Don't listen to the reviewers who say Robert Spencer is not knowledgeable enough about Islam. He could teach quite a few Muslims about their own books and history, I have studied it deeply for seven years myself.

Also bear in mind the doctrine of Al-Taqiyya and Kithman or kitman, which began as a shia practice (they claim)but is widespread in all of Islam to protect the faith from outside critcism for some of it's questionable teachings. I deal daily one on one with Moslems real time, online and they very frequently use this practice. Even posing as non-muslims in order to decieve others. It really is amazing how proud they are of outwitting.

Mohammad himself said it was ok to lie to enemies (and that all infidels are enemies) as well as to your wives, and instructed a few of his followers to join the enemy camp by claiming they were friends and abhorred Mohammad. Islam is in no way, shape or form similar to Christianity, so one must bear this in mind and not assume the religion says to be kind to unbelievers or love your enemies. It is actually the opposite school.

I have known of Robert Spencers work for some time now and he has always been impeccable and non judgemental in his work. This book is as equally fair and a valuable addition to anyone's library who wants to have concrete knowledge about Islam.

I do not hate Muslims. But I have come to strongly dislike Mohammadism amd what it has been doing to the people as a whole, who choose to closely follow Mohammads teachings.

THE ADVICE OF AN AKKADIAN FATHER TO HIS SON. (c. 2200 BCE):
"Do not speak ill, speak only good. Do not say evil things, speak well of people. He who speaks ill and says evil---people will waylay him because of his debt to Shamash. Do not talk too freely, watch what you say. Do not express your innermost thoughts even when you are alone. What you say in haste you may regret later. Exert yourself to restrain your speech. Do not return evil to your adversary; requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, maintain justice for your enemy, be friendly to your enemy. Give food to eat, beer to drink, grant what is requested, provide for and treat with honor. At this one's god takes pleasure. It is pleasing to Shamash, who will repay him with favor. Do good things, be kind all your days." FROM THE BABYLONIAN LIBRARY OF NINEVEH.
This should serve as a lesson to those who are so quick to throw dirt at others and hurt their work, name and dignity....The Sumerians had more dignity and character than many of those who spit venomous reviews...
I am not good enough or qualified enough to review great books, so I keep my mouth clean and shut.
Rifat Andari

Robert Spencer produces a hateful, revisionist, and triumphalistic argument about why he thinks Christianity and the Western world (he conflates the two) are superior to Islam. Christianity is a religion of peace and dialogue and Islam a religion of terror and suppression. He accuses Christianity's detractors of "cherry-picking" evidence of the support of violence in the Old and New Testaments, but then goes on to do the same in his treatment of the Qu'ran and Christian history itself.
But the most basic error he makes is to dismiss the long and bloody history of Christian cruelty, forced conversion, slavery, destruction of native cultures, and environmental disaster with a flick of his temporal wand. Yes, there were Christians who did such things in the past, he notes, but this was not essential to Christian's message of peace and love for others. Besides, most of these more troublesome episodes of Christian history were not as bad as they seemed and have now passed. Christian anti-Semitism was not all that bad (especially compared with Muslim anti-Semitism). Slavery was a mistake and Christians finally figured that out.
Even if one accepts the latter point that such Christian atrocity-mongering has diminished (which is eminently debatable with good Christians in America still enthused for racial and gender inequality and positively foaming at the mouth for guns, capital punishment, and a vast nuclear arsenal) it is patently false to suggest that it was anything other than the Enlightenment, the throwing off of theocracies, and the embrace of secular, constitutional democracies, that spurred our best, though always fragile, efforts to live with our differences without killing each other.
No one is arguing, as Spencer seems to believe, that there are not Islamic terrorists and theocrats who wish to suppress people with Sharia law. They use religion to justify their violence. Yet Spencer ignores the consensus that most of the anger that drives such things is political rather than religious. It is anger at Western cultural hegemony, globalization, and the inequality of wealth that feeds the discontent of radical Islam.
Why should Christians who do evil get the benefit of the doubt that they simply missed the point of their faith's deeper teachings on peace in the pursuit of more worldly and self-serving ends, while Muslims do so because they are just following their religion? Because Spencer wants to goad on the great "Clash of Civilizations" view of the world and take up good, loving, Christian arms, if necessary, to defend the great Western civilization of peace and reason. With books like these, he and his ilk may just succeed.

Spencer is well studied in islam... This is more of an eye openening / informative book rather than an "islam bashing" book as the bad rerviews here accuse. If you want to understand the jihadists of today you must understand the historical / religious roots of their belief. Spencer points out text in the koran / hadiths to the modern jihad and helps remove the whitewash of the "religion of peace". I thought it was a good read.

Robert Spencer is among only a handful of people in the United States that is not only a walking wealth of information on the religion of Islam, but has the courage to speak his convictions. This is a truly courageous act for which he receives numerous death threats from those "Religion of Peace" adherents. If you want to experience a very small taste of what his courage brings Mr. Spencer for exercising his freedom of speech rights, just peruse the 1-star ratings on this book. Mr. Spencer has always maintained a standing invitation to anyone wanting to debate his facts in an open and public discussion. Few have attempted to do so and those who have, always came out the losers. The reason is that Mr. Spencer does not speak from his emotions or personal bias, but from the scriptures of the Koran, the Sira and Hadith, as determined by the major religious teachings of all the major Sunni and Shia theological leaders in the world today.
His many detractors don't offer any evidence that what Mr. Spencer writes and says is in error, they simply do what ignorant bullies do the world over. They threaten and resort to character assassination, which is all they are left with when confronted by the truth. Almost every single book authored by Mr. Spencer has made the New York Times Bestseller list, and for good reason. Hasn't anyone noticed how the "Religion of Peace" followers rioted over the Danish cartoons, the short video "Fitna," the murder of Danish citizen Theo Van Gogh, the endless fatwa's calling for the murder of those who speak out against the "Religion of Peace," such as Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses? Has anyone noticed the worldwide celebratory crowds of thousands of Muslims around the world, who are so quick to publicly celebrate the Iranian takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979? Or the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983? And of course the worldwide euphoric eruption of sheer joy from Muslims around the world on 9/11?
More to the point, has any one else noticed the deafening silence from the Muslim community against these same acts? Mr. Spencer's book "Religion of Peace" is factual and well written. I would highly recommend any of his books and eagerly await his future ones as well. If you want to know what is going on in the world of Dar al-Islam then go back to sleep, but if you are interested in your future and the future of our children, then I would read every article or book written by the superbly knowledgeable and talented Robert Spencer.

