What do you think?
Rate this book
Islamophilia
Columnist and broadcaster Douglas Murray, with trademark wit, delivers an alarming analysis behind the events of the past week in the UK, as the country tries to make sense of the barbaric slaughter of British soldier Lee Rigby on the streets of London. In a devastating satire on the climate of fear in the UK today, Murray’s analysis is wildly entertaining yet ultimately profound:
“If absolutely everybody in the world agrees on something – from the President of the United States to most film-stars, pop-stars, Popes, Bishops, atheists, writers, film-makers, brain-boxes and everyone else – then surely they must be right. Well, no. I think they are wrong. Wildly, terribly, embarrassingly and dangerously wrong, “ writes Murray.
ISLAMOPHILIA shows how so many of the celebrities above, have, at some point chosen to abandon any hope or wish to criticize Islam and instead decided to profess some degree of love for it. Love, that Murray points out in the book, is often irrational and certainly misguided: Murray is not afraid to name and shame, and the book’s tour includes novelists Sebastian Faulks and Martin Amis, Boris Johnson, South Park, Tony Blair, Ridley Scott, David Cameron, Liam Neeson, Justin Bieber, Random House Publishers, the BBC, Richard Dawkins, the Prince of Wales and even George Bush. Yes, George Bush.
“They may have done this for a range of good and bad reasons. Some of them have to done it to save other people. Some of them have done it to save themselves. Some of them have done it because they are too stupid to do anything else and others because clever people can be really dumb at times.”
Murray then goes to detail the extraordinary strategic cultural efforts made in recent years to “rewrite the last few millennia of history, minimising and denigrating the impact of actual scientists and promoting the claims of Islamic proselytisers” and he has fighting words for the version of history depicted by Ridley Scott and others in Hollywood.
Artists and writers have been caught off-guard, he alleges, “Having poked at empty hornets nests for so many years they have forgotten the courage required to do the necessary poking at full ones.”
He concludes, “Let’s be clear. For the record I don’t think everybody needs to spend their time being offensive about Islam. Not only is there no need to be offensive all the time, but most Muslims just want to get on with their lives as peacefully and successfully as everybody else. But there is an un-evenness in our societies that needs to be righted…to think that the answer to any criticism of Islam or Muslims is a delegitimizing of critics and an indulgence in self-pity is not to make an advance. It is to pave the way for self-harm. For all of us.
Where people are telling lies about it we should not be fearful to correct them. And where people are fearful – and genuine reasons to be so do keep coming along – people should remind themselves of something. Which is that just as bravery in one person instils bravery in others, so cowardice in one person has a tendency to be catching.”
“If absolutely everybody in the world agrees on something – from the President of the United States to most film-stars, pop-stars, Popes, Bishops, atheists, writers, film-makers, brain-boxes and everyone else – then surely they must be right. Well, no. I think they are wrong. Wildly, terribly, embarrassingly and dangerously wrong, “ writes Murray.
ISLAMOPHILIA shows how so many of the celebrities above, have, at some point chosen to abandon any hope or wish to criticize Islam and instead decided to profess some degree of love for it. Love, that Murray points out in the book, is often irrational and certainly misguided: Murray is not afraid to name and shame, and the book’s tour includes novelists Sebastian Faulks and Martin Amis, Boris Johnson, South Park, Tony Blair, Ridley Scott, David Cameron, Liam Neeson, Justin Bieber, Random House Publishers, the BBC, Richard Dawkins, the Prince of Wales and even George Bush. Yes, George Bush.
“They may have done this for a range of good and bad reasons. Some of them have to done it to save other people. Some of them have done it to save themselves. Some of them have done it because they are too stupid to do anything else and others because clever people can be really dumb at times.”
Murray then goes to detail the extraordinary strategic cultural efforts made in recent years to “rewrite the last few millennia of history, minimising and denigrating the impact of actual scientists and promoting the claims of Islamic proselytisers” and he has fighting words for the version of history depicted by Ridley Scott and others in Hollywood.
Artists and writers have been caught off-guard, he alleges, “Having poked at empty hornets nests for so many years they have forgotten the courage required to do the necessary poking at full ones.”
He concludes, “Let’s be clear. For the record I don’t think everybody needs to spend their time being offensive about Islam. Not only is there no need to be offensive all the time, but most Muslims just want to get on with their lives as peacefully and successfully as everybody else. But there is an un-evenness in our societies that needs to be righted…to think that the answer to any criticism of Islam or Muslims is a delegitimizing of critics and an indulgence in self-pity is not to make an advance. It is to pave the way for self-harm. For all of us.
Where people are telling lies about it we should not be fearful to correct them. And where people are fearful – and genuine reasons to be so do keep coming along – people should remind themselves of something. Which is that just as bravery in one person instils bravery in others, so cowardice in one person has a tendency to be catching.”
67 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 30, 2013
151 people are currently reading
2409 people want to read
About the author
Douglas Murray
37 books2,809 followersDouglas Kear Murray is a British neoconservative writer and commentator. He was the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion from 2007 until 2011, and is currently an associate director of the Henry Jackson Society.
Murray appears regularly in the British broadcast media, commentating on issues from a conservative standpoint, and he is often critical of Islamic fundamentalism. He writes for a number of publications, including Standpoint, the Wall Street Journal and The Spectator.
Murray appears regularly in the British broadcast media, commentating on issues from a conservative standpoint, and he is often critical of Islamic fundamentalism. He writes for a number of publications, including Standpoint, the Wall Street Journal and The Spectator.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 93 reviews
June 13, 2013
This book is not an attack on or critique of Islam. It is an expose of a particular response to it by a certain group of people who are regarded by many as society's elite.
'Islamaphobia' besides being a bad grammatical construct is - along with the equally bad construct 'homophobia' - a condition that does not exist. It is not recognised by the British Society of Psychology. It is nothing more than a pejorative lobbed against the genuinely tolerant by the counterfeit tolerant in order to shut down discussion.
In Islamaphilia Douglas Murray substitutes philia (friend)for phobia (fear)to produce a counter construct.
'Islamaphilia' describes those who shamelessly bend over backwards to appease and flatter the religion that in reality they have no genuine interest in. They do so in the hope that extremists will consider them nice and leave them alone. For some this hope met with unintentional consequences. Murray documents examples of 'Islamaphiliac' actors, pop stars, authors, film makers and bishops etc who have sycophantically fallen over themselves in slavish deference to Islam. The examples are cringe inducing yet informative which is where the value of the book lies. Highly recommended.
'Islamaphobia' besides being a bad grammatical construct is - along with the equally bad construct 'homophobia' - a condition that does not exist. It is not recognised by the British Society of Psychology. It is nothing more than a pejorative lobbed against the genuinely tolerant by the counterfeit tolerant in order to shut down discussion.
In Islamaphilia Douglas Murray substitutes philia (friend)for phobia (fear)to produce a counter construct.
'Islamaphilia' describes those who shamelessly bend over backwards to appease and flatter the religion that in reality they have no genuine interest in. They do so in the hope that extremists will consider them nice and leave them alone. For some this hope met with unintentional consequences. Murray documents examples of 'Islamaphiliac' actors, pop stars, authors, film makers and bishops etc who have sycophantically fallen over themselves in slavish deference to Islam. The examples are cringe inducing yet informative which is where the value of the book lies. Highly recommended.
March 29, 2020
I must confess: About a third of the way through Douglas Murray’s Islamophilia, I tossed it onto the discard pile. (OK, not really, since I was reading it on my Nook.) But before I abandoned this book, my conscience got the better of me. I re-launched the file and read to the end.
I am very glad I did.
If I were to blurb Islamophilia, I would say, “Douglas Murray has provided us with a document that is challenging, bitter, distasteful, and difficult to digest. And it may well be one of the most important books of the past few years.” (Hey Mr. Murray, don’t forget me when the print edition goes to press.)
In this short book (more of an extended essay), Murray vents over post-9/11 media treatment of Islam, which he considers to be inconsistent with treatment of other religions. For Murray, Islam is like an update on the Seinfeld episode when a reporter thought Jerry and George were a couple, prompting qualified denials (“not that there’s anything wrong with that”).
