What do you think?
Rate this book
Politically Incorrect Guides
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam
While many choose to simply blame the West for provoking terrorists, Robert Spencer’s new book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)™ reveals why it is time to ignore political correctness and identify the enemy - if we hope to ever defeat them.\
In a fast-paced, politically incorrect tour of Islamic teachings and Crusades history, Spencer reveals the roots of Islamic violence and hatred. Spencer refutes the myths popularized by left-wing academics and Islamic apologists who justify their political agendas with contrived historical “facts.”
Exposing myth after myth, the author tackles Islam’s institutionalized mistreatment of non-Muslims, the stifling effect Islam has on science and free inquiry, the ghastly lure of Islam’s X-rated Paradise for suicide bombers and jihad terrorists, the brutal Islamic conquests of the Christian lands of the Middle East and North Africa, and more
How Muhammad did not teach “peace and tolerance”—instead he led armies and ordered the assassination of his enemies Why American Muslim groups and left-wing academics are engaged in a huge cover-up of Islamic doctrine and history. How today’s jihad terrorists following the Qur’an’s command to make war on Jews and Christians have the same motives and goals as the Muslims who fought the Crusaders Why the Crusades were not acts of unprovoked aggression by Europe against the Islamic world, but a delayed response to centuries of Muslim aggression What must be done today—from reading the Qur’an to reclassifying Muslim organizations—in order to defeat Muslim terrorists
In a fast-paced, politically incorrect tour of Islamic teachings and Crusades history, Spencer reveals the roots of Islamic violence and hatred. Spencer refutes the myths popularized by left-wing academics and Islamic apologists who justify their political agendas with contrived historical “facts.”
Exposing myth after myth, the author tackles Islam’s institutionalized mistreatment of non-Muslims, the stifling effect Islam has on science and free inquiry, the ghastly lure of Islam’s X-rated Paradise for suicide bombers and jihad terrorists, the brutal Islamic conquests of the Christian lands of the Middle East and North Africa, and more
How Muhammad did not teach “peace and tolerance”—instead he led armies and ordered the assassination of his enemies Why American Muslim groups and left-wing academics are engaged in a huge cover-up of Islamic doctrine and history. How today’s jihad terrorists following the Qur’an’s command to make war on Jews and Christians have the same motives and goals as the Muslims who fought the Crusaders Why the Crusades were not acts of unprovoked aggression by Europe against the Islamic world, but a delayed response to centuries of Muslim aggression What must be done today—from reading the Qur’an to reclassifying Muslim organizations—in order to defeat Muslim terrorists
270 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2001
160 people are currently reading
1557 people want to read
About the author
Robert Spencer
119 books317 followersROBERT SPENCER is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of seventeen books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies). Coming in November 2017 is Confessions of an Islamophobe (Bombardier Books).
Spencer has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the FBI, the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group, the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), the Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council and the U.S. intelligence community. He has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the German Foreign Ministry. He is a consultant with the Center for Security Policy.
Spencer is a weekly columnist for PJ Media and FrontPage Magazine, and has written many hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism. His articles on Islam and other topics have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Examiner, the New York Post, the Washington Times, the Dallas Morning News, Fox News Opinion, National Review, The Hill, the Detroit News, TownHall.com, Real Clear Religion, the Daily Caller, the New Criterion, the Journal of International Security Affairs, the UK’s Guardian, Canada’s National Post, Middle East Quarterly, WorldNet Daily, First Things, Insight in the News, Aleteia, and many other journals. For nearly ten years Spencer wrote the weekly Jihad Watch column at Human Events. He has also served as a contributing writer to the Investigative Project on Terrorism and as an Adjunct Fellow with the Free Congress Foundation.
Spencer has appeared on the BBC, ABC News, CNN, FoxNews’s Tucker Carlson Show, the O’Reilly Factor, Megyn Kelly’s The Kelly File, the Sean Hannity Show, Geraldo Rivera Reports, the Glenn Beck Show, Fox and Friends, America’s News HQ and many other Fox programs, PBS, MSNBC, CNBC, C-Span, CTV News, Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News, France24, Voice of Russia and Croatia National Television (HTV), as well as on numerous radio programs including The Sean Hannity Show, Bill O’Reilly’s Radio Factor, The Mark Levin Show, The Laura Ingraham Show, The Herman Cain Show, The Joe Piscopo Show, The Howie Carr Show, The Curt Schilling Show, Bill Bennett’s Morning in America, Michael Savage’s Savage Nation, The Alan Colmes Show, The G. Gordon Liddy Show, The Neal Boortz Show, The Michael Medved Show, The Michael Reagan Show, The Rusty Humphries Show, The Larry Elder Show, The Peter Boyles Show, Vatican Radio, and many others.
Robert Spencer has been a featured speaker across the country and around the world and authored 17 books. Spencer’s books have been translated into many languages, including Spanish, Italian, German, Finnish, Korean, Polish and Bahasa Indonesia. His Qur’an commentary at Jihad Watch, Blogging the Qur’an, has been translated into Czech, Danish, German, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese.
Spencer (MA, Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) has been studying Islamic theology, law, and history in depth since 1980. His work has aroused the ire of the foes of freedom and their dupes: in October 2011, Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups wrote to Homeland Security Advisor (and current CIA director) John Brennan, demanding that Spencer be removed as a trainer for the FBI and military groups, which he taught about the belief system of Islamic jihadists; Brennan immediately complied as counter-terror training materials were scrubbed of all mention of Islam and jihad. Spencer has been banned by the British government from entering the United Kingdom for pointing out accurately that Islam has doctrines of violence against unbelievers. He has been invited by name to convert to Islam by a senior member of al-Qaeda.
Spencer has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the FBI, the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group, the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), the Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council and the U.S. intelligence community. He has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the German Foreign Ministry. He is a consultant with the Center for Security Policy.
Spencer is a weekly columnist for PJ Media and FrontPage Magazine, and has written many hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism. His articles on Islam and other topics have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Examiner, the New York Post, the Washington Times, the Dallas Morning News, Fox News Opinion, National Review, The Hill, the Detroit News, TownHall.com, Real Clear Religion, the Daily Caller, the New Criterion, the Journal of International Security Affairs, the UK’s Guardian, Canada’s National Post, Middle East Quarterly, WorldNet Daily, First Things, Insight in the News, Aleteia, and many other journals. For nearly ten years Spencer wrote the weekly Jihad Watch column at Human Events. He has also served as a contributing writer to the Investigative Project on Terrorism and as an Adjunct Fellow with the Free Congress Foundation.
Spencer has appeared on the BBC, ABC News, CNN, FoxNews’s Tucker Carlson Show, the O’Reilly Factor, Megyn Kelly’s The Kelly File, the Sean Hannity Show, Geraldo Rivera Reports, the Glenn Beck Show, Fox and Friends, America’s News HQ and many other Fox programs, PBS, MSNBC, CNBC, C-Span, CTV News, Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News, France24, Voice of Russia and Croatia National Television (HTV), as well as on numerous radio programs including The Sean Hannity Show, Bill O’Reilly’s Radio Factor, The Mark Levin Show, The Laura Ingraham Show, The Herman Cain Show, The Joe Piscopo Show, The Howie Carr Show, The Curt Schilling Show, Bill Bennett’s Morning in America, Michael Savage’s Savage Nation, The Alan Colmes Show, The G. Gordon Liddy Show, The Neal Boortz Show, The Michael Medved Show, The Michael Reagan Show, The Rusty Humphries Show, The Larry Elder Show, The Peter Boyles Show, Vatican Radio, and many others.
Robert Spencer has been a featured speaker across the country and around the world and authored 17 books. Spencer’s books have been translated into many languages, including Spanish, Italian, German, Finnish, Korean, Polish and Bahasa Indonesia. His Qur’an commentary at Jihad Watch, Blogging the Qur’an, has been translated into Czech, Danish, German, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese.
Spencer (MA, Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) has been studying Islamic theology, law, and history in depth since 1980. His work has aroused the ire of the foes of freedom and their dupes: in October 2011, Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups wrote to Homeland Security Advisor (and current CIA director) John Brennan, demanding that Spencer be removed as a trainer for the FBI and military groups, which he taught about the belief system of Islamic jihadists; Brennan immediately complied as counter-terror training materials were scrubbed of all mention of Islam and jihad. Spencer has been banned by the British government from entering the United Kingdom for pointing out accurately that Islam has doctrines of violence against unbelievers. He has been invited by name to convert to Islam by a senior member of al-Qaeda.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 176 reviews
January 30, 2018
Ladies and gentlemen, I am quitting. I can't stomache this diatribe any further.
I do not have any illusion about Islam (or any religion for that matter), and I wouldn't have minded a criticism of the faith from a point of view outside the ambit of political correctness. But this is ridiculous.
The author could have saved a lot of effort and paper by just writing:
Christianity = Good
Islam = Bad.