It's astonishing that other reviewers think this book presents "facts". It is a starkly ignorant book (and this is an understatement) of vast swathes of Islamic history which, if examined, would disprove its main theses almost point by point (for e.g. that Islam is the "religion of the sword", rejects rationality, etc). Islam is not perfect, and no religion is, but it is downright dishonest to take a look at a book (the Quran) and base your judgment of an entire culture on it. Look at the history of a culture and how it USED the book as a civilizational project. In this respect, Islam has been astonishingly open and tolerant. Again, I am not saying Islam is perfect, but the above picture is so ignorant and biased that it doesn't take much research to show that it is grossly distorting.

An even cursory acquaintance with Islamic civilization and history ought to dispel such long-standing ideologies as the above (not to mention that Christianity waged battles of the sword in the Mideast and the Americas of horrifying proportions, in which millions of people died (the Spanish Conquistadors or Columbus were peaceful Christians?!! read the historical record and see for yourself what a wonderful and loving Christians they were). Despite that, and despite being a non-religious person, I condemn neither Islam nor Christianity wholesale as faiths). Religions are not coherent bodies of belief; hell, not even philosophy is, and it is one of the most systematic attempts in human history to systematize our beliefs about the world, so how could religion be?

For the historically challenged like our author:
even in medieval times, there were debates over the question of reason and its relation to faith in Islam. The great Muslim philosopher Averroes went so far as to say that philosopher and prophets are on an equal footing, i.e. that prophets have no more claim on the truth than do philosophers. There were even atheists in the history of Islam, one of them for instance was the great physicist Ibn al-Haitham, and the great poet al-Ma'ari.
finally, Islamic philosophy and science had an enormous impact on Western thought and have been one of the prime sources (often unacknowledged) behind the development of Western modernity. They went far beyond the Greek philosophers and scientists they learned from and developed the scientific method before even the great Bacon. read a good history of science and you'll see that immediately (for instance the renowned BBC science historian James Burke in his series which you can find on youtube, called The Day the Universe Changed, shows this very clearly. And that's just he tip of the iceberg as far as Muslim contributions to science and rational inquiry go).
so one can only conclude that far from Islam being irrational, it is the book that is.

so please spare us the hate-mongering in the guise of "facts", since the book is clearly deeply under-infomred! and please dear reviewers who bought this cheap trick of a book, don't be so gullible as to base wholesale condemnations of entire civilizations and cultures on one or even several biased accounts. surely one has to be more responsible and inquire and search for oneself what the truth of such matters is. after all, isn't this an Emersonian (and American) virtue, of "self-reliance"? or do you simply abandon critical judgment and rationality when Islam is under discussion?
so before accusing others of being irrational barbarians, let's look at ourselves in the mirror when we so heinously misrepresent and condemn an ENTIRE civilization. we ought to be more responsible as citizens of a democracy.

I studied Islam on my own for 6 months last year. I read ONLY Muslim texts and avoided anything like this until I could form my own opinion. I have 5 English translations of the Qur'an, Bukhrai and Muslim (collections of hadith) and Tafsir Ibn Kathir. I have read as much of it as I could stand.

You can do it the hard way like I did, or you can read this book. Spencer has Islam spot on accurate. Islam is not a religion of peace. In fact it's more of a tribal code of law than a religion. The Islamic world view divides the world into two camps, the House of Islam, and the House of War. If you aren't Muslim, you are in the House of War.

There may be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Learn it the easy way by reading Spencer, or learn it the hard way and pick up a Qur'an and hadith, but learn it! You need to learn the truth for yourself.

This book is a attempt to demonize Islam, Maybe the author wanted a quick buck, but he has no degree or history in Theology, or Islamic studies, his book is full of his own ideas and opinions. I would have to say this is a very bad source of information, If I could give it 0 stars I would. If you want to learn about Islam really people talk or read a book by a Muslim, and not a Christian/Jewish person, who has personal problems with Islam. :-)

Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. Hardly the "hate filled Islamaphobe" that he is portrayed to be by some. While there are many accusations against Spencer for taking verses out of context, omitting details or outright lies not one critic has EVER taken Spencer up on his long standing challenge to prove him wrong..NOT A SINGLE ONE..so this lends credence to the fact that most negative critics of Spencers are either horribly uninformed or just plain dishonest themselves in their reviews.

What I like most about Spencer is that when writing his books he never takes sides or uses opinion but instead relies on a completely reliable review of many basic and irrefutable facts, quotes, documents, and historical findings. What is most ironic is when he is criticized for inciting hate and anger against Muslims when he is merely reprinting actual quotes from Muslims clerics who they themselves are calling for hate and violence against non-Muslims.

Does Christianity have a history steeped in violence as critics claim? Is it fair to say that Islam is no more or no less violent than Christianity? One arguement that is most often used (and used incorrectly) is that of the Crusades. History (and Spencer)shows us that the crusades were a late, limited and unsucessful response to Islamic jihad conquests that began 450 years before. At the time of the first crusade Islam had conquered half of Christendom and had denied access to Jews and Christians to the Holy Land.

Overall, Spencer does a good job at examining and dispelling the common myths that are often used by Muslims and apologists to muddy or disrupt any comprehensive and honest attempt to study Islam. The fact is, regardless of violence in the name of religion in the past, NOT A SINGLE RELIGION OTHER THAN ISLAM has such a violent present. One must not overlook the irony that whenever the topic of Islam/Quran/Mohammed/Muslims is perceived to be negatively portrayed, the reaction of the Muslim communities throughout the world is almost certainly violent. How many innocent people have been killed by Muslims reacting to the Danish cartoons, The Teddy Bear named Mohammed, Guantanimo Bay Quran incident(Newsweek later admitted to fabricating it but people died nonetheless) the short film 'Submission' which resulted in the brutal murder of the Dutch filmaker Theo Van Gogh, "Fitna" the short internet presentation, the release of books etc..

