The great ideas of the West--rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, the rule of law and equality under the law, freedom of thought and expression, human rights, and liberal democracy--are superior to any others devised by humankind.

It was the West that took steps to abolish slavery; the calls for abolition did not resonate even in Africa, where rival tribes sold black prisoners into slavery. The West has secured freedoms for women and racial and other minorities to an extent unimaginable 60 years ago. The West recognizes and defends the rights of the individual: we are free to think what we want, to read what we want, to practice our religion, to live lives of our choosing.

In short, the glory of the West, as philosopher Roger Scruton puts it, is that life here is an open book. Under Islam, the book is closed. In many non-Western countries, especially Islamic ones, citizens are not free to read what they wish. In Saudi Arabia, Muslims are not free to convert to Christianity, and Christians are not free to practice their faith--clear violations of Article 18 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In contrast with the mind-numbing enforced certainties and rules of Islam, Western civilization offers what Bertrand Russell once called "liberating doubt," which encourages the methodological principle of scientific skepticism. Western politics, like science, proceeds through tentative steps of trial and error, open discussion, criticism, and self-correction.

One could characterize the difference between the West and the Rest as a difference in epistemological principles. The desire for knowledge, no matter where it leads, inherited from the Greeks, has led to an institution unequaled--or very rarely equaled--outside the West: the university. Along with research institutes and libraries, universities are, at least ideally, independent academies that enshrine these epistemological norms, where we can pursue truth in a spirit of disinterested inquiry, free from political pressures. In other words, behind the success of modern Western societies, with their science and technology and open institutions, lies a distinct way of looking at the world, interpreting it, and recognizing and rectifying problems.

The edifice of modern science and scientific method is one of Western man's greatest gifts to the world. The West has given us not only nearly every scientific discovery of the last 500 years--from electricity to computers--but also, thanks to its humanitarian impulses, the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International. The West provides the bulk of aid to beleaguered Darfur; Islamic countries are conspicuous by their lack of assistance.

Moreover, other parts of the world recognize Western superiority. When other societies such as South Korea and Japan have adopted Western political principles, their citizens have flourished. It is to the West, not to Saudi Arabia or Iran, that millions of refugees from theocratic or other totalitarian regimes flee, seeking tolerance and political freedom. Nor would any Western politician be able to get away with the anti-Semitic remarks that former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad made in 2003. Our excusing Mahathir's diatribe indicates not only a double standard but also a tacit acknowledgment that we apply higher ethical standards to Western leaders.

A culture that gave the world the novel; the music of Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert; and the paintings of Michelangelo, da Vinci, and Rembrandt does not need lessons from societies whose idea of heaven, peopled with female virgins, resembles a cosmic brothel. Nor does the West need lectures on the superior virtue of societies in which women are kept in subjection under sharia, endure genital mutilation, are stoned to death for alleged adultery, and are married off against their will at the age of nine; societies that deny the rights of supposedly lower castes; societies that execute homosexuals and apostates. The West has no use for sanctimonious homilies from societies that cannot provide clean drinking water or sewage systems, that make no provisions for the handicapped, and that leave 40 to 50 percent of their citizens illiterate.

As Ayatollah Khomeini once famously said, there are no jokes in Islam. The West is able to look at its foibles and laugh, to make fun of its fundamental principles: but there is no equivalent as yet to Monty Python's Life of Brian in Islam. Can we look forward, someday, to a Life of Mo? Probably not--one more small sign that Western values remain the best, and perhaps the only, means for all people, no matter of what race or creed, to reach their full potential and live in freedom.

The koran is the most violent, disgusting pieces of garbage ever written by lunatics who were child molesters, caravan raiders, murderers and bandits. Islam, is a fanatical, cult-like belief that doesn't allow anyone to convert out and yet forces people in. Ibn Warraq, like myself, a former muslim, sheds excellent light, as usual, on the truth behind this demonic, cult-like evil ideology known as islam, not through his own opinion as these islamic lunatics will claim, but by the word of the koran itself. It is predictable taht the average mohammedan will sink into rage simply because mohammedans, being largely ignorant and uneducated, cannot stand having their ideology exposed through the very tenets fo their faith, which most don't even know how to translate into their native language. As predicted, muslim lunatics jumped on the opportunity to bash him and insult, which is what muslims always do since they are ignorant.

The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of muslims learn the koran's tenets by heart, as was also the custom in my familly before they left islam too. After reading and understanding that islam advocates murder, racism, genocide and war for an arabian moon god, many like myself and Ibn warraq leave islam. One thing the reader must appreciate aobut the author in general and in particular this work, is that he is trutuful, scholarly, honest and not critical for the sake of denouncing a violent cult.

He uses the koran ITSELF and tenets from it in order to expose its fallacy and violence, and correctly talks of the experience of millions of Persians, Turks, Indians and others who were made into obedient puppets, forced to accept an arabian cult withough really understanding the principles of hate towards other beliefs and the constant advocacy of war and strife against other communities. The review of lunatic, spiteful ignorant mohammedans on this book pretty much exposes their stupidity and ignorance, as Ibn warraq so eloquently does without resorting to name calling and hate as the mohammedans usually do. Ibn Warraq's extensive knowledge of the koran and its tenets, along with its meaning, make him an excellent authority on islam today as when he first published "why I am not a muslim".

