Jihad Watch reader Vince has alerted me to a review of my book The Truth About Muhammad by the respected blogger Gay Patriot. Vince has been kind enough to post my response there, but this review by "Average Gay Joe" was so curiously far from what the book actually says that I thought I'd post my response here also.
This reviewer seems to have read the book through thick lenses of his expectations. This is in no conceivable sense a work of “religious apologetics.” I do not argue for the falsehood of Islam or the truth of Christianity in it. I merely present the picture of Muhammad that is presented in the earliest Islamic sources about him, and show how modern-day terrorists invoke Muhammad to justify their actions. In the last chapter I advocate various measures to defend ourselves against and limit the power of political Islam, which threatens to overwhelm free and pluralistic societies in the West. To see this as some kind of call to return to medieval Christendom is to disregard entirely the words I actually wrote and to enter the realm of sheer fantasy. If “Average Gay Joe” would like to review what I actually wrote in The Truth About Muhammad, I would welcome that, but he does not do so here.
I might add that this book has been denounced by Hamas and Al-Arabiya, was banned in Pakistan, and got me numerous death threats. But amid all that none of those denouncing it ever took it to be a work of Christian apologetics. It took "Average Gay Joe" to imagine that.
From Patriots article: Any religion can be exploited as an ideology to be wielded in the temporal realm.
That statement sounds more like 'confused liberal' rather than conservative. And it is an apology in itself.
'Temporal'? What does that mean? Islam is not 'temporal', The Quran is forever.
And an exploited ideology? And just who is doing the exploiting? And how many 'exploiters' are there?
Translated it is the same, worn out, argument that 'Christians do it too', all religions are basically the same, and there are only a small (but unknown) number of 'wielders'/radicals/jihadists, that have hijacked Islam for purposes of 'exploitation'...Ain't that a crock...Lol
I could not take Gay Patriot as a model of conservatism...nice try but no bananas...
RS - I had never heard of this Blogger, and I'm glad he's "respected" - but, that doesn't mean he possesses the length and width and breadth of your intellect and your vast knowledge of Islam, Mo, Qur'an. He's not in your intellectual league, gee, why am I not surprised?
Two observations on the writer. I think he is conflating your "T about Mo" book with later books "How Christianity is a religion of peace and Islam is not.". Loosely, there is an apologetic element to your writings, since the exploration of the toxic Islam helps people understand what a treasure Christianity is.
As for the medieval comments, I suspect he is evoking some sort of fear of a return to Christendom, with no separation of Church and state. This is a paranoia of the left and some silly books have been written about this. Often leftists and secularists have a difficult time understanding how a religion would not be a private matter, but that Christians would participate in the Public Square without wanting to take over the state.
This said, I think the writing and thinking of the reviewer is muddled. He's got some points, but there does not seem to be a coherent argument there yet. I'd recommend he get a subscription to "First Things" for a year and understand current conservative political Christianity a bit better, then do a re-write.
One comment that deserves attention is this:
"Any religion can be exploited as an ideology to be wielded in the temporal realm. I’m not quite sure what Spencer is asking for in these chapters."
This is true, however some religions lend themselves better or worse to manipulation by political ideology. Anabaptist theology has a political component, but shuns the power of the state. Christianity with the self-emptying symbol of the cross, creates all sorts of internal conflicts when Christianity and the state were united. Islam however, seems to be designed to merge with the states. Ironically, we see examples of bad Muslim leaders going against Koranic teachings in order to have a better state (ie including Zoroastrians as dhimmis rather than killing them.)
I think what we are dealing with here is another example of religious illiteracy in Western society. Some still claim that "All religions are basically the same." when that is easy shown to be an idiotic saying. I think the review has a coherent argument to make, but lacks the theological/historical background to make it. Yet.
It makes me laugh when bleeding heart liberals "see" what they want to see. So desperate are they to be seen as touchy feely they ignore all facts. In fact they use the exact same tactics they accuse others of. Oh the irony.
So I must assume that a Christian apologist such as yourself, someone who cannot help but allow your deep Christian faith and desire to promote it at every turn, and to inform and color everything you write about Islam, wouldn't ever consider taking contributions from a devout and unapologetic atheist. And I was so hoping.
It continues to astound me that gays, Jews, and other minorities don't seem to "get it" about Islam. Yes, all religions can be twisted to advocate violence. Some religions, however, actually need no twisting.
Jesus words, "...but I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" mean exactly that, whilst "Slay the pagans" (Surah 9:29), means exactly that.
Thick lenses? Thickheaded is more like it.