A quote by Hossain Salahuddin, a poet, essayist and former Muslim: Islam has always been associated with political expansion and that's where Jihad or holy war comes into affect. Quran and Hadith repeatedly say that nothing is greater, so far as goodness goes, than Jihad in the name of Allah. Some apologists will try to tell you that Islam is a religion of peace, Jihad is allegorical, and it does not mean violence etc. But the bloody history of Islam tells us a very different story. And the Quran is actually supposed to be taken literally. Muhammad repeatedly said that the Quran is not poetry or allegory; it is the clear voice of Allah himself so that everyone can understand and take it seriously; it is actually blasphemous even to think the Quran as an allegory.
In Hadith, the collection of traditions, Muhammad asked his followers to stop any un-Islamic practice by force many times. As a religion, Islam has a long tradition of deep rooted hatred towards unbelievers. In the Quran, Allah repeatedly commanded Muslims to engage in Holy war and promised unlimited reward in the afterlife if one becomes a martyr in the war for the glory of Allah.

Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. Hardly the "hate filled Islamaphobe" that he is portrayed to be by some. While there are many accusations against Spencer for taking verses out of context, omitting details or outright lies not one critic has EVER taken Spencer up on his long standing challenge to prove him wrong..NOT A SINGLE ONE..so this lends credence to the fact that most negative critics of Spencers are either horribly uninformed or just plain dishonest themselves in their reviews.

What I like most about Spencer is that when writing his books he never takes sides or uses opinion but instead relies on a completely reliable review of many basic and irrefutable facts, quotes, documents, and historical findings. What is most ironic is when he is critizied for inciting hate and anger against Muslims when he is merely reprinting quotes from Muslims clerics who themselves are calling for hate and violence against non-Muslims.

Does Christianity have a history steeped in violence as critics claim? And is it fair to say that Islam is no more or no less violent than Christianity? One arguement that is most often used (and used incorrectly) is that of the Crusades. History shows us that the crusades were a late, limited and unsucessful response to Islamic jihad conquests that began 450 years before. At the time of the first crusade Islam had conquered half of Christendom and had denied access to Jews and Christians to the Holy Land.

Overall, Spencer does a good job at examining and dispelling the common myths that are often used by Muslims and apologists to muddy or disrupt any comprehensive and honest attempt to study Islam. The fact is regardless of violence in the name of religion in the past, NOT A SINGLE RELIGION OTHER THAN ISLAM has such a violent present. One must not overlook the irony that whenever the topic of Islam/Quran/Mohammed/Muslims is perceived to be negatively portrayed, the reaction of the Muslim communities throughout the world is almost always violent. How many innocent people have been killed by Muslims reacting to the Danish cartoons, The Teddy Bear named Mohammed, Guatanimo Bay Quran incident(Newsweek later admitted to fabricating it but people died nonetheless) the short film 'Submission' which resulted in the brutal murder of the Dutch filmaker Theo Van Gogh, the release of books etc..

A quote by Hossain Salahuddin, a poet, essayist and former: Islam has always been associated with political expansion and that's where Jihad or holy war comes into affect. Quran and Hadith repeatedly say that nothing is greater, so far as goodness goes, than Jihad in the name of Allah. Some apologists will try to tell you that Islam is a religion of peace, Jihad is allegorical, and it does not mean violence etc. But the bloody history of Islam tells us a very different story. And the Quran is actually supposed to be taken literally. Muhammad repeatedly said that the Quran is not poetry or allegory; it is the clear voice of Allah himself so that everyone can understand and take it seriously; it is actually blasphemous even to think the Quran as an allegory.
In Hadith, the collection of traditions, Muhammad asked his followers to stop any un-Islamic practice by force many times. As a religion, Islam has a long tradition of deep rooted hatred towards unbelievers. In the Quran, Allah repeatedly commanded Muslims to engage in Holy war and promised unlimited reward in the afterlife if one becomes a martyr in the war for the glory of Allah.

The book presumes to compare the aspects of the two religions, and then operates on the premise that the author's version of Christianity is the only correct religion in the world. Not only is that sad for him, but it is sad for those who believe that they are going to get an honest evaluation of the two different religions. The author ignores Christian atrocities, and instead casts all Muslims (over a billion, last count) in the negative light that has been created by a few.

Oh, and it reads about as well as a junior high school tract. Boring with a capital "B."

Okay, I have read another book by this author - Islam Unveiled - as well as a couple chapters of this book in the bookstore. The problem I have with this author's approach is that along with other Islam-bashers he dehumanizes the 'Other' and sets up the ideals of one religion ( Christianity ) against the daily practices and faults of another ( Islam ). It isn't honest. Better that Spencer should either compare the ideals of the two religions or the behavior of their followers, at least that would seem more fair. I've studied as a religious major in college both the histories and beliefs of Islam and Christianity and I can say that they are both equally guilty of their share of intolerance and violence and cruelty as well as producing morality, beauty, and spiritual wisdom. These latter qualities are best found in Islamic mysticism and Christian mysticism. Islam has Bin Laden and innumerable other terror groups but it also has Rumi, Ibn al-Arabi, Mansur al-Hallaj, and Hafez, etc. Christianity has the inquistion, sexual abuse, the anti-semitic underpinnings of the Holocaust and yet it also has Jesus of Nazareth, Francis of Assisi, St. Anthony of Egypt, Meister Eckhart and many more. The problem I have with Robert Spencer and the other authors like him is the they are not fair and balanced. God is not human but religions are, and so are our fellow citizens, the Muslims.

All Christians should read this book and then beware. Vote for a Christian president to lead this country in the right direction so that we can fight this evil empire. Spencer documents all statements with facts that cannot be denied.

Islam must not be blamed for what a tiny (in %) group of extremists do, just like we do not blame Christianity for what happened to the 30 millions native American Indians, or what the Nazis or Fascists did in Europe. Nobody blamed Christianity when the 4 American GI's raped, killed and burned the 15-year old Iraqi girl after killing both her parents and 5-year old brother, when they were supposed to protect her. This is just one exmaple. Crime is much higher in the west (especially the US). Few extremists do not represent 1.5 Muslims in the world. Every religion has its own extremists, there is no exception. However, when someone does something bad anywhere in the world, we (in the west) blame his/her religion, only if he/she is Muslim. What kind of justice or fairness is this? The Arabs represent more than 90% of Semite people of the world, so anti-Semetism is anti-Arab too? How many of us in the west know that... so much mis-information and ignorance.

