2,407 of 2,816 people found the following review helpful
A crucial and timely analysis.,
This review is from: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (Paperback)
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.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 13 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 16, 2007 7:52:28 AM PDT
Textual corruption of the Bible is not only Muslim/Qur'anic position but top learned Christian scholars, who are not blinded by their fundamentalist doctrines, admit and ascertain to this historic fact (e.g. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus) by Bart D. Ehrman or The Cross & The Crescent by Jerald Dirks).
That said, to say that Muslims do not believe in Jesus is a blatant misinformation. Islam happens to be the only none Christian faith on the face of the earth that makes it an article of faith to believe in Jesus. Muslims believe in his miraculous birth (i.e. without any male intervention), they believe that he gave life to the dead (by God's permission) and healed those born blind and the lepers (by God's Permission), they believe (on the bases of the Qur'an) that he was the Messiah (translated: Christ - not God; word `Christ' only means anointed/appointed, in this case, by God to deliver his message to the Jews). Muslims don't hate Jesus - quite the contrary; they love and revere Jesus Christ, so much so that unlike modern Christians, you'll never hear the name of Jesus from a Muslim's lips without the suffix `peace be upon him'. Qur'an claims to be the continuation and correction (from human corruption), of the same message of God delivered by all the prophets including Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Muslims truly go beyond lip service and practically follow him (if you could observe them closely in their daily life and look beyond the rampant political Islam-bashing going on in the west these days) e.g. their greetings `AsSalam-o-Aliqum' (Translated: `peace be upon you') is word-for-word the same as Jesus used to greet. They pray like Jesus (e.g. in the Garden on Gethsemane); falling on their faces in humility. Instead of following Paul, Muslims take Jesus' words at face value. Following on Jesus' words (Mat 5:17-20) they don't eat pork, are circumcised and keep the law and commandments of God just like Jesus did and preached to his followers. Simply put, Muslims pray and follow the God of Jesus Christ.
What they don't accept is that he was God and that he died for anyone's sins. Both these ideas are later innovations and would have been repugnant to him in his own time. He never claimed `I am God' and he never said `Worship me' - on the contrary he said `my father is greater than I (john 14:28); my father is greater than all (john 10:29); I can, of my own self, do nothing (john 5:30).
Dying for someone else's sins and getting punished for someone else's crimes is unjust even from human imperfect standards (no civilized people ever allow that) and diametrically opposed to The Justice of God and His teaching. I give you Ezekiel-18 as my supporting evidence on this point.
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2007 12:01:04 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Oct 13, 2008 11:17:56 AM PDT]
In reply to an earlier post on Oct 27, 2007 9:02:36 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 27, 2007 9:18:12 PM PDT
Well said, Drumthwacket. I was a bit puzzled by the term "Protestant New Testament". The Textus Receptus was used in early North European translations largely because of unavailability of the better texts. The KJV is remarkably accurate considering the poor sources it was based upon. Nevertheless, the RSV (which I used for many years), NASB and so on follow its traditional phrasing while adding in scholarship based on better codici. Nowadays, however, the best widely used text is the NIV, which is neither "protestant" nor "catholic" in outlook. I use it almost exclusively now. It's own shortcoming is that it sometimes loses the pretty cadence of some older language versions. I will occasionally refer to the KJV or RSV or one in that family, or to nip over to the Jerusalem bible (Catholic), which has some pretty renderings although it lacks accuracy partly due to being a secondary translation from a french version.
I'll add a couple of things for Mr. Pearl seems to think (i) that Mr Spencer or the reviewer is unaware of the muslim teachings about Jesus (Spencer is not only aware of this but is very knowledgeable about such matters), and (ii) somehow saying that muslims think highly of Jesus somehow mitigates for all the evil things the religion is charged with. Sorry, you can't piggy-back a religion's morality on the well-known peaceful Character of christ. The character of Islam is clearly a reflection of the character of Mohammed.
I agree that some Muslims appear simply to worship the One God, and pay little attention to the less savory aspects of Islam. But it is very hard to reconcile two religions when the found of one mandates warfare upon the infidels (unbelievers) to bring them into submission while the founder of the other commands his followers to turn the other cheek and love their enemies. Although followers of both faiths would agree that there is only one God it does not follow that they both worship the SAME god. Indeed, if we infer the character of the god of a religion from the life and words of the founder, then they cannot both be the same god -- that is, only one can be god, and the other is a fantasy.
Mohammed cannot lead you to the God of Christ; indeed, Mohammed preaches a different christ than the one found in the bible.
Posted on Dec 20, 2007 8:48:25 AM PST
S. Dallo says:
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 22, 2007 7:23:29 PM PST
"Islam is fastest growing religion in america !"
how does this get explained?
you decided to type the words.
because it isn't.
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2008 5:43:50 AM PST
fastest growing religion in america? hmmmm....could this be due to immigration, high birthrates among muslims, and prison outreach?
i have read that the islam of southeast asia has traditionally been more laid back and tolerant in nature than qutbist or wahabist islam.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 13, 2008 9:24:04 PM PDT
Tim Royal says:
Berean- Actually this is true to a degree, but there is still a strong belief in the Umma and Jihad as demonstrated by the recent Indonesian slaughter of Christians by Islamist groups. A reading of speeches by even the most moderate Islamic leaders in Southeast Asia leads one to understand that world domination is the ultimate goal of the Umma.
Islam is not the fastest growing religion in the U.S. by any measure. Its growth is almost entirely through immigration & birthrates.
In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2008 8:58:32 AM PDT
David D says:
What does popularity have to do with truth? The truth of a proposition is not established by counting the number of people who believe it. If this were not so, then we would be obligated to believe in astrology, which enjoys widespread popularity, but is condemned in both the Bible and the Koran.
Chose your arguments with care! Like dogs, they can secure your possition, or turn and bite you.
Posted on Jun 21, 2008 10:59:49 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 21, 2008 11:04:59 PM PDT
S. Swink says:
I would suggest reading:
'When Religion Becomes Evil: Five Warning Signs' by Charles Kimball
According to Kimball, a corrupted or evil religious ideology:
1. Claims absolute truth
2. Demands blind obedience
3. Promises utopia or 'heaven on earth'
4. Asserts 'the ends justify the means'
5. Advocates Violence/Jihad/Crusade/Holy War
If we agree on this definition, then we can find aspects within the Torah/Talmud, Bible and Koran as well as variants of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam which fit the definition to varying degrees. See the following:
'Is Religion Killing Us? Violence in the Bible And the Quran' by Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 11, 2010 10:38:31 AM PST
Amanda A says:
Berean, It is not that Islam in Southeast Asia is laid back. It is that ISlam is Southeast Asia is closet to how Islam is supposed to be practise but unfortunately the Wahhabites of Saudi Arabia with - note that Wahhabism (militant form of Islam) began in 19th century Saudi Arabia but was contained there until late 20th century. US in her use of Islamists in countering the Soviets and Saudi's donation from their oil $ had proided Wahhabism the opportunity to take root outside Saudi Arabia.