The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam by Robert Spencer - Essay Example

? Introduction Robert Spencer shakes things in an equally controversial book The Politically incorrect Guide to Islam. This book obliterates simplistic, politically correct opinions about the Islam religion. It compares, word by word, the teachings between Muhammad and the teachings of Buddhism, Christianity and other religions. A very famous example is where Jesus was faced with a situation of adulterous woman. He saved the woman from the angry crowd that was about to stone her and told the woman to go and never sin again. Muhammad was faced with a similar situation; where he was approached by a pregnant adulterous woman who needed prayers. He sent her away until the child was born. When the woman came back after several months, he took the child and gave it to a friend as a gift while he ordered the woman to be stoned to death. This book covers a lot of ground with the study of Muhammad, the development of Quran, the spread of Islam religion, and Islam’s early wars hence the culmination of the Crusades. The book is introduced as an examination of some specific tendentious contentions about Islam religion and the Crusades that have been a source of current debates. Spencer provides readers an extensive exploration about Islam that cannot be taught in school or that may not be exposed in the media; in so doing he paints religion in a broadly negative light. The general notion that Islam is a peaceful religion that has been hijacked by small minority of extremists is the beginning of all PC myths surrounding Islam. To back his claims, he quotes several Western Historical figures such as John Quincy, Alexis de Tocqueville and Winston Churchill who have been vocal in criticizing Islam. The book criticizes Islam as both oppressive and militant and gives a historical account of the crusades based on the argument that they were a late response of European civilization to the centuries of occupation and invasion which started in the 8thC in Italy, France, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily and major parts of Eastern Europe. Spencer argues that the civilization clash between the West and Islam in the 21stC was as a result of a continuation of a 14thC long jihad which commenced at the inception of Islam. The book also offers discussions about the difficulties of treating this topic in a ever disintegrated current political environment. The fact is the book has both the bright and not-so bright sides. On the bright side, Spencer denies many myths penetrated by the PC crowd: that mainly states that Islam and Christianity are for the greater part been equivalent traditions, that crusaders were selfish land-hungry colonizers, that Jihadists were benign sweetie-pies and many other controversies. Honestly, I do agree with his bruising of Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven film which depicts a sentimentally liberal Islam during crusades periods. On the other side of the Spence’s book, he gives several myths that need correction. These include: Christianity is essentially begin and Islam nasty The crusades were defensive conflicts We should be grateful for crusades These three points as expressed by Spenser are myths and ironical in nature. 1) Myth one: Christianity is essentially begin and Islam nasty The book “The Politically incorrect Guide to Islam” is full of “Jesus vs. Muhammad” punctuations, whereby several teachings of Jesus are compared and contrasted with the intolerant and militant teachings of Prophet Muhammad. Taking for instance page 35: Jesus teachings was “blessed are the persecuted” and it is contrasted with Prophet Muhammad’s authority to kill persecutors claiming that “persecution is worse than slaughter” (Qur'an 2:191). Again in page 143, Spencer describes Jesus’ teachings and deeds to be merciful to enemies as compared to Muhammad’s command to ruthless to unbelievers but merciful to fellow Muslims. The mention of Islam develops a feeling of fear on the part of many non-Muslims because of what they have been told or heard about the Muslims. In my opinion, it is pointless to list the Quran’s incendiary because one can do that using the New Testament. This is exactly what was done by the Medievalists in the process of justifying their crusades. The Quran has more than enough benign that are able to smooth the progress of evolution out of the Jihad. For example, the inclusion of the message that encourages people to refrain from killing someone -- "for it would be as if you slew all people" (Qur'an 5:32)-contradicts Jesus teachings as indicated in Mathew 10: 34 which states that “insistence that he came to bring not peace but a sword”. I am not refuting that Quran as a religious book disregards violence while the New Testament acts on the opposite direction. The fact is the scriptures are everlastingly impressionable. It is right to say that Muslims have not managed to shed the Jihad because real world dynamics have not motivated and facilitated such a move and not because they have not been allowed by their scriptures. On the other hand, Crusaders were selected out of experience and this is one thing we are always thankful to the Protestants for bringing and perpetuating this kind of reformation. The Crusades were discarded for the reason that