This book confirmed what I already believed and none of my perceptions regarding Islam were flattering.

Please save your money.
The premises of this book is that the west should defend their religion (namely Christianity) and their culture. The author claims that these things come from Judeo-Christian influence, that modern Western society is built on it. The author makes these claims and as proof of these claims makes other claims- no proof at all.
The author appears to be an ill informed student. Modern Western society is not the offspring of irrational religion. It is influenced by the ideas of law, representation, universal virtues (i.e. cause no harm, courage, love, truth...), but not Levitial laws or Christian dogma.
In fact the West has fought for years to over come irrationalism and that is really what this fight on "terror" is about.
It is a conflict over irrationality and rationalism. Religion by it's nature is subjective and irrational...hardly the 'ideal' for a stable culture.

I have to agree with Art Lewis above. And would reference and second, verbatim, his analysis:


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.

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.

I just finished this book. This guy is amazing and brave. Good read. Again, I am happy that there are men out there who will not be pushed around by the PC and Islamo bully crowd and speak out. The First Amendment lives on!!!!!! .... Long live the First Amendment and death to Sharia and the book burners!!!!

Yes, perhaps Spencer is, in the end, correct. Christianity as a religion may be more peaceful than Islam. The problem is, that's a concept. Now let's talk about individuals. That's not mentioned. If a bomber flown by a Christian blows up a neighborhood (I think that has happened a time or two), then where's the difference?

Great book! Tells a story that desperately needs to be told. Thoroughly researched.

After reading this book for the second time, I came to the conclusion that most of the bad things you hear about Christianity during the "dark" ages were probably bad thing done by Islam, but blamed on Christianity. The reason that Islam doesn't get the blame for the bad things it does is because, like today, no one was allowed to talk negatively about Islam. Since only good things were allowed to be said about Islam, and since the Muslims said bad things about Christianity (just like today), someone consulting history would probably come to the conclusion that Christianity was obviously bad.

Mr. Spencer makes it very clear (with evidence to support his points) that Christianity was responsible for almost all of the scientific advancements during the Islamic period. Just about the only advancements which Islam could claim were those they stole from conquered peoples. In fact, Muslims were so anti-science that they wouldn't even allow public clocks until around the 19th century.

If no one is allowed to criticize Islam, then that should raise a huge red flag about what Islam is really all about.

And if they convert people at the point of a gun, did the person really convert?

One of the most obvious differences between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity seeks converts through debate and discussion, whereas Islam seeks converts through threats and intimidation.

After just glancing inside this book and looking at the titles of the chapters, I felt like a Jewish person in WWII. Books like this should have a mandatory label on the front cover that says BIASED OPINION. Of course he will say that he is only giving us information from the texts of Islam itself. He does use the Koran and Hadith and nobody can deny that, but can anyone deny that he also makes sure we only see one side of the texts and uses a BS concept of abrogation in the Quran to make his points. He doesn't even mention that the Quran says to "never take life that Allah made sacred except by way of justice and law." 17:33, 6:161, 5:32 and in the Hadith, the Prophet forbid the killing of women and children. Volume 4, Book 052, Number 258

I can't believe he says that women are respected more in Christianity. "O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness" 4:19 For Muslim men and women - for believing men and women.... for them has God prepared forgiveness and a great reward. 33:35 In the Hadith, the Prophet said, "The most perfect believer is one who is the best in courtesy and amiable manners, and the best among you people is one who is most kind and courteous to his wife." Islam gave women rights, like the right to own property, at a time when the Church was debating whether women had souls.

Muslims in power have followed "Let there be no compulsion in religion" 2:256 and "Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious" 16:125 And by the way, 2:256 was revealed at a time when children of the Idolaters could have been converted to Islam easily, but this religion is the truth and God only accepts faith from those who freely choose to become Muslims. What about those violent verses? Those "kill them wherever you find them" verses. If you think that this refers to all non-Muslims forever and for no reason besides not accepting Islam, you are so mistaken that it is laughable. You should think for a second about this and ponder over the idea of 1.4 billion Muslims with the common goal of killing all the 4.6 billion Non-Muslims. The idea borders on retardation. The author suggests that when the Prophet went to Medina, he was no longer peaceful. This verse was revealed in Medina after a battle "If they incline towards peace, then seek peace as well. And place your trust in God, for God hears and knows all things." 8:61 The second chapter was also revealed in Medina "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; 2:190. Notice the "don't be an aggressor part." Islam was ahead of the UN and NATO by 1300 years. Please don't say that Islamic armies invaded other nations as if they were invading sovereign states like Kuwait. They were living in a different time where you were the conquered or the conqueror and they allowed people to continue worshiping in churches and synagogues.

Jihad can be done by the pen, by spending money in the cause of good, by striving to support your family, and it also can be done by military means. It is through fighting evil on the battlefield that these verses of killing apply and there are rules in war that must be followed. It was jihad when the U.S. fought and killed Nazis during WWII. It was jihad when the colonists rebelled against the oppressive policies of the British. It is also Jihad when the Prophet Muhammad fought the Polytheists who outnumbered the Muslims 3 to 1 and were hell bent on murdering all the Muslims.

As far as verse 9:29 which says to fight the people of the book till they pay the jizya. Can someone explain to me why Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda and every other terrorist group in the world have never even mentioned this verse in all of their video recordings? It is not befitting for a Muslim to kill an innocent person under any circumstances and it is also a major sin to commit suicide in Islam. Verse 4:29 I would like to remind everyone that Muslims were killed on 9-11 and it is among the greatest sins in Islam to kill an innocent Muslim.

I suggest Christians who want to compare Islam with their religion to do 3 things. First is to read the Quran Ch 19 which is titled after the mother of Jesus, Mary, in order to see why Mary was not stoned to death for being guilty of fornication according to Jewish law. After you read that, I would suggest reading the last sermon of the Prophet Muhammad and here is a line from it, "YOU ARE ALL EQUAL. NOBODY HAS SUPERIORITY OVER THE OTHER EXCEPT BY PIETY AND GOOD ACTION." After reading these, if you still are not convinced that Islam is the truth and if you ignore the fact that Jesus was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel (the Jews) Matt 15:24, you should visit a mosque in your area on a Friday afternoon. I see Mormons and Non-Muslim white people in my local mosque all the time. Some of them convert to Islam while others leave enlightened.