This is not just politically incorrect: it's totally incorrect.
30/01/2018
Ladies and gentlemen: a Hindu fanatic troll who has been following me about for quite some time has infected this review too. If you want to see what's wrong with India today, you can read his demented ravings below. For further examples, visit my review of Hindutva.
Don't worry, only a miniscule number of Indians are like him. The majority are decent human beings.
I do not have any illusion about Islam (or any religion for that matter), and I wouldn't have minded a criticism of the faith from a point of view outside the ambit of political correctness. But this is ridiculous.
The author could have saved a lot of effort and paper by just writing:
Christianity = Good
Islam = Bad.
This is not just politically incorrect: it's totally incorrect.
30/01/2018
Ladies and gentlemen: a Hindu fanatic troll who has been following me about for quite some time has infected this review too. If you want to see what's wrong with India today, you can read his demented ravings below. For further examples, visit my review of Hindutva.
Don't worry, only a miniscule number of Indians are like him. The majority are decent human beings.
July 14, 2019
Bold, factual and significant... I commend Robert Spencer's guts and his writing style. He has written what needs to be written. I recommend this book to the readers who want to understand why some among us are hell-bent to defending Islam and some of us are ready to accept Islam for what it actually is - a religion that discriminates between believers and 'non-believers'.
Read
January 28, 2010Oh my God, what a stupid book.
It's difficult to know where to begin with a book like this. On the one hand, you cannot dismiss it as the invention of a whackjob. Robert Spencer has clearly done research on his subject and there are a fair number of points that an honest mind would have to concede to him.
Yes, Mr. Spencer, the Crusades were not an example of the Western world colonizing the Middle East.
and
Yes, Saladin's chivalrous reputation glosses over some of his bloodier exploits.
These two facts are used to buttress Mr. Spencer's assault on what he perceives to be the established view of the Crusades.
The way he misuses these facts demonstrates that Mr. Spencer is not engaged in scholarly analysis- he is simply selecting the facts that suit his viewpoint.
Take the point about colonizing. It would be easy to say that the Crusades were a form of colonial conquest - and Mr. Spencer rightly points out that this is mistaken. The Frankish kingdoms in the holy land were not extensions of their motherlands. They were independent conquests, ruled by the very nobles whose armies established them.
That changes nothing about the essential character of the Crusades. Namely: Frankish knights invaded the Holy Land to conquer it for their own gain, at the expense of its inhabitants, with the blessing and encouragement of the pope.
The fact that they didn't rename their conquests New Aquitaine and send money home to the king hardly mattered to the people they subjugated.
Spencer lingers over this meaningless technicality as if it undoes all of established history.
The historical record of the Crusades is eye-deep with barbarous actions by the invading crusaders: slaughtering the populations of surrendered cities (Jerusalem), treacherous knights (Tancred and Reynald de Chatillon) even cannibalism on the part of supposedly holy warriors.
After killing their way into Jerusalem, the system of government chosen by the Franks was pretty much beside the point. To any resident of the area, they were invaders. To any scholar of history, they were unprovoked invaders.
Spencer also takes great pains to point out the bloody deeds of Saladin as if to reveal some great cover up. The truth is, yes - Saladin enjoys a great reputation in the West for chivalry and piety. And yes, as Spencer points out - he did have thousands of his prisoners executed. (It's actually worse than what Spencer describes - Saladin had his prisoners executed by Sufis, -holy men, not soldiers- who botched their executions and caused additional suffering).
Only people who watch period movies will ever accuse Saladin of being a blameless adversary. Spencer is arguing with a myth that exists only in terrible movies like Kingdom of Heaven.
Western history remembers Saladin fondly because of his numerous acts of benevolence - chief among them releasing the residents of Jerusalem (after the Frankish nobles refused to buy their freedom, choosing instead to take their treasures with them). While many of his actions (like providing replacement horses to Richard I in battle) cold be seen as shrewd strategy - there is a definite chivalry gap between the Frankish knights and Saladin.
You could spend a long time trying to find a record of Tancred's good deeds in the holy land.
Spencer lingers long on the bloodshed of battle of Hattin, and pointlessly debates whether the 1099 fall of Jerusalem really made blood run leg-deep in the streets. For one thing, Spencer is comparing the end with the beginning.
Hattin was the culmination of the war against the Frankish kingdoms. It came in 1187, after almost a century of Frankish domination and bloodshed. To compare Saladin's extermination of the Frankish army at Hattin with the wholesale slaughter of 30,000-40,000 defenseless Jerusalem residents in 1099 is (to put it mildly) missing a bit of context.
The Franks brought the concept of total war to the Middle East. For many in the region this was their introduction to the West - a heavily armed mass of religious fanatics. When later Arab leaders like Baybars waged total war against the Franks there should be no confusion as to where they got the idea.
Spencer's arguments against Islam as a religion are best described as selective. Pitting one religion's writings against another is hardly an objective exercise - but he tries anyway. Here's a quote from his introduction trying to explain his motivation for doing so:
"...I have placed a "Muhammad vs. Jesus" sidebar in every chapter to emphasize the fallacy of those who claim that Islam and Christianity-and all other religious traditions, for that matter-are basically equal in their ability to inspire good or evil. It is also meant to emphasize that the West, built on Christianity, is worth defending, even if we live in a so-called post Christian era."
These are not the words of a scholar. They are the words of a modern crusader.
It's difficult to know where to begin with a book like this. On the one hand, you cannot dismiss it as the invention of a whackjob. Robert Spencer has clearly done research on his subject and there are a fair number of points that an honest mind would have to concede to him.
Yes, Mr. Spencer, the Crusades were not an example of the Western world colonizing the Middle East.
and
Yes, Saladin's chivalrous reputation glosses over some of his bloodier exploits.
These two facts are used to buttress Mr. Spencer's assault on what he perceives to be the established view of the Crusades.
The way he misuses these facts demonstrates that Mr. Spencer is not engaged in scholarly analysis- he is simply selecting the facts that suit his viewpoint.
Take the point about colonizing. It would be easy to say that the Crusades were a form of colonial conquest - and Mr. Spencer rightly points out that this is mistaken. The Frankish kingdoms in the holy land were not extensions of their motherlands. They were independent conquests, ruled by the very nobles whose armies established them.
That changes nothing about the essential character of the Crusades. Namely: Frankish knights invaded the Holy Land to conquer it for their own gain, at the expense of its inhabitants, with the blessing and encouragement of the pope.
The fact that they didn't rename their conquests New Aquitaine and send money home to the king hardly mattered to the people they subjugated.
Spencer lingers over this meaningless technicality as if it undoes all of established history.
The historical record of the Crusades is eye-deep with barbarous actions by the invading crusaders: slaughtering the populations of surrendered cities (Jerusalem), treacherous knights (Tancred and Reynald de Chatillon) even cannibalism on the part of supposedly holy warriors.
After killing their way into Jerusalem, the system of government chosen by the Franks was pretty much beside the point. To any resident of the area, they were invaders. To any scholar of history, they were unprovoked invaders.
Spencer also takes great pains to point out the bloody deeds of Saladin as if to reveal some great cover up. The truth is, yes - Saladin enjoys a great reputation in the West for chivalry and piety. And yes, as Spencer points out - he did have thousands of his prisoners executed. (It's actually worse than what Spencer describes - Saladin had his prisoners executed by Sufis, -holy men, not soldiers- who botched their executions and caused additional suffering).
Only people who watch period movies will ever accuse Saladin of being a blameless adversary. Spencer is arguing with a myth that exists only in terrible movies like Kingdom of Heaven.
Western history remembers Saladin fondly because of his numerous acts of benevolence - chief among them releasing the residents of Jerusalem (after the Frankish nobles refused to buy their freedom, choosing instead to take their treasures with them). While many of his actions (like providing replacement horses to Richard I in battle) cold be seen as shrewd strategy - there is a definite chivalry gap between the Frankish knights and Saladin.
You could spend a long time trying to find a record of Tancred's good deeds in the holy land.
Spencer lingers long on the bloodshed of battle of Hattin, and pointlessly debates whether the 1099 fall of Jerusalem really made blood run leg-deep in the streets. For one thing, Spencer is comparing the end with the beginning.
Hattin was the culmination of the war against the Frankish kingdoms. It came in 1187, after almost a century of Frankish domination and bloodshed. To compare Saladin's extermination of the Frankish army at Hattin with the wholesale slaughter of 30,000-40,000 defenseless Jerusalem residents in 1099 is (to put it mildly) missing a bit of context.
The Franks brought the concept of total war to the Middle East. For many in the region this was their introduction to the West - a heavily armed mass of religious fanatics. When later Arab leaders like Baybars waged total war against the Franks there should be no confusion as to where they got the idea.