Your book is swimming up against some very strong mainstream currents of ideas: one of which is the notion that Islam is just another religion rallying for first place as the ONE, who is also up against all the other religions who too are rallying for first place; and then you come along presenting the Truth about Muhammad from the Muslim vantage point, and because you are a professing Christian, then you look like just another religious guy with an angle who is simply trying to present his religion as the ONE, also; which is clearly NOT the case.
Besides, Islam doesn't need to rally for first place, because it already takes the prize in it's own unique category, making it unlike any other "religion" known to man. Governmental system is more like it, with the devil and his angels at the helm.
It is odd that one of the commenters would misrepresent your position on Islamic reform. I didn't get that at all from the book.
There must be something in the air.
Gay, is like some many well meaning but totally lost individuals. Note the statements he makes in the article.
In the first statement he assumes that RS is projecting Christian views in the debate and is suspect because of that. Robert clearly stated that was not the POV at all.
The second quote is telling in that he completely missed the meaning of the book and again is projecting his bias view. He wrongly assumes that the middle of the book is about religious apologetics with political commentary book ends. No wonder he does not understand what is being asked.
On a broader subject, this response is so typical of what I hear when the Islam subject is brought up. People feel more threatened with religion in general. They lump all of them together. As a defense to the threat they assume only fools and primitive people need religion. It is a very proud POV. And we all know pride proceeds a fall.
Stands to reason that the Koran should be banned as well, since Robert's book is merely mirroring what is written therein.
I read the book, but till now I had no idea Spencer was a gay patriot. I loved the recipes though. Great book. Fondue of you all.
Dag, son of Walker.
Robert:
The man did not read your book, or he was not curious enough about what it said to read it carefully, or he is a poor reader.
Whatever, his misunderstanding is a perfect example of the junk thinking which passes for analysis in today's Western civilization.
Give the man a colored ribbon and tell him to pat himself on the back until his self-esteem is refilled.
Posted by PRCalDude :It continues to astound me that gays, Jews, and other minorities don't seem to "get it" about Islam.
This most certainly applies to Jews, who have been on the receiving end of Islam's "compassion and mercy" since the time of Mohammed himself. And they still dont get it.
This guy must have one of the new, improved "expanded" editions of the book, because his description certainly doesn't match the copy I own.
Looking through the table of contents, I see very little mention of Christianity: CH 4 includes a section on "Borrowings from Christianity" and CH 7 includes "Anger toward Christians and Jews". But nothing in the way of Christian apologetics.
I suspect:
1. Gay Patriot really just skimmed the book, and did not carefully read it to address what the book actually contains,
and/or
2. Gay Patriot has no idea what Christian apologetics are. Pointing out the inherent negatives of a religion or religious figure doesn't in itself constitute apologetics.
Christian apologetics are writings defending Christianity and Christian doctrine. However, this book does not do that. Everything in this book could be true, without implying that Christianity itself is true (or false).
With conservatives like these...Oh, boy!!!
Mr. Spencer:
I was sent a link to this thread on your site and must say that I was surprised that you even commented on my post, let alone the misunderstandings others have had about what I wrote. Rather than start a new post on the matter, I thought it would be best to come and respond here. With regards to these misunderstandings, contrary to what others have stated I strongly support the military and the war effort, which I thought was obvious in my numerous posts concerning both on Gay Patriot and my own blog; my post was in the slightest a defense of Islam, a faith I do not hold and despite historical interest in it, it is one I could never follow, for many of the historical, moral and theological reasons you brushed upon in your book; never even implied any kind of moral equivalencies or an embracing of liberal notions of multiculturalism; stated in my original posting and in the accompanying comments more than once that I not only enjoyed your book and thought it was well-written (with the narration of the unabridged audiobook by John Adams being particularly superb), but recommended it to others as well; I agreed with many of your proposals in the last chapter, though they should be expanded upon, with the notable exception of the item about Islam as a “religion of peace” rhetoric from secular governments. That one exception was the main point I attempted to convey in my post as I believe it would be a fatal mistake in prosecuting this war if we did as you suggest and essentially make this a religious war, i.e. a “War on Islam”. We need that “fiction” of Islam being a “religion of peace” not to try and dissuade the radicals, but for our own sake and that of “moderate” Muslims in order to win. The West doesn’t have the strength, treasure but especially the will to fight a sustained religious conflict. Heck, even during the days of Christendom we didn’t. For all the maligning of the Crusades by the PC crowd, militarily-speaking they were poorly conceived, badly handled and proved to be failures. The moment we take the bait of the Islamofascists and make this into a War on Islam, we will lose. That was my concern about your book, not the entirety of the work. I look forward to reading your next book, or rather the next one I purchased at the same time as this one: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam.
Now if I may, allow me to respond to some of your readers here...