In closing, I will repeat to you word for word what Napoleon Hill, author of one of the most successful books of all time, Think and Grow Rich, said about the Prophet Muhammad in his book. "The Koran, the revealed word of God, was the closest thing to a miracle in Mohammed's life. He had not been a poet; he had no gift of words. Yet the verses of the Koran, as he received them and recited them to the faithful, were better than any verse which the professional poets of the tribes could produce. This, to the Arabs, was a miracle... In addition the Koran said that all men were equal before God, that the world should be a democratic state, Islam. It was this political heresy, plus Mohammed's desire to destroy all the 360 idols in the courtyard of the Caaba, which brought about his banishment. The idols brought the desert tribes to Mecca, and that meant trade. So the business men of Mecca, the capitalists, of which he had been one, set upon Mohammed. Then he retreated to the desert and demanded sovereignty over the world.

Out of the desert came a flame which would not be extinguished--a democratic army fighting as a unit and prepared to die without wincing. Mohammed had invited the Jews and Christians to join him; for he was not building a new religion. He was calling all who believed in one God to join in a single faith. If the Jews and Christians had accepted his invitation, Islam would have conquered the world. They didn't. They would not even accept Mohammed's innovation of humane warfare. When the armies of the prophet entered Jerusalem not a single person was killed because of his faith. When the crusaders entered the city, centuries later, not a Moslem man, woman, or child was spared. But the Christians did accept one Moslem idea--the place of learning, the university."

I will try to respond to something said in response to my review. Someone said "Spencer has a great love and affection toward the muslim people." I don't think people understand the ramifications that come about when a person's religion is attacked and called evil. In the days after 9-11, hate crimes against Muslims increased 300%. It is also worth noting that 75 percent of hate crimes go unreported and never get into FBI records. Why do you think it is that innocent Muslims are attacked and even Sikhs, who only resemble Muslims, are attacked and even killed in public? It is directly from the hysteria of Islam being a threat to the West that is produced from the media and Spencer is part of that media with this book.

The Jews in Germany did not wake up one day and find themselves inside ovens. Christians in Europe discriminated against Jews for centuries. The Roman Catholic Church taught anti-Jewish beliefs and attitudes and those teachings did not advocate the killing of Jews. However, the propagation of hatred, insults, degradation, and demonization of Jews induced many Catholics to accept anti-Semitic measures when the Nazis and their collaborators introduced them in the 20th century. The same was true of Protestant churches. The pamphlet "On the Jews and their Lies," written by German religious reformer Martin Luther advocated the burning of synagogues and initiated an environment that condoned and approved the persecution of Jews. We have in Spencer a mild Martin Luther. He hasn't called for the killing of Muslims, but he has propagated hatred, insults, and demonized Islam, which is indirectly a call for hatred of those who follow Islam and Muslims will never give up their religion. If we want Muslims to continue to be harassed and injured at random and if we want mosques to be set on fire like a mosque in Antioch that was lit up by an arsonist in August or the Islamic Education Center of Tampa that was set ablaze in April, then we should go ahead and continue to support Spencer's books. I hope that is not the case.

After just glancing inside this book and looking at the titles of the chapters, I felt like a Jewish person in WWII. Books like this should have a mandatory label on the front cover that says BIASED OPINION. Of course he will say that he is only giving us information from the texts of Islam itself. He does use the Koran and Hadith and nobody can deny that, but can anyone deny that he also makes sure we only see one side of the texts and uses a BS concept of abrogation in the Quran to make his points. He doesn't even mention that the Quran says to "never take life that Allah made sacred except by way of justice and law." 17:33, 6:161, 4:29, 5:32 and in the Hadith, the Prophet forbid the killing of women and children. Volume 4, Book 052, Number 258

I can't believe he says that women are respected more in Christianity. "O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness" 4:19 For Muslim men and women - for believing men and women.... for them has God prepared forgiveness and a great reward. 33:35 In the Hadith, the Prophet said, "The most perfect believer is one who is the best in courtesy and amiable manners, and the best among you people is one who is most kind and courteous to his wife." Islam gave women rights, like the right to own property, at a time when the Church was debating whether women had souls.

Muslims in power have followed "Let there be no compulsion in religion" 2:256 and "Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious" 16:125 And by the way, 2:256 was revealed at a time when children of the Idolaters could have been converted to Islam easily, but this religion is the truth and God only accepts faith from those who freely choose to become Muslims. What about those violent verses? Those "kill them wherever you find them" verses. If you think that this refers to all non-Muslims forever and for no reason besides not accepting Islam, you are so mistaken that it is laughable. You should think for a second about this and ponder over the idea of 1.4 billion Muslims with the common goal of killing all the 4.6 billion Non-Muslims. The idea borders on retardation. The author suggests that when the Prophet went to Medina, he was no longer peaceful. This verse was revealed in Medina after a battle "If they incline towards peace, then seek peace as well. And place your trust in God, for God hears and knows all things." 8:61 The second chapter was also revealed in Medina "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; 2:190. Notice the "don't be an aggressor part." Islam was ahead of the UN and NATO by 1300 years. Please don't say that Islamic armies invaded other nations as if they were invading sovereign states like Kuwait. They were living in a different time where you were the conquered or the conqueror and they allowed people to continue worshiping in churches and synagogues.

Jihad can be done by the pen, by spending money in the cause of good, by striving to support your family, and it also can be done by military means. It is through fighting evil on the battlefield that these verses of killing apply and there are rules in war that must be followed. It was jihad when the U.S. fought and killed Nazis during WWII. It was jihad when the colonists rebelled against the oppressive policies of the British. It is also Jihad when the Prophet Muhammad fought the Polytheists who outnumbered the Muslims 3 to 1 and were hell bent on murdering all the Muslims.

As far as verse 9:29 which says to fight the people of the book till they pay the jizya. Can someone explain to me why Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda and every other terrorist group in the world have never even mentioned this verse in all of their video recordings? It is not befitting for a Muslim to kill an innocent person under any circumstances and it is also a major sin to commit suicide in Islam. Verse 4:29 I would like to remind everyone that Muslims were killed on 9-11 and it is among the greatest sins in Islam to kill an innocent Muslim.

