The incomparable Kathy Shaidle reviews my new book. "'The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran' (review)," by Kathy Shaidle in the Examiner, September 28:
Beginning with its title, The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, and the cheeky "icons" on the cover, Robert Spencer's new book is guaranteed to annoy some people even before they read it (which they probably won't bother doing anyhow.)
If you have read Spencer's other books about Islam, The Complete Infidel's Guide... won't provide you with any new information.
I love Kathy Shaidle, but here I must beg to differ. Since I have written nine books on Islam and jihad, people seem to be assuming that there is nothing more to say, and that I am rehashing material from old books. This is not the case. So let's get specific, since this has come up before. In this book, and in none of my other books, I discuss how the Koran was compiled; alternate versions of the Koran; alleged miracles of the Koran; how the Koran adapts and alters Biblical stories such as those of Adam, Noah, Moses, Solomon, Mary and Jesus; the Koranic appropriation of Jewish, Christian and even pagan figures; the foundations of Islamic mysticism in the Koran; the ways in which seemingly innocuous passages of the Koran actually convey meanings quite different from what may appear to non-Muslim Westerners; how the Koran's stories of the Biblical prophets are all told in a way meant to support Muhammad's prophetic claim; why Muslims regard the Jews as their worst enemies; how and why the New Testament accounts of Christ are altered in the Koran; the Koran's moral code and what it is conspicuously lacking; and more.
This new book is best considered as a gift for any friends who are misinformed about the Muslim religion. Because of its easy-to-read format, it is also a helpful handbook for anyone who finds themselves caught up in religious and political arguments on a regular basis.
As its title suggests, the book is designed to be an easy read, with its helpful side bars and other "dummies/idiots" layout features. Sometimes, those breezy and irreverent sidebars are more jarring than informative, placed as they are amidst Spencer's alarming exegesis.
Spencer, who has studied the Koran in depth for many years, offers ready answers for apologists who insist that Islam is a "peaceful religion" that has been "misunderstood" by a "tiny minority of extremists."
Using actual quotations from the Koran itself, Spencer argues that this is simply not the case. He insists that anti-Semitism and anti-Christian feeling is rife throughout the Muslim holy book, not to mention all the verses advocating domestic violent [sic].
Spencer also compares the New Testament's famous teachings about loving your enemies with Koranic injunctions to kill them. Overall, the Koran is steeped in troubling stories of slavery, occupation and downright strangeness that will surprise readers expecting it to be a sort of "Arabian Nights" version of the Christian Gospel.
Spencer counters all the familiar protestations: that critics are "taking the Koran out of context" or that one can't really understand the Koran anyway unless they read it in Arabic (which conveniently places many ignorant Westerners at a disadvantage.)
The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran is the very best introduction around to what the Koran actually says, how political correctness has made it almost impossible to discuss the Koran and other sacred Muslim texts candidly, and how everyone from George Bush to Barack Obama have misinterpreted it - with grave implications for national security and foreign policy.
Dear Robert,
I just left Amazon! I wanted to buy the book. I registered in with my name & password as required, clicked the book and nothing happened! The machine isn't working! No place to stick the money in or VISA card!
I'll let my friend but it, & I'll steal it from him!...
Errata Sheet:
For "it is also a helpful handbook for anyone who finds themselves"
Read "it is also a helpful handbook for anyone who finds himself"
He always meant, in the good old days, he and she. And himselfalways meant, in the same kind of usage, both himself and herself. It was an old and useful convention. It should not have been abandoned for the sake of a phony (because completely unnecessary) "inclusion." The abandonment of that convention has been solecism upon solecism, as above, or the clumsiness, the awfulness, of having everywhere to insert "he or she" or "her or him" or "himself or herself." Basta. It's idiotic.
I respectfully beg to differ, Hugh. The male pronoun shouldn't be the standard in grammar anymore than a male's life experience should be the standard for both sexes, against which all experience is measured.
What you call phony inclusion may be unnecessary for you, since you are a male and are included in the he and the him. But for a little girl growing up, the male dominance in language adds to the pervading atmosphere of her childhood that females don't count and are of little importance.
Clumsy it may be, but inclusive language is the only fair way to express our thoughts.
Mr. Spencer.
Congratulations on your new book. And thanks for all your effort for educating the others on Jihad in all its shapes and forms.
Robert, I'm looking forward to reading your new book and will request that my local library buy a copy. I need to get "up to speed" on the Qur'an and will appreciate having facts at my fingertips.
Maybe you've discussed this before, but why did you decide on the spelling "Koran" in the title?
I hope Mr. Spencer pointed this out .