they were unable to get along with contending political structures. As Wright writes: "Because Europe was politically fragmented, there were lots of polities experimenting with forms of political and economic organization that would let them best their neighbors. The more experiments there are, the more likely you are to find a winning formula -- such as the combination of political and economic liberty that was proving its power in the Netherlands by the late 16th century and in Britain by the late 17th. The success of this formula gave nearby Christian nations little choice but to adopt it, and their Christianity evolved accordingly." It is because of impeding good business that made the crusades extinct but not because they were seen as morally inferior or conflicting the teachings from the New Testament. The Islam nations on the other part are in the process of developing and moving towards a more cosmopolitan direction. Hence it is clear that the Jihad remains a modern phenomenon as opposed to the crusade. Spencer’s myth is as controversial as it is logical. In providing the readers an expose of Islamic religion that is not good enough to be taught in schools or that cannot be heard in the news, he paints Islam religion in a negatively light. He offers some small proposals which exclude the role of Muslim moderates/reformists must undertake because he is worried that their theological foundations are not strong enough. 2) Myth two: The crusades were defensive conflicts The Human rights activists always advocates for freedom of speech. However, drawing a line between hate speech and free speech is always difficult. But it is necessary for this line to exits to ensure no abuse of freedom of speech. The disparagement of Arabs, Muslims and Islam has become relentless. Continual repeats of the same things have been shown to create credibility. False logic and repeated outright lies have adapted the element of truth. On rather a sad note, these stereotypes have substituted knowledge with misperception and ignorance. Ignorance fuels hatred of something that we do not know much about it. The consistent perception that Muslims are not part of us and impossible to understand explains the concept of ignorance. Spencer’s claim is a common thing especially among apologist. Even though Crusade was pressed nominally into the service, the first crusade was not advocated for defensive purposes. The 11th C did not witness the pan-Islamic threat to Christendom. In fact, the main reason behind the success of the first crusade was the fragmentation in the Islam religion. Spencer continues to dispel myths, cure ignorance and open people’s eyes about the crusade and Islam. He trades delusions for reality and tired expressions for scholarship. The Jihad that the Western world faces today is similar in its goals and motivation to that which Europe was able to stave several years ago as attributed to the large part of crusade. The crusade was born during the struggle for clerical reforms. The start-up of crusade was proactive rather than reactive. As Christopher Tyerman explains: "The reforming popes [from the mid-1040s onwards] increasingly claimed authority not just over all churches but over states and laymen as well. Ideologically and politically, this invited opposition, much of it physical. To establish and protect their 'right order' of Christendom, successive popes were forced to choose to fight with temporal weapons. The First Crusade was a direct result of this." (God's War, p 46) Spencer was accused because of this myth. The crusade solved the civil violence dilemma in France and this played a very vital role on his popularity. The violence that was experienced in the urban originated from different places and was channeled outwardly through aggression, against Islam, and unites Christians in a consecrated cause. As explained by Christopher; it was particularly a result of Urban’s conflict with Holy Roman Emperor and anti-pope: "In 1084 Henry IV invaded and captured Rome, installed his own anti-pope and forced Pope Gregory VII to find refuge with the Norman conquerors of southern Italy. Over the subsequent decade, Henry's anti-pope held sway in Rome, supported by repeated imperial forays south of the Alps. The background of the First Crusade lay in this conflict, as Urban II sought to use the mobilization of the expedition as a cover to reclaim the pope's position in Italy and demonstrate his practical leadership of Christendom, independent of secular monarchs." (ibid, p 7) The idea by the Muslims of protecting non-Muslims is a far cry from most West Countries who know that religious tolerance and freedom of worship is vital for perfect co-existence between Christians and Muslims. The negative idea about demonizes every Muslims is wrong and should be condemned with the highest voice ever. There is also a whole spectrum of ideas that simply connects Muslims or Islam with any negative idea, societal trend or event. Spencer’s view on Muslim is part of the demonization industry that takes Islam as the source of each and every negative action. If the Muslims are so different from other people that there will be no any positive motive that can come from them, if you unable to distinguish between a moderate and an extremist, than that limits the options to either carrying out a final solution