Religion of peace robert spencer pdf

Is Christianity's history really as bloodstained as Islam's? In Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't, New York Times bestselling author Robert Spencer not only refutes such charges, but also explains why Americans and Europeans must regain an appreciation of our Christian heritage if we ever hope to defeat Islamic supremacism. If we are not to perish under Islam's religion of the sword--with its more than million active jihadists seeking to impose sharia law--we had better defend our own civilization.

A combination of 2 and 3. Amazing that Robert Spencer has found a Muslim willing to debate him—most are too intimidated these days. Hashmi used Berkeley as a base for a while. He is on about this on his Twitter feed. By the way, he is for Iran developing nukes. No surprise there. Hashmi is well miked and speaks with a clear voice.

Spencer is poorly miked, which makes it a strain to listen to his muffled voice. Too bad. I enjoyed this debate, it did get heated in places but on the whole it was quite respectful both ways. I learnt a lot and recommend all readers give this a full listen. Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 3. Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Start your review of Religion of Peace? Sep 12, Don Peterson rated it really liked it. Some would call it hate speech, but Robert Spencer dares to tell the truth about Islam, particularly its roots and traditions that most western writers either don't know, or would like to pretend didn't exist.

View 1 comment. Jan 01, Richard rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: Thinking people. I had a little bit of trouble getting through this one, because I get angry at what people don't just don't see or understand.

Anyone who really wants to understand current world events needs to understand Islam, the Crusades and Christianity. Then you will understand that none are blameless, but Islam has no forgiveness without conversion. Islam is spread by force, their soldiers are their missionaries, ultimately, it's convert or die with a chance to first live as a sub-class person with hard I had a little bit of trouble getting through this one, because I get angry at what people don't just don't see or understand.

Islam is spread by force, their soldiers are their missionaries, ultimately, it's convert or die with a chance to first live as a sub-class person with hardly any rights or protections.

Christianity, on the other hand, when practiced properly is based on free will and love for one's neighbor. I am convinced that Islam is the "great and abominable church". I highly recommend this book to anyone who has enough critical thinking ability to want to see the world as it really is, and not just how the media wants us to. May 26, Lucy rated it did not like it Shelves: bullshit-propaganda , if-you-like-this-book-i-hate-you.

Protip: If you're going to write a book about how Christianity is a peaceful religion, you shouldn't put a picture of a Crusader holding a sword on the cover. View all 3 comments. Apr 30, Skylar Burris rated it it was ok Shelves: islam , christianity. The book was a bit repetitive at times and could have been written in a more engaging manner. It "The liberal West is much more comfortable attacking itself and condemning the Christians and conservatives in its midst than breaking the multiculutralist taboo and admitting that Western civilization might be better than Islamic civilization.

It makes some necessary and salient points, but I do have one criticism. Spencer does something I see done often in books aimed at critiquing Islam: he tries to have it both ways--he claims to want Muslims to reform Islam, but when certain Muslims claim that the Koran and "true Islam" offer no support for violence and oppression, he says they are obfuscating and ignoring the obvious i. Well, that may indeed be true, but how are religions liberalized except by interpreting the immoral actions of their practitioners as being contrary to the scriptures and "real teachings" of the religion?

Religions, as a whole, aren't changed by asking their practioners to chuck their scriptures or regard them as false. Religions are changed by trying to convince their practioners that their scriptures say things other than what they are currently or traditionally thought to say.

Perhaps it's not true that Islam offers no support for violence or oppression, but if you WANT Islam to become a religion that offers no support for violence or oppression, you have to allow Muslims to reinterpret the Koran and the religion accordingly. I understand the difficulty of the situation: it is annoying if not outright dangerous that there is a denial of the existence of a problem with radicalism within Islam.

Nevertheless, Islam is not going to cease to exist as a religion, and most people aren't going to be persuaded to change by being told that their religion is false and inherently inclined to provide support for bad things.

For example, you would be more likely to get an 18th century Christian to oppose slavery by showing him all the Bible verses that imply the immorality of such an institution, and by quoting all Christian thinkers who have opposed slavery, than by telling him, "Christianity supports slavery.

Christian scriptures support slavery. If you say they don't, you're just ignoring the fact that Christianity is an inherently slave-supporting religion and that lots of Christians own slaves. Your scriptures and religious tradition support an evil thing.

The self-flagellation of the West has grown tiresome. It would be nice if we could allow ourselves to be as proud of our cultural heritage as so many Muslims seem to be of theirs. The insistence that there is no difference, TODAY, between the danger posed by radical Islam and that posed by fundamentalist Christianity has also grown tiresome. So I'm sympathetic. But if I force myself to think practically here, I'm not sure that simply pointing out what is wrong with a religion, without emphasizing what is right, is going to lead to any kind of lasting, overall change.

I know myself as a Christian how easy it is to become hardened and entrenched, often in assumptions you would otherwise be willing to question and explore spirtually, simply because you feel your religion itself is being attacked and you find yourself in an instinctive position of defense.

Of course, this book isn't for Muslims. It's for secular, liberal Westerners, and I suppose, given the audience, compiling the long list of negatives is done in the hope of getting them to stop pretending that Pat Robertson is as great a threat to liberty as Osama Bin Laden. Of course, that's not the audience that will actually be reading this book, so what we have, in the end, is a great deal of preaching to the choir. Oh well. The choir likes a sermon now and then.

The best part of this book, and a theme I wished he had developed more, was his argument about why it is morally essential that societies allow much freedom and consequently tolerate much decadence. This, which he touches on only toward the end of the book, I think would be a much better line of argument to take—i. Without the freedom to choose evil, choosing good is not a virtue. It's nothing more than submitting to coercion.

One hopes, but Spencer reminds me that the very idea of separation of church and state is itself a radical Christian teaching: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, but render unto God the things that are God's. And that higher good is in the development of genuine virtue in the individual, by means of choices.

Some of his arguments are weak; some are strong. Reviewed by Bat Ye'or www. Middle East Quarterly Spring Spencer, director of JihadWatch. In his most recent, solid study, he examines the current state of controversies in the United States relating to Islam and Christianity. He exposes the ignorance and misunderstanding that riddle many discourses on religions. Beginning in the s, the search for common points led too many academics and intellectuals to efface the oppositions among Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in order to distinguish essential common points.

But the differences are vast: The totalizing Islamic interpretation of revelation gathers together under a single power the spheres of politics, religion, and justice, something unacceptable to the two biblical religions.