Top critical review
1.0 out of 5 starsBad Social Science, Dangerous Mind!
Reviewed in the United States on August 6, 2014
As the title of the book series suggests, reading this book we can expect attempts of rhetorical manipulation rather than a comprehensive discussion of its subject matter. Finally, some of the few scholars stepped forward, who had the guts to tell a - supposedly - unpopular truth, rather than telling 'politically correct' lies. In this it is also clear from the start that everyone having an attitude towards Islam and muslims short of condemnation does not only hold a wrong opinion but is a morally blameworthy liar.
So I recommend this book roughly to angry white males, who are not interested in critical reflection, but in seeing their biased stances founded on xenophobia confirmed through a selective perception of islamic texts or history and correspondingly swift conclusions.
In this, I also recommend all other books from the series, since they will equip you with an equally 'efficient' world-view. Christianity is good, Islam is bad. Capitalism is good, socialism is bad. Really, it seems unlikely and politically incorrect to say that it's that simple, but it really is!
Some clarifying supplements in face of recent comments:
1. There is certainly no general intellectual problem with taking a critical stance towards Islam, i.e. taking into consideration that Islam as a world religion has had worse overall effects than other world religions. However, I think it is pretty commonsensical that an answer to the effect that the latter is true ought to be based on the right kind of reasons. Xenophobia however is not the right kind of reason. Actually, it is not much of a reason of at all.
2. Now, Mr. Robert Spencer would certainly deny that the motive behind his book is xenophobia and the desire to satisfy the ideological needs of his rightwing, Christian readership. But it is very striking - to give you some examples - that RS concludes already the very first chapter of his book with a 'proof', why we (Westerners) cannot negotiate with 'these peoples' (presumably all muslims?). And the 'proof' is the presentation of some evidence that Mohammed, the prophet, broke some treaty with neighboring tribes some 1500 Years ago! Seriously, if you seek a definition of 'remembering' or 'jumping to conclusions', look here. Mr. Spencer throughout his book also reveals that his method to find out about the, as it were, official position of Islam about certain matters by consulting and arbitrarily quoting various radicalism muslim websites. What I'm saying is that this is not just bad methodology, but that it ridicules all methodology. If we simply try to gather every piece of information that says something bad about muslims, we can easily arrive at monstrous results. But such things are always possible. Take the inquisition, sale of indulgences, forced elimination of pagan religions in central Europe etc. etc. and you can easily say the same about Christianity. To arrive at an unbiased assessment of the matter, we would first have to critically examine what the function, positive and negative impacts of religion might be and than accumulate data in a statistically relevant way. None of this is done in this book!
3. What can be found is the frequent and shameless identification of A) muslims with jihadists (just look at the cover) and B) the postulate that the best explanation for muslim extremism is some militant 'religious motivation'. In contrast to this, let me tell you guys, that (as for A) if you should ever venture to countries like Turkey, Syria, Iran or Pakistan, you will find that the overwhelming majority of muslims there are very friendly, very hospitable people. As for B) it is doubtful at least that muslim violence in the Middle East in present days is indeed 'religiously motivated' . There are other explanations, which are in my view more plausible. One would be that behind these uprisings are actually the desire for autonomy and independence from direct or indirect Western oppression. Just consider how many autocratic regimes in the Middle East are in power because of Western intervention (e.g. Egypt, Iran, Saudi-Arabia...).