I suggest Christians who want to compare Islam with their religion to do 3 things. First is to read the Quran Ch 19 which is titled after the mother of Jesus, Mary, in order to see why Mary was not stoned to death for being guilty of fornication according to Jewish law. After you read that, I would suggest reading the last sermon of the Prophet Muhammad and here is a line from it, "YOU ARE ALL EQUAL. NOBODY HAS SUPERIORITY OVER THE OTHER EXCEPT BY PIETY AND GOOD ACTION." After reading these, if you still are not convinced that Islam is the truth and if you ignore the fact that Jesus was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel (the Jews) Matt 15:24, you should visit a mosque in your area on a Friday afternoon. I see Mormons and Non-Muslim white people in my local mosque all the time. Some of them convert to Islam while others leave enlightened.

In closing, I will repeat to you word for word what Napoleon Hill, author of one of the most successful books of all time, Think and Grow Rich, said about the Prophet Muhammad in his book. "The Koran, the revealed word of God, was the closest thing to a miracle in Mohammed's life. He had not been a poet; he had no gift of words. Yet the verses of the Koran, as he received them and recited them to the faithful, were better than any verse which the professional poets of the tribes could produce. This, to the Arabs, was a miracle... In addition the Koran said that all men were equal before God, that the world should be a democratic state, Islam. It was this political heresy, plus Mohammed's desire to destroy all the 360 idols in the courtyard of the Caaba, which brought about his banishment. The idols brought the desert tribes to Mecca, and that meant trade. So the business men of Mecca, the capitalists, of which he had been one, set upon Mohammed. Then he retreated to the desert and demanded sovereignty over the world.

Out of the desert came a flame which would not be extinguished--a democratic army fighting as a unit and prepared to die without wincing. Mohammed had invited the Jews and Christians to join him; for he was not building a new religion. He was calling all who believed in one God to join in a single faith. If the Jews and Christians had accepted his invitation, Islam would have conquered the world. They didn't. They would not even accept Mohammed's innovation of humane warfare. When the armies of the prophet entered Jerusalem not a single person was killed because of his faith. When the crusaders entered the city, centuries later, not a Moslem man, woman, or child was spared. But the Christians did accept one Moslem idea--the place of learning, the university."

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.

I agree with Mr. Spencer that the Muslims are deluding themselves that Islam is a religion of peace but I wish he wouldn't try and pass Christianity off as the best thing that could have happened to mankind.

Let face it. In terms of destruction and bloodshed, the difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity has undergone a period of reformation and later, thanks mostly to European intellectuals the age of reasoning further took the sting out the authority of the church which gave rise to the age of science and evidence based thinking. Islam has yet to undergo this change.

As is the case today with Islam, one would invite the wrath of the clergy if one spoke ill of the church, deny the holy spirit, or even be suspected of "co-hurting with the Devil" in some way. Some of the wacky and hateful things we get from Islam are also found in the Christian's so called "good book"

1 John 5:19 - Christians are "of God;" everyone else is wicked.
Jeremiah 1:16 - Those who worship "other gods" are wicked
2 John 7 - Non-Christians are deceivers and antichrists.
2 Peter 3:7 - God will set the entire earth on fire so that he can burn non-believers to death.
Roman 16:17 - Shun those who disagree with your religious views.
Ephesians 5:6 - Those who refuse to obey will face the wrath of God.
Exodus 22:18 - "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Thousands of innocent women have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse.

The book of Deuteronomy alone is fill with the death and destruction that Yahweh himself commanded, condoned, or he himself carried out.

By the way, as with Christianity, the Islamic world also has their version of "You are taking it out of context" or "You are reading from the wrong version" or some such sorry excuse.

Anyone wants to go back to a time when the Christian church and Christianity ruled supreme?????

This book should be required reading for all people who claim to have any Christian back-ground. This book gives a good understanding of the Muslims desire to convert all people to there religion even, and maybe mostly with violence.

Good job of giving us the facts, without any political correctness. Every person who desires to think about things honestly should read this book.

How antiquated and how discraceful it is to see such large numbers of people still in this day and age claim their religion is better then yours. It's almost childish, isn't it? But it's perfect. It truly does cater perfectly to the lowest common denominators of true thought, the religious masses. How obvious it is the fact these masses delete from their own minds their own native human instinct to question and in doing so defy who they are as a living species. Religions and blind faith in things we do not know shall eternaly prevent our species from continuing it's natural and very real evolution. And it truly is for this reason the people of our world shall never truly see eye to eye unless we can begin to beleive not in some ancient mythological lore but in ourselves as one people living in this very tiny place.

This is an excellent book and I recommend it for all who are interested in the struggle against radical Islam.

Had I the option of giving zero stars I would. Spencer seems to have nothing better to do than bash Islam under what he calls "reason". Sadly, Spencer's true agenda truly shines in this book, even look at the contradictory title. To say Christianity is a religion of peace and Islam isnt is totally prejuduce and shows that Spencer does not belong in te realm of academia. This is a good book if your a Christian extremist who wants to reaffirm the belief that Christianity is the only religion to reach salvation and that Islam is evil and scary. As a Muslim, I am personally offended by every piece I've read by Spencer.

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.

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.

Outstanding everyone in the west needs to read this. We all need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Mr Spencer was one of the first to acknowledge the threat of Islam, and with his new book he goes on to describe in detail things about Islam that we should all have learned during our school years. Islam has been at war with the rest of the world since it's founding; it has left a trail of death and destruction in it's path. However, the liberal tradition that has evolved in the west has failed to see how great this existential threat is and what we need to do about it. In comparing it to Christianity, he plainly shows what anyone who has studied both religions should know; Christianity is really a religion of peace while Islam is a religion of conflict. This fact is so obvious that a book shouldn't be needed to tell the tale, but these are strange times that we live in.