or criminalizing Islam against Muslims. This is the kind of direction that is taken by Spencer’s arguments. The war o n terror can be won only if allies within the Muslim world are offered support not criticized. These moderates and reformists can generate an environment that makes it possible to challenge the ideology of hate that fuels the very jihad that is described by Spencer in his book. 3) Myth three: We should be grateful for crusades In this book, Spencer stage himself as an arch-enemy of the Jihad and apologetic to the crusades. This is an obvious irony because it was the crusade which accountable for the jihad and the opposite is not true. However, that does not mean did not achieve anything positive. But on the contrary, it is well known that crusades did Europe a lot of good. “The crusades helped drag Europe out of backwater anarchy, reformed a section of knights who taught how to be evil and channeled aggression outwards instead of inwards. Crusades also helped Europe to get in touch with advanced civilization which leads directly to Renaissance. The crusade’s main undoing was that they fed chauvinism against Islam, developed the effects of jihad and led to the perversions of crusading against eastern Christians and Jews” This is what I considered ironical about the jihad. Even though it had been put together and executed during the golden age of Islam, the Jihad went dormant until the 12thC when it was revived under the Ayyubids and Zengids. It took an augmented and disjointed Islam, and then invading crusaders, to help with sorting of the jihad which is now associated with Islamic Fundamentalism (Spencer,78). The crusades benefited Europe in numerous ways and this is something the PC crowd may not be interested in hearing. But the truth is we cannot afford to ignore the Catch-22, which is: the crusades were largely responsible for the jihad as known today by many people. I personally believe that Spencer is an Islamophobe and this is reflected in his writing. He claims that Muslim is misleading, incomplete and sometimes downright false revelation which in most cases goes contrary to God’s teachings in the Old and New Testaments. The Islamic jihad is something found allover the world; they are well financed and relentless. According to Spencer, Nobody should prevent anybody from protecting himself or herself against the jihad. He claims that the refusal to acknowledge reality that extremism, terrorism and violence are a trouble that is not cramped to Muslims. In fact, the many of these acts are executed by non-Muslims. The politically incorrect guide to Islam and the crusade is not that bad so to say. It is absolutely right for Spencer to claim that many of PC myths are treacherous and hinder the honest examination of the Fundamentals in which Islam is based upon. Thanks to the freedom of speech, I can categorically state that I hate political correctness and untruthful sweet talks, and hence I find Spencer’s view ill informed. Personally, I argue that the problem with Islam does not lie in the crusades or its scriptures, while achieving positive things, led to the growth of jihad in the process and were hence as offensive as jihad could be. Even though I can appreciate this Spencer’s book as a natural antidote to the PC slop we are sometimes served up with nowadays, the book is a wake up call for the ever increasing ignorance perception that has found its way into many people’s minds (Spencer, 67). It is therefore not right for a serious student of crusade or Islamic fundamentalism. The element of Islam as a peaceful religion has never ceased to exist. For example, many Muslim organizations and political leaders have flatly condemned the September 11, 1988 on USA. In many cultures, Muslims may report very violent views: for instance quite a large percentage of them in Jordan believed that death is a punishment for leaving Muslim religion. However, these diverse culture in Muslim religion does not necessary mean a collection of believes and opinions by all Muslims. Conclusion Onward Muslim soldiers explain, scrupulously, clearly, meticulously, the core political tenets of Islam religion that make so many of its adherents such a threat to the whole non-Muslim world. Through this book, Spencer cuts through the sentimentalism of confusion, fear and ignorance in the West that is carefully exploited by Muslim apologists. He offers detailed and referenced knowledge of how militant Muslims are at work in the West and how quite a number of western partisans have been deceived by their words of tolerance and peace. While it is advisable for a person to undertake all he can to encourage Muslim moderation, it is not advisable to ignore the element of Muslim extremism. I find the book challenging, if not disturbing as it gives imminent into a fundamentalist, rigid Islamist view of the world. The question of Islam unveiled in the book poses and gives answers it provides are hard to disregard and given the urgency of the times. This book opens a highway for a very interesting argument that can help Americans and the rest of the world think through what may as well turn out to be the greatest cultural, political and religious conflict of the century. References Spencer, Robert. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Washington, DC: Regnery Pub, 2005. Print. Read More