Customer Reviews

The Sword of the Prophet: Islam; History, Theology, Impact on the World

5 star:		(85)
4 star:		(19)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(21)

 

 

I must confess that very few things in the world annoy me more than people that lecture others about things they know absolutely nothing about. The opponents of this book are a perfect example. Let me make one thing crystal clear to anyone that hasn't yet read "The Sword of the Prophet": The one-star reviews posted here were written by people that haven't read the book!! This book is not racist and it is not scaremongering!

This book is one of the most intelligent and well-written books I have ever read. It pulls absolutely no punches when it examines the origin, historical record, and future implications of Islam as a global force. Political correctness and other left-wing ideologies are ignored for the sake of truth and critical thinking, which is absolutely refreshing to read in this day and age of "historical ignorance" and "deliberately induced amnesia", as Mr. Trifkovic puts it. The first and second chapters examine the life of Muhammad and the creation of the Koran, which is fascinating and eye-opening. The third chapter, "Jihad Without End", is simply frightening. It chronicles the spread of Islam over the last thousand years, and the massive cultural devastation, human suffering, and loss of innovation that went with it. This chapter, more than any other, is the most savage rebuttal of people that insist that Islam is "tolerant" or a "religion of peace". Never, in its entire history, has Islam even approached anything resembling tolerant or peaceful, and anyone that has bothered to actually read history knows it. The fourth chapter shows Islamic misogyny, use of slavery throughout the centuries (and still in practice today!!), and debunks the ridiculous assertion that there was a "golden age" of Islam. The fifth chapter describes the sad and pathetic attempts of self-loathing intellectuals (many of whom are in powerful and influential postions) in North America and Western Europe that want nothing more than to tear down every Judeo-Christian tradition and belief that their country was built on. The false and twisted belief of these "enlightened" intellectuals is that all cultures and beliefs are equally valid, and to question the merits of this ideology is bigotry. A knowledge of history and a good eye for observation reveal this worldview as the hoax that it is, but these people are both blind and deaf when it comes to annoying little things like "facts". The sixth and final chapter paints the bleak picture of Western Europe and (to a lesser degree) North America as countries that refuse to open their eyes to a culture that is completely at odds with Western ideals of democracy and human rights. A war has been unofficially declared on the West (ie. the "infidels") by millions of radical Muslims, and yet many people don't even want to acknowledge that there is a problem! The immigration floodgates are open and yet no-one seems to care which people have something to offer and which people have hostile intentions!! Isn't this common sense!? For reasons that are impossible for myself (and many others, I'm sure) to understand, some people would rather commit cultural and racial suicide than attempt to address the problems that are staring Western democracies in the face! As you can see, the sixth chapter has some depressing statistics and a gloomy forecast for North America and Western Europe.

To be honest, I really can't recommend this book highly enough. I read a great deal about history and politics and I had a reasonable understanding of Islam, but I found this book concise, accurate, and enlightening. The historical record and future implications of Islam are incredibly relevant to the world we live in now, and you would be doing yourself a favour by reading "The Sword of the Prophet" and doing some serious thinking of your own about just what all this means for yourself, your family, your country, and your future generations.

This controversial book hit the market by storm in America after 9/11. It leans very much to the right and is considered "racist" or at least "alarmist" by many liberals. I found it to be an extremely worthwhile read that opened my eyes to many aspects of Islamic terrorism in the modern world. Before going into more detail, I would like to qualify my review by saying that I do not necessarily agree with his conclusions proposed solutions.

That being said, even if one does not ascribe to Trifkovic's thesis regarding the solution to radical Islam (in short, treating Muslims in western countries as we treated self-avowed communists during the Cold War) one cannot ignore his summary of the history of the expansion of Islam and many of the valid points he makes regarding its historical tendencies. I found the section that explained how the US actually helped create the power behind modern Islamic radicals very eye-opening.