Spencer's arguments against Islam as a religion are best described as selective. Pitting one religion's writings against another is hardly an objective exercise - but he tries anyway. Here's a quote from his introduction trying to explain his motivation for doing so:
"...I have placed a "Muhammad vs. Jesus" sidebar in every chapter to emphasize the fallacy of those who claim that Islam and Christianity-and all other religious traditions, for that matter-are basically equal in their ability to inspire good or evil. It is also meant to emphasize that the West, built on Christianity, is worth defending, even if we live in a so-called post Christian era."
These are not the words of a scholar. They are the words of a modern crusader.
April 16, 2007
This is the definitive answer to Karen Armstrong's well known history of Islam. Scary, captivating, and damned blunt, this is a must read book for anyone that hopes to live through the next two decades!
You think you know about Islam. But, did you know that Islam teaches that Muslims must wage war to impose Islamic law on non-Muslim states, or that American Muslim groups are engaged in a huge cover-up of Islamic doctrine? These and other "politically incorrect" facts are revealed by Robert Spencer in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Spencer traces the history of Islam, the teachings of the Qur'an, and the Crusades, and reveals the myths and realities related to Islamic law, the treatment of women, and the continuing jihad.
You think you know about Islam. But, did you know that Islam teaches that Muslims must wage war to impose Islamic law on non-Muslim states, or that American Muslim groups are engaged in a huge cover-up of Islamic doctrine? These and other "politically incorrect" facts are revealed by Robert Spencer in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Spencer traces the history of Islam, the teachings of the Qur'an, and the Crusades, and reveals the myths and realities related to Islamic law, the treatment of women, and the continuing jihad.
January 2, 2008
This book preaches hatred and I am disgusted that something so blatantly discriminatory is regarded as remotely acceptable. Shame on Robert Spencer for spreading hatred.
July 30, 2025
This book was recommended to me by an avid reader as "the best summary I have seen of the main tenants of Islam and how they relate to the current socio-political challenges of our world."
The power of this book is it's focus. Spencer uses primary sources to illustrate, not ALL the tenets of Islam, but simply those that have bearing on the socio-political interaction of Muslims within Islamic society and with those outside of Islamic society (be they co-located or in outside nations). Throughout the book there are recommendations for primary source research should the reader desire more information.
Spencer also has an agenda to expose the fallacies of the politically correct presentation of both Islam and Christianity in Western society. While I wasn't too interested in the Crusades section when I picked the book up, Spencer's logic was compelling enough for me to devour these sections when I came to them. His basic point is that both Islam and Christianity are being misrepresented in public discourse. Islam is being presented too favorably, while Christianity is being presented too harshly. The result is a dangerous underestimation of the political threat of Islam combined with an apathy toward Western civilization (and the Christianity it was built upon) which is rendering the West somnolent. This is a compelling argument that made me recognize my apathy and rethink some of my actions and beliefs.
As somewhat of an aside, I should mention that Spencer is intentional about documenting that NOT ALL MUSLIMS agree with ALL the concepts of Islam that he is presenting. But his point is three-fold: 1) We simply don't know a credible way to determine what percentage of Muslims embrace specific doctrines of their faith; 2) The concern remains that if one is truly committed to Islam, this IS what Islam teaches; and 3) While atrocities have certainly been committed by Christians, sometimes even in the name of their faith, an examination of Christianity (via the primary source method Spencer applies to Islam) reveals that Jesus and the Bible neither endorse nor encourage these egregious acts. Which brings me to...
Another theme of Spencer's work, though less developed, is that whether or not you agree with Christianity, it's presence was essential to the development of Western Civilization as we know it. The Christian (and in some cases Judeo-Christian) concepts of a natural order, freedom, loving others as yourself, intrinsic law (and therefore the requirement of lawfulness), and compassion for the oppressed, have not only influenced but molded our society into what it is today. Spencer contrasts the Islamic society which was established by Mohammed in rejection of these Judeo-Christian concepts and notes that the two worldviews are drastically different. This distinction is not of idea or religion only, because the society created by each is also vastly different, uncovering the reality that not many Westerners would want to live in the Islamic version. I know I certainly wouldn't.
Of course, the challenge Spencer faces is that telling Westerners this different worldview exists and is threatening their lifestyle is kind of like warning fish that water is drying up. Who can really fathom it? In order to increase my own comprehension, I think this is a book I will need to read again.
2017 Update:
This has come to my attention recently, and I've had to look it up a couple of times, so I'm hoping that typing it here will help me remember while also assisting readers evaluating this book. The white supremacist that has come to prominence in the USA recently is RICHARD SPENCER. The author of this book is an entirely different gentleman named ROBERT SPENCER, who is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of seventeen books. His full biography is here:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/about-robert
2025 Update:
For a different perspective on the same topic, covering the earliest days of the militaristic expansion of Islam through battles with Christendom, including the conquest and crusades, see:
Sword & Simitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, Raymond Ibrahim, 2018
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
The power of this book is it's focus. Spencer uses primary sources to illustrate, not ALL the tenets of Islam, but simply those that have bearing on the socio-political interaction of Muslims within Islamic society and with those outside of Islamic society (be they co-located or in outside nations). Throughout the book there are recommendations for primary source research should the reader desire more information.
Spencer also has an agenda to expose the fallacies of the politically correct presentation of both Islam and Christianity in Western society. While I wasn't too interested in the Crusades section when I picked the book up, Spencer's logic was compelling enough for me to devour these sections when I came to them. His basic point is that both Islam and Christianity are being misrepresented in public discourse. Islam is being presented too favorably, while Christianity is being presented too harshly. The result is a dangerous underestimation of the political threat of Islam combined with an apathy toward Western civilization (and the Christianity it was built upon) which is rendering the West somnolent. This is a compelling argument that made me recognize my apathy and rethink some of my actions and beliefs.
As somewhat of an aside, I should mention that Spencer is intentional about documenting that NOT ALL MUSLIMS agree with ALL the concepts of Islam that he is presenting. But his point is three-fold: 1) We simply don't know a credible way to determine what percentage of Muslims embrace specific doctrines of their faith; 2) The concern remains that if one is truly committed to Islam, this IS what Islam teaches; and 3) While atrocities have certainly been committed by Christians, sometimes even in the name of their faith, an examination of Christianity (via the primary source method Spencer applies to Islam) reveals that Jesus and the Bible neither endorse nor encourage these egregious acts. Which brings me to...
Another theme of Spencer's work, though less developed, is that whether or not you agree with Christianity, it's presence was essential to the development of Western Civilization as we know it. The Christian (and in some cases Judeo-Christian) concepts of a natural order, freedom, loving others as yourself, intrinsic law (and therefore the requirement of lawfulness), and compassion for the oppressed, have not only influenced but molded our society into what it is today. Spencer contrasts the Islamic society which was established by Mohammed in rejection of these Judeo-Christian concepts and notes that the two worldviews are drastically different. This distinction is not of idea or religion only, because the society created by each is also vastly different, uncovering the reality that not many Westerners would want to live in the Islamic version. I know I certainly wouldn't.
Of course, the challenge Spencer faces is that telling Westerners this different worldview exists and is threatening their lifestyle is kind of like warning fish that water is drying up. Who can really fathom it? In order to increase my own comprehension, I think this is a book I will need to read again.
2017 Update:
This has come to my attention recently, and I've had to look it up a couple of times, so I'm hoping that typing it here will help me remember while also assisting readers evaluating this book. The white supremacist that has come to prominence in the USA recently is RICHARD SPENCER. The author of this book is an entirely different gentleman named ROBERT SPENCER, who is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of seventeen books. His full biography is here:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/about-robert
2025 Update:
For a different perspective on the same topic, covering the earliest days of the militaristic expansion of Islam through battles with Christendom, including the conquest and crusades, see:
Sword & Simitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, Raymond Ibrahim, 2018
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
May 7, 2008
This is a controversial book; of that there is no doubt. It is difficult to endorse it without appearing to be racist or paranoid. That having been said, let me heartily endorse this book to anyone that does not believe that Western Society, Western Civilization is not threatened by the spread of Islam. Those that believe that Allah as worshipped by Islam is the same God Christians and Jew worship are either ignorant, at best, or diluded, at worst.
This book makes the case, through careful examination of the teachings of Mohammad, the interpretation of the teachings by 1300 years of Islamic clerics, and the continued growth of Islam, that the goal of Islam today is the same as it was 1300 years ago: a world wide theocracy in the Name of Allah where True Moslims will be first class citizens, Moslim converts will be second class citizens, and everyone else will be at the mercy of the first two groups. One only has to exam life in the Middle East and the Far East where Islam dominates to see this being lived out on a local scale.
Today, England, France, and Germany are making concessions to their quickly growing Moslim minorities. In the US, freedom of religion (other than Christianity apparently) allows unchecked growth of the Islamic community.
There is a crusade in progress and dispite the protests of Moslim clerics, it is not a Christian Crusade this time.
