The Washington Times published a review of Robert Spencer’s new book: The Truth About Muhammad. Andrew Bostom is very positive about Robert’s book and makes it sound like a very interesting and informative read: even when one does not agree with the Robert’s conclusions as to how to best deal with Islam and more specifically and perhaps better said, integration.
Andrew explains that Robert Spencer went as far back as possible to analyse the behavior / life of Muhammad, to be able to pain an as accurate picture as humanly possible.
A salient feature of “The Truth About Muhammad” is its exclusive reliance on pious Muslim sources: the earliest (and most respected) Muslim biographers of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq (died 773), Ibn Sa’d (845), and the great historian al-Tabari (923); the “gold-standard” canonical hadith collections of Bukhari (870), and Muslim (875); and the Koran itself.
As Mr. Spencer notes, these are the same sources contemporary Muslim biographers have relied upon, both respected scholars (such as the late Martin Lings, aka Abu Bakr Siray Ad-Din), and popularizers (Javeed Akhter, Yahiya Emerick).He concludes with a series of logical, unflinching recommendations for non-Muslim governments, all of which hinge, ultimately, upon an honest recognition of Muhammad’s bellicose example: Stop insisting that Islam is a religion of peace; initiate a full-scale Manhattan Project to find new energy sources; make Western aid contingent upon renunciation of the jihad ideology; call upon American Muslim advocacy groups to work against the jihad ideology; revise immigration policies with the jihad ideology in view.
Read the entire review for yourself. Of this I am convinced: we need to think about this subject and explore it as much as we possibly can. We need to be honest and open about our conclusions: it will inspire a highly necessary debate.
If one looks at Muhammad’s life, one cannot – as I see it – possibly insist that he was a man of peace. He was much more, or less, than that. He led armies, many people of other religions died due to his orders / actions, he condoned (/ ordered) the stoning of women, etc.
Note: this does not mean that there are not ‘peaceful Muslims’. I know ‘peaceful Muslims’ myself. It does mean, however, that certain problems might prove to be more systematical than we might expect and / or that the problems will continue to play an important role in the world for many, many years, even decades.