To realize that the text is not simply anti-Muslim propoganda, it is important, while reading the book, to pay attention to his (infrequent) qualifications. He does not consider ALL Muslims to be "bad", but seeks to point out the fact that most of the vocal, political Muslims leading countries and organizations happen to be radicals funded by oil money. That is, the extremists have the money and the power, and the moderates, like moderates in most religions, do very little to stand in their way and say, "No, that is not Islam!" One of the more reasonable, albeit difficult to envision, paths to peace that he suggests is to somehow move the power and money into the hands of moderate, non-West-hating Muslims.

What Serge does say is that Islam has historically been a religion of war, and that war is justified and even commanded in the Koran. That many progressive believers believe "Jihad" to be an inner, spiritual struggle is valid but does not change the original meaning often used by today's radicals. Other reviewers may decry his interpretation of the Koranic verses as being too literal, and say that the holy text does not actually advocate violence against Infidels as it appears to. However, Serge contends that the history of the religion is more supportive of the literal, violent interpretation than of the more modern, progressive one. Regardless of which interpretation you personally favor, it is important to realize that there are many out there who do believe that Jihad is a perpetual war against all non-Muslims, and that is the point that Serge stresses.

Islam is a barbaric religion. This comment of mine is directed at
those who apologize about Islam and Quran. Dr. Trifkovic's detractors, have not provided a single evidence of why the sources he uses are "biased". Not surprsingly Muslims are by default very critical of those authors who have not viewed Islam
in a favorable light. Ms. Karen Armstrong (author of Muhammad's
biography) is viewed as a " credible authority" simply because
she almost "worships" and "adores" Muhammad, and rationalizes the failings of the Last Prophet of Allah (Khattam-ul-Nabi). One
thus must view the comments (actually hollow howlers) from these
"Defenders of Faith" with much skepticism.

Islam, intrinsically, is intolerant of any opposing view. This is clearly stated in Quran (005:033), where the faithful is asked to amputate the limbs from opposite sides of the body for those who will oppose Allah and His Messenger. In a similar vein
the tolerance of Islam is displayed in the verses Quran (009:004),(009:029),(047:004),(008:038),(002:216).
All of these call for (physical) fight against those who will
oppose Allah and his Messenger. In modern times this means anyone
who will oppose Shariat (laws) and hence Islam, must meet the same fate as described in the above ayahs (verses). The English
translation of these verses can be found in Abdullah Yusuf Ali's
English translation of Quran from Arabic into English. Yusuf Ali
is a respected authority on Islam; so if there is any error/aberration, it lies with Ali's translation.

The next counter-argument will be that the detractor (myself) has quoted these verses "out of context". This a very familiar ploy intended to give a twist to a debate that is critical and
not favorable of Islamic belief systems. Fortunately, there exists another argument. If these quotes are out of context, then Quran is essentially out of context with modern times. For
these ayahs (verses) clearly explain the bloody history of Islam
as pointed by Dr. Serge Trifkovic.

Islam has always thrived on terrorism. Prophet Muhammad himself
terrorized party of caravans carrying goods, simply because he
wanted to establish superiority. Women were sold as sex-slaves
(concubines) or killed. Also for the naive reader, it must be
mentioned that Muslim history is essentially an exercise in
gratification. Recognized chroniclers of Islam are always, as a general rule, Muslims - who by the virture of professing their faith (Islam), must glorify Islam and not be critical of their faith. How can then one accept the views of these Islamic scholars, since by default they are tainted ?

I would suggest everyone on this forum to read William Montgomery Watt's two-volume treatise on Muhammad biography
titled MUHAMMAD AT MECCA and MUHAMMAD AT MEDINA.

In one of these volumes, there is the slaughter of Ka'ab-bin-Ashraaf described. You know why ? Because he spoke up against
Prophet's phoney baloney (Islam). Similar was the fate of Asma-bint-Marwan who was decapitated in her sleep because she had recited sarcastic verses (poetry) about Prophet Muhammad in the market area.

And Islam doesn't have violent,bloody, intolerant origins ? Get a life !

For those of us who are tired of being told Islam is a "religion of peace" and who want to know the facts The Sword of the Prophet comes as a welcome relief. Informative and well written Sword takes the reader through the history and theology of Islam and explains why it has turned violent. This is a drop-everything-and-tell everybody book!