This book makes the case, through careful examination of the teachings of Mohammad, the interpretation of the teachings by 1300 years of Islamic clerics, and the continued growth of Islam, that the goal of Islam today is the same as it was 1300 years ago: a world wide theocracy in the Name of Allah where True Moslims will be first class citizens, Moslim converts will be second class citizens, and everyone else will be at the mercy of the first two groups. One only has to exam life in the Middle East and the Far East where Islam dominates to see this being lived out on a local scale.
Today, England, France, and Germany are making concessions to their quickly growing Moslim minorities. In the US, freedom of religion (other than Christianity apparently) allows unchecked growth of the Islamic community.
There is a crusade in progress and dispite the protests of Moslim clerics, it is not a Christian Crusade this time.
January 9, 2009
Makes broad, sweeping, wrong generalizations. Intolerant.
October 24, 2012
'...Guide to Islam' Wait, so I need a guide to go through the Quran or the Bible? It's a scripture right? A personal journey, no? So why would I need to use an obviously biased guide by the famously Islamophobic Robert Spencer to build my views on Islam? I wouldn't.
Spencer highly downplays Quranic verses throughout the book, makes erroneous assumptions and is totally lacking of any principle of Islam in this so-called guide. He implies Jihad is the center and core of all Islamic belief. It isn't. Instead, Muslims have commendable five pillars: Prayer, Oneness of God, Charity, Fasting and Pilgrimage. Does the Quran ignite Muslims to 'slay non-Muslims'? No. Like any other religious book, individual Quranic verses cannot be focused to produce a conclusion; rather entire chapters and the whole book should be taken harmoniously to give a conclusion on anything. Spencer simply imprints media beliefs onto readers, who already presume that Islam is a violent cult, and Spencer only further tries to prove this. A Muslim reader would instantly catch Spencer's act, though an American reader may foolishly accept his half-explained assumptions.
I also find it stupid that Spencer makes people believe people are sympathetic towards Muslims while 'harsh' towards Christians. There is nothing to say on this except it being a lie. A despicable, cruel and manipulative lie. I mean: the media totally proves that Islam is a very positive religion, right? Either Spencer subscribes to some pro-Islamic Arab provider, or the BBC, CNN and Sky News he watches are different to mine. There is nothing shown in the media of Islam other than one thing: Jihad. Jihad. Jihad. And maybe the veil (which is also stupidly called oppressive).
Then what's more disgusting is how Spencer makes Jihad an even more tyrannical Crusade. Does Jihad mean war in the first place? Nope. Does Spencer use the Hadith to explain the concept? Of course not. Well, guess what? The Hadiths repeatedly signify Jihad to be a spiritual battle to defeat evil passions within one's hearts. That's what is known to be the 'Greater Jihad', with the 'Lesser Jihad' being the more media famous physical Jihad, again, only valid in the name of self-defense. You won't find any example of the Prophet Muhammad fighting other than as a last resort. Unlike the verses of the Old Testament calling for war, the Hadiths signify that women, children and the aged may not be killed in any circumstance.
And finally, Spencer tries to explain that Islam really calls for violence. It's not hard to find Islamic verses condemning violence, or Hadiths doing the same. The name Islam is also derived from the word Salaam, literally peace. Anymore of Spencer's arguments i.e. oppression, pedophilia or lust are totally baseless. Aisha, the Prophet's famously 'child-bride' (who may anywhere from 9-24 during her marriage) was a military commander, a politician, a scholar and a 'blessed companion'. Now that's not something publicized.
In the end, the story only appeals to those minds who believe Islam is an incoherently violent religion, their views being seemingly true with today's violence in the Muslim world. It doesn't fool Muslims, at least.
Spencer highly downplays Quranic verses throughout the book, makes erroneous assumptions and is totally lacking of any principle of Islam in this so-called guide. He implies Jihad is the center and core of all Islamic belief. It isn't. Instead, Muslims have commendable five pillars: Prayer, Oneness of God, Charity, Fasting and Pilgrimage. Does the Quran ignite Muslims to 'slay non-Muslims'? No. Like any other religious book, individual Quranic verses cannot be focused to produce a conclusion; rather entire chapters and the whole book should be taken harmoniously to give a conclusion on anything. Spencer simply imprints media beliefs onto readers, who already presume that Islam is a violent cult, and Spencer only further tries to prove this. A Muslim reader would instantly catch Spencer's act, though an American reader may foolishly accept his half-explained assumptions.
I also find it stupid that Spencer makes people believe people are sympathetic towards Muslims while 'harsh' towards Christians. There is nothing to say on this except it being a lie. A despicable, cruel and manipulative lie. I mean: the media totally proves that Islam is a very positive religion, right? Either Spencer subscribes to some pro-Islamic Arab provider, or the BBC, CNN and Sky News he watches are different to mine. There is nothing shown in the media of Islam other than one thing: Jihad. Jihad. Jihad. And maybe the veil (which is also stupidly called oppressive).
Then what's more disgusting is how Spencer makes Jihad an even more tyrannical Crusade. Does Jihad mean war in the first place? Nope. Does Spencer use the Hadith to explain the concept? Of course not. Well, guess what? The Hadiths repeatedly signify Jihad to be a spiritual battle to defeat evil passions within one's hearts. That's what is known to be the 'Greater Jihad', with the 'Lesser Jihad' being the more media famous physical Jihad, again, only valid in the name of self-defense. You won't find any example of the Prophet Muhammad fighting other than as a last resort. Unlike the verses of the Old Testament calling for war, the Hadiths signify that women, children and the aged may not be killed in any circumstance.
And finally, Spencer tries to explain that Islam really calls for violence. It's not hard to find Islamic verses condemning violence, or Hadiths doing the same. The name Islam is also derived from the word Salaam, literally peace. Anymore of Spencer's arguments i.e. oppression, pedophilia or lust are totally baseless. Aisha, the Prophet's famously 'child-bride' (who may anywhere from 9-24 during her marriage) was a military commander, a politician, a scholar and a 'blessed companion'. Now that's not something publicized.
In the end, the story only appeals to those minds who believe Islam is an incoherently violent religion, their views being seemingly true with today's violence in the Muslim world. It doesn't fool Muslims, at least.
August 20, 2013
This letter was posted on barenakedislam.com 8/19/13
Heartfelt letter from an Egyptian Physician
Sherif Emil, MD,CM, FRCSC, FACS, FAAP
Associate Professor of Pediatric Surgery, Surgery, and Pediatrics
Director; Division of Pediatric General and Thoracic Surgery
Associate Chair for Education & Departmental Citizenship
Department of Pediatric Surgery
McGill University Faculty of Medicine
Montreal Children’s Hospital
McGill University Health Center
Dear friends:
As a human being and a physician, I categorically and unconditionally deplore all killing. As a father, my heart goes out to all those who lost sons and daughters in Egypt’s violence today and since the uprising of June 30.
Nevertheless, in the middle of a frenzy of Western politicians and Western media consistently presenting only one side — the Islamists’ — I could not let this day pass without sharing some thoughts and some truths. For the last six weeks since the overthrow of Mohammed Morsi, the Western media consistently portrayed the sit-ins that paralyzed Cairo and other parts of Egypt as sit-ins by “peaceful demonstrators”. As mayhem broke out throughout Egypt today, they conveniently ignored what was happening in the rest of the country to focus on those “peaceful demonstrators.”
Peaceful demonstrators??
Peaceful demonstrators do not have the capacity to kill more than 47 police personnel documented by name, rank, and serial number in a few hours.
Peaceful demonstrators do not attack the Kerdasa (neighborhood close to the pyramids) police station with rocket-propelled grenades, kill the station’s police officers, strip them of their clothes, and drag their bodies down the street.
Peaceful demonstrators do not threaten Christians with genocide as was called for by many of their leaders over the last six weeks, and as documented by multiple videos available on YouTube and other outlets.
Peaceful demonstrators do not raise the black flags of Al Qaeda over their sit-ins and marches and take pride in the likes of Bin Laden and Zawahiri.
Peaceful demonstrators do not attack more than 45 Christian installations, burn 19 churches and cathedrals, some several hundred years old, to the ground in less than 12 hours, destroy millions of dollars worth of Christians’ homes, businesses, and property, and threaten the entire Egyptian Christian population with annihilation.
Peaceful demonstrators do no call for the return of a fascist president who only days before presided over a 2-hour orgy of hate speech by his imams, calling Shia Muslims filth worthy of extermination, only to see that actually take place 2 days later in the public lynching of 5 Egyptian Shia Muslims in broad daylight.
Peaceful demonstrators do not defend a fascist who purposefully let thousands of terrorists back into Egypt from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq to establish an Islamic Emirate in the Sinai and kill Egyptian army personnel and civilians on a daily basis.
Peaceful demonstrators do not put their children in the face of danger and brag that they are ready to see them die for the Islamist cause.
