Customer Reviews

The Secrets of the Koran: Revealing Insights into Islam's Holy Bible

5 star:		(34)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(15)

 

 

Richardson's volume is a handy resource for those who have no knowledge about Mohammed, the Koran, or the founding of Islam. It is hardly a comprehensive history, but the author doesn't claim it to be so; in fact, what he wants is for readers to consult other resources (and he lists many suggested resources) and to test the veracity of the claims found in his book. Richardson himself consulted seven different English translations of the Koran: some by Muslims, some by non-Muslims, some by objective translators, and some by Islamic apologists. I know that Muslims claim the Koran can only be read, understood, and appreciated in Arabic, but this claim is absurd. Certainly there are always certain nuances that are lost when a book is translated from one language into another, but the meaning can be clearly retained. If the Koran doesn't make sense in English it is because, as Richardson points out, it doesn't make much sense in Arabic either.

For the uninformed, who have been bamboozled by the liberal media into believing that Islam is a "peaceful religion," this should be a great wake-up call. The silence of so-called moderate Muslims every time that there is a terrorist attack by radicals is a clear indicator of the validity of many of Richardson's arguments concerning the history and ultimate goals of those who follow Islam. The fact that Muslims resort to emotional blackmail every time that they are offended by "the West" also supports much of what Richardson has to say in terms of the differences between Christianity and Islam and the threat that the latter poses to the civilization of the former. When Muslims are offended, whether by comments from the pope or Danish cartoons, they riot and threaten to kill (a threat on which some follow through). When Christians are offended by blasphemies such as those found in "The Da Vinci Code", they attempt to engage in intelligent dialogue (as is evidenced by the many books and video programs that addressed the claims found in Dan Brown's novel). There is obviously a great difference in the two approaches, and it is unfortunate that the Muslim approach seems to be the more effective one right now (witness the pope's current trip to Turkey, which is an obvious attempt to calm Muslim opinion about his previous comments on Islam).

The only problem with Richardson's book, as I see it, is his often sarcastic tone. He makes his points quite clearly, so I see no need for him to add so many sarcastic commentaries at the end of many points. I think the sarcasm is more likely to create a spirit of hostility toward Muslims. While Richardson obviously is issuing a warning to Western Civilization that if we don't start to defend and protect our Christian heritage then we will lose it, I don't think he is trying to stir up antagonism against Muslims. Since he is a man of God, I know that he desires the gospel of Jesus Christ to be spread throughout the Islamic world. The trouble with accomplishing that, however, is also highlighted in Richardson's book.

The bottom line, as Richardson makes clear, is that true Christians should attempt to reach Muslims with the gospel of Christ, but that they should also take steps to defend themselves by calling on their leaders to stop allowing Islam to influence public policy through its methods of fear and intimidation through violence (terrorism), emotional blackmail (the "we're offended, so let's riot" attitude mentioned previously), and flat-out lies about the so-called 'truths' found in the Koran.

I'm not sure if these hostile reviewers have actually read this book. If so, I would be interested to read some substantive rebuttal of the book's contents if they had any. I have read other, more friendly books on Islam. But this book reports some alarming facts and raises some pointed questions.

For example: why is it that there are no vital democracies among the Muslim nations (with the possible exception of Turkey)? Why is it that on human rights lists, the Muslim nations are consistently among the worst? Which type of Muslim is living by what the Koran says; the moderate peace-loving Muslim, or the radical militant? (You might be surprised by the answer to that question!) And if the radicals are the ones most faithful to the Koran, what does that mean for Western nations who have growing populations of resident Muslims?

If you are interested in a critical assessment of Islam, especially at its foundations - the Koran itself and the person of Mohammed - then read this book. You'll get a more sympathetic treatment from the popular media, but this side of the story in unfortunately harder to find. Consider yourself a juror and read a book like Karen Armstrong's _Muhammed_. There you'll get the case for the defense form a Westerner's perspective. Then read Richardson's book and hear the case from the prosecution. Decide for yourself who is telling the truth.

Readers of my most recent book, Secrets of the Koran, should expect to be startled by what it reveals. I was startled by my own research, because I had read authors who were quite positive on the Koran but--like many other authors I have since discovered--I found my study was leading me to views that stand in polar opposition to the views of authors favoring the Koran.

