Lena K. reviewed Silent No More: Confronting America's False Images of Islam on + 2 more book reviews
Helpful Score: 1
Very good book.
Sarah K. reviewed Silent No More: Confronting America's False Images of Islam on + 2 more book reviews
This book is incredibly beyond a doubt enlightening. I don't know if the previous reviewer sees the irony in her review (firstly, the atrocious mispelling of the words seerah, qur'an, etc.) but also proving Findley's point that Americans do not know a lick about authentic Islam or the humanity that is Muslims. When one picks up a book like this, a book which exposes much of our own hidden assumptions, the first thing we should know is recognize those assumptions. Instead, what many will do (as evidenced by the first reviewer) is become defensive, ignorant, and callous. Making general statements is a horribly backwards way of gaining nothing from this book and as a result, I can assure you, as someone who has read this book and many like it, America's false image of Islam has been perpetuating so much hatred, so much insecurity, and unfair injustice towards the 7 million Muslims who we call neighbors, teachers, students, co-workers, that it is indeed disgraceful to see another American still hold steadily to her racist convictions. Hopefully, Kendra, you will actually read the whole book? Because if you had, you would've come away from it a more intellectual and well-equipped person to be able to dialogue with evidence-based opinions, instead of the vitriolic hatred and ignorance you are currently spewing. This book is indeed fantastic and the low rating should certainly not deter you from it.
Gloria R. (Psyche) reviewed Silent No More: Confronting America's False Images of Islam on + 145 more book reviews
A respected member of congress speaks out concerning Islam and our perceptions.
Kendra M. (KendraM) reviewed Silent No More: Confronting America's False Images of Islam on + 4 more book reviews
Well, I was hoping to stay apolitical here, but this is just not a good book. One of the quotes from the book is mentioned in the editorial review above. The author, Paul Findley states, "Most Americans have never read a verse from the Quran, nor met a person they knew to be Muslim. Their distorted images of Islam come from snippets of television news and headlines that falsely link Islam with terrorism and the degradation of women. They have no awareness of Islamic principles and beliefs-- monotheism, peace, charity, compassion, interfaith tolerance, women's rightscommon principles that should bind Muslims, Christians, and Jews together."
Hmmmm. . . what on earth is wrong with this statement?! It's true that most Americans have never read a verse from the Koran. However, these are the people, such as Paul Findley, who continue to praise Islam while denying any link to terror or dar al Harb. I have studied the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sirra. And, only because I have studied these books and others, do I KNOW that it's Paul Findley who has a distorted (though warm and fuzzy) view of Islam while I have a more realistic (and not so warm and fuzzy) view of Islam.
Paul Findley states that most Americans have no awareness of Islam's view on peace. Maybe that's true. However, Islam is clear on what peace is. As a matter of fact, there is no true word for peace in Islam. . .at least as how we use it. The true definition of Islam is SUBMISSION which is used as their word for 'peace'. As in "submission" to Allah. So, Islam means peace but it also means submission to Allah. Islam is clear. The entire world will be in the House of Peace, or dar al Islam (House of Peace/Submission to Allah) when the whole world is under Islamic rule or Shari'a. When there is a return to the Caliphate. So, right now, it is impossible to have peace. Right now we are in a state called dar al Harb, or the House of War.
That is the Koranic view of peace. Hey, I'm just the messenger. Don't be mad at me for telling you what is in their religious doctrine. I'm as unhappy about it as you must be.
Okay. Next, Paul Findley states that Americans don't understand Islam's view on women. Hmmmm. . . well, it seems that Mr. Findley must not have a good view on this. In Islam, men are permitted to marry women as young as six years old. Aisha, one of Muhammed's wives was only six when he married her, so all Muslim men can marry girls as young as six. However, they must wait until the girl is nine to consummate the marriage because that's what Muhammed did. That's the Islamic view of women, or girls. Further, women have no say in who they marry if their father doesn't want to give them that say. Women may be the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or even the 4th wife since men can marry up to four women. Men can beat their wives as it is encouraged for misbehavior in the Koran. Women can only receive half the inheritance of their male counterparts and women's testimony in court is only given half the weight as men's testimony. This is Islamic law. this is Shari'a.
And, just to be sure, 80% of all Detroit Muslims want Sharia law brought to America (there hasn't been a big U.S. study done yet) and 40% of young UK Muslims want Sharia law brought to the UK. So, many many Muslims WANT to live this way. . . this isn't archaic practice, this is current practice. This is part of dar al Islam.
Next. Findley states talks about charity. Muslims are only required to tithe to Muslims. They are not required to give to the poor in general, to help out anywhere else-- just Muslims. So, this is their view on charity. Charity in the Muslim world is called Sedaka or Sedaga or Zedaga. That's the phonetic spelling. Their concept of charity is not most Americans' concept of charity.