Unfortunately, this is not a book with a strong sense of humor, and it reads more like a polemic than an essay. In the early pages, Murray’s anger overshadows his argument. For example, Murray expends much energy going after the 1001 Inventions multimedia education project, which spotlights Muslim contributions to science and technology. He argues that the exhibit crosses over into historical revisionism, and perhaps he’s right. I’ve never seen the exhibit myself, but he’s not the first person to make this critique. But regardless of the factual accuracy, his mocking tone is more befitting a late-night drunk dialogue.
Here is where I shut it down.
I intentionally avoid politics in this column, particularly because I believe—excepting the extremely polarized rants on the nonfiction bestseller list—that literature is one of the few uniting or at least neutral spaces remaining. (I would say animals and football are the others. Folks love their dogs no matter where they stand on universal health care.)
But due to the subject of this book, I feel some disclosure is appropriate. I am a liberal, yet what drew me to this book is that I agree with Murray, a neoconservative. It’s an area of contention with my liberal friends, who apply inconsistent standards toward Islam. Were the Catholic church to require women to wear hijabs and be accompanied by men in public, it would be denounced as part of the church’s war on women. But when mandated by Islam, it’s dismissed as a cultural difference.
I’m not asking my liberal counterparts to feel one way or another about these religions, but as a matter of intellectual integrity, I do expect them to be consistent.
So, I was drawn to the thesis of this book, but turned off by the tone. What made me pick it back up?
Cartoons.
When it comes to Islam and art, there are three events that are indefensible: the fatwa against Salman Rushdie (for writing a novel); the brutal assassination and near-decapitation of Theo Van Gough (because of an 11-minute film); and the more than 200 people who have been killed in response to Danish cartoons.
And then there was the censorship of the animated show South Park and the death threats aimed at the show’s creators. Murray writes:
“This, however, is the new normal. Cartoons are censored. Any possible offence to Muslims is averted by series and broadcast networks that routinely and enjoyably satirise everything else under the sun, including all other religions.”
Here, Murray hits his stride. He addresses the violent backlash against artists and how it has led to pre-emptive self-censorship. For example, The Jewel of Medina, a book Random House dropped for fear of attack—a merited fear as weeks later a book publisher in Britain was fire-bombed for agreeing to release the book (which Murray says has still not been released in Britain).
What’s happening now, he argues, is self-censorship for fear of reprisal. Something absent following critiques of other faiths:
“Artists and writers have been caught off-guard. Having poked at empty hornets’ nests for so many years they have forgotten the courage required to do the necessary poking at full ones.”
Murray then sounds the call for bravery and the courage to support artistic freedom. He closes with some of the book’s most thoughtful passages and proposes solutions to overcoming both phobias and philias.
It is this last part that really elevates Murray’s argument, and makes me glad I stuck with the book.
Like I said, this is a difficult read, but an important one. I often disagree with Murray, and at times he made me cringe, but in the end, his argument is thorough and thoughtful and worthy of consideration.
http://ensuingchapters.com/
I am very glad I did.
If I were to blurb Islamophilia, I would say, “Douglas Murray has provided us with a document that is challenging, bitter, distasteful, and difficult to digest. And it may well be one of the most important books of the past few years.” (Hey Mr. Murray, don’t forget me when the print edition goes to press.)
In this short book (more of an extended essay), Murray vents over post-9/11 media treatment of Islam, which he considers to be inconsistent with treatment of other religions. For Murray, Islam is like an update on the Seinfeld episode when a reporter thought Jerry and George were a couple, prompting qualified denials (“not that there’s anything wrong with that”).
Unfortunately, this is not a book with a strong sense of humor, and it reads more like a polemic than an essay. In the early pages, Murray’s anger overshadows his argument. For example, Murray expends much energy going after the 1001 Inventions multimedia education project, which spotlights Muslim contributions to science and technology. He argues that the exhibit crosses over into historical revisionism, and perhaps he’s right. I’ve never seen the exhibit myself, but he’s not the first person to make this critique. But regardless of the factual accuracy, his mocking tone is more befitting a late-night drunk dialogue.
Here is where I shut it down.
I intentionally avoid politics in this column, particularly because I believe—excepting the extremely polarized rants on the nonfiction bestseller list—that literature is one of the few uniting or at least neutral spaces remaining. (I would say animals and football are the others. Folks love their dogs no matter where they stand on universal health care.)
But due to the subject of this book, I feel some disclosure is appropriate. I am a liberal, yet what drew me to this book is that I agree with Murray, a neoconservative. It’s an area of contention with my liberal friends, who apply inconsistent standards toward Islam. Were the Catholic church to require women to wear hijabs and be accompanied by men in public, it would be denounced as part of the church’s war on women. But when mandated by Islam, it’s dismissed as a cultural difference.
I’m not asking my liberal counterparts to feel one way or another about these religions, but as a matter of intellectual integrity, I do expect them to be consistent.
So, I was drawn to the thesis of this book, but turned off by the tone. What made me pick it back up?
Cartoons.
When it comes to Islam and art, there are three events that are indefensible: the fatwa against Salman Rushdie (for writing a novel); the brutal assassination and near-decapitation of Theo Van Gough (because of an 11-minute film); and the more than 200 people who have been killed in response to Danish cartoons.
And then there was the censorship of the animated show South Park and the death threats aimed at the show’s creators. Murray writes:
“This, however, is the new normal. Cartoons are censored. Any possible offence to Muslims is averted by series and broadcast networks that routinely and enjoyably satirise everything else under the sun, including all other religions.”
Here, Murray hits his stride. He addresses the violent backlash against artists and how it has led to pre-emptive self-censorship. For example, The Jewel of Medina, a book Random House dropped for fear of attack—a merited fear as weeks later a book publisher in Britain was fire-bombed for agreeing to release the book (which Murray says has still not been released in Britain).
What’s happening now, he argues, is self-censorship for fear of reprisal. Something absent following critiques of other faiths:
“Artists and writers have been caught off-guard. Having poked at empty hornets’ nests for so many years they have forgotten the courage required to do the necessary poking at full ones.”
Murray then sounds the call for bravery and the courage to support artistic freedom. He closes with some of the book’s most thoughtful passages and proposes solutions to overcoming both phobias and philias.
It is this last part that really elevates Murray’s argument, and makes me glad I stuck with the book.
Like I said, this is a difficult read, but an important one. I often disagree with Murray, and at times he made me cringe, but in the end, his argument is thorough and thoughtful and worthy of consideration.
http://ensuingchapters.com/
May 24, 2017
Christopher Hitchens was fond of telling this story: When Samuel Johnson had finished compiling his first comprehensive dictionary, he was approached by a couple of elderly and respectable ladies of London, who told him they were delighted to find he hadn't included any obscene words in the book. "Ladies," he responded, "I congratulate you on being able to look them up".
This tells you everything you need to know about those who are always on the lookout to be "offended". In Islamophilia, Murray gives us an array of examples of people - from religious, military and political leaders to the so-called "intelligensia" - refusing to criticise Islam, or retracting previous criticisms of it, in transparently cowardly ways, out of fear of the inevitable violent backlash. What the author calls for is a climate of bravery: those who have misgivings about Islam should refrain from self-censorship, and hold their nerve. Allowing freedom of debate to become stifled in the West will have the same effects it had in the Middle East when the Ottoman Empire banned the printing press.
This kind of cowardice seems to me particularly prominent in those who tend to consider themselves "fearless" and "free-thinkers". As the author puts it: "Artists and writers have been caught off-guard. Having poked at empty hornets' nests for so many years they have forgotten the courage required to to do the necessary poking at full ones". Did you notice, after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the folks clamouring to criticise Charlie for "punching down" when satire is supposed to "punch up"? Perhaps it is indeed bullyish to punch down at a religion which can claim only a billion followers, on which a disproportionate number of the world's remaining dictatorships are founded, controlling most of the world's oil reserves. How can the offended possibly defend themselves? Well, they could use assault rifles to gun down an office full of cartoonists in Paris and the police officer who comes to their aid. They could start a pogrom against cartoonists in Copenhagen. They could force one of the world's most renowned novelists to go into hiding for more than a decade. They could behead a military drummer in the streets of London in broad daylight. But the reflex of most of those writing on my Facebook news feed, or for the Guardian or the Independent, was to attack the criticism of Islam, both by the deceased of Charlie Hebdo and by those of us who had not even had chance to vent it yet.