“From Patriots article: Any religion can be exploited as an ideology to be wielded in the temporal realm. That statement sounds more like 'confused liberal' rather than conservative. And it is an apology in itself.”
First, I occasionally guest-blog at Gay Patriot, I am not the blogger “Patriot”. Secondly, no, this is more like a statement of fact rather than a repeat of erroneous liberal conclusions stemming from such.
“'Temporal'? What does that mean?”
Civil, lay or secular as opposed to religious or ecclesiastical.
“Translated it is the same, worn out, argument that 'Christians do it too', all religions are basically the same, and there are only a small (but unknown) number of 'wielders'/radicals/jihadists, that have hijacked Islam for purposes of 'exploitation'...Ain't that a crock...Lol”
While I suppose the argument can be made to varying degrees of success, excusing Islamic extremism by use of such argument was the furthest thought from my mind. This goes especially for your imparting to me the charge of syncretism which I categorically reject because while all religions have “some elements of truth” as the Catholic Catechism puts it, they are most definitely NOT all the same. Finally, whatever the number of violent radicals may really be, even if we’re talking about say 1% that would be approximately 10 million of them which is still a dangerous threat.
“Loosely, there is an apologetic element to your writings, since the exploration of the toxic Islam helps people understand what a treasure Christianity is.”
That “apologetic element” is what I was referring to. What I did not say was that Mr. Spencer is an apologist himself or that this book really IS an apologetics piece. I said that it reads like one in my view, is useful for such efforts even if such wasn’t his intent and that I didn’t view it as completely useful in public policy matters in prosecuting this war.
“As for the medieval comments, I suspect he is evoking some sort of fear of a return to Christendom, with no separation of Church and state. This is a paranoia of the left and some silly books have been written about this. Often leftists and secularists have a difficult time understanding how a religion would not be a private matter, but that Christians would participate in the Public Square without wanting to take over the state.”
Without a unified church in the West a revised Christendom would look very different from its medieval predecessor to be sure, but yes a complete erosion of this separation of Church and State is a concern though more from some strands of Protestantism than Catholicism. Frankly, I seriously doubt the Catholic Church would want the headache of trying to keep its American flock and “separated brethren” in line through the force of civil law. A concern is simply that: a concern, not the paranoia as many who are hostile to all religion on the extreme left have expressed.
“This said, I think the writing and thinking of the reviewer is muddled. He's got some points, but there does not seem to be a coherent argument there yet. I'd recommend he get a subscription to ‘First Things’ for a year and understand current conservative political Christianity a bit better, then do a re-write.”
Quite possibly, for I make no pretensions to being anything other than an “average Joe” with a blog. You are correct when you later say that I lack a “theological/historical background”. Frankly, I’m surprised that Mr. Spencer even bothered commenting. I gave an opinion from the status of an ordinary reader, not an academic, about a book I enjoyed and recommended, from an author whose work on Hot Air I’ve followed for awhile now. I had forgotten about this website of his since I followed most of his stuff at Hot Air until I was sent a link to this thread. The fact that my opinion of it didn’t square with what others saw in the book seems to have created some strong responses, many of which have no basis in fact about what I actually said (or perhaps intended to convey in some cases), believe or have even posted either at Gay Patriot or my own blog. As for First Things magazine, it has been quite awhile since I’ve read it but I’d second your recommendation as many previous articles I’ve seen were good to read. The blog for First Things isn’t bad either.
“It continues to astound me that gays, Jews, and other minorities don't seem to ‘get it’ about Islam. Yes, all religions can be twisted to advocate violence. Some religions, however, actually need no twisting. “
It is because I’m a Christian, an American and gay that I have strongly supported the GWOT. This doesn’t mean that the handling of it by the Bush Administration has been the best at times, in fact it has been bungled repeatedly, but the overall effort I very much support especially in light of the suicidal defeatism I see on the extreme Left. I refer you to my numerous posts sharply critical of their approach on both blogs.
“As a defense to the threat they assume only fools and primitive people need religion. It is a very proud POV. And we all know pride proceeds a fall.”
Absolutely wrong and not at all what I said or even implied. At the risk of falling afoul of Matthew 5:21, only fools reject God – including those who fall prey to foolish pride.
“Stands to reason that the Koran should be banned as well, since Robert's book is merely mirroring what is written therein.”
Neither would be productive in this war effort and such a move would kill what we are fighting to protect.
“Give the man a colored ribbon and tell him to pat himself on the back until his self-esteem is refilled.”
My self-esteem is fine without any ribbons, thanks anyways.
JohnAGJ states: "It is because I’m a Christian, an American and gay that I have strongly supported the GWOT."