Compassion? What about to gays?! Nope-- gays get hanged. Adulterers get stoned (especially women). Women rape victims get punished. Thieves get their hands cut off. I saw one picture of an eight year old boy who, after stealing a loaf of bread, was forced to keep his arm under a car tire as the car ran it over. This is current practice. This is their version of "compassion"? Why didn't Paul Findley mention this????
Paul Findley also criticizes Americans by insisting that we have no concept of the Islamic view on interfaith relations. If this weren't so serious, it would be funny. It is true that many Imams working with some local pastors or rabbis, but in their own doctrine, Muslims are ordered, by Muhammed who was told by Allah, to NOT befriend Kaffirs, or Infidels. They are permitted to ONLY when it will further Islam, but that is all. They are not permitted to just "be friends" with Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. This obviously does not mean you won't meet nice, kind, friendly Muslims. But, at the moment a Muslim is a friend, they are being unIslamic, since the Koran is very very clear on this point. It's not a debatable point at all. As a matter of fact, all the discussion of doctrine in Islam is considered "closed" and has been for centuries. (So, reform is unlikely) In Islam, the only interfaith relations permitted are those that will further or benefit Islam and the intent of dar al Islam (sometimes called dar al Salam).
The Koran also makes it clear that if one is a Kaffir, or nonMuslim, they may be killed. Muhammed encouraged this and there are very many verses or surras that state this. And, it wasn't limited in time or place. For instance, there are violent sections of the Old Testament, but it was limited to specific enemies at a specific time-- not encouraged and approved for the rest of time. However, in the Koran, it is absolutely clear that this is expected until the entire world submits to Allah.
Mr. Findley failed to mention any of this.
He did, however, state that Islam and terrorism was falsely linked! Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. There are an estimated 1.5 to 2 billion Muslims in the world. It is estimated that 10% of all Muslims are "extreme", however I think it is more because the 90% are largely silent and only a very brave few actually speak out against those 10%. So, we can either assume the majority are somewhat supportive (considering the 80% of Detroit Muslims want Sharia and 40% of young UK Muslims want Sharia, this isn't a far-out speculation). Or, we can consider them irrelevant, since they aren't doing anything to support the reformation of Islam and the removal of all those passages that encourage killing and jizya and Taqiya, etc. And, that 10% is about the equivalent of 2/3 of the U.S. population. That's a huge number of people! 150 million to 200 million people are estimated to want to kill all nonMuslims/Kaffirs and make the world entirely Islamic or have those that refuse to convert live under Islamic rule as "dhimmis" (second class citizens/semi-slave status required to practice their faiths silently and pay a poll tax called a Jizya to the Muslims rulers-- and that's IF they are permitted to live. Often they are not permitted to live).
After Communism fell, we had a post-communist society. When Nazism failed, we had post-Nazification. However, with the exception of the Gates of Vienna and Spain, we've never had any Post-Islamic societies. Remember, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, etc., were all Christian. The Asian countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, were all Buddhist/ Hindu. However, whenever Islam becomes a large majority, they undermine the culture and take it over and subsume the other cultures. When there is an Islamic majority, there is nothing else permitted.
That's history. This is not "my opinion". This is factual information that Paul Findley fails to share with us. He must have a large Islamic constituency or wants to appear to be "tolerant" even of those that are completely intolerant.
Hey, I'm only sharing the information. I think it's disgusting. Don't trash the messenger, though-- trash the message or the doctrine of Political Islam.
Hmmmm. . . what on earth is wrong with this statement?! It's true that most Americans have never read a verse from the Koran. However, these are the people, such as Paul Findley, who continue to praise Islam while denying any link to terror or dar al Harb. I have studied the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sirra. And, only because I have studied these books and others, do I KNOW that it's Paul Findley who has a distorted (though warm and fuzzy) view of Islam while I have a more realistic (and not so warm and fuzzy) view of Islam.
Paul Findley states that most Americans have no awareness of Islam's view on peace. Maybe that's true. However, Islam is clear on what peace is. As a matter of fact, there is no true word for peace in Islam. . .at least as how we use it. The true definition of Islam is SUBMISSION which is used as their word for 'peace'. As in "submission" to Allah. So, Islam means peace but it also means submission to Allah. Islam is clear. The entire world will be in the House of Peace, or dar al Islam (House of Peace/Submission to Allah) when the whole world is under Islamic rule or Shari'a. When there is a return to the Caliphate. So, right now, it is impossible to have peace. Right now we are in a state called dar al Harb, or the House of War.
That is the Koranic view of peace. Hey, I'm just the messenger. Don't be mad at me for telling you what is in their religious doctrine. I'm as unhappy about it as you must be.