In his short and brave book Douglas Murray has some good turns of phrase - "dinner party literati", "Great Leap Backwards", "pre-emptive backlash stirring" - and I'll close this review by citing a sequence of events recounted in the book, which explain the current climate of moral cowardice as succinctly as the anecdote I opened with explains the moral hypocrisy of censorship.
Prior to Jeremy Stangroom and Ophelia Benson releasing their book "Does God Hate Women?", critical of all major religions, the Sunday Times ran an article warning of fears (presumably, their own) that there could be an Islamic backlash against the book because it "criticises the Prophet Muhammad for taking a nine year old girl as his wife". As of this point there had in fact been no threats, no hint of violence, directed at Benson or Stangroom, but now the UK's newspaper of record was phoning prominent extremist spokespeople and asking for comment. One such person went so far as to warn that there could be a backlash. "But", Murray writes, "he had only contributed this because the paper had decided a backlash was possibly being threatened and had alerted an extremist in order to see if he was willing to promise a backlash as soon as possible. And so the pre-emptive fear became instituted a stage earlier even than it had before. Previously there had been warnings of a backlash before any backlash had occurred but after something had actually happened. Now there were warning of a backlash before anything had even been done that could provoke a backlash. It was pre-emptive backlash stirring." And now you see perfected the hysteria and moral chaos of an industry whose sole purpose is to find and speak the truth, but no longer has the moxy to do so.
This tells you everything you need to know about those who are always on the lookout to be "offended". In Islamophilia, Murray gives us an array of examples of people - from religious, military and political leaders to the so-called "intelligensia" - refusing to criticise Islam, or retracting previous criticisms of it, in transparently cowardly ways, out of fear of the inevitable violent backlash. What the author calls for is a climate of bravery: those who have misgivings about Islam should refrain from self-censorship, and hold their nerve. Allowing freedom of debate to become stifled in the West will have the same effects it had in the Middle East when the Ottoman Empire banned the printing press.
This kind of cowardice seems to me particularly prominent in those who tend to consider themselves "fearless" and "free-thinkers". As the author puts it: "Artists and writers have been caught off-guard. Having poked at empty hornets' nests for so many years they have forgotten the courage required to to do the necessary poking at full ones". Did you notice, after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the folks clamouring to criticise Charlie for "punching down" when satire is supposed to "punch up"? Perhaps it is indeed bullyish to punch down at a religion which can claim only a billion followers, on which a disproportionate number of the world's remaining dictatorships are founded, controlling most of the world's oil reserves. How can the offended possibly defend themselves? Well, they could use assault rifles to gun down an office full of cartoonists in Paris and the police officer who comes to their aid. They could start a pogrom against cartoonists in Copenhagen. They could force one of the world's most renowned novelists to go into hiding for more than a decade. They could behead a military drummer in the streets of London in broad daylight. But the reflex of most of those writing on my Facebook news feed, or for the Guardian or the Independent, was to attack the criticism of Islam, both by the deceased of Charlie Hebdo and by those of us who had not even had chance to vent it yet.
In his short and brave book Douglas Murray has some good turns of phrase - "dinner party literati", "Great Leap Backwards", "pre-emptive backlash stirring" - and I'll close this review by citing a sequence of events recounted in the book, which explain the current climate of moral cowardice as succinctly as the anecdote I opened with explains the moral hypocrisy of censorship.
Prior to Jeremy Stangroom and Ophelia Benson releasing their book "Does God Hate Women?", critical of all major religions, the Sunday Times ran an article warning of fears (presumably, their own) that there could be an Islamic backlash against the book because it "criticises the Prophet Muhammad for taking a nine year old girl as his wife". As of this point there had in fact been no threats, no hint of violence, directed at Benson or Stangroom, but now the UK's newspaper of record was phoning prominent extremist spokespeople and asking for comment. One such person went so far as to warn that there could be a backlash. "But", Murray writes, "he had only contributed this because the paper had decided a backlash was possibly being threatened and had alerted an extremist in order to see if he was willing to promise a backlash as soon as possible. And so the pre-emptive fear became instituted a stage earlier even than it had before. Previously there had been warnings of a backlash before any backlash had occurred but after something had actually happened. Now there were warning of a backlash before anything had even been done that could provoke a backlash. It was pre-emptive backlash stirring." And now you see perfected the hysteria and moral chaos of an industry whose sole purpose is to find and speak the truth, but no longer has the moxy to do so.
July 29, 2013
It seems to me that there are two types of opinions floating around on Islam: the haters and the slavish adoration. This book attacks the slavish adoration but doesn't veer into hater territory.
Let me state up front: this book is not attacking Islam. It's attacking the uncritical adoration of Islam by non-Muslims. The premise of the book is that society has become too uncritical because of "the combination of the desire to be nice with the knowing of very little."
Most of the book deals with how people bend-over backwards not to be critical of Islam (while being critical of everything else), but my favourite quote comes at the end of the book. It says:
"But we do not need to keep handling Islam with kid gloves. If people are ever all going to be genuinely equal and genuinely integrated it will be when the playing field is genuinely level - tilted neither one way nor the other. That includes hearing things you don't like hearing, having to defend things you don't like defending and discovering for yourself - at some point along the way - that societies in which even your deepest beliefs and feelings can be questioned and trodden upon are the only societies worth living in."
To me, I think everything is fair game for reasoned criticism. Not the "You're wrong and anyone who thinks like you is stupid" comments that are all too common, but comments that say "hold on, I don't understand this" or "wait a minute, I'm not sure I agree with this interpretation/this intent." There are lots of ways that you can disagree with something and not hate it.
And yes, when I say everything, I mean everything. Even Christianity should have to be scrutinised. The Bible does say to love the Lord your God with all your hearts, with all your soul and all your mind after all. I believe Christianity can stand up to the scrutiny.
So when we rush to coddle anything, we're not being nice, we're being rude. We're telling a whole religion that "I don't think you can take even a bit of criticism, so I'll treat you like a baby." That's just rude. I believe that everyone should be treated as an adult - with respect.
There are parts of the books I do disagree with though - For one thing, I think that after a terrorist attack, there's nothing wrong with politicians stressing that this not how all Muslims think. For me, that's less of bending backwards and more of trying to calm down an understandably nervous population. And another, I don't think there's anything wrong with a General responding to allegations of the Koran being desecrated - of course, he should do the same for the Bible, for the Veda, for any book that is held sacred by its respective religion.
On the whole though, this book does a good job at pointing out at what the author calls Islamophilia.
Disclaimer: I got a free copy of the book from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for a free and honest review.
This review was first posted to Inside the mind of a Bibliophile
Let me state up front: this book is not attacking Islam. It's attacking the uncritical adoration of Islam by non-Muslims. The premise of the book is that society has become too uncritical because of "the combination of the desire to be nice with the knowing of very little."
Most of the book deals with how people bend-over backwards not to be critical of Islam (while being critical of everything else), but my favourite quote comes at the end of the book. It says:
"But we do not need to keep handling Islam with kid gloves. If people are ever all going to be genuinely equal and genuinely integrated it will be when the playing field is genuinely level - tilted neither one way nor the other. That includes hearing things you don't like hearing, having to defend things you don't like defending and discovering for yourself - at some point along the way - that societies in which even your deepest beliefs and feelings can be questioned and trodden upon are the only societies worth living in."
To me, I think everything is fair game for reasoned criticism. Not the "You're wrong and anyone who thinks like you is stupid" comments that are all too common, but comments that say "hold on, I don't understand this" or "wait a minute, I'm not sure I agree with this interpretation/this intent." There are lots of ways that you can disagree with something and not hate it.
And yes, when I say everything, I mean everything. Even Christianity should have to be scrutinised. The Bible does say to love the Lord your God with all your hearts, with all your soul and all your mind after all. I believe Christianity can stand up to the scrutiny.