Forget about Gandhi and Mother Teresa, Bobby is the ultimate example of how Jesus would have acted if he were alive. After all, he is only following Christ who said to "love your enemies". He shows his love by demonizing Islam. It doesn't matter that all Muslims are wiped with a broad brush by this book. It doesn't matter that innocent Muslims suffer because of it. Such was the case of 23 year old Isma Din, a Muslim woman wearing a headscarf, who was attacked in the street by a white girl who punched her repeatedly in the face. She suffered a fractured eye socket, swelling, and cuts to her nose, mouth and teeth in the assault. It is not far fetched to consider that her attacker had just read a book by Robert Spencer.

It is ironic how Spencer and people like him are quick to say that Islam was spread by the sword when the word sword is not mentioned in the Quran even once. Compare that to the Bible, which mentions the word sword more than 300 times and you can go to BibleGateway and check yourself. Of course Christians will say it is a spiritual sword that Jesus was talking about, but I think the Crusaders and the current US army has taken that sword literally and the verse Luke 19:27 which says to kill the enemies of Jesus may have also played a part.

Muslims are not out to rule the world and no innocent person has ever been converted to Islam by force and if they were, it was completely and absolutely against the commandments of the Quran. Verse 2:256 As for verse 9:29 which says "Fight those who believe not in God ... [even if they are] of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah." The consensus of Muslim scholars all say that this applies to those who fall under Muslim rule. At the time it was revealed, the Jews had conducted a peace pact with the Messenger after he migrated to Madinah. They betrayed the peace treaty and joined forces with the pagans and the hypocrites who were attempting to annihilate the Muslims. They fought against Muslims during one of the battles and only then Allah revealed 9:29. I recommend you read the book The Spread of Islam in the World. Once you can get over the myth that Islam was spread by the sword, you may then be able to see that maybe this religion actually is the truth and the Quran is really from God.

Jihad does not mean holy war. War in Arabic is Harb. Jihad means struggle and sometimes that struggle includes fighting and even killing those who try to kill you. Americans should be familiar with this as their country has struggled militarily more than any other country in the world. They also know that the right to self defense for the purpose of protecting oneself or ones family is not only a constitutional right but it is a human right and this according to Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The problem arises when this right to self defense is abused. Some Muslims, and I say some with emphasis, believe they can kill people who support those who oppress and harm them, whether they are innocent or not. This ideology is alien to the true practice of Islam and the Quran, which says to "never take life that Allah hath made sacred except by way of justice and law." 17:33 and 6:151.

The command in the Quran to "kill them wherever you find them" is a verse that is meant to inspire a people to rise from being victims to being victors. It was never meant to be a license to kill innocent people, although Muslims may have used it to do just that. It coincides with the verses in the Quran which say to "fight those who fight you." 2:190 and with standing up to tyrants "And why shouldn't you fight in the path of God of those oppressed men, women, and children, who cry "Our Lord, take us out from this city and its people who are wrongdoers, and decree for us a protector 4:75

We, as human beings, will instinctively protect ourselves when we are threatened. The Quran is only reaffirming this and telling us it is ok to defend yourself against evil doers. We all know guns are meant to protect us from the threats of criminals, but we also know that guns are misused all the time and it results in thousands of deaths every year. Islam is currently being misused by people who are assuming it is ok to kill civilians or innocent people. Why would God even allow for his book to be misinterpreted in the first place you might ask. Allah answers this question in the Quran "He sent down this scripture, containing straightforward verses - they are the essence of the scripture - as well as allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create misunderstanding, and to extricate a certain meaning." 3:7

Muslims are commanded to defend themselves like the majority of mankind would prefer to do rather than do as the Christians doctrine says to love your enemies. That is why the U.S. didn't "turn the other cheek" after 9-11 because Americans would not accept that. Sometimes peace can only be achieved through war and that is why Islam in theory is superior to Christianity. Even if a Muslim attacks another Muslim without any reason, that aggressor is to be fought with the same force as any other person.

As for the early Muslim conquests; the reason why Muslims expanded their borders in the early years is because they were living in a time in history where a nation of people were either conquered or were the conqueror. If the Muslims didn't take over nearby lands, they would have been overtaken by the likes of the Byzantine Empire, ie the Romans and the Persian Empire. And unlike every other conqueror in history, they took care of those under their power making those who did not convert pay a small tax. Even during the Crusades and after the bloodbath done by Christians, Muslims treated Christians kindly. They were led by Saladin who captured Jerusalem after the battle of Hettin and did not loot, murder or seek revenge for the Muslims. He spared the lives of 100,000 Christians and he only emulated the Prophet Muhammad who also forgave the people of Mecca who had abused and killed Muslims for 20 years. He is a man who preached Islam in Mecca when there was no prospect of success. He was known throughout Arabia as the honest one and was humble all throughout enduring hardships to deliver the message of God to all of humanity. He is the one who was prophesized in the Old Testament in Deuteronomy 18:18 as the Prophet like Moses from among the brethren (Ishmael) of the Jews. I suggest watching Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet and reading Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Timeto learn more about this great man.

"Ye [Muslims] are the best of people, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in God. If only the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but many of them are perverted transgressors. (The Quran 3:110)" In Spencer, we have a perverted transgressor.

It is hard not to notice all the wars being conducted around the world and how many of them are motivated, at least in part, by conflicts with Islam. Many of us want to believe that Islam and the liberal ideas of the West can live togther in peace. However, there is currently too much evidence suggesting that this is not possible -- and may never be. Spencer lays out the case for why this will be a long, hard struggle. I have no doubt that the majority of Muslims want to live their lives in peace, but unfortunately the radicals seem to rule. How do we get out of this? It seems that the only thing we can do is to support the Muslim moderates while standing up for our Western liberal ideals. Right now there seem to be only a handful of Muslim moderates and the West seems unwilling to stand up for what it has fought so hard to achieve. Spencer has the courage to stand up. We should all -- Westerners and Muslims -- thank him.

Forget about Gandhi and Mother Teresa, Bobby is the ultimate example of how Jesus would have acted if he were alive. After all, he is only following Christ who said to "love your enemies". He shows his love by demonizing Islam. It doesn't matter that all Muslims are wiped with a broad brush by this book. It doesn't matter that innocent Muslims suffer because of it. Such was the case of 23 year old Isma Din, a Muslim woman wearing a headscarf, who was attacked in the street by a white girl who punched her repeatedly in the face. She suffered a fractured eye socket, swelling, and cuts to her nose, mouth and teeth in the assault. It is not far fetched to consider that her attacker had just read a book by Robert Spencer.