A major concern today is the Koran's war, plunder and enslavement verses, verses that command Muslims to kill, ravage, maraud, enslave and oppress 'infidels' (those who reject Islam). Even torture is commanded ("Chop off their fingertips!"). Again and again I heard apologists for Islam claim in television interviews that the Koran contains very few such verses. I decided to count and found 109! One out of 55 verses in the Koran advocates violence. Again and again I heard apologists warn against taking the Koran's "very few" war verses "out of context." Heeding the warning, I very carefully drew from Muslim sources, linking verses with their context.

By the way, those contexts do not show, as Muslims always claim, that Mohammed used bloodshed only for "justifiable self defense." He very definitely was the aggressor!

Muslims frequently quote war verses from early Old Testament books to justify
Mohammed's attempt to return us all to late Bronze Age violence in the 600s AD. They overlook the new ruling God ordained in I Chronicles 22:7-9. King David was the last writer of Scripture who was permitted to use the sword in God's name. Beginning with Solomon and his writings--Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon--all the way to Malachi and his book of prophecy, there are no more Old Testament war verses.

Israel's kings (perceived from that time on as primarily secular, not religious) still waged war and God still punished from heaven. But no servant of God mentioned in Scripture was permitted in all those centuries to wield the sword in God's name. Of course the New Testament follows suit with not one single war verse among its 7992 components. Anyone who did subsequently claim any part of the Bible as justification for violence was violating the Bible.

My book explains all this, yet some still accuse me of overlooking war verses in the Old Testament (as if such verses do indeed justify a horrendous outbreak of Muslim religious violence in the 600s AD.)

I firmly believe that a critical mass of readers of my book will carefully check the facts before reaching a conclusion. My bibliography lists 19 other authors, many of them secularists such as the former Muslim Ibn Warraq, who have also published recent criticisms of various aspects of Islam. I am far from alone.

We must let Muslims know that as surely as they bring their religion to America,-and most Muslims in America are clearly nonviolent, decent people-they must expect it to be critiqued freely and thoroughly, because that is what Americans do! There needs to be an open debate, but not violence or hate in either direction. That is one of the things that makes us a great people. It is also our main line of defense against tyranny, fraud and error.

In Secrets of the Koran, Don Richardson avers that we can't afford to be politically correct when discussing a book that is held to be holy and infallible by over a billion people. He's absolutely right.

Richardson obviously has a viewpoint to express about the Koran and Islam, but he backs it up with historical fact and with verses from the Koran itself. Admittedly, at times he reads like a breathless conspiracy theorist, but that doesn't make his points any less valid or let us off the hook from considering them thoroughly.

As for the Publisher's Weekly review, the point about 'the pot calling the kettle black' is bogus, and is in fact debunked by Richardson--simply put, violence committed in the name of the God of Christianity is contrary to the New Testament, while violence committed in the name of Allah is in accordance with the Koran. Far from being out of context, the Koranic verses Richardson cites are the basis for centuries of Muslim violence and abuse of women that is still occurring today. Additionally, the quote about camel fleas occurs nowhere in my copy of this book... is the reviewer simply making up ammunition against Richardson?

Bottom line: Read the book for yourself. Form an opinion. But please do so on the basis of historical fact and what the Koran actually says. This debate is too vital to be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.

Over the past few years, we have been seen Islam described by as a religion of peace, twisted into uncongenially violent shapes by fanatics like Osama bin Laden. The Koran teaches kindness, peace, and justice. Mohammed was a reformer in the great monotheistic Western tradition.

If difficulties with this view present themselves, they can be dealt with. One solution is to simply ignore contrary evidence. A photograph in the Oxford History of Islam shows the lovely blue-domed tomb of Timur, which, the caption explains, "epitomizes the splendor of Timurid architecture." The actual architecture taste of Timur, one of history's bloodiest conquerors, ran to hills of skulls. But the Oxford history, edited by Middle Eastern studies superstar John Esposito, says nothing of the victims of Timur's conquests. Esposito's gorgeous display of academic fluff likewise sanitizes Mohammed's wars of aggression, offering mere paragraphs on the military campaigns that gave Islam a history. (The reviewer below is, unfortunately, quite wrong: cruel tyrants often do success. And in most of the world, Islam spread by violence.)