So when we rush to coddle anything, we're not being nice, we're being rude. We're telling a whole religion that "I don't think you can take even a bit of criticism, so I'll treat you like a baby." That's just rude. I believe that everyone should be treated as an adult - with respect.
There are parts of the books I do disagree with though - For one thing, I think that after a terrorist attack, there's nothing wrong with politicians stressing that this not how all Muslims think. For me, that's less of bending backwards and more of trying to calm down an understandably nervous population. And another, I don't think there's anything wrong with a General responding to allegations of the Koran being desecrated - of course, he should do the same for the Bible, for the Veda, for any book that is held sacred by its respective religion.
On the whole though, this book does a good job at pointing out at what the author calls Islamophilia.
Disclaimer: I got a free copy of the book from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for a free and honest review.
This review was first posted to Inside the mind of a Bibliophile
February 11, 2014
Absolutely brilliant work, and a must-read for anyone interested in the religio-political climate of modern-day Britain and America. Murray succinctly and cogently describes the simplistic and ignorant take many people have on Islam, and the fear that is behind it. I wish there were more books like this.
May 23, 2021
4.3 stars
The author’s name first popped up on my newsfeed when someone reviewed his The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity. I was searching for that book when this one caught my attention. I decided to read it first as it has less than 70 pages and seemed like a commentary on something I see on social media in abundance.
Guess what? I was right. In simple words, the book has nothing to do with Islam per se. It’s about the non-Muslims who are ever-eager to see only good in the religion. Now, is there really a religion that has nothing bad or doesn’t need to be changed ever? No, right?
But the rule doesn’t apply to this one religion. Strange, but then again, it’s not.
The author describes incidents and reactions from the UK and US. I had no difficulty in equating them to India. The same happens here. And thanks to the wonderful feature called Screenshot, it is even easier to expose how the same person reacts when a situation involves Islam and doesn’t involve it. The sad state of affairs in India is that we have to deal with double such hypocrisy. One cannot talk about the missionaries and mass conversions either. Sigh!
No one wants to step on others’ toes except their own. In fact, they wouldn’t hesitate to whack their feet to please the other. Is the favor returned? No points for guessing. We know the answer.
A feminist finds only one religion’s customs suffocating. How dare someone tell a woman to cover her head! Do we see the same outrage from her when it comes to the white and black habits or the headscarf?
Of course not. It’s a part of their culture. How can she question it? It doesn’t matter that the women from those religions are fighting to change things. It doesn’t matter that some of them don’t want to wear a headscarf. It doesn’t matter that women have been killed for protesting. It doesn’t matter that blind support causes more difficulties to the modern women who have to live within the confines of that religion.
It’s easy to snip off a saree to prove oneself a rebel. Why does the scissor lose its sharpness when it comes to a headscarf or a habit?
If fasting for one day is outrageous and regressive, how can fasting for an entire month be spiritual? People are entitled to their beliefs, aren’t they? Respect one, respect all. How can an atheist believe in a certain God but not others?
There are too many questions with little or no answers because appeasement is greater than truth. Secularism is one word that’s used just about everywhere. What does it mean? It means all religions are equal. You respect the sacred thread just as you respect the cross and the skull cap.
The author talks about the unevenness in the so-called secular and liberal outlook that doesn’t seem to be capable of treating all religions on the same level. I don’t want you to praise my culture all the time. But no one gave you the right to insult either.
And why should the so-called majority accept every senseless and baseless abuse hurled at their religion to elevate another? Is that how you promote something? By insulting and demeaning one religion to highlight and boost another? Aren’t there any merits in that culture that you need to abuse another?
Is it any wonder that some of us are forced to defend our culture? Strange that we don’t even have the right to do so, and a label of Islamophobia is stuck on us before we can say …I. That just makes the philiacs Hinduphobic, and rightly so.
If others have a phobia for having a spine strong enough to say that they will not appease one religion, why is it that those who shut these voices are not phobic of the others? What’s wrong with calling a spade a spade when it comes to Islam? If you can do it with Hinduism (or Christianity in the book’s case), what's stopping you then?
The book deals with various personalities from the so-called popular section of society- the celebrities and the intellectuals. It’s the same pattern throughout that has spread far beyond the UK and the US.
My review isn’t based on the book as much as it’s based on what I see every day on social media. That alone shows this is a global phenomenon.
Back to the book, the writing could have a bit crisper, but it's non-fiction, and the topic doesn’t offer much scope of the said humor mentioned in the blurb. I wasn’t looking for a witty or a humorous touch but found faint traces of both. This book is more of an observation (with a little rant) and hits the nail on the head in most instances.
The philiacs wouldn’t like it. But if they do find some merit in the words, it’s a welcome sign that they are willing to think and reconsider their ideas of equality. Why are the rest of us forced to bow down?
How can we expect equality when one culture seems to be the best, no questions asked?
The author’s name first popped up on my newsfeed when someone reviewed his The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity. I was searching for that book when this one caught my attention. I decided to read it first as it has less than 70 pages and seemed like a commentary on something I see on social media in abundance.
Guess what? I was right. In simple words, the book has nothing to do with Islam per se. It’s about the non-Muslims who are ever-eager to see only good in the religion. Now, is there really a religion that has nothing bad or doesn’t need to be changed ever? No, right?
But the rule doesn’t apply to this one religion. Strange, but then again, it’s not.
The author describes incidents and reactions from the UK and US. I had no difficulty in equating them to India. The same happens here. And thanks to the wonderful feature called Screenshot, it is even easier to expose how the same person reacts when a situation involves Islam and doesn’t involve it. The sad state of affairs in India is that we have to deal with double such hypocrisy. One cannot talk about the missionaries and mass conversions either. Sigh!
No one wants to step on others’ toes except their own. In fact, they wouldn’t hesitate to whack their feet to please the other. Is the favor returned? No points for guessing. We know the answer.
A feminist finds only one religion’s customs suffocating. How dare someone tell a woman to cover her head! Do we see the same outrage from her when it comes to the white and black habits or the headscarf?
Of course not. It’s a part of their culture. How can she question it? It doesn’t matter that the women from those religions are fighting to change things. It doesn’t matter that some of them don’t want to wear a headscarf. It doesn’t matter that women have been killed for protesting. It doesn’t matter that blind support causes more difficulties to the modern women who have to live within the confines of that religion.
It’s easy to snip off a saree to prove oneself a rebel. Why does the scissor lose its sharpness when it comes to a headscarf or a habit?
If fasting for one day is outrageous and regressive, how can fasting for an entire month be spiritual? People are entitled to their beliefs, aren’t they? Respect one, respect all. How can an atheist believe in a certain God but not others?
There are too many questions with little or no answers because appeasement is greater than truth. Secularism is one word that’s used just about everywhere. What does it mean? It means all religions are equal. You respect the sacred thread just as you respect the cross and the skull cap.
The author talks about the unevenness in the so-called secular and liberal outlook that doesn’t seem to be capable of treating all religions on the same level. I don’t want you to praise my culture all the time. But no one gave you the right to insult either.
And why should the so-called majority accept every senseless and baseless abuse hurled at their religion to elevate another? Is that how you promote something? By insulting and demeaning one religion to highlight and boost another? Aren’t there any merits in that culture that you need to abuse another?
Is it any wonder that some of us are forced to defend our culture? Strange that we don’t even have the right to do so, and a label of Islamophobia is stuck on us before we can say …I. That just makes the philiacs Hinduphobic, and rightly so.
If others have a phobia for having a spine strong enough to say that they will not appease one religion, why is it that those who shut these voices are not phobic of the others? What’s wrong with calling a spade a spade when it comes to Islam? If you can do it with Hinduism (or Christianity in the book’s case), what's stopping you then?
The book deals with various personalities from the so-called popular section of society- the celebrities and the intellectuals. It’s the same pattern throughout that has spread far beyond the UK and the US.
My review isn’t based on the book as much as it’s based on what I see every day on social media. That alone shows this is a global phenomenon.
Back to the book, the writing could have a bit crisper, but it's non-fiction, and the topic doesn’t offer much scope of the said humor mentioned in the blurb. I wasn’t looking for a witty or a humorous touch but found faint traces of both. This book is more of an observation (with a little rant) and hits the nail on the head in most instances.