**It is as impossible to be a Homosexual Christian, as it is to be a God loving atheist. When a person truly accepts Christ as their savior, they must be willing to give up those things which displease Him. Homosexuality is one of those things, as the Bible, which is His Word, expressly prohibits the lifestyle by calling it an "abomination", which means that God hates the lifestyle so much it makes Him sick to His stomach. Although Homosexuality is no greater a sin than telling a lie in the eyes of God, to be a true follower of Jesus, you cannot continue to do either one. Your love for Him will override your desire to please yourself. To continue the lifestyle is a blatant disregard for His standard, and an act of willful disobedience, and those who do either one without remorse or concern, are not true Christians, so they are still in their sins and will not enter Heaven. They have chosen to follow their own desires rather than Jesus. If they continue in their way until death, they will have chosen hell over heaven. We must enter into the gates of Heaven according to God's way, or we do not enter in at all.**
__________________________________________________
"What is worse then the sin of Homosexuality?
Teaching people it's ok to commit the sin of homosexuality."
"As it is written,
But whoso shall cause one of these little ones
that believe on me to stumble,
it is profitable for him
that a great millstone
should be hanged about his neck,
and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea."
Above quotations is an excerpt from this site:
http://www.freejesus.net/views/sin.php
a·pol·o·get·ics Audio Help (ə-pŏl'ə-jět'ĭks) Pronunciation Key
n. (used with a sing. verb)
1)The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.
2)Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.
John,
Spencer's book qualifies as neither.
Simply expressing criticism of something belies support of something else, hence every opinion can be deemed as apologetic, in one form or another, with the comment by 'James Martel', notwithstanding.
Awake: Once more, I said that in my view the book reads like an apologetics piece and was useful for such efforts, not that it actually was one. As a layman I am familiar with the genre from the classics like Athenagoras & Justin Martyr to the moderns like Mark Shea & Scott Hahn. Mr. Spencer's book struck me as being similiar in many respects. It makes no sense for you to once more inform me that "Spencer's book qualifies as neither" when I never made such a claim. Yet if you prefer a rigid dictionary definition, fine. It would fall under polemic, the opposite of apologetic. Since that word is considered almost a pejorative in popular usage nowadays, it seems more prudent to stick with what I am more familiar with in describing how the book appeared to me. I was unaware that the word apologetics had taken on a similiar negative connotation.
Awake: Once more, I said that in my view the book reads like an apologetics piece and was useful for such efforts, not that it actually was one. As a layman I am familiar with the genre from the classics like Athenagoras & Justin Martyr to the moderns like Mark Shea & Scott Hahn. Mr. Spencer's book struck me as being similiar in many respects. It makes no sense for you to once more inform me that "Spencer's book qualifies as neither" when I never made such a claim. Yet if you prefer a rigid dictionary definition, fine. It would fall under polemic, the opposite of apologetic. Since that word is considered almost a pejorative in popular usage nowadays, it seems more prudent to stick with what I am more familiar with in describing how the book appeared to me. I was unaware that the word apologetics had taken on a similiar negative connotation.
John,
Like I have said many times on your site and I will gladly reiterate here, you have completely misinterpreted Spencer's 'The Truth About Muhammad' and attempted to render it as a piece of apologia.
That is patently false, regardless of your personal misinterpretation of the definition of the term, "apologetics".
I have also stated that I disagree with your claim that the "fiction" that we are not at war with Islam is a necessary step to win this war. This continued obfuscation of what Islam is, as it existed historically and as is currently practiced today, is overtly self-evident, and contrary to that claim.
Everyone makes mistakes, and I'm am all but certain that you internally acknowledge that you made one, by your hasty analysis on Spencer's aforementioned book and his general position. Your initial words belie someone that neither read that particular book (in full), nor has visited this site with any regularity, the latter transgression, by your own admission.
A simple re-write of your critique of "The Truth About Muhammad" is certainly in order, if you will. Your continued presence on this site, with your valuable comments going forward, regarding the threat of Islamic jihad, is paramount, in my estimation.
History of "the Prophet", as relayed and written by authentic Islamic sources is neither "apologetic", nor "polemic".
Regards.
First of all, I'm not sure why my reply yesterday was posted twice. My apologies.
Thank you awake, but I very much disagree with you and stand by all the comments I've made on this matter. I expressed a view that I still find valid even if others, including Mr. Spencer, believe it to be a "hasty analysis" and completely disagree with me. Contrary to your remarks, I did read the entire work or rather listened to the entire unabridged audiobook, narrated by John Adams. You have attached far more importance to them than they deserve, unfortunately mischaracterized them and found offense where none was ever intended. Something we do agree upon is that the book is a good read and one to recommend to others. Beyond that, we'll have to agree to disagree. As for this website, I indeed haven't visited here before and look forward to exploring it more. Thanks.