Others "put (Islamic violence) into perspective" by pointing out that theory and practice diverge in Christianity "as well." Karen Armstrong's popular books on Islam combine a gleeful airing of dirty Christian laundry with an almost surreal cultural relativism. Mohammed did pillage caravans, she admits. But raiding was only a "sort of national sport in Arabia," "a rough and ready means of redistributing resources." Mohammed massacred 800 unarmed Jewish men, true, but it would be a "mistake" to judge him by the "standards of our own time." Nor should we be so foolish as to think mass murder indicated "hostility towards Jews in general," for anti-semitism "is a Christian vice." In fact, the massacre of Qurayzah can be seen almost as an act of pacifism, intended to "bring hostilities to an end as soon as possible." Furthermore, if one ignores assassinations after the fact, Mohammed conquered Mecca "without shedding a drop of blood," and thus "single-handedly . . . brought peace to war-torn Arabia." (Never mind that Egypt, Persia, Byzantine, and India shortly found united Arab armies at their gates.)

Secrets of the Koran emphatically eschews such machinations. The Koran claims to be a universal revelation, Richardson reasons, and therefore must be held to a high standard. Revelation, to be taken seriously, must by definition rise above history and culture. "It does not excuse Mohammed to say, `that sort of thing was Arab custom.' Surely God sends his prophets not to conform to human folly but to replace folly with wisdom."

Richardson is frank and astringent in his criticism. Mohammed was a scoundrel, Osama bin Laden's "instructor for violence," who "redefines (heaven) as an enormous God-owned bordello in the sky."

Aside from such occasional jabs, Richardson assaults the post-modern ear with three fundamental heresies. First, religions are not created equal. Second, the problem with Islam is not poverty (the reviewer below who says people attack Muslims because they are "poor and illiterate" must be joking -- has he heard of oil?), Western imperialism or Israel, but no more and no less than Mohammed and that book of his. (With, he counts, 108 "war verses.") Finally, however ambivalent Old Testament Jewish or Medieval Christian history may appear, the "winsome Christ" does, after all, offers a better solution.

Angry and fearful critics of Islam are nothing new. What is unusual about Secrets of the Koran is the character of its author. It is difficult to imagine Patrick Buchanan or Le Pen reducing an unknown tribal language to writing for the first time, or risking their lives to save a critically-ill headhunter in the swamps of New Guinea, as Richardson has done. Richardson does not smash idols merely to hear the shards tinkle (or to make money, as another reviewer claims), but in defense of a positive vision of a humane Gospel and liberal society.

Europe, Richardson thinks, stands in danger of throwing away the victory Charles Martel won at Tours over invading Moorish troops 1300 years ago by allowing immigration from Muslim countries to swamp the West. Ideas have consequences. As long as Islam is based on the Koran and the life of Mohammed, those who follow it cannot consistently advocate a liberal society, respect for women, and religious freedom. While the particular doomsday-scenario Richardson suggests for the "auto-geniciding continent" of Europe may be far-fetched, the question he places on the table -- whether an Islamified West will retain liberal values - is worth considering, as some cities in Western Europe now witness more Muslim than non-Muslim births.

The answer depends on whether Islam is seen as an evolving tradition, or a set of beliefs with a consistent and more-or-less permanent character. As a Bible-believing evangelical, Richardson underplays the power of culture to mold faith. But if it "takes one to know one," a person who emphasizes the importance of Scripture and religious founders may be in a better position to catch the true drift (or lack thereof) of Koranic orthodoxy, and its effect on serious Muslims, than scholars who see Scriptures as "living documents," limitlessly subject to enlightened reinterpretation.

Richardson's tone itself is not always so winsome. Many may find it hard to distinguish between his frank criticism and what journalists call an "attack" on Islam. There is a tension between his approach here and in earlier works for which he does not apologize.

But to me the opposite approach, that of Armstrong and Esposito, seems the greater puzzle. In the abstract, we all find rape, torture, mass-murder, and child-abuse despicable. Most would even agree a culture (or church) that affirms such acts is badly perverted. Yet when a powerful man like Mohammed does such things, we bend into prezzles to turn the other cheek. (Not always our own.) It is wise to befriend Muslim neighbors, and wrong to offend them gratuitously. But the modern ideas of tolerance and relativism," like other forms of cheap grace, do not make us bodhisattvas, however we may preen for the idol-carver's chisel. Let us beware lest they instead transform us into quislings, praising the tombs of tyrants, and forgetting the unmarked graves of their victims.