The philiacs wouldn’t like it. But if they do find some merit in the words, it’s a welcome sign that they are willing to think and reconsider their ideas of equality. Why are the rest of us forced to bow down?
How can we expect equality when one culture seems to be the best, no questions asked?
June 22, 2013
(nb: I received a review copy from the publisher via NetGalley)
There's a scene in "Judgment at Nuremberg" where a drunk Richard Widmark is talking to Spencer Tracy about how no Germans seemed to know anything about what the Nazis did during World War 2. "Oh, no. There were no Nazis in Germany. It was the damn Eskimos."
Imagine "Casablanca," only instead of the creepy-evil Nazis, the evil people were Eskimos, too.
Imagine, now, that the entire reason the Nazis were not portrayed as bad in these films is because everyone was afraid to offend the Nazis for fear of what could happen. Even odder, everyone--from newspapers, to authors, to filmmakers, to news programs--portrayed the Nazis in only a positive light, never daring to question the validity of "Mein Kampf" nor the semidivinity of Adolf Hitler.
(Let me make it perfectly clear before proceeding that I am IN NO WAY comparing Nazism with Islam. IN NO WAY!)
Douglas Murray's treatise "Islamophilia" points out just such behavior in today's world. He provides examples upon examples of how Islam is largely given a free pass in the media, because nobody has the courage to write against it.
Murray describes a BBC series on Christianity, where the producers essentially proclaimed Christianity to be unfounded in fact, and full of of nonsense superstition.
A few months later, they produced a series on Islam, and it was almost fawning in its approach, accepting the Koran as inspired, even never showing Mohammed on the screen, which would violate Muslim propriety.
There was nothing critical in the Islam documentary, a few months after the same producers skewered Christianity.
Murray claims the press is loathe to criticize Islam due to fear of reprisals. Instead of everyone subjecting Islam to the same criticism as every other religion gets, the media seems to have developed Islamophilia. Even George W. Bush--whose armies were attacking Muslim lands at the time--praised Islam as a faith of peace.
And that is really Douglas Murray's thesis. For most of this 76 page treatise, he calls-out and mocks those entities who wuss-out rather than say anything non-laudatory about Islam.
His conclusion is spot-on: NO, he's not saying anything derogatory about Islam--not at all. NO, he's not suggesting people should immediately start attacking Islam in the media. YES, he states clearly that the huuuuuge majority of Muslims are kind, peace-loving people, who just want to build a good life for themselves and their children.
Where Murray casts his aspersions is at the hypocrisy of a media that soft-sells when a Muslim group kills dozens of people in a suicide bombing, or beheads a non-Muslim for being an infidel, noting that if a Christian or an agnostic did such a thing, there would be great hue and cry and denouncements ringing from every tower.
Again, his jabs are not at all against Islam. It's against a double-standard, where every religion on earth is up for criticism or mockery, but when it comes to Islam, everybody's full of cake and ice cream. Murray's sardonic wrath is aimed solely at those whose job it is to report objectively, and who--being Islamophiliacs--just don't.
Highly recommended.
There's a scene in "Judgment at Nuremberg" where a drunk Richard Widmark is talking to Spencer Tracy about how no Germans seemed to know anything about what the Nazis did during World War 2. "Oh, no. There were no Nazis in Germany. It was the damn Eskimos."
Imagine "Casablanca," only instead of the creepy-evil Nazis, the evil people were Eskimos, too.
Imagine, now, that the entire reason the Nazis were not portrayed as bad in these films is because everyone was afraid to offend the Nazis for fear of what could happen. Even odder, everyone--from newspapers, to authors, to filmmakers, to news programs--portrayed the Nazis in only a positive light, never daring to question the validity of "Mein Kampf" nor the semidivinity of Adolf Hitler.
(Let me make it perfectly clear before proceeding that I am IN NO WAY comparing Nazism with Islam. IN NO WAY!)
Douglas Murray's treatise "Islamophilia" points out just such behavior in today's world. He provides examples upon examples of how Islam is largely given a free pass in the media, because nobody has the courage to write against it.
Murray describes a BBC series on Christianity, where the producers essentially proclaimed Christianity to be unfounded in fact, and full of of nonsense superstition.
A few months later, they produced a series on Islam, and it was almost fawning in its approach, accepting the Koran as inspired, even never showing Mohammed on the screen, which would violate Muslim propriety.
There was nothing critical in the Islam documentary, a few months after the same producers skewered Christianity.
Murray claims the press is loathe to criticize Islam due to fear of reprisals. Instead of everyone subjecting Islam to the same criticism as every other religion gets, the media seems to have developed Islamophilia. Even George W. Bush--whose armies were attacking Muslim lands at the time--praised Islam as a faith of peace.
And that is really Douglas Murray's thesis. For most of this 76 page treatise, he calls-out and mocks those entities who wuss-out rather than say anything non-laudatory about Islam.
His conclusion is spot-on: NO, he's not saying anything derogatory about Islam--not at all. NO, he's not suggesting people should immediately start attacking Islam in the media. YES, he states clearly that the huuuuuge majority of Muslims are kind, peace-loving people, who just want to build a good life for themselves and their children.
Where Murray casts his aspersions is at the hypocrisy of a media that soft-sells when a Muslim group kills dozens of people in a suicide bombing, or beheads a non-Muslim for being an infidel, noting that if a Christian or an agnostic did such a thing, there would be great hue and cry and denouncements ringing from every tower.
Again, his jabs are not at all against Islam. It's against a double-standard, where every religion on earth is up for criticism or mockery, but when it comes to Islam, everybody's full of cake and ice cream. Murray's sardonic wrath is aimed solely at those whose job it is to report objectively, and who--being Islamophiliacs--just don't.
Highly recommended.
January 8, 2016
Shocking tales of prominent people who have shamelessly refused to call out the violent side of Islamic ideology, rather white washing it and projecting it as eternal truth. Some of the stories are so outrageous, I had to google them to confirm if they are really true. Indian readers will easily identify with it as recent events have been similar, where media, politicians and 'intellectuals' have conveniently ignored Islamic bigots and focused only on fringe Hindu bigots.
June 20, 2013
After the 9/11 attacks many in the commentariat openly spoke of the backlash that would inevitably follow as citizens terrorized non-violent Muslims in revenge for the attacks. Sad to say, some of these predictions came true. The U.S. Department of Justice reported in 2011 that:
In the first six years after 9/11, the Department investigated more than 800 incidents involving violence, threats, vandalism, and arson against persons perceived to be Muslim or of Arab, Middle Eastern, or South Asian origin. In the decade after 9/11, the Division prosecuted 50 defendants in 37 different cases, obtaining convictions of 45 defendants. In addition, the Division investigated and pursued a number of important civil cases to address unlawful discrimination on the basis of religion or national origin
That this violence, including several deaths, occurred in a country supposedly dedicated to liberal tolerance and religious freedom is troubling but even in our "enlightened" times is part and parcel of the history of America. As a 2010 Smithsonian.com article on religious tolerance in the United States noted:
Fortunately, none of this is what Islamophilia is about. Author Douglas Murray begins by stating that "Islamophilia" . . .
Murray continues:
He then goes on to document examples of where people, generally politicians, actors, writers, and scholars have managed to work themselves into the most incredible contortions by trying to maintain the most positive of attitudes towards Muslims. As the initial examples illustrate this is not a bad thing to do; however, there have been many incidents where these contortions have been of the most incredible and often cowardly stripe. On the one hand, ordinary Muslims have been discriminated against as a result of terror attacks such as 9/11in New York and 7/7 in London; on the other hand, thousands of people died. Murray's point is that, in order not to hurt anyone's "feelings" allowances of a type completely antiethical to Western values have been made by our contortionists. Examples in the book point to the Danish cartoon incident, Comedy Central's censoring of South Park, the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gough and another favorite, the backlash against Lego's "Jabba the Hutt's Palace." Authors Martin Amis and Sebastian Faulks both critically spoke of Islam and agonizingly and immediately recanted their comments, mild as they were.