How much of that has the Western media reported today??
The Muslim Brotherhood and their jihadist allies have never known and will never know peace. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Prior to Morsi’s election, they publicly declared that they will burn Egypt down if their man does not win. These terrorists, who have been proven liars at every step in the political process, are finally making good on one promise — destroying the country if they can’t subjugate it.
This Muslim Brotherhood is an international terrorist organization. Their masquerade of moderateness has fallen apart with the events in Egypt. You should all be aware that this terrorist organization exists not only in Egypt or the Middle East or the Islamic world, but also right here in Canada and the US. It exists legally, and has managed to gain the sympathy and alliance of the United States Government, as well as many other Western governments, as we have seen in all the statements over the last six weeks.
I implore you to educate yourself about this, and to consider contacting your congressman, senator, or member of parliament. Confront them with the facts, and ask them to declare the Muslim Brotherhood and all other Islamist political movements what they are — FASCISTS and TERRORISTS.
Heartfelt letter from an Egyptian Physician
Sherif Emil, MD,CM, FRCSC, FACS, FAAP
Associate Professor of Pediatric Surgery, Surgery, and Pediatrics
Director; Division of Pediatric General and Thoracic Surgery
Associate Chair for Education & Departmental Citizenship
Department of Pediatric Surgery
McGill University Faculty of Medicine
Montreal Children’s Hospital
McGill University Health Center
Dear friends:
As a human being and a physician, I categorically and unconditionally deplore all killing. As a father, my heart goes out to all those who lost sons and daughters in Egypt’s violence today and since the uprising of June 30.
Nevertheless, in the middle of a frenzy of Western politicians and Western media consistently presenting only one side — the Islamists’ — I could not let this day pass without sharing some thoughts and some truths. For the last six weeks since the overthrow of Mohammed Morsi, the Western media consistently portrayed the sit-ins that paralyzed Cairo and other parts of Egypt as sit-ins by “peaceful demonstrators”. As mayhem broke out throughout Egypt today, they conveniently ignored what was happening in the rest of the country to focus on those “peaceful demonstrators.”
Peaceful demonstrators??
Peaceful demonstrators do not have the capacity to kill more than 47 police personnel documented by name, rank, and serial number in a few hours.
Peaceful demonstrators do not attack the Kerdasa (neighborhood close to the pyramids) police station with rocket-propelled grenades, kill the station’s police officers, strip them of their clothes, and drag their bodies down the street.
Peaceful demonstrators do not threaten Christians with genocide as was called for by many of their leaders over the last six weeks, and as documented by multiple videos available on YouTube and other outlets.
Peaceful demonstrators do not raise the black flags of Al Qaeda over their sit-ins and marches and take pride in the likes of Bin Laden and Zawahiri.
Peaceful demonstrators do not attack more than 45 Christian installations, burn 19 churches and cathedrals, some several hundred years old, to the ground in less than 12 hours, destroy millions of dollars worth of Christians’ homes, businesses, and property, and threaten the entire Egyptian Christian population with annihilation.
Peaceful demonstrators do no call for the return of a fascist president who only days before presided over a 2-hour orgy of hate speech by his imams, calling Shia Muslims filth worthy of extermination, only to see that actually take place 2 days later in the public lynching of 5 Egyptian Shia Muslims in broad daylight.
Peaceful demonstrators do not defend a fascist who purposefully let thousands of terrorists back into Egypt from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq to establish an Islamic Emirate in the Sinai and kill Egyptian army personnel and civilians on a daily basis.
Peaceful demonstrators do not put their children in the face of danger and brag that they are ready to see them die for the Islamist cause.
How much of that has the Western media reported today??
The Muslim Brotherhood and their jihadist allies have never known and will never know peace. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Prior to Morsi’s election, they publicly declared that they will burn Egypt down if their man does not win. These terrorists, who have been proven liars at every step in the political process, are finally making good on one promise — destroying the country if they can’t subjugate it.
This Muslim Brotherhood is an international terrorist organization. Their masquerade of moderateness has fallen apart with the events in Egypt. You should all be aware that this terrorist organization exists not only in Egypt or the Middle East or the Islamic world, but also right here in Canada and the US. It exists legally, and has managed to gain the sympathy and alliance of the United States Government, as well as many other Western governments, as we have seen in all the statements over the last six weeks.
I implore you to educate yourself about this, and to consider contacting your congressman, senator, or member of parliament. Confront them with the facts, and ask them to declare the Muslim Brotherhood and all other Islamist political movements what they are — FASCISTS and TERRORISTS.
April 8, 2015
There's very little I can say here that would not be political. In spite of the cover and the title the book isn't offensive. It's simply a statement of historical events and certain facts that don't often get much notice.
Look, try to keep an open mind and try it yourself.
Look, try to keep an open mind and try it yourself.
February 16, 2012
people like spencer try to give themselves a rebellious appearance because they know that sells. ask yourself when reading what was politically incorrect or anti-status quo about this book? nothing. if anything it makes its audience support the war on terror even more and the war on terror has been a giant money makr for private contractors, oil companies and weapons manufacturers. the entire anti-islam market ifies western agression that makes the western powers money. read the quran to get a real picture of what islam is, insha'allah.
November 5, 2011
Don't go to anything by Robert Spencer for an objective look at Islam. He definitely has an agenda: he sees Islam as a threat to the West (if not the whole world). Some of his statements and allegations are more than politically incorrect, they are outrageous. The only reason to read this book is to see how narrow-minded bigots think. But don't buy it; get it from the library like I did.
May 14, 2012
READ THIS BOOK! It is packed with facts. One can always debate the facts but at least they are there to be debated. There is an extensive recitation and reference to Qur'anic verse. There are a lot of sidebars in the "Guide" format, including "books you're not supposed to read" (great references for further study) and "Jesus vs. Mohammed" quotes (usually brotherly love vs. submission\domination). A lot of the main text addresses about 3 dozen PC MYTHS, logically presented IMO, the first 5 of which are:
PC Myth: We can negotiate with these people
PC Myth: The Qur'an teaches tolerance and peace
PC Myth: The Qur'an teaches believers to take up arms only in self-defense
PC Myth: The Qur'an and the Bible are equally violent
PC Myth: Islam's war teachings are only a tiny element of the religion
Islam, Islamic "extremism", and Islamic "fundamentalism" may well be the most important issue effecting the world today. (It is centered in the Middle East, most oil comes from the Middle East, oil effects global warming and the economy, etc. Catch my drift?) I'll be discussing this in the Issues section at greater length soon. Ya'll REALLY need some facts under your belt on this one. READ ANYTHING ABOUT ISLAM, PLEASE! This is a VERY strange religion, as least to this Westerner. J (And I'm not sure that's something to smile about!)
PC Myth: We can negotiate with these people
PC Myth: The Qur'an teaches tolerance and peace
PC Myth: The Qur'an teaches believers to take up arms only in self-defense
PC Myth: The Qur'an and the Bible are equally violent
PC Myth: Islam's war teachings are only a tiny element of the religion
Islam, Islamic "extremism", and Islamic "fundamentalism" may well be the most important issue effecting the world today. (It is centered in the Middle East, most oil comes from the Middle East, oil effects global warming and the economy, etc. Catch my drift?) I'll be discussing this in the Issues section at greater length soon. Ya'll REALLY need some facts under your belt on this one. READ ANYTHING ABOUT ISLAM, PLEASE! This is a VERY strange religion, as least to this Westerner. J (And I'm not sure that's something to smile about!)
October 13, 2021
Non mi aspettavo un saggio di qualita' eccelsa ne' un'analisi storico-sociale ponderata. Da un pamphlet di questo tipo, seppur corposo, mi aspettavo le cosiddette provocazioni e qualche spunto inconsueto di approfondimento. Le speranze sono andate deluse. Nulla di nuovo sul mondo islamico, sul suo proselitismo piu' o meno violento, sulla storia controversa del fondatore e cosi' via. Nulla di nuovo, e' vero, ma vedere scritte una dietro l'altra queste evidenze e soprattutto non affogate nella melassa politicamente corretta, fa un certo effetto. Una certa rudezza espositiva tagliata piu' su un pubblico statunitense contribuisce paradossalmente a far prendere atto di come sia perdente la pelosa remissivita' occidentale nei riguardi di una ideologia oggettivamente a-democratica. Il nefasto politicamente corretto ci fa ingurgitare dottrine, prasssi e concezioni che in altri contesti susciterebbero la tanto declamata indignazione.
May 21, 2014
You know what I did with this book? I threw it on the floor. What a disgusting and ignorant piece of garbage. Great job, Spencer. Nice job stereotyping. Nice job attempting to bring peace to the world. Nice job representing the ignorance of America and Americans.
I didn't read this book and I never would. The cover said it all, this one may, most definitely, be judged by its cover. It's the worst book I HAVE EVER come across in my entire life so far.