Nothing makes a human jerk as when a sensitive wound is touched. So it is with the latest reviews here on this site. The fact that so many negative reviews are posted shows, quite easily, that it has hit a sensitive spot with Muslims when it comes to their beliefs and culture. Usually, when things aren't true, people just brush them off with the nothingness they contain, but when real evidence is brought forth, that is when anger begins on the part of the guilty.

Most often, when Muslims are confronted with facts of history or the Qur'an they fall back on one, two, three, or all four of these arguments;
a) They claim racisms, bigotry, whomever is a Crusader, etc.
b) They fall back on the old claim of "You have to read it in Arabic!" and "You're taking it out of context" (Trust me, it's not nearly as different as they want you to think, in fact, it's just about the same. Second, b/ the Qur'an is considered by Muslims to be the "Eternal Word of Allah", none of it can be taken out of context, every verse is in context just on it's own, otherwise, it is the "Temporal and Easily Manipulated Word of Allah.").
c) They just deny it flat out and then will often times get angry when it is insisted and/or further proven.
d) Finally, and one of the most common, they just starting making up things about the religion of the person they are talking to in an attempt to take pressure off of there own.

I don't blame them for wanting to do that at all, it still is wrong, though. I am earning a triple major in Religious History, Arabic Studies, and Journalism and can tell you, as a fact, that the history he presents in this book is, unfortunately, indeed quite correct. It really is rather un-PC, though. Many of the previous reviewers are fairly uneducated on the subject. At the same time, you have to be generous with them because they have been schooled in Islamic History in either a) Muslim countries or b) Muslims schools in their areas; neither of which would be for presenting anything which would make Islam look bad, in other words, they have been conditioned to think otherwise and reject all ideas which are in contrast to their own instead of logically analyzing and considering them.

The fact of the matter is that from the very beginnings of Islam, as recorded by Ibn Ishaq, Al Gahazzi, etc. (Muhammed's biographers from very early on in Islamic history), fear, murder, rape, and genocide were used as tools for Muhammed to gain adherents. After all, who was it who massacred the Jewish tribe the Banu Qurayzha in Medina in 627? Who else massacred the Jews of Khaybar in 629 under the pretense of a white flag? By the way, who else was it that turned Medina (at first named Yathrib) into a police state? It was Muhammed working under the disguise of a religious prophet.

I must, though, make light of some comments in a review which I just read. The reason being is that this man blatantly slanders and lies about the author and history. His words are in quotes whereas mine have ** before a paragraph.

"Serge Trifkovic in his infamous book "The Sword of the Prophet" has gone far beyond bigotry and smear campaign against Islam. The notorious author has attempted to portray Islam as a violent religion whose adherent rulers committed genocide of ruled class, and that Judaism and Christianity are a religion of civilized society."

**It is a well proven fact that Islamic leaders have committed atrocious genocides on those of other religions dating all the way back to Muhammed himself and culminating with the Turks. In fact, right now Janjaweed Arab Muslim tribesmen are exterminating Christians and Animists in the Sudan and have been since the early 80's. It is believed as many as 3,000,000 have been murdered, died because of famines caused by the war, and/or been tortured to death. But we can't judge, it's just another religion, right? Wrong.

"Even a casual reader of history must condemn his fictious description of the world politics."

**I'm a Religious History major and I accept it because I know history extremely well, not to boast, though.

"Civilized nature of Judaism can very well be witnessed in widespread and continuous ethnic and religious cleansing of Palestinians from their homeland in the name of alleged and rubbish biblical prophesy."

**That entire area was once Christian and they were eventually exterminated by the Ottoman Turks beginning right after the Crusades and up through the beginning of the 20th century.

"These Zionist terrorists have complete backing of Christian fundamentalists who encourage and condone mass slaughters in the name of a covenant with God. Whole world is aware of genocide and massacres committed by zealous Christian crusaders in the Middle East. If Islam had preached as much hatred as these Christian crusaders had practiced, Muslims would not have left Spain in the hand of Catholics"

**The Muslims had to be forcibly removed from Spain, they didn't "Leave it in the hand[s] of Catholics." More over, All of Turkey was once Christian, with a sizable Armenian population, enough that in 1923, 1.3 million Christians could leave Turkey for Greece. Those who left were the sole survivors of Islamic Dhimmitude, rape, massacres, and pillaging.