My favorite example is Murray's treatment of the brouhaha surrounding the historical romance novel The Jewel of Medina by Sherry Jones. It is a fictionalized version of the life of Aisha, one of the wives of Mohammed. Murray describes it's literary value as "atrocious" but what happened to it is well documented. The publisher sent galley copies to prospective reviewers, including University of Texas Professor Denise Spellberg. Spellberg hated the work calling it “ugly” and “stupid.” OK, all well and good; however Spielberg wasn’t satisfied to stop with a negative review. Instead she claimed the novel's publication could provoke violence. She then contacted Muslim groups and warned them about the book. So, as Murray humorously frames it: “And so a non-Muslim who had read the book had persuaded Muslims who had not read the book to start a campaign to ban the book.” Jones’s publisher quickly rescinded Jones’s contract. Ultimately, what is generally true in most book censorship cases was true here too:
What is bizarre in all this is that Spellberg’s concern that any Muslim who actually read The Jewel of Medinawould see it as offensive was fantastically far off the mark. Far from being provocative the book is from its opening pages wholly and quite stomach-churningly fawning. At the opening Jones describes the story she is relaying as ‘one of the most touching love stories ever recorded’. She always refers to the ‘Prophet’ Mohammed and, amazingly for a non-Muslim, refers to him casually in her author’s note at the start of the book as ‘the revealer of Islam’.
In the first six years after 9/11, the Department investigated more than 800 incidents involving violence, threats, vandalism, and arson against persons perceived to be Muslim or of Arab, Middle Eastern, or South Asian origin. In the decade after 9/11, the Division prosecuted 50 defendants in 37 different cases, obtaining convictions of 45 defendants. In addition, the Division investigated and pursued a number of important civil cases to address unlawful discrimination on the basis of religion or national origin
That this violence, including several deaths, occurred in a country supposedly dedicated to liberal tolerance and religious freedom is troubling but even in our "enlightened" times is part and parcel of the history of America. As a 2010 Smithsonian.com article on religious tolerance in the United States noted:
In Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love, anti-Catholic sentiment, combined with the country’s anti-immigrant mood, fueled the Bible Riots of 1844, in which houses were torched, two Catholic churches were destroyed and at least 20 people were killed.
Fortunately, none of this is what Islamophilia is about. Author Douglas Murray begins by stating that "Islamophilia" . . .
could be defined as the expression of disproportionate adoration of Islam. I don’t say because I don’t think – that Islam has no redeeming features or that the religion has achieved nothing. But it seems strange to me that so many people today can be quite so asinine and supine when it comes to the religion. No other religion in the world today receives the kind of pass that Islam gets. Most religions currently get a hell of a time. But Islam does not. And people express their resulting feeling for it for a number of reasons.
Murray continues:
But most people who begin to express wildly over-the-top praise or love of Islam do so whether or not they feel it. They do it because they either think they ought to or they feel they have to. Some of them probably think it makes them liberal-minded, fair or otherwise decent. Others genuinely see Muslims in a beleaguered light and think they should give them a bit of a gee-up. But a proportion – and as we shall see, quite a large proportion – express an adoration of Islam that jars and comes across strangely because they don’t express it for any political or spiritual reason. Many of the Islamophiles we will come across in this book are Islamophiles because they don’t want to be thought to be Islamophobes. Or because of another reason: they are very, very scared and decide that the best way to avoid something scary is to praise it and hope it will feel satiated.
He then goes on to document examples of where people, generally politicians, actors, writers, and scholars have managed to work themselves into the most incredible contortions by trying to maintain the most positive of attitudes towards Muslims. As the initial examples illustrate this is not a bad thing to do; however, there have been many incidents where these contortions have been of the most incredible and often cowardly stripe. On the one hand, ordinary Muslims have been discriminated against as a result of terror attacks such as 9/11in New York and 7/7 in London; on the other hand, thousands of people died. Murray's point is that, in order not to hurt anyone's "feelings" allowances of a type completely antiethical to Western values have been made by our contortionists. Examples in the book point to the Danish cartoon incident, Comedy Central's censoring of South Park, the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gough and another favorite, the backlash against Lego's "Jabba the Hutt's Palace." Authors Martin Amis and Sebastian Faulks both critically spoke of Islam and agonizingly and immediately recanted their comments, mild as they were.
My favorite example is Murray's treatment of the brouhaha surrounding the historical romance novel The Jewel of Medina by Sherry Jones. It is a fictionalized version of the life of Aisha, one of the wives of Mohammed. Murray describes it's literary value as "atrocious" but what happened to it is well documented. The publisher sent galley copies to prospective reviewers, including University of Texas Professor Denise Spellberg. Spellberg hated the work calling it “ugly” and “stupid.” OK, all well and good; however Spielberg wasn’t satisfied to stop with a negative review. Instead she claimed the novel's publication could provoke violence. She then contacted Muslim groups and warned them about the book. So, as Murray humorously frames it: “And so a non-Muslim who had read the book had persuaded Muslims who had not read the book to start a campaign to ban the book.” Jones’s publisher quickly rescinded Jones’s contract. Ultimately, what is generally true in most book censorship cases was true here too:
What is bizarre in all this is that Spellberg’s concern that any Muslim who actually read The Jewel of Medinawould see it as offensive was fantastically far off the mark. Far from being provocative the book is from its opening pages wholly and quite stomach-churningly fawning. At the opening Jones describes the story she is relaying as ‘one of the most touching love stories ever recorded’. She always refers to the ‘Prophet’ Mohammed and, amazingly for a non-Muslim, refers to him casually in her author’s note at the start of the book as ‘the revealer of Islam’.
March 30, 2021
I do agree with Douglas that anyone should be able to speak openly about any faith or ideology without the fear of being hacked to death.
With this being said, Douglas makes some really weak and erroneous arguments.
-Douglas argues that Bush and Blair should be able to all-out criticise Islam. Does Douglas not understand basic geopolitics and its constraints? Part of the US mission in Afghanistan/Iraq was to win the hearts/minds of the Iraqi/Afghani public. How on earth would America be seen as a saviour by these populations when their leaders are demonising and criticising their religion? Again, these restrictions are placed not because of America or the West bowing down to Islam but because America does not want to imperil its mission in the Middle East…otherwise America would simply be following the Soviet path in Afghanistan, where a majority of the public opposed the Soviets for its anti-Islamic stance.
-Would it be reasonable for Bush/Blair to label Islam as ‘a terrorist religion’ as the two leaders make preparations to invade Afghanistan/Iraq (both Muslim-majority nations), whilst maintaining strategic American military bases in the Muslim-majority states in the Middle East (esp. in the Persian Gulf). Douglas thinks so. Would these people welcome the American/Coalition forces onto their soil after having their religion insulted?
-In addition to this, blaming Islam would fall into the narrative of Al-Qaeda, which positions itself as the ‘defender of Islamic land against America’. Regardless of what G. Bush/Obama’s personal opinion on Islam is; should either one declare Islam as a terrorist ‘religion’, the West would be shooting itself on its own foot and would only be strengthening Al-Qaeda's position. Just notice how Trump’s tone on Islam changed before being President (he all out attacked Islam as an intolerable religion) to during his presidency (he took a softer stance) because as the main spokesperson of the US; he could not afford to jeopardise US interests in the region…
-Douglas is indignant that a top US military general in Afghanistan took a reasonable/logical decision when deciding to dispel rumours that a Koran had been desecrated by a member of ISAF. Again, he says this action is an example of the West bowing down to Islam. What did you want the American general to do Douglas? Jeopardise the whole American mission in Afghanistan by admitting that copies of the Koran had been destroyed? Alienate the whole nation and turn the Afghan public against American soldiers? Think of the how this admission would have strengthened the position of the Taliban and the danger it would pose to American/NATO soldiers stationed in the country.
-These are not a ‘classic’ example of the West bowing down to Islam but reasonable steps to protect American interests in Afghanistan/the wider region, by respecting their religious-cultural sensitivities.
-He also blames Islam for the death of an American ambassador (John Stevens) in Libya. Yet, he makes no mention of the US’ role in destabilising the nation that led to the complete destruction of the nation's security. This subsequently created a power vacuum for opportunistic radical Islamist groups to proliferate and wreck havoc in Libya.