Go to the library and get a book that actually educates about Islam. And then go read a trashy book about your religion and see how you feel.
And I'm not even Muslim.
I didn't read this book and I never would. The cover said it all, this one may, most definitely, be judged by its cover. It's the worst book I HAVE EVER come across in my entire life so far.
Go to the library and get a book that actually educates about Islam. And then go read a trashy book about your religion and see how you feel.
And I'm not even Muslim.
May 12, 2010
Before I saw this book title (I can't remember where I first ran across it), if asked, I would have said that Islam was a peaceful religion, that, like many other religions in history, has been hijacked by evil-doers. But when I saw this book, I wondered. Could he be right? I decided to read it, and give the author a chance to make his point.
I am acquainted with some American Muslims who would argue against this, but I wonder if they aren't plagued by their own bias. After all, who wants to think badly of their own religion and/or ethnic ancestors? I was shocked to learn that many non-Arab Muslims have not actually read (don't understand) their own holy book, that they merely recite passages from it in the original Arabic.
This book seems very well researched. The author appears to be conscious of the likelihood of an anti-Muslim bias, and I believe it inspired him to study his subject harder. He gives many suggestions for further reading. He explores the current media line on Islam, the history of Islamic/Judeo-Chrisian relations, makes conclusions, and provides his evidence at every step. And in a feature I loved, he presents ideas for defeating the enemy.
Another person that picked up my copy commented that it was very repetitive - the author says some of the same things over and over. I agree this is true, however he has a purpose. In his discussion of an individual point he presents the evidence that backs it up. Some evidence applies to multiple points. I did not find any repitition to pointless, only mildly tedious on occasion. Additionally, the prose is highly readable.
One thing I found somewhat annoying in this book is that the author uses a comparison of Islam and Christianity as part of his framework. I myself am of Christian ancestry, but was not raised in any particular faith. I have spiritual beliefs, but they do not match closely enough with any specific religion for me to join one. My annoyance was b/c I felt he was assuming his readership to be Christian. However, if his intended audience is the American public, that is not statistically unreasonable.
Although I would rather that the author's hypothesis were not true, at this time, I believe the author has made his point. I now intend to investigate the issue further, and am very grateful to have had this possible truth brought to my attention. I have already acquired some additional reading, on both "sides" of this issue, in addition to a translation of the Quran.
I would recommend this book to everyone as a starting point for exploring this potentially (if he's right) vital issue.
I am acquainted with some American Muslims who would argue against this, but I wonder if they aren't plagued by their own bias. After all, who wants to think badly of their own religion and/or ethnic ancestors? I was shocked to learn that many non-Arab Muslims have not actually read (don't understand) their own holy book, that they merely recite passages from it in the original Arabic.
This book seems very well researched. The author appears to be conscious of the likelihood of an anti-Muslim bias, and I believe it inspired him to study his subject harder. He gives many suggestions for further reading. He explores the current media line on Islam, the history of Islamic/Judeo-Chrisian relations, makes conclusions, and provides his evidence at every step. And in a feature I loved, he presents ideas for defeating the enemy.
Another person that picked up my copy commented that it was very repetitive - the author says some of the same things over and over. I agree this is true, however he has a purpose. In his discussion of an individual point he presents the evidence that backs it up. Some evidence applies to multiple points. I did not find any repitition to pointless, only mildly tedious on occasion. Additionally, the prose is highly readable.
One thing I found somewhat annoying in this book is that the author uses a comparison of Islam and Christianity as part of his framework. I myself am of Christian ancestry, but was not raised in any particular faith. I have spiritual beliefs, but they do not match closely enough with any specific religion for me to join one. My annoyance was b/c I felt he was assuming his readership to be Christian. However, if his intended audience is the American public, that is not statistically unreasonable.
Although I would rather that the author's hypothesis were not true, at this time, I believe the author has made his point. I now intend to investigate the issue further, and am very grateful to have had this possible truth brought to my attention. I have already acquired some additional reading, on both "sides" of this issue, in addition to a translation of the Quran.
I would recommend this book to everyone as a starting point for exploring this potentially (if he's right) vital issue.
January 5, 2015
Spencer provides an exhaustive and scholarly review of Islam, from it's founding in the Middle East, to the rise of the Muslim empire and the resulting Crusades, to the jihad that we see today. He cites his sources well, and provides proof from the Koran and Islamic leaders of the founding of Islam as a religion of war and intolerance toward unbelievers, who the Koran refers to as "kafirs". He explores the intolerance and restrictive nature of the dhimmi ("the guilty") system laid out in the Koran. He discusses the Koran's unequal treatment of women, as well as inadequate protections for "kafirs", and universal human rights. He reviews scientific discoveries claimed by Muslims, as well as Islamic art, music, literature, and the "Golden Age" of Islam.
Spencer thoroughly explains the Crusades and the events leading up to them.
Finally, in the third part of his book, he presents evidence of the Jihad that exists today against the West, and gives his ideas of how we can prevent a takeover of Islam.
This is probably one of the most thorough and easy to understand books that I have read about Islam.
Spencer thoroughly explains the Crusades and the events leading up to them.
Finally, in the third part of his book, he presents evidence of the Jihad that exists today against the West, and gives his ideas of how we can prevent a takeover of Islam.
This is probably one of the most thorough and easy to understand books that I have read about Islam.
August 8, 2007
Definitely well researched.
these books usually have the same problem; they have to spend quite a lot of time appealing to their veracity. It becomes mundane. To combat the over-saturation of the politically correct opinion, they add too many examples of each of their claims.
This book is well worth reading if only for the angle in which it portrays the Crusades and the estimable aspects of Western Culture. The world view that if found in the western Judeo Christian cultures is at conflict with Islamic teachings. Until the West acknowledges these differences, it seems doubtful that any progress can be made. This book highlighted the political, sexual, social, and scientific ideas presented in the Qu'ran, and does it's best to fairly translate and contextualize them.
I liked that PIG Islam made clear distinctions between Islam and its followers. Not every Muslim is a Jihadist just like not every Christian is an Anti-homosexual/Pro Lifer. However, the text of each religion highly affirms these positions.
these books usually have the same problem; they have to spend quite a lot of time appealing to their veracity. It becomes mundane. To combat the over-saturation of the politically correct opinion, they add too many examples of each of their claims.
This book is well worth reading if only for the angle in which it portrays the Crusades and the estimable aspects of Western Culture. The world view that if found in the western Judeo Christian cultures is at conflict with Islamic teachings. Until the West acknowledges these differences, it seems doubtful that any progress can be made. This book highlighted the political, sexual, social, and scientific ideas presented in the Qu'ran, and does it's best to fairly translate and contextualize them.
I liked that PIG Islam made clear distinctions between Islam and its followers. Not every Muslim is a Jihadist just like not every Christian is an Anti-homosexual/Pro Lifer. However, the text of each religion highly affirms these positions.
April 14, 2021
I like the early chapters where the author goes through common arguments like 'Even in the Old Testament Moses killed off tribes... so how is this different than Islam?' This and many other common arguments are answered and dealt with directly, not with clever phrases, but well thought and very rational answers. A MUST READ! Changes the way you see the news on the main-stream media. Look at the reviews below that rate this less than three stars. They don't even comment on the content and references sited. I was very impressed with how meticulously the author referenced assertions and claims that would understandably upset those that follow Muhammad. No matter what side of the fence you are on before reading this book or listening to the CD version, truth is truth, and this author can't change truth. Do the research and be informed. A fantastic read and listen! AN ABSOLUTE MUST READ FOR THOSE WHO CARE ABOUT THE WESTERN WORLD. Semper Fi.
March 23, 2008
An excellent historical overview of the founding of Islam, the life of Mohammed, the spread of Islamic supremecy througout the world, the reason for the current threat of violent Islamic jihad that the world currently faces, an explanation of the violent texts of the Koran and how they are the rule of law for Islamic violence, as well as little-known facts about the events leading up to and resulting in the Christian Crusades. This is an excellent introduction to a timely and important topic. The author, Dr. Robert Spencer, has been one of the top scholars of Islam in America for the past 20 years. Very easy reading, too.
June 1, 2012
Do all Muslims wage Jihad - murdering innocents in the name of God? No, of course not. But does the Qur'an command it of all Muslims and say that the "true believer" will wage Jihad? You know what? It sure does... Man! This book gets some real hate directed towards it. Turns out that the book is a refreshingly honest, well researched, and(of course) politically incorrect description of the foundations and nature of one of the scariest religions the world has ever seen. Beware though - If you read(and heaven forbid, agree with or "like") this book, people will hate on you and call you intolerant... and you may see comments below as evidence of this...