One connecting link between Richardson's earlier books and Secrets of the Koran is thus courage. A man who took his wife and baby into a jungle to call cannibals to repentance, now points his finger at one of the most powerful men in history, honored by a billion followers, and says, "J'accuse!" Taking the side of victims against an oppressor (whose spiritual vitality is still on the wax) takes guts. Secrets of the Koran reveals moxie, and also suggests that Richardson has not lost his talent for "thinking outside the box."

Yet I have to wonder. If even cannibals and headhunters were "betrayed to good" through divine truths in their cultures, and if awareness of God was almost universal among primitive tribes, how could Islam, alone among creeds, manage to completely shut out His voice? If indeed it did?

An elderly Chinese pastor long imprisoned for his faith once told me, "There is a lot we Christians can learn from the communists." If he could say that about an atheistic regime inspired by so vitriolic a spirit as that of Karl Marx, whose disciples tortured him and took him from his family, why should Islam be safe against the redemptive grace described in Richardson's earlier works?

Richardson admits that Muslims do worship God, however imperfectly they understand Him. In addition, he notes that the Koran points (in a confused way) to the Bible and to Jesus as "Messiah" and "Breath of God." Tarif Khallidi, director of the Centre of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies at Cambridge, showed (in a book of that name) how "the Muslim Jesus" cared for the poor, modeled humility and forgiveness, and even raised a woman who was dead and in hell from the grave to find salvation. The Koran itself not only affirms the unity of God, but also the sinlessness, miraculous powers, and divine nature of Jesus. Is it not possible that such a prophet may help reform and mellow Muslim theology from within, even allow Muslims to rethink their theology?

Richardson's portrait of a warlike, totalitarian, misogenist ideology whose inner logic sets it upon world conquest will likely prove too bracing for an "auto-genociding" liberalism, harsh even to the ears of missionaries raised on ideas of "contextualization" and "building bridges" derived from Richardson's earlier works. Neither the bourgeois respectability Gibbon spoke of that attends saying all religions are equally true, the avant garde respectability of calling equally false, nor the political respectability of finding them equally useful, is likely for a person who points out differences between religions to the advantage of Christianity. Even many Christians would prefer to "preach Jesus" and let God take care of dross in other religious cultures - lest we find the tables turned and our own sins exposed. Scholars who associate Islam with the kindly face of an amiable Arab colleague, lovely Medieval mosques, or the philosophy or medical discoveries of an Avicenna or Averroes, may also reasonably object to reducing Islamic tradition to the two sharp points of Mohammed and a few objectionable sayings.
But truth is sacred; on this, orthodox theists of all kinds agree. We need to speak truth, so help us God, to claim to walk in the path of all true prophets, and of our Lord. For this reason, frank concern about the nature of orthodox Islam, such as Richardson expresses, deserves I think a respectful place at the table. At the same time, as Allah is in heaven, can we not pray that His Peace Child will, in the end, speak the last word into our troubled times?

Don Richardson presents an eye-opening expose into Islam. He tackles the question, "Is Islam a religion of peace?" After studying multiple translations of the Koran, he came to his conclusion: No, Islam is not a religion of peace.

Mr. Richardson cites different translations of the Koran to prove his points. The book is laid out in a straight-forward manner, the author using logic to point to his conclusions. All one has to do to verify Richardson's points is to simply read the Koran.

This book is NOT about hating Muslims, it is about exposing the Koran. In fact, the author makes it clear to his readers to treat Muslims with kindness and respect, but also to tell them the truth.

I would also recommend www.faithfreedom.org; it is a webpage by some ex-Muslims.
It makes many of the same points as does Richardson.

I have just finished reading Secrets of the Koran and am excited, but at the same time concerned for the future of our freedom. I am excited because such a truthful and uncompromising book has been (and still can be) written and made available. I am concerned because I do believe that Mr Richardson's description of what the world could be like under future Islamic domination is all too real.

This book is so important that it should be made available wherever it can be safely sold (or made available in libraries) without having a fatwa issued against those responsible.