It is ironic how Spencer and people like him are quick to say that Islam was spread by the sword when the word sword is not mentioned in the Quran even once. Compare that to the Bible, which mentions the word sword more than 300 times and you can go to BibleGateway and check yourself. Of course Christians will say it is a spiritual sword that Jesus was talking about, but I think the Crusaders and the current US army has taken that sword literally and the verse Luke 19:27 which says to kill the enemies of Jesus may have also played a part.

Muslims are not out to rule the world and no innocent person has ever been converted to Islam by force and if they were, it was completely and absolutely against the commandments of the Quran. Verse 2:256 As for verse 9:29 which says "Fight those who believe not in God ... [even if they are] of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah." The consensus of Muslim scholars all say that this applies to those who fall under Muslim rule. At the time it was revealed, the Jews had conducted a peace pact with the Messenger after he migrated to Madinah. They betrayed the peace treaty and joined forces with the pagans and the hypocrites who were attempting to annihilate the Muslims. They fought against Muslims during one of the battles and only then Allah revealed 9:29. I recommend you read the book The Spread of Islam in the World. Once you can get over the myth that Islam was spread by the sword, you may then be able to see that maybe this religion actually is the truth and the Quran is really from God.

Jihad does not mean holy war. War in Arabic is Harb. Jihad means struggle and sometimes that struggle includes fighting and even killing those who try to kill you. Americans should be familiar with this as their country has struggled militarily more than any other country in the world. They also know that the right to self defense for the purpose of protecting oneself or ones family is not only a constitutional right but it is a human right and this according to Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The problem arises when this right to self defense is abused. Some Muslims, and I say some with emphasis, believe they can kill people who support those who oppress and harm them, whether they are innocent or not. This ideology is alien to the true practice of Islam and the Quran, which says to "never take life that Allah hath made sacred except by way of justice and law." 17:33 and 6:151.

The command in the Quran to "kill them wherever you find them" is a verse that is meant to inspire a people to rise from being victims to being victors. It was never meant to be a license to kill innocent people, although Muslims may have used it to do just that. It coincides with the verses in the Quran which say to "fight those who fight you." 2:190 and with standing up to tyrants "And why shouldn't you fight in the path of God of those oppressed men, women, and children, who cry "Our Lord, take us out from this city and its people who are wrongdoers, and decree for us a protector 4:75

We, as human beings, will instinctively protect ourselves when we are threatened. The Quran is only reaffirming this and telling us it is ok to defend yourself against evil doers. We all know guns are meant to protect us from the threats of criminals, but we also know that guns are misused all the time and it results in thousands of deaths every year. Islam is currently being misused by people who are assuming it is ok to kill civilians or innocent people. Why would God even allow for his book to be misinterpreted in the first place you might ask. Allah answers this question in the Quran "He sent down this scripture, containing straightforward verses - they are the essence of the scripture - as well as allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create misunderstanding, and to extricate a certain meaning." 3:7

Muslims are commanded to defend themselves like the majority of mankind would prefer to do rather than do as the Christians doctrine says to love your enemies. That is why the U.S. didn't "turn the other cheek" after 9-11 because Americans would not accept that. Sometimes peace can only be achieved through war and that is why Islam in theory is superior to Christianity. Even if a Muslim attacks another Muslim without any reason, that aggressor is to be fought with the same force as any other person.

As for the early Muslim conquests; the reason why Muslims expanded their borders in the early years is because they were living in a time in history where a nation of people were either conquered or were the conqueror. If the Muslims didn't take over nearby lands, they would have been overtaken by the likes of the Byzantine Empire, ie the Romans and the Persian Empire. And unlike every other conqueror in history, they took care of those under their power making those who did not convert pay a small tax. Even during the Crusades and after the bloodbath done by Christians, Muslims treated Christians kindly. They were led by Saladin who captured Jerusalem after the battle of Hettin and did not loot, murder or seek revenge for the Muslims. He spared the lives of 100,000 Christians and he only emulated the Prophet Muhammad who also forgave the people of Mecca who had abused and killed Muslims for 20 years. He is a man who preached Islam in Mecca when there was no prospect of success. He was known throughout Arabia as the honest one and was humble all throughout enduring hardships to deliver the message of God to all of humanity. He is the one who was prophesized in the Old Testament in Deuteronomy 18:18 as the Prophet like Moses from among the brethren (Ishmael) of the Jews. I suggest watching Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet and reading Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Timeto learn more about this great man.

"Ye [Muslims] are the best of people, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in God. If only the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but many of them are perverted transgressors. (The Quran 3:110)" In Spencer, we have a perverted transgressor.

It is a sign of just how anti-Arab and anti-Muslim this country is that this book and its author, Robert Spencer, get the reception they do.

The best that can be said of Spencer is that he is ill-informed. The worst is that he a brazen advocate of American war crimes, and that's putting it mildly. Like Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Daniel Pipes, and a dismayingly large number of others, Spencer is a self-appointed expert eagerly accepted by institutions and news organizations determined to vilify every Muslim and Arab on the planet.

This and other works of his are riddled with errors, thick with deliberate misrepresentations. Were something like this written by an Arab of any affiliation, it would instantly be paraded as an example of how "malevolent" Islam is (and of course, this has happened).

Ask a Greek or an Armenian how "peaceful" the Islamic faith is and what this religion did to their forebears.

The trick is out of the bag: for 1300 years Islam has been trying to destroy non-believers and continues its crusade to submit the world to its oppression to this day.

If Islam is so peaceful, I ask you this question: can a Jew practice his or her religion in Saudi Arabia or Iran? How about a Christian? A Buddhist? An Agnostic?

Oh, another person you could ask about the peace of Islam is Theo Van Gogh. Well, you could have asked him if he wasn't brutally stabbed to death in broad daylight by a follower of Islam (all for producing a documentary movie). Or the Russian kindegarden students shot in the back by the great Islamic freedom fighters. Or the people riding the Madrid trains, or the London trains, or the Lockerbee flight, or the U.S.S Cole, or the U.S. Marine baracks in Lebanon, or the poor mothers and fathers going to work in the World Trade Towers to support their children on September 11, 2001.