Herbert Berg has labelled him as polemical and inconsistent in his writing.[5] Fred Donner, a professor in Near Eastern studies, notes Ibn Warraq's lack of specialist training in Arabic studies, citing "inconsistent handling of Arabic materials," and unoriginal arguments. Donner also criticizes Ibn Warraq for what he describes as "heavy-handed favoritism" and "the compiler's [Ibn Warraq] agenda, which is not scholarship, but anti-Islamic polemic." -Wikipedia

This book is not at all interesting. It uses recycled material from other polemics. Not only that, his arguments have a weak base and are simply not at all scholarly. Taking a look at this other books, its no secret that Ibn Warraq is not in search of anything other than having people come to his side.

Since ibn warraq has an "inconsistent handling of Arabic materials," how can we accept this book as sound, seeing how the Quran is in Arabic?

I am not impressed... I was looking for something that was comprehensive in its argument and found this to be rather malicious and agenda-driven. If his arguments are indeed true in regards to Islam, intolerance, and jihad, then historically we must have lived in another world because applying these principles, as stated by the author, by the Muslims when they ruled the civilized world for 100s of years would have resulted in a much different world, not one where the European enlightenment got its spark and source of knowledge from.

I converted to Islam in Islamabad on 9/24/2000 and I have carefully read the Koran (King Fahd edition) twice, taking notes of the contents. The heart of the Koran is to enjoin the good and forbid the bad and to have faith. The Koran says, over and over, that these three things are required of an obedient Muslim (Islam means simply submission to the Will of God):
1. To show God that you love him, you must be constantly on the lookout for opportunities to do good deeds for your fellow man. The best good deeds are those that only God himself knows that you did. These deeds will help add weight to your storehouse above referred to as your "treasures in heaven" in the bible. The Koran says that one angel records each human's good deeds and another one records the person's bad deeds. The extensive record of the good and bad actions of the person will be examined on the last day of the existing systems to determine whether the person qualifies to enter into the renewed Garden of Eden where there will be no sickness or death, and where old people will become young, and waters will flow under the garden watering each living thing as necessary.
2. To show proper fear of God, you must avoid doing the acts which he has prohibited, such as illegal sexual intercourse, stealing, murder, etc. as per most religions, and most of all, not worshipping anything other than God himself; and
3. You must have strong faith in the munificence of God. This means you truly believe He is a good God with plans for good things in the future for his obedient ones such as mentioned in #1 above.

Read the Koran yourself and you will see this is the substance of the Koran.

Tedious, academic, rarely really says what the Koran really says, just history of translation difficulties allowing much room for 'alternate' interpretation cop-out. More than a little disappointing, but scholarly veneer.

Despite the title, if you're looking for a book about "what the Koran really says," this might not be the best item for your needs.

You see, it's a collection of essays brought together by a renowned Islamic dissident, the pseudonymous Ibn Warraq. And they're scholarly essays, each laden with extensive citations.

The book is a weighty one, going into excruciating detail into Islamic philology and textual exegesis. It is not for the general reader.

Here's a sample:

"As far back as I was able to follow up the occurrence of 'eternal' for 'as-samad' in the West, the first scholar to have it, among other meanings, is A. Giggei in his 'Thesaurus linguae Arabicae.' However, for the Quranic passage, Giggei has: 'Deus ad quem omnia nostra diriguntur. Perfectissimus.' It might be noted that Giggei's predecessor, Fr. Raphelengius, in his 'Lexicon Arabicum,' renders 'samad' with 'indesecabilis, incorporeus.' Before that, there could be no question of adopting the translation of 'eternal,' except, perhaps, in the thirteenth-century Spanish translation of al-Mubassir b. Fatik's 'Muhtar al-hikam' were 'as-samad' appears to have been rendered through 'el durable.'" (p. 327)

Think you're up to it?

Anyhow. All this scholarship drives us on to only one conclusion: there's no such thing as moderate Islam. Or moderate Muslims. There are either Muslims who are unaware of what the Koran really says -- or those who are trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

So this book is for a specialist audience. People who need to, say, nitpick about certain suras or ayahs in their writing.

For the general reader, I would heartily recommend Robert Spencer's "Islam Unveiled," a chilling but far more casual analysis of the same material that will bring you much more quickly to a useful and accurate understanding of what it is the Koran is really saying. Plus it's more engagingly written: you might as well be entertained while you're being disturbed.

I did not expect a scholarly work, and was pleasantly surprised. Naturally, some parts of the book therefore make difficult reading, but if you actually want to learn something about Islam, it is well worth the effort.

Ibn Warraq goes well beyond many other writers that also provide great works about Islam and Muslims. He points out issues and problems that the non-Muslims and some Muslims have in trying to understand the essence of the Qur'an and lays out the origins and the thinking process that gave birth to the interpretations of suras that are not clear. People want to know the Qur'an and to evaluate it with respect to whether they can embrace all are part of it, or to put it away as impossible to comprehend. Ibn clarifies some of these problems and allows a deeper look into the religion.