Please approach your bookshop and suggest that they make some shelf-space available for this great, new book. Please buy a copy and offer it as a donation to your local library. You may wish to give it to them to peruse first, with a note inserted that if they don't want to keep it, it should be returned to you. If the librarian says that the book is too biases or unacceptable for any other reason, be prepared to come back at them regarding the anti-Christian and pro-Islamic books already on their shelves. Write letters. Ask your Christian friends to get involved.

Speaking of Christian friends. Something so refreshing about this book, written by a fellow Christian, is that it faces reality about humanistic professors in Western countries needing to show a little more kindness towards Christianity, as it fills a gap which militant Islam will all-too-willingly march into. And militant Islam will have no respect for the rights of the great-grandchild of the humanistic professor! I, myself, have heard mounds of anti-Christian diatribe from university professors which was *totally* off-topic.

The only reservation I have of this book is that I found most of Appendix A unnecessary. The inclusivist/exclusivist controversy within Christianity is, more or less, relevant to how we dialogue with Muslims, but this could have been condensed into a brief description (or, better, chart/table) of the difference between general and special Revelation, the summation on page 247 and a few references for further reading. However, I wouldn't blame Mr Richardson if he responded (to me) "write your own book!" and "I could carve a better man out of a banana!" (see Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse 5").

(...)

This book is excellent and reveals the truth about true Islam, its origins, its past, its present, and its designs on the future. This book is not for the politically correct, or for those who are unwilling to look at the facts of the Koran and the many Hadiths, or the facts of the history of Islam.

The book is VERY well written, and is extremely well substantiated with facts.

Why do we find that NOT all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslims?

Secrets of the Koran by Don Richardson is a book based on extensive research and answers why the Muslim religion is based on killing and abusing all who oppose conversion to Islam and, as well, the perpetuation of the abuse of women.

This book delves into the disturbing history of Mohammed's life including the pillaging, torturing, abusing and killing of many innocent people for the sole purpose of money, power, and sexual conquests. Thus, Mohammed set up a pattern for all Muslims to follow. However, Richardson points out that many Muslims today do not follow Mohammed's legacy of violence, and the author explains why that is (primarily because Muslims do not ever read the Koran).

Many passages of the Koran are quoted in the book, and some Koran passages quoted are rules by which the leader Mohammed did not even follow (as evidenced by historical accounts of Mohammed's life and proven by stories passed on by Muslims as a way to brag about their leader's disturbing conquests).

More often than not, the author shows that the Koran offers its followers no assurance of entrance into heaven but rather threatens Muslims with hell over and over again.

Secrets of the Koran will enable you to see more clearly and understand better the world events that are happening today.

I bought this book because I knew next to nothing about the Koran or Mohammed, and I had loved this author's story in "Peace Child" of how he and his wife had found the key to unlocking the hearts of the Sawi, a bloodthirsty headhunting tribe of cannibals whose ideal was treachery, by using one of the Sawis' own traditions to relate to Jesus Christ. This was so successful that Mr. Richardson used this method and found a "gospel key" in many tribes around the world.

I was expecting the same type of story, but was shocked to discover that, far from being able to find a key to peace between Islamic and Judeo-Christian countries, Mr. Richardson found that the Koran itself prohibits this peaceful cohabitation.

Using eight different translations of the Koran so that there would be no question as to the meaning of each verse, Mr. Richardson exposes several terrifying facts about it. Let there be no mistake: this is not a religion of peace. According to Mohammed all followers of Islam are to kill the infidels (everyone who is not a Muslim). This means not just Jews and Christians, but Buddhists, atheists, New Age, etc. (By the way, there are 109 verses in the Koran urging Islamists to go to war. And yes, they are promised virgins in heaven if they are martyrs to the cause.)

Although I didn't know much about the Koran, I still expected it to be beautifully written; I was surprised to discover that it's a boring, plebian book, with many repetitions and contradictions. It's as if a 7th grade boy wrote it. If it weren't so awful, it would be funny how often Mohammed suddenly changes tack, saying that something that was previously banned is now okay, but only for himself and his followers.

Although this book is written more as an expose, there is valuable information as to how we can reach the peace-loving Islamic people who have been bamboozled into believing that the Koran is the work of a prophet.