"or India in the hand of Hindus after over 800 years of rule. Muslim rulers had resources to convert the ruled class or expel them from their homeland but were forbidden to do so by Quran.

**Nowhere in the Qur'an is it forbidden to convert those of other religions. In fact, just read Sura (chapter) 9, verse 5 is the most graphic. "Slay the infidels wherever you find them until they pay the alms and do the prayers [presumably to Allah]..." That entire Sura abrogates [Islamic doctrine of one verse replacing another] all earlier "revelations" condoning what had been peaceful co-existence with non-Muslims.

"They did not follow the Jewish or Christian terrorism to slaughter and deport Muslims from Spain and Palestine. It was the sword of Christian crusaders, which wiped out the native population of America."

**It was those who claimed to be Protestant Christians who did that in the present US and Canada (Central and South America are a different story) and for the most part, it was disease, which wiped out the Native Americans before the "Christian Crusaders" could even get there. Second of all, if we want to talk about terrorism...Well, it's too obvious; I'm not even going get into the World Trade Center.

Also, another reviewer mentioned "rape camps." That was not Orthodox Christians running them, those were atheist and they were not nearly as prevalent as claimed. Also, check back in history, the Turkish Muslims rulers and hierarchy in the area filled their harems with pretty Christian girls to satisfy their lust. Now that is a rape camp.

Buy this book. Read it. Then buy a bunch more copies and pass them out to loved ones and influential people. I've read a lot of books on Islam the past year and this is the most straightforward and honest. Be prepared to be frightened and depressed, but it is well past time for the West to get real about Islam. It's not "just another religion", or a "religion of peace". Where goodness retreats and the West sleepwalks to relativism, Allah advances with a sword.

Note in November 2010: "The first casualty of war is the truth." This review - and presumably others that treat this book in a positive manner - has at times had dozens of "helpful" checks and then gets bounced back to zero "helpful" helpful checks presumably after some pro-jihadist marks it as offensive and it gets sent to the Amazon staff who then re-post it sans rankings. Why is it that Islamic apologists can never deal with those who point out factual issues about Islam that are less than flattering? I think we know...


The Sword of the Prophet relies on the Quran, authoritative Islamic texts and references to historical events only vaguely known, if al all, by most Americans to explain in readable form for lay people Mohammed, his teachings, the origin of Islamic holy war (jihad), the culture that evolved from Islam and the folly of recent Western appeasement and accommodation of Islam. Serge Trifkovic makes a strong case that Islam is better understood as a geopolitical global thought-control and domination scheme akin to Soviet-style totalitarian socialism or early 20th Century European fascism than as a religion akin to Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism.

The most basic lie promulgated about the belief system founded by Mohammed in the 7th Century is that Islam means "peace". That's false. Islam means "submission": Muslims submit to Allah and non-believers must adapt to an inferior status and submit to Muslims.

These days government officials and media gatekeepers repeatedly mouth the notion that "true" Islam is a "religion of peace". This puzzles anyone who attempts to reconcile that "religion of peace" mantra that supposedly distinguishes "true" Islam with the version of Islam everyone can see practiced daily by airplane hijacking, train demolishing, decapitating, throat slitting, suicide/homicide bombing self-described holy warriors from New York to Indonesia by way of virtually every country in between.

To reconcile this inconsistency author Trifkovic provides an overview of the origin and early expansion of Islam, relying on the Quran and authoritative Islamic texts, to demonstrate that Islam has from its very beginning, as delivered and practiced by its founder, the Prophet Mohammed, a warlike creed that started out raiding caravans for booty, slaughtering anyone who disagreed with or disrespected its "prophet" and dominating by threat of death and destruction any community that failed to "submit" to the will of Allah as promulgated by Mohammed. It's particularly odd that a religion that supposedly disallows images of any sort adopted the symbols and pilgrimage customs of those who worshiped a pre-Islam moon god called - surprise! - Allah. Islam even adopted the crescent moon as its symbol. And long before Mohammed there were people who made pilgrimages to Mecca to appease that moon god, using the same practices that Mohammed told Muslims to adopt.