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allāh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allāh (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zālimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.) (Al-Baqarah 2:193)
O you who believe! Spend of that with which We have provided for you, before a Day comes when there will be no bargaining, nor friendship, nor intercession. And it is the ]disbelievers who are the Zālimûn (wrong-doers, etc.). (Al-Baqarah 2:254)
[url=http://transliteration.org/quran/WebSite_CD/MixNoble/Fram2E.htm]Quraan Transliteration[/url]
Many shes of my acquaintance, beginning but not ending with my mother, have never been the least bit offended by the "he" -- when used in the generic (mankind) sense -- as offensive; such useful conventions are understood, accepted, and not worried about as psychic barriers to inclusion. Autres temps, autres moeurs, I suppose, but I find a relaxed acceptance of this, especially nowadays, attractive. What would Jane Austen, or George Eliot, say?
Jane Austen and George Eliot, especially the former, would be on your side, Hugh. Both of these authors could zing men far more effectivley with their prose than by dithering over which pronoun was or was not appropriate.
It's idiotic.
Absolutely!
Not only that, but it makes little idiots of little girls and little boys, which in many cases lasts for the rest of their life.
Accepting that, PC imposed, "improvement" of language is almost as stupid as accepting "gay" for homosexual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHv7NGWb0k
The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran is the very best introduction around to what the Koran actually says
Introduction? Introduction? Wouldn't this be, like, the best book of all on the worst book of all? Ms. Shaidle needs to understand that Islam just ain't that deep.
What Mohammed did was make a mountain out of a mole hill. Or maybe a better metaphor would be that he made a vast global network of suppurated sores out of a single shanker, that'd be more like it.
*** 70:28 ***
Who we supposed to read then, Lewis?
I'm hoping to direct some of your attention to my argument for continuing toward a gender-neutral English grammar here.
I always refer to my bride as Herself .
Yeah, but who's manning the phones?
; )
While I haven't yet read Robert's new book on the Quran, the most informative review that I've read thus far is this one from the Conservative Book Club:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/09/at-last-a-readable-and-honest-guide-to-the-book-that-inspires-terrorists-worldwide-the-koran.html
This review provides an extensive list of the contents.
Regarding the above debate over grammar, advocates of "himself" as gender-neutral ought to consider these humorous examples:
"Was it your father or your mother who broke his leg on a ski trip?"
"Either the husband or the wife has perjured himself."
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001362.html
The English language does not currently have gender-neutral terms for the above examples. To my mind, "themself," though awkward, would at least be more sensible than "himself" in cases like the latter. "Their" would be preferable to "his" in the former case.
Shaidle (or an editor) wrote: "...[Spencer's new book] is also a helpful handbook for anyone who finds themselves caught up in religious and political arguments on a regular basis."
The semantic error in the above quote involves an error of quantity. "Anyone" has to be followed by a singular term like "themself," or "himself," or "herself," or the ugly but logical "himself/herself." To use "themselves," the author could have preceded it with "those who" instead of "anyone who."
Here is what the Compact Oxford dictionary states:
"themself
• pronoun third person sing. informal used instead of ‘himself’ or ‘herself’ to refer to a person of unspecified sex.
— USAGE The standard reflexive form corresponding to they and them is themselves, as in they can do it themselves. The singular form themself, first recorded in the 14th century, has re-emerged in recent years to correspond to the singular gender-neutral use of they, as in this is the first step in helping someone to help themself. It is not generally accepted as good English, however."
"Themself" seems to me to be better than the alternatives.
OT, adding to the discussion of pronouns and gender.
The majority of Aboriginal Australian languages have a completely neutral third-person singular and third-person-plural pronoun.
For example: in the Gubbi Gubbi language that was once spoken in a part of Queensland, the pronoun 'ngunda' means either 'he' or 'she' or 'it', according to context; and 'djanabu' means 'they' (whether female or male or neuter).
Having studied (not formally) a few of these languages, I have to say, it takes a little while for someone used to English, to get used to the fact that you only need the one pronoun to refer to a man or to a woman.
Just for fun, in order to get an idea of just how differently different languages can 'map' the social world:
this is what Eastern Arrernte offers as three possible ways to say 'we-more-than-two'.
'anwantherre' means 'we more than two, who are from different moieties [e.g. I, my brothers and sisters and our mum]'.
'anwakerre' - 'we more than two, all from same moiety but different generation levels [e.g. my brothers and sisters, I and our father]'
'anwerne' - 'we more than two, same moiety, same generation level [e.g. I and my brothers and sisters]' (Under the influence of English this form is coming to be used by young Arrernte people as a general first-person-plural without reference to whether the people described are related or not).