-Douglas criticises Former CIA Director John Brennan for mentioning “Palestine” when naming the region (on page 16). Apparently merely mentioning ‘Palestine’ and not ‘Israel’ for the name of the region makes you a sucker for Islam?
-Devotes a whole chapter about how abhorrent it is that the West is recognising the contributions Muslim scientists, mathematicians, scholars and philosophers had made during the Islamic Golden Age.
-Also mad that we don’t have enough Hollywood films criticising Muslims.
-Absolutely no one: ....
-Douglas Murray: Why can’t Hollywood depict more Muslims as suicide bombers?
-Douglas argues that in Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven (2005) blockbuster, the movie depicted the Crusaders in a negative light (in contrast to merciful actions of the Muslims led by Saladin). He argues that this is another example of Hollywood/Western media being too afraid to criticise Islam but willing to criticise other religions (e.g. Christianity).
-Despite the historical inaccuracies in Kingdom of Heaven, many Western/Eastern sources have confirmed Saladin’s mercifulness (an act that was uncommon during the medieval period) when after conquering Jerusalem, he spared the lives of the Christian inhabitants and even allowed many to continue living in the city. This was in contrast to what the Crusaders did to the Muslim inhabitants 88 years earlier - where Muslim inhabitants of Jerusalem were massacred by the invading Crusader forces.
-So this is actually a case of a movie trying to be historically accurate. Perhaps, Douglas cannot fathom the fact that some Muslim leaders like Saladin can show mercy to their opponents. They must be all bad.
-He is also annoyed that Hollywood celebrities/film-makers such as Liam Neeson, Justin Bieber and Sean Stone have had positive experiences during their visits to Muslim-majority nations. What kind of argument is that? So what? Why is Douglas disgruntled by people’s positive experiences with Muslims?
-Douglas argues: Justin Bieber is a bad-boy in the US. He respects no one. But when he visited Turkey, he briefly halted his concert during the mosque call to prayer. Why does he favour Islam?
-Has anybody told Douglas, that when you are guest in another country, you respect the religious/cultural traditions of that country. What did you want Justin to do? Blast his music during prayer times?
I don't necessarily disagree with Douglas main arguments but he really needs some stronger arguments.
With this being said, Douglas makes some really weak and erroneous arguments.
-Douglas argues that Bush and Blair should be able to all-out criticise Islam. Does Douglas not understand basic geopolitics and its constraints? Part of the US mission in Afghanistan/Iraq was to win the hearts/minds of the Iraqi/Afghani public. How on earth would America be seen as a saviour by these populations when their leaders are demonising and criticising their religion? Again, these restrictions are placed not because of America or the West bowing down to Islam but because America does not want to imperil its mission in the Middle East…otherwise America would simply be following the Soviet path in Afghanistan, where a majority of the public opposed the Soviets for its anti-Islamic stance.
-Would it be reasonable for Bush/Blair to label Islam as ‘a terrorist religion’ as the two leaders make preparations to invade Afghanistan/Iraq (both Muslim-majority nations), whilst maintaining strategic American military bases in the Muslim-majority states in the Middle East (esp. in the Persian Gulf). Douglas thinks so. Would these people welcome the American/Coalition forces onto their soil after having their religion insulted?
-In addition to this, blaming Islam would fall into the narrative of Al-Qaeda, which positions itself as the ‘defender of Islamic land against America’. Regardless of what G. Bush/Obama’s personal opinion on Islam is; should either one declare Islam as a terrorist ‘religion’, the West would be shooting itself on its own foot and would only be strengthening Al-Qaeda's position. Just notice how Trump’s tone on Islam changed before being President (he all out attacked Islam as an intolerable religion) to during his presidency (he took a softer stance) because as the main spokesperson of the US; he could not afford to jeopardise US interests in the region…
-Douglas is indignant that a top US military general in Afghanistan took a reasonable/logical decision when deciding to dispel rumours that a Koran had been desecrated by a member of ISAF. Again, he says this action is an example of the West bowing down to Islam. What did you want the American general to do Douglas? Jeopardise the whole American mission in Afghanistan by admitting that copies of the Koran had been destroyed? Alienate the whole nation and turn the Afghan public against American soldiers? Think of the how this admission would have strengthened the position of the Taliban and the danger it would pose to American/NATO soldiers stationed in the country.
-These are not a ‘classic’ example of the West bowing down to Islam but reasonable steps to protect American interests in Afghanistan/the wider region, by respecting their religious-cultural sensitivities.
-He also blames Islam for the death of an American ambassador (John Stevens) in Libya. Yet, he makes no mention of the US’ role in destabilising the nation that led to the complete destruction of the nation's security. This subsequently created a power vacuum for opportunistic radical Islamist groups to proliferate and wreck havoc in Libya.
-Douglas criticises Former CIA Director John Brennan for mentioning “Palestine” when naming the region (on page 16). Apparently merely mentioning ‘Palestine’ and not ‘Israel’ for the name of the region makes you a sucker for Islam?
-Devotes a whole chapter about how abhorrent it is that the West is recognising the contributions Muslim scientists, mathematicians, scholars and philosophers had made during the Islamic Golden Age.
-Also mad that we don’t have enough Hollywood films criticising Muslims.
-Absolutely no one: ....
-Douglas Murray: Why can’t Hollywood depict more Muslims as suicide bombers?
-Douglas argues that in Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven (2005) blockbuster, the movie depicted the Crusaders in a negative light (in contrast to merciful actions of the Muslims led by Saladin). He argues that this is another example of Hollywood/Western media being too afraid to criticise Islam but willing to criticise other religions (e.g. Christianity).
-Despite the historical inaccuracies in Kingdom of Heaven, many Western/Eastern sources have confirmed Saladin’s mercifulness (an act that was uncommon during the medieval period) when after conquering Jerusalem, he spared the lives of the Christian inhabitants and even allowed many to continue living in the city. This was in contrast to what the Crusaders did to the Muslim inhabitants 88 years earlier - where Muslim inhabitants of Jerusalem were massacred by the invading Crusader forces.
-So this is actually a case of a movie trying to be historically accurate. Perhaps, Douglas cannot fathom the fact that some Muslim leaders like Saladin can show mercy to their opponents. They must be all bad.
-He is also annoyed that Hollywood celebrities/film-makers such as Liam Neeson, Justin Bieber and Sean Stone have had positive experiences during their visits to Muslim-majority nations. What kind of argument is that? So what? Why is Douglas disgruntled by people’s positive experiences with Muslims?
-Douglas argues: Justin Bieber is a bad-boy in the US. He respects no one. But when he visited Turkey, he briefly halted his concert during the mosque call to prayer. Why does he favour Islam?
-Has anybody told Douglas, that when you are guest in another country, you respect the religious/cultural traditions of that country. What did you want Justin to do? Blast his music during prayer times?
I don't necessarily disagree with Douglas main arguments but he really needs some stronger arguments.
March 26, 2017
This is an important book for anyone having a love affair with Islam to read, or for anyone who needs further proof that Islam gets a special pass in our American (and European) society allotted to no other religion.
Why is this? In the name of "not offending," or does our society truly fear Islam?
Read this if you are not afraid of having your concept of "all religions are equal" challenged. Read this if you aren't afraid.
Why is this? In the name of "not offending," or does our society truly fear Islam?
Read this if you are not afraid of having your concept of "all religions are equal" challenged. Read this if you aren't afraid.
December 7, 2021
Ova knjiga;esej je nastao nakon što je britanski vojnik Lee Rigby 2013. izboden na smrt od strane dvojice islamskih radikala, na ulici posred bijela dana. "Islamofobija" je čest termin koji se koristi u mainstream medijima, iako nije fobija. Fobija može doći od nečega iracionalnog, kod kritiziranja praksi u islamu strah je prisutan iz realnih razloga. Mislim da nitko nije proglašen "kršćanofobom" iako kritike na račun kršćanstva pljušte na sve strane.