Okay. Next, Paul Findley states that Americans don't understand Islam's view on women. Hmmmm. . . well, it seems that Mr. Findley must not have a good view on this. In Islam, men are permitted to marry women as young as six years old. Aisha, one of Muhammed's wives was only six when he married her, so all Muslim men can marry girls as young as six. However, they must wait until the girl is nine to consummate the marriage because that's what Muhammed did. That's the Islamic view of women, or girls. Further, women have no say in who they marry if their father doesn't want to give them that say. Women may be the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or even the 4th wife since men can marry up to four women. Men can beat their wives as it is encouraged for misbehavior in the Koran. Women can only receive half the inheritance of their male counterparts and women's testimony in court is only given half the weight as men's testimony. This is Islamic law. this is Shari'a.
And, just to be sure, 80% of all Detroit Muslims want Sharia law brought to America (there hasn't been a big U.S. study done yet) and 40% of young UK Muslims want Sharia law brought to the UK. So, many many Muslims WANT to live this way. . . this isn't archaic practice, this is current practice. This is part of dar al Islam.
Next. Findley states talks about charity. Muslims are only required to tithe to Muslims. They are not required to give to the poor in general, to help out anywhere else-- just Muslims. So, this is their view on charity. Charity in the Muslim world is called Sedaka or Sedaga or Zedaga. That's the phonetic spelling. Their concept of charity is not most Americans' concept of charity.
Compassion? What about to gays?! Nope-- gays get hanged. Adulterers get stoned (especially women). Women rape victims get punished. Thieves get their hands cut off. I saw one picture of an eight year old boy who, after stealing a loaf of bread, was forced to keep his arm under a car tire as the car ran it over. This is current practice. This is their version of "compassion"? Why didn't Paul Findley mention this????
Paul Findley also criticizes Americans by insisting that we have no concept of the Islamic view on interfaith relations. If this weren't so serious, it would be funny. It is true that many Imams working with some local pastors or rabbis, but in their own doctrine, Muslims are ordered, by Muhammed who was told by Allah, to NOT befriend Kaffirs, or Infidels. They are permitted to ONLY when it will further Islam, but that is all. They are not permitted to just "be friends" with Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. This obviously does not mean you won't meet nice, kind, friendly Muslims. But, at the moment a Muslim is a friend, they are being unIslamic, since the Koran is very very clear on this point. It's not a debatable point at all. As a matter of fact, all the discussion of doctrine in Islam is considered "closed" and has been for centuries. (So, reform is unlikely) In Islam, the only interfaith relations permitted are those that will further or benefit Islam and the intent of dar al Islam (sometimes called dar al Salam).
The Koran also makes it clear that if one is a Kaffir, or nonMuslim, they may be killed. Muhammed encouraged this and there are very many verses or surras that state this. And, it wasn't limited in time or place. For instance, there are violent sections of the Old Testament, but it was limited to specific enemies at a specific time-- not encouraged and approved for the rest of time. However, in the Koran, it is absolutely clear that this is expected until the entire world submits to Allah.
Mr. Findley failed to mention any of this.
He did, however, state that Islam and terrorism was falsely linked! Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. There are an estimated 1.5 to 2 billion Muslims in the world. It is estimated that 10% of all Muslims are "extreme", however I think it is more because the 90% are largely silent and only a very brave few actually speak out against those 10%. So, we can either assume the majority are somewhat supportive (considering the 80% of Detroit Muslims want Sharia and 40% of young UK Muslims want Sharia, this isn't a far-out speculation). Or, we can consider them irrelevant, since they aren't doing anything to support the reformation of Islam and the removal of all those passages that encourage killing and jizya and Taqiya, etc. And, that 10% is about the equivalent of 2/3 of the U.S. population. That's a huge number of people! 150 million to 200 million people are estimated to want to kill all nonMuslims/Kaffirs and make the world entirely Islamic or have those that refuse to convert live under Islamic rule as "dhimmis" (second class citizens/semi-slave status required to practice their faiths silently and pay a poll tax called a Jizya to the Muslims rulers-- and that's IF they are permitted to live. Often they are not permitted to live).
After Communism fell, we had a post-communist society. When Nazism failed, we had post-Nazification. However, with the exception of the Gates of Vienna and Spain, we've never had any Post-Islamic societies. Remember, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, etc., were all Christian. The Asian countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, were all Buddhist/ Hindu. However, whenever Islam becomes a large majority, they undermine the culture and take it over and subsume the other cultures. When there is an Islamic majority, there is nothing else permitted.
That's history. This is not "my opinion". This is factual information that Paul Findley fails to share with us. He must have a large Islamic constituency or wants to appear to be "tolerant" even of those that are completely intolerant.
Hey, I'm only sharing the information. I think it's disgusting. Don't trash the messenger, though-- trash the message or the doctrine of Political Islam.
