| Subcategories | Age (feature_two_browse-bin) Condition (condition-type) |
|
|
|
|
Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The (Politically Incorrect Guides) (Politically Incorrect Guides) | 
 enlarge | Author: Robert Spencer
Publisher: Regnery Publishing Inc
Category: Book
Buy New: £6.34
New (18) Used (9) from £5.99
Rating:  45 reviews
Sales Rank: 35878
Media: Paperback
Pages: 270
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.1
Dimensions (in): 8.9 x 7.2 x 0.7
ISBN: 0895260131
Dewey Decimal Number: 297
EAN: 9780895260130
ASIN: 0895260131
Publication Date: May 20, 2008
Availability: Usually dispatched within 1-2 business days
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Brand New. Shipped from UK Mainland. Delivery is usually 4 - 5 working days from order by Royal Mail, International Delivery is by Airmail.
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 40 more reviews...
 Manfesto for war June 15, 2008
Pipistrel (Oxford United Kingdom)
4 out of 13 found this review helpful
This is a disgusting mish-mash of lies and half-truths aimed at reassuring Westerners that Islam is a barbaric religion. The author agrees with George Bush and Osama Bin Laden that the West is at war with Islam. Past Western excesses are excused as self-defense. Past Islamic excesses are portrayed as typical of the religion. Carefully selected verses from the Koran are served up out of context and interpreted with total disregard for scholarship. A book for the garbage bin.
Oh dear May 31, 2008
prof. murray (spain)
7 out of 18 found this review helpful
This book is far too right wing and ranting. I really wanted to be better informed about Islam and thought that this would be a good place to start. I do not consider myself 'politically correct'however I do think that I am fair and reasonable. I think that this book and books like it are a worry. I will not be giving it to charity or passing it on to a friend, this is the first book ever that I am going to throw away.
 Interesting read! April 4, 2008
Gary (London, UK)
6 out of 10 found this review helpful
Just a few notes rather than a review:
It's an interesting read with plus points and minus points. Firstly i read this book as a confirmed athiest. I do think Islam is particularly dangerous but i also believe there is a Christian backlash forming that will be just as dangerous and zealous and this book will add fuel to their fire. I was hoping for an even handed write up of Islam but the problem i had with the book were the little info boxes, things like the 'Jesus Vs Muhammad' boxes that cherry picked quotes from the Bible to paint it as a non violent religion when there are equally violent passages to be found in the Bible. And also anyone who disagreed with the author's viewpoint were labelled 'apologists' or 'PC allies on the American Left'.
A good read, easy to follow but somewhat unsatisfying.
Deeply flawed and deeply biased. April 1, 2008
M. Laher (Leicester, England)
13 out of 30 found this review helpful
I have a deep understanding of the crusades, much more than author, Robert Spencer can claim to have. I am currently studying medieval history at an advanced level so have learnt quite a bit about the crusades.
His argument for the crusades being justified is deeply ignorant and seem to appeal to the armchair critic. The crusades were NOT "in line with the times" and certainly not in line with the laws of conduct in battle at the time. This book has got me so angry because Spencer speaks of topics he clearly doesn't understand and I have spent years studying about. It amazes me how many people are blinded by hate and bias and swallow this rubbish.
I could write a dissertation critiqing the entire book and its contents, but I shall point out two particularly jarring false claims as this is meant to be short and the crusades are my specialty. I hope by pointing out these flaws you start critiquing the rest of the book as well instead of taking it all as fact.
Firstly, the claim the crusades were neccessary to protect christian lands. False. The crusades were started due to a plea for help from the orthodox byzantine church to help them against the seljuk turks. The only direct action taken against the turks was the siege of antioch. After that crusader eyes turned to jerusalem which was in the hands of the the Egyptian empire who were not a direct threat to christian land. The seljuks remained neighbours of constantinople and would eventually capture it under the name of the ottomans. All the time the seljuk turks remained north of antioch biding their time and helping their egyptian comrades in a common cause. The crusaders attacks on both antioch AND Jerusalem in the first crusade showed greed and stupidity. It made the alliance between the seljuks and the mamluks impenetrable. One of the chief reasons for the crusades failing in my eyes was the fact the crusaders had made bitter enemies of both the seljuks and the mamluks right from the first crusade.
Secondly, the claim that the crusaders were in line with military policy at the time. They murdered, raped and pillaged their way to jerusalem. None of these were policies of muslim armies. I read a previous review that muslims preferred to live under the crusaders than muslim rulers. This is again, in my opinion, untrue. In fact, the jews living in muslim cities pledged to support muslim defenders against the crusaders such was their reputation as occupiers. In fact at one siege(siege of Maarat)the victorious crusaders resorted to cannibalism, feeding upon the dead bodies of enemy soldiers and children. In fact one of their own chroniclers at the event wrote of the scene before him with joy, "In Ma'arra our troops boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled." They sacked THE greatest city (constantinople) in christianity above probably even Rome. They destroyed great Greek, Roman and Christian art, slaughtered fellow christians and reduced the city to rubble. Deeply ironic considering that the same city sent out a plea for help against the turks starting the crusades. Little did they know that just over a century later it would be the crusaders who would bring their city to its knees and not the seljuks. A quote I learnt spoken by a byzantine chronicler after the sack of constantinople indicates his wish that it was the seljuks who conquered constantinople as they would have let its people live.
I can come up with many more reasons why Spencers arguments are baseless but this is meant to be a review. So I end it by saying this. If you truly want to learn about Islam you wouldn't make the same mistake I did in picking up this book. I went into the book with caution and neutrality and found myself helped by my slant. After reading this book I can't help feeling that the author recognised a certain formula.
Politically incorrect + Islam = $$$$$$$$
That has to be the answer because there was certainly not a lot of educated thought and judgement that went into writing this book.
As far as I'm concerned this belongs in the fiction section!
 Now I understand January 25, 2008
Jma Pinero-rey (Ely)
7 out of 11 found this review helpful
In this politically charged world that we live in, it is hard to find out the truth about or speak out about certain subjects without being branded certain words. This book bravely and intelligently spells out what Islam is all about and why we should be weary of it. It is non-biased in that it shows and translates the relevant passages and gives you the equivalent christian meaning and the differences are quite major. If you are unsure what Islam is all about, buy this book.
|
|
|
|
Merlin's Cave | |