December 9, 2020
As someone who is familiar with both the Politically Incorrect Guides as well as Islam and the Crusades [1], I did not find much in this book to be particularly new. That is not to say that it was not thoughtful and well-written, only that it is most definitely an inconvenient and politically incorrect book. Although there was little in the book that I found surprising, especially as someone who has read the Koran in translation and seen its tension between high-minded principles contradicted by later brutalities that remain in force, as well as the lack of universal moral imperatives in Islam itself that restrict the behavior of Muslims towards those they deem unbelievers. I am not sure what precisely this book is attempting to accomplish, given that its true but impolitic statements are likely to increase the hostility and mistrust that people have against Islam as well as the tendency among Muslims to prevaricate in the audience of Westerners while admitting the truth only among themselves, which hardly helps the problem that this book deals with rather blunt and forcefully about the larger threat and concern about contemporary militant Islam.
The book itself is divided into three parts and eighteen chapters that fill slightly more than 200 pages, making this a book that is pretty easy to read even if it is tough to figure out. The first part of the book looks at Islam itself (I), discussing Mohammed as a prophet of war (1), looking at the Qur'an as a book of war (2), discussing Islam as a religion of war (3) as well as of intolerance (4), and examining how Islam oppresses women (5) and encourages its believers to lie, steal and kill (6), and also talks about how Islam killed science and free inquiry (7), lures people to a paradise that includes some very unsettling elements (8), and was spread by the sword and the injustices of dhimmitude forced on others (9). The second part of the book gives a revisionist history of the crusades (II) that discusses why the crusades were called (10), contrasts myth and reality about how they were engaged in (11), discusses their accomplishments (12), gives a counterfactual picture of life in the absence of the crusades (13), and has some critical things to say about those who would view Islam and Christianity as equivalent traditions (14). Finally, the author takes on the contentious issue of contemporary Islam (III) in looking at the continuing jihad (15), the illegitimacy of claims about Islamophobia (16), the dangers that result to those who criticize Islam (17), and the crusade that we must fight today in defense of Western civilization (18).
In reading this book, I was struck by the disconnect between the author's fierce but well-sourced rhetoric and the sort of response to it that would be acceptable. When we look at Judaism and Christianity, it is easy to lament that there are so many people in those faiths who do not live up to the high-minded ideals of both faiths. When it comes to Islam, though, the only good people that I would want as neighbors would be bad Muslims who are ignorant of and at least ambivalent towards the violent dictates and backwards hermeneutics of their religion. Moreover, it is hard to know how a genuinely thoughtful moderate who would feel threatened by more extremist Muslims and also frustrated with a lack of acceptance from the West would handle the unpleasant truths of this book. At least when one deals with bad Christians and bad Jews (or bad Buddhists, for that matter), at least there is something positive that can be said about the ideals of a faith that are not being lived up to. What are we to say about a faith that does not command fidelity or honesty or decency on the part of Muslims towards those who are considered traitors or outsiders to their faith? And how can Muslims prove their loyalty in the face of growing mistrust and hostility when their religion is so full of justifications for deception in such matters as interfaith relations?
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
The book itself is divided into three parts and eighteen chapters that fill slightly more than 200 pages, making this a book that is pretty easy to read even if it is tough to figure out. The first part of the book looks at Islam itself (I), discussing Mohammed as a prophet of war (1), looking at the Qur'an as a book of war (2), discussing Islam as a religion of war (3) as well as of intolerance (4), and examining how Islam oppresses women (5) and encourages its believers to lie, steal and kill (6), and also talks about how Islam killed science and free inquiry (7), lures people to a paradise that includes some very unsettling elements (8), and was spread by the sword and the injustices of dhimmitude forced on others (9). The second part of the book gives a revisionist history of the crusades (II) that discusses why the crusades were called (10), contrasts myth and reality about how they were engaged in (11), discusses their accomplishments (12), gives a counterfactual picture of life in the absence of the crusades (13), and has some critical things to say about those who would view Islam and Christianity as equivalent traditions (14). Finally, the author takes on the contentious issue of contemporary Islam (III) in looking at the continuing jihad (15), the illegitimacy of claims about Islamophobia (16), the dangers that result to those who criticize Islam (17), and the crusade that we must fight today in defense of Western civilization (18).
In reading this book, I was struck by the disconnect between the author's fierce but well-sourced rhetoric and the sort of response to it that would be acceptable. When we look at Judaism and Christianity, it is easy to lament that there are so many people in those faiths who do not live up to the high-minded ideals of both faiths. When it comes to Islam, though, the only good people that I would want as neighbors would be bad Muslims who are ignorant of and at least ambivalent towards the violent dictates and backwards hermeneutics of their religion. Moreover, it is hard to know how a genuinely thoughtful moderate who would feel threatened by more extremist Muslims and also frustrated with a lack of acceptance from the West would handle the unpleasant truths of this book. At least when one deals with bad Christians and bad Jews (or bad Buddhists, for that matter), at least there is something positive that can be said about the ideals of a faith that are not being lived up to. What are we to say about a faith that does not command fidelity or honesty or decency on the part of Muslims towards those who are considered traitors or outsiders to their faith? And how can Muslims prove their loyalty in the face of growing mistrust and hostility when their religion is so full of justifications for deception in such matters as interfaith relations?
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
January 29, 2011
Like many people I used to believe that Islam was a religion of peace and it's doctrines had been hijacked by the terrorists, but after reading not only this book, but many others I am convinced that the exact opposite is true. This book was the first book against Islam that I had read and I must say that his arguments are much more honest and frank than the books put out by apologists for Islam, both Western and Non-Western.
He has done his research and cites every text and source he uses in order to easily be able to check his claims, which I have. I went to every source he used, then read the opposition and found their arguments to be either naive, ignorant, or dishonest.
It is true that he can become a tad repetitive or unnecessarily sarcastic/hostile, but that doesn't bother me as much as some people whom I've talked to about the text and has no bearing on the actual arguments he uses.
A minor, almost insignificant criticism I have is that the cover of the book could lead people to get the wrong impression about what he is arguing. No where in the book does he say that all Muslims are terrorists or that they want to kill all the non-believers. There is indeed a difference between the moderate Muslims and the Jihadists; however, the faith itself is on the side of the terrorists, not the moderate Muslims. Which is why he points out that there may very well be a majority of moderate Muslims, but that Islam itself is not a moderate ideology.
He has done his research and cites every text and source he uses in order to easily be able to check his claims, which I have. I went to every source he used, then read the opposition and found their arguments to be either naive, ignorant, or dishonest.
It is true that he can become a tad repetitive or unnecessarily sarcastic/hostile, but that doesn't bother me as much as some people whom I've talked to about the text and has no bearing on the actual arguments he uses.
A minor, almost insignificant criticism I have is that the cover of the book could lead people to get the wrong impression about what he is arguing. No where in the book does he say that all Muslims are terrorists or that they want to kill all the non-believers. There is indeed a difference between the moderate Muslims and the Jihadists; however, the faith itself is on the side of the terrorists, not the moderate Muslims. Which is why he points out that there may very well be a majority of moderate Muslims, but that Islam itself is not a moderate ideology.
May 17, 2008
Robert Spencer's The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)'s most useful aspects are its examination of Islamic texts, including the Koran, its historical overview of the application of those texts, especially the violent ones, and its defense, at least in part, of the Crusades. This quick read is divided into three parts. Part one deals with Islam generally and more specifically Islam's relation to war, intolerance, and oppression of women. Part two debunks the myths surrounding the Crusades and their aftermath. And part three addresses today's jihad movements, making the connection with Islam's past. This book will not make an Islamic-sympathizer happy. Throughout the book are enlightening Mohammed versus Jesus sidebars, in which the author contrasts statements of Mohammed with statements of Jesus. In order to address Islam's modern expansion and goals, it is important to understand Islam's past, and this book is a good place to start. One criticism of the book's format: the book has sidebars and text separated in boxes on what seems like every other page, and these sidebars and separated boxes interrupt the flow of the narrative of the book overall, forcing you to leave your place and come back repeatedly.
August 3, 2011
Politically Incorrect but Factually Correct as far as i can determine,one source being discussions with an Iraqi Christian i know. It's laid out well and easy to digest, although you may feel a little nervous reading on public transport (: which is something to think about, why should you be?). Robert Spencer does not believe most Muslims have the immediate mindset that he discusses here, but his point is that it is Inherent in the teachings of Islam. (Wikipedia: While admitting that he believes many Muslims are peaceful and decent people, he believes Muslim reformists will have a very difficult time because "the radicals actually do have a stronger theoretical, theological, and legal basis within Islam for what they believe than the moderates do.") This is by no means a definitive guide, you should read other books written by authors with other opinions. However you may not find so many that wear their heart on their sleeve so clearly. Most will be written under the guise of, or attempting, impartiality, few books are even mostly so. Unstated opinions and prejudices will therefore slip under your radar. This book in having a declared agenda enables you to engage with it's opinions and arguments head on with open eyes. As such I thoroughly recommend this book.