After Mohammed's death, his followers initiated military campaigns to first rob, then dominate and finally, wherever possible, convert to Islam and subject to a form of Arab imperialism, a swath of nations from Spain to Indonesia. In most every instance (Spain, India and parts of the Orthodox Balkans being exceptions) Islam systematically destroyed every indigenous culture that Muslims came to dominate and subjugated and essentially enslaved any population that failed to "submit", a process that continues to this day.

The author makes a strong case that today's militant Islam is the true Islam established by its prophet, and the goal of Islam is to physically subjugate the entire Earth to its dominance by deceit, economic strength or military conquest, even if the later happens one decapitation at a time. And after a slumber of several hundred years, today's worldwide Islamic holy way is propelled by a volatile combination of petro-dollars, naïve Western multiculturalists, business interests pursuing short term gains and political leaders too afraid - or simply too ignorant - to even name the enemy.

Recently some have referred to the current, fragmented counter-jihad, in which leading media institutions provide aid and comfort to the jihadists, as World War Three. There're only partly right. This is actually World War One. It began in the 600s and has continued more than 1,300 years with pauses during which the West and other civilizations weakened themselves with what are commonly called WW-I, WW-II and the Cold War during the 20th Century.

Footnoted, indexed and with a four-page bibliography of books and online resources.

The book would rate higher if the author provided more suggestions on what individuals can do to resist worldwide jihad.

Recommended for anyone who wants to reconcile the half-truths (at best) about Islam foisted on the public by the media, academia and disoriented government officials with what they see actually happening daily.

Like so much else in life, you have to see (and read) things for yourself in order to judge them. This is certainly true in the case of Serge Trifkovic's "The Sword of the Prophet."

Having read the book, I can categorically state what it is not. It is not a comprehensive history or theological study of Islam. So, in that sense, the title is a bit misleading. (I also wonder why the subtitle does not begin with the word "Its" - but I digress). If you want a comprehensive history of Islam you need to go elswhere. Ditto if you want a theological analysis.

"The Sword of the Prophet" is, in fact, a well-argued and cited POLEMIC. It is not, and does not pretend to be, "objective" (whatever that is). So it has to be read with that in mind. But the author has obviously done his homework and has alot to say about his subject. However, this book has its limitations. There are far too many mispellings for my taste and, therefore, it should have been edited properly. And there are some subjects which I wish the author had expanded upon.

Nevertheless, it is worth reading if only because its author is willing to confront uncomfortable facts about Islam and especially its founder, Mohammed. In that, this book is very politically incorrect. But since I am not interested in political correctness, but factual correctness, that was not an issue for me. The facts that are particularly uncomfortable that this book discusses concern the life and mentality of Mohammed. The bottom line is that Mohammed was no Jesus. Mohammed was a warrior not just a prophet. That story alone is worth the price of this book.

Finally, what sets this book apart is that its author is willing to take a pull-no-punches approach to his subject and his views on his subject. This book is worth reading if only because it presents a powerful and persuasive point of view. It is a shame that more authors aren't willing to stick their necks out as Trifkovic does in this book.

There has been a flood of books on Islam penned in the past view decades, and especially since September 11. This volume appeared just after the New York tragedy, and is one of the better volumes on Islam and its impact on the world.

Trifkovic provides a brief look at the life of Muhammad, a detailed account of Islamic beliefs, and a discussion on how Islam in the modern world is faring. The book has meaty chapters on jihad, the outcomes of Islamic thinking, Western appeasement and Islamic immigration.

He begins by noting that "beliefs have consequences" and argues that Islamic beliefs lead to some very serious consequences. Islam is not just a religion, but an all-inclusive way of life. In this light, the chapter on jihad is perhaps the one most readers would be interested in. Just what does jihad mean? Is Islam a religion of peace? Are Muslim suicide bombers aberrations in Islam, or a natural by-product of it?

