, by this skewed "logic," condemned as "racism."

If we applied Islam apologist's skewed "logic," we would be living in a totalitarian state where books are burned and scholars are, as well. Islam, Catholicism, communism, capitalism are all systems of belief, and, as such, all are open to scholarly inquiry. In fact, we *must* engage in scholarly inquiry to live as responsible human beings.

As for Muslims - Spencer emphasizes again and again that Muslims are not the problem, and not his target. This isn't so hard to understand - someone could write a devastating intellectual critique of communism, for example, and not have the slightest prejudice against Russians (formerly communist) or Chinese people (currently, at least nominally, communist).

Spencer's critics insist that Spencer never mentions the failings of members of other faiths. That is patently false, as even a cursory skim of this or his other works shows. Spencer freely admits the failings of persons of other faiths, and addresses those failings as part of his arguments. In fact, Spencer does so in this volume.

Spencer's critics insist that Spencer is "selling" Christianity. Not so. In this volume - despite its title - and others, Spencer points out that the key difference is not between Islam and Christianity; rather, the key difference is between Islam and all other faiths. Spencer says, in the present book and elsewhere, that the major (and minor) world faiths - Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, Judaism, are unlike Islam in that Islam alone mandates jihad, sharia, and disallows a separation of church and state. Spencer points out that cultural relativists are simply wrong; in this, Spencer is goring a sacred tenet of current academic gospel.

Spencer's critics insist that Spencer is ignorant and that Americans are ignorant and that Christians are ignorant and that Jews are ignorant and that anyone who disagrees with them is ignorant. This persistent Islam apologist charge of "ignorance" against anyone who critiques Islam is ironic given that, according to the United Nations Arab Human Development Report of 2002, and follow-up reports, illiteracy, lack of freedom of the press, lack of access to books and publications, lack of indigenous publishing, and lack of any access to the international conversation of ideas is endemic in the Arab world. We know that not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arab, but the Muslim world is centered on its birthplace, and its birthplace is, according to all available statistics, struggling with access to ideas. In Saudi Arabia, people have been tortured for the mere possession of a Bible. State-sanctioned media in Muslim countries insist that Jews consume human blood. Ignorance *is* a problem; Islam apologists need look to the beam in their own eyes.

That Spencer's Islam apologist critics can't get beyond their patently straw men arguments does not speak well for their position. If their position were valid, would they not be able to present and defend it with fact-based, threat-free arguments?

In recent years, we have seen extensive public analysis of the Catholic Church sex crisis, of the relationship between Judaism and Zionism, and the relationship between Protestantism and presidential politics. In the true Western tradition, anything and everything has been said in the public marketplace of ideas. Analyses have been cool or emotional, popular or scholarly. No one has been killed for their statements in these public debates.

When it comes to Islam, and Islam alone, people are afraid to speak. They are afraid of being tarred as "racists;" they are afraid of ending up like Theo Van Gogh. Robert Spencer produces fact-based, racism-free, intellectual analyses of Islam. He deserves our gratitude.

One religion enjoins us to follow the example of one who teaches that we should love our enemy. Though we fall short, this is what the Christian is to aspire to. The other asks its adherents to follow the example of a prophet who himself engages in much violence and advocates wordly power. This is Spencer's central point. The example of what we are to aspire to differs radically in Christianity and Islam. Of course there is always room for interpretation but the difference between the founder and central figure of each religion is stark. Spencer explains all of this with clearity and lucidity and in great detail drawing on the relevent texts of both religious traditions.

The political leadership of the West routinely attempts to convince the electorate that the Global War on Terror (the misnomer of the century) is not a war about religion. However, if any politician is telling you how something "Isn't," then it probably "Is." Further, the religious nature of the war has been routinely verbalized by the aggressive Jihadi participants.

Generally, the western, post-modern psyche evaluates religion as a feel-good, happy fantasy thing that is about making people nicer, and more peaceful. In this line of erroneous thinking, all religions must be equally benign, or equally prone to negative behaviors. Thank you again to Robert Spencer, we have a new resource describing the details of a reality check about the religious underpinnings of the global war.

Without proselytizing, this book is an excellent response to the anti-Christian crowd which claims that Christianity is the real danger to the world. One that has read many other books by Spencer will see reflections of those works in this book. However, this book provides a collection of comparative topics that should appeal to anyone that still has a remnant sense of right vs. wrong.

Read this book. It may be your key to understanding what we are up against and why the West is right to win.

The fact is, Mr Spencer is right, and doesn't even need to go back into history and/or scriptures to prove it. I don't see how a religion can say they're peaceful, and that only a few of their numbers are radicals, and then riot en masse when a European newspaper publishes a cartoon depicted Muhammad. I can't remember when thousands of people were considered a "small number", or when burning flags and turning over cars was considered "peaceful". Then again, I can't remember when a suicide bomber killing women and children was considered pious, either. Also, I found it humorous that critics come down on Mormans, stating that an unemployed man walked into the wilderness, supposedly talked to "God", and came out, with a new religion, but no physical proof. To be honest, I don't know if I just described Mormanism, or Islam. Funny how the UN has Mormans on their Cult Watchlist......shouldn't Islam be on there too? What really makes me laugh is when people refer to the middle east as the "Cradle of Civilization"....either that child fell on it's head, or played with too many Chinese lead-based painted toys, because most modern people use toilet paper, not their left hand(for those of you who haven't been to the middle east, yes, arabs still use their left hand to clean themselves)

This book covers in detail, the re-education of our society. Spencer does an incredible job of laying out the truth with clarity. This is an important work.