May 28, 2012
This is a good, quick overview of core Islamic beliefs and history, as well as a detailed analysis of the reasons for the crusades. It's by no means a "balanced" perspective, but that doesn't necessarily make it inaccurate. I've spent time with many Islamic people--including teaching English to Saudi students--and my personal experiences with them have been nothing but positive. But I agree with author Robert Spencer that Islam is a very restrictive and dangerous belief system that demeans anyone who is not a believer, especially women and Jews. The Saudi government personally called one of my Saudi students (who was living in South Korea at the time) to follow up on reports from fellow classmates that he'd been straying away from the path of righteousness by smoking and possibly drinking alcohol. Talk about scary... Spencer does a good job explaining why Islam is a very real danger to Western culture, and why most Westerners are so ambivalent about it.
February 2, 2014
An excellent book by a respected scholar
I have been reading the work of Robert Spencer for last several years and I must say he is one of the fearless scholars who write honestly about Islam and the threat it poses to Western civilization. The population of Islamists is growing in the Western world, and the threat of Islamic terrorism is here and very real.
This is very well researched book by a highly respected conservative scholar. Robert Spencer discusses the facts about Islam that most scholars shy away for the fear of being politically incorrect. This book covers plenty of ground with a study of Muhammad, his early life, the making of the Qur'an, the spread of Islam, and Islam's early wars, culminating in the Crusades. Islam has been presented by a few politically correct scholars as "a religion of peace" mainly to please Islamic population in Western countries. The truth is that it is anything but a peaceful religion. The intolerance to other cultures and other faiths are clearly expressed in Islamic literature, when forgiveness is the principal concept of Christianism
The author provides an exposé of Islam that "won't be taught in school" or "heard on the evening news." He describes the religion vividly and draws our attention to the goal of Islamists; that is to globalize Islam by causing fear and using force. The view that Islam is a religion of peace has been hijacked by a very small minority of liberals and apologists. The author quotes great many number of historical figures critical of Islam, including John Quincy Adams, Winston Churchill and many others. Using facts like the Danish cartoon episode, and the Pope Benedict's speech with quotes calling Muhammad's teachings "evil" and "spread by the sword," the aftermath of Islamic rampage witnessed across the globe, the author cleverly discusses the facts of Islamic culture in chapters like; "Muhammad: Prophet of War" and "Islam--Spread by the Sword?
At the end of the book Robert Spencer warns that if West does not act in a timely manner, it will be too late to win against Islam. Jihad has already been declared against the Western society. The war on terror can be won if the Western allies in the Muslim world receive support, and these moderates can create an environment in Islamic countries where the ideology of hate is replaced with respect for other faiths and coexistence in peace and harmony.
I believe that this book must be made mandatory for all freshman entering the colleges and universities to learn the truth about Islam.
I have been reading the work of Robert Spencer for last several years and I must say he is one of the fearless scholars who write honestly about Islam and the threat it poses to Western civilization. The population of Islamists is growing in the Western world, and the threat of Islamic terrorism is here and very real.
This is very well researched book by a highly respected conservative scholar. Robert Spencer discusses the facts about Islam that most scholars shy away for the fear of being politically incorrect. This book covers plenty of ground with a study of Muhammad, his early life, the making of the Qur'an, the spread of Islam, and Islam's early wars, culminating in the Crusades. Islam has been presented by a few politically correct scholars as "a religion of peace" mainly to please Islamic population in Western countries. The truth is that it is anything but a peaceful religion. The intolerance to other cultures and other faiths are clearly expressed in Islamic literature, when forgiveness is the principal concept of Christianism
The author provides an exposé of Islam that "won't be taught in school" or "heard on the evening news." He describes the religion vividly and draws our attention to the goal of Islamists; that is to globalize Islam by causing fear and using force. The view that Islam is a religion of peace has been hijacked by a very small minority of liberals and apologists. The author quotes great many number of historical figures critical of Islam, including John Quincy Adams, Winston Churchill and many others. Using facts like the Danish cartoon episode, and the Pope Benedict's speech with quotes calling Muhammad's teachings "evil" and "spread by the sword," the aftermath of Islamic rampage witnessed across the globe, the author cleverly discusses the facts of Islamic culture in chapters like; "Muhammad: Prophet of War" and "Islam--Spread by the Sword?
At the end of the book Robert Spencer warns that if West does not act in a timely manner, it will be too late to win against Islam. Jihad has already been declared against the Western society. The war on terror can be won if the Western allies in the Muslim world receive support, and these moderates can create an environment in Islamic countries where the ideology of hate is replaced with respect for other faiths and coexistence in peace and harmony.
I believe that this book must be made mandatory for all freshman entering the colleges and universities to learn the truth about Islam.
May 11, 2018
One of the best books that helped to properly reply to this ideology and how to answer to the politically correct and apologists. Definitely will keep at hand to consult it anytime.
May 16, 2020
Disclaimer: I am a freethinker and not anti-muslim. I am reading this book to understand the world better from the influence of Islam as well as the controversies surrounding it.
In the modern age of Islamophobia, honest attempts to discuss about Islam are quickly labelled prejudiced, xenophobic, racist and all sorts of negative social stigmas. This narrow perspective intimidates and silences criticisms of Islam, even sanctioning death penalty for blasphemy. This puts Islam beyond criticism while other religions can be criticized without fear of reprisals.
The author has courageously put his life at risk by revealing the controversial aspects of Islam without hesitations such as Jihad (the war on non-believers), dhimmitude (second-class humiliating status for non-muslims accompanied with excessive anti-religious taxes-jizya), the crusades and the restrictive political and social doctrine of Islam (Sharia Law). As a result, he is on the hit-list by the Islamic fundamentalists.
This book has helped me understand why Middle Eastern Arab Muslim nations want the destruction of Israel (non-Muslim). This is mainly due to the verses in the Quran which instructs religious Muslims to give three choices to non-believers: conversion to Islam, subjugation or death.
Understanding the Quran also gave me a clue why Singapore did not place Singaporean Malay Muslims in sensitive senior level military positions so as to protect herself from neighboring Malay Muslim nations, like Malaysia and Indonesia, especially at the beginning of Singapore's independence. Singapore's sovereignty depends on choosing the right people to defend her national interests instead of the person's religion or race.
Moreover, Jihad terrorists are labelled as extremists but on the contrary, they are actually literally practicing the teachings of the Quran which is not the case with moderate Muslims who are comparatively less religious in their practice.
While there are no quick-fix solutions to the thousand year old conflict between Islam and Judeo-Christian western civilization, society has to avoid political correctness in order to understand and avoid confusion in Islam. Besides the threat from blasphemy laws, well-intentioned people fear the vilification of innocent moderate Muslims by non-Muslims. However, they have less to fear as the Judeo-Christian holy books and even Buddhism and Confucianism arguably preach tolerance and non-violence more than the Quran. This is stressed by the the writer who mentions that not all religions are equal.
In the modern age of Islamophobia, honest attempts to discuss about Islam are quickly labelled prejudiced, xenophobic, racist and all sorts of negative social stigmas. This narrow perspective intimidates and silences criticisms of Islam, even sanctioning death penalty for blasphemy. This puts Islam beyond criticism while other religions can be criticized without fear of reprisals.
The author has courageously put his life at risk by revealing the controversial aspects of Islam without hesitations such as Jihad (the war on non-believers), dhimmitude (second-class humiliating status for non-muslims accompanied with excessive anti-religious taxes-jizya), the crusades and the restrictive political and social doctrine of Islam (Sharia Law). As a result, he is on the hit-list by the Islamic fundamentalists.
This book has helped me understand why Middle Eastern Arab Muslim nations want the destruction of Israel (non-Muslim). This is mainly due to the verses in the Quran which instructs religious Muslims to give three choices to non-believers: conversion to Islam, subjugation or death.
Understanding the Quran also gave me a clue why Singapore did not place Singaporean Malay Muslims in sensitive senior level military positions so as to protect herself from neighboring Malay Muslim nations, like Malaysia and Indonesia, especially at the beginning of Singapore's independence. Singapore's sovereignty depends on choosing the right people to defend her national interests instead of the person's religion or race.
Moreover, Jihad terrorists are labelled as extremists but on the contrary, they are actually literally practicing the teachings of the Quran which is not the case with moderate Muslims who are comparatively less religious in their practice.
While there are no quick-fix solutions to the thousand year old conflict between Islam and Judeo-Christian western civilization, society has to avoid political correctness in order to understand and avoid confusion in Islam. Besides the threat from blasphemy laws, well-intentioned people fear the vilification of innocent moderate Muslims by non-Muslims. However, they have less to fear as the Judeo-Christian holy books and even Buddhism and Confucianism arguably preach tolerance and non-violence more than the Quran. This is stressed by the the writer who mentions that not all religions are equal.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 176 reviews