Trifkovic answers these questions in the context of an important Islamic distinction. Muslims believe that the world is divided into two camps, the Dar-al-Islam (the House of Islam) and Dar-al-Harb (the House of War). There can be no lasting piece until the House of War (those who are non-Muslims) finally submit to the House of Islam.

The House of Islam is in a state of permanent war with the lands that surround it, says Trifkovic: "It can be interrupted by temporary truces, but peace will only come with the completion of global conquest". Thus the real meaning of jihad is the perpetual and obligatory war of Muslims against unbelievers.

But what about the distinction so often heard between the greater and lesser jihad? The greater refers to the spiritual struggle one goes through, while the lesser is the militant, armed variety. Yet as the author demonstrates so well, the life and teaching of Muhammad, the Hadith, and the early centuries of Islamic expansion all point to armed struggle as the main understanding of jihad.

Islam really teaches that the greater jihad of personal spiritual struggle can only come about when the lesser jihad has been accomplished, with Islam in global dominion. Real peace (the cessation of inner spiritual struggle) can only achieved when global Islamic rule is established.

Indeed, a good Muslim is one who believes that Islam must rule the world. This seems plain enough from the teachings of the Koran. So do all Muslims want the world to be subject to Sharia law? No, but that may just mean that not all Muslims are fully committed to their faith, and are simply nominal. In the same way, we can answer this question: are there moderate Muslims? Yes, is the clear answer. But it is perhaps the wrong question. The real issue is, is Islam moderate? Trifkovic clearly thinks that it is not, and to be a serious follower of Islam means to abandon moderation: "Islam is and always has been a religion of intolerance, a jihad without an end."

Thus contemporary "radical Islam" is not in fact a deviation but a natural expression of the teachings and history of Islam. Therefore, the Wahhabi movement, for example, in its desire to recover pure Islam on a global basis, is not tangential to Islam but is in fact mainstream Islam.

His chapter on the fruits of Islam further makes this case. The way women are viewed in Islamic societies, the way dissenters are treated, the continuing problem of slavery, the inherent anti-Semitism, these are all examples of the totalitarian, anti-democratic nature of Islam: "The all-pervasive lack of freedom is the hallmark of the Muslim world."

Western appeasement has also been a major problem. Indeed, Trifkovic laments the West's efforts to support "moderate" Muslim states, noting that all such support has been counterproductive. For various reasons, including dependence on Arab oil, the West has sought to get along with Islamic nations, instead of challenging their many shortcomings.

And the struggle is ultimately a religious one: "To face the war of religion that has been imposed on it, the West also needs to rediscover its own religion, or at least to stop denying its value."

He concludes by saying we need to do two things: reject anti-democratic and totalitarian religions and worldviews of any stripe, and proclaim loudly and proudly the virtues of a free and open society. We have no obligation to respect other cultures and ideas when they "lead to human suffering, misery and servitude".

Of course in an age of political correctness and guilt manipulators, such advice may be hard to follow. But if we at all value the freedoms and privileges of living in the West, even with all its faults, then we need to start displaying some moral and intellectual clarity. Making distinctions is part of that clarity. And the distinctions raised in this book are an important contribution to the struggle that we find ourselves in.

If you don't know whether the USA is a part of the dar-al sulh or the dar-al-harb, READ THIS BOOK! Most Americans have their heads in the sand about what the global efforts of the Jihad that IS Islam has in store for us. How many people know that the oft-quoted nice-sounding "Meccan" parts of the Koran have been abrogated by the later "Medinan" parts? (so you Should kill all the Infidels, afterall!). Or that the head Saudi cleric declared the world to be flat! Or that 1/3 of the babies born in France are now Muslim! Americans ignore this at their peril. Political correctness doesn't stand-up to the nearly 1400 years of track-record that is Islam. Ever wonder why there have never been any Islamic democracies? (If you think that Turkey is one, you really need to educate yourself, and this is a good place to start).

All in all, the book is a good, concise, compelling exposition of critical issues at the interface of Islam and the West. Westerners may not want a religious war, but it has already been declared on us.