Ovdje se autor bavi "islamofilijom" , o tome kako mnoge poznate osobe, pisci, kritičari, filmska industrija, glumci, političari se ne usude kritizirati pojave u islamu ili promatrati islam kritički iz jednostavnog razloga da ne bi bili ubijeni ili napadnuti. Spominju se knjige koje nisu mogle biti izdane u "slobodnom svijetu", dok je jedna takva (autorica se bavila temom unutar islama) recimo prvo izdanje doživjela u Srbiji. Ili slučajevi gdje su nadobudni ili sveznajući pisci nakon islamističkog terorističkog napada dali svoju kritiku na pojavu, kako bi za par dana napisali potpuno drukčiji tekst bojeći se za svoj život.
„The claim that Islam is a religion of peace is a nicety invented by Western politicians so as either not to offend their Muslim populations or simply lie to themselves that everything might yet turn out fine. In fact, since its beginning Islam has been pretty violent.“
Ovdje se autor bavi "islamofilijom" , o tome kako mnoge poznate osobe, pisci, kritičari, filmska industrija, glumci, političari se ne usude kritizirati pojave u islamu ili promatrati islam kritički iz jednostavnog razloga da ne bi bili ubijeni ili napadnuti. Spominju se knjige koje nisu mogle biti izdane u "slobodnom svijetu", dok je jedna takva (autorica se bavila temom unutar islama) recimo prvo izdanje doživjela u Srbiji. Ili slučajevi gdje su nadobudni ili sveznajući pisci nakon islamističkog terorističkog napada dali svoju kritiku na pojavu, kako bi za par dana napisali potpuno drukčiji tekst bojeći se za svoj život.
„The claim that Islam is a religion of peace is a nicety invented by Western politicians so as either not to offend their Muslim populations or simply lie to themselves that everything might yet turn out fine. In fact, since its beginning Islam has been pretty violent.“
November 14, 2015
“Demands that you believe the impossible do not lead to peaceful outcomes. Nor do they lead to peaceful or tolerant regimes.”
~Christopher Hitchens, debate with Tariq Ramadan, 10/5/2010
Mysteriously, this e-book has disappeared from (nearly) the entire WWW. Whether you think so or not, the subject on offer affects all of us, now as ever.
Freedom of expression begins with the freedom to criticize religion. Douglas Murray is a young, clear, cogent voice on this point. In a free society, Islam cannot be immune to critique and handled with kid gloves. To vilify those who cartoon or mock Islam is a surrender of what is most important in our own societies. I claim the right to voice my opinion and will defend the right of any religious person to practice his or her faith privately. However, no one has the right to never have his feelings hurt:
“If people are ever all going to be genuinely equal and genuinely integrated it will be when the playing field is genuinely level – tilted neither one way nor the other. That includes hearing things you don’t like hearing, have to defend things you don’t like defending and discovering for yourself- at some point along the way – that societies in which your deepest beliefs and feelings can be questioned and trodden upon are the only societies worth living in.”
~Christopher Hitchens, debate with Tariq Ramadan, 10/5/2010
Mysteriously, this e-book has disappeared from (nearly) the entire WWW. Whether you think so or not, the subject on offer affects all of us, now as ever.
Freedom of expression begins with the freedom to criticize religion. Douglas Murray is a young, clear, cogent voice on this point. In a free society, Islam cannot be immune to critique and handled with kid gloves. To vilify those who cartoon or mock Islam is a surrender of what is most important in our own societies. I claim the right to voice my opinion and will defend the right of any religious person to practice his or her faith privately. However, no one has the right to never have his feelings hurt:
“If people are ever all going to be genuinely equal and genuinely integrated it will be when the playing field is genuinely level – tilted neither one way nor the other. That includes hearing things you don’t like hearing, have to defend things you don’t like defending and discovering for yourself- at some point along the way – that societies in which your deepest beliefs and feelings can be questioned and trodden upon are the only societies worth living in.”
July 10, 2013
This book is great. It is about how people - politicians, musicians, actors, writers - do not critcize Islam. This happens due to the violent or deadly reprecussions that a small, but scary amount of the Muslim population will carry out. It is perfectly acceptable to criticize or poke fun at Christian denominations, Mormons, Jews, but is unacceptable to do the same about Islam. & that is not right or fair. The author is not advocating that everyone start offending every Muslim at all, but that we should not act as thought Islam deserves more respect or that we all have to have a love affair with it, too.
February 15, 2016
This short book is actually a long journey that will make u anguish, laugh, dismay, marvel and read up a lot of wikipedia stuff along the way. And finally, you may feel the same as u might after reading Fahrenheit 451 or 1984.
September 22, 2016
Much funnier than I thought, for such a heavy topic. Murray perfectly shows people's bias towards Islam and their tolerance of intolerance, which is not the case for any other religion. But also very clear in separating Islam as a religion and Muslims as people. Definitely worth a read!
April 24, 2019
Some thoughts:
A good sequence of thoughts that should be beefed up into a larger, more argumentative book. It is fairly brave and surprisingly contrarian in being unshakably unapologetic and due to this conviction it reads very well. Part of its strength is in focusing in on the ways cultural sensitivity through political correctness has been afforded to Islam which is not afforded to other religions in the West. Legitimate criticism of the Quran (from a liberal perspective) is labelled as being islamophobic by many as outlined in the text.
The main thesis is that Islam is not afforded the same criticism that other religions are faced with, when it comes to our politicians, media and so on. All religion has good and bad parts, but as Murray suggests, we rarely hear about the bad when it comes to Islam. We need to be able to critique the aspects of Islam that lead to radicalization and bigotry. This is a highly debated and controversial point of view. Mainly because people often disavow any influence the religion might have on terrorism as this often reflects a bastardized and unhinged appropriation of Islamic values. The majority of Muslims are peaceful and so their interpretation is the correct one.
When Bill Maher and Sam Harris made comments similar to what Murray argues in this book on Real Time, it immediately caused significant tension in the liberal media, with Cenk Uygur and Glen Greenwald being opponents to their comments, suggesting that it tarnished all Muslims with the brush of extremism. The argument is that terrorists are not true Muslims, in the same way that right wing extremists who bomb abortion clinics are not indicative of Christians. Whilst this is true, the problem is that the goal posts are being moved. The discussion is on critiquing an ideology which has developed which is a legitimate reading (out of many) of a holy text which promotes these ideas. This does not tarnish all Muslims. Further, I believe we should be able to stand up for our principles of gay rights, women's rights et al and not allow these to be curtailed in anyway (the same for any religion trying to impose a way of life on a secular society). I am thus sympathetic to the views that Murray espouses here and believe that we have began gradually capitulating our liberal principles in order to appear culturally sensitive and inclusive.
The tone of the book is largely comedic reflecting of course the great aphorism of Wittgenstein that sometimes we can only speak of the most testing and difficult subjects in the form of jokes. However, the subject matter is of course very pressing and of great concern. The text makes good points regarding the religion of peace moniker that is attributed to Islam by pointing out the following:
"Mohammed was not a man to ‘turn the other cheek’. He was a man who slew his opponents and enslaved or beheaded his enemies."
A strength of the book is in delineating the preposterous Museum exhibit, "1001 Islamic inventions" and the dishonest and false claims that were made to try and attribute nearly everything we use today to Islamic culture. Murray notes that it is an example of reverse causation. The example of the argument structure here is as follows: We have predetermined that Islam is responsible for everything and so find evidence to justify said claim, regardless of how spurious. The most egregious being Cordoban Abbas ibn Firnas as "discovering flight" in 852, supported by unsourced contemporary accounts. Murray notes that these "flights" were more like plummets.
"We are reminded that pre-Islamic history is filled with stories of flight which people take to be just that – stories. But that does not dim the telling of these ‘real’ ‘Islamic’ flights. For now that we are after Islam it is not ‘stories’ but ‘facts’ which we must by necessity be dealing with."
Wikipedia notes a quote from the Moroccan historian Ahmed Mohammed al-Maqqari about the flight attempts by Cordoban Abbas ibn Firnas as follows, which is very revealing:
"Among other very curious experiments which he made, one is his trying to fly. He covered himself with feathers for the purpose, attached a couple of wings to his body, and, getting on an eminence, flung himself down into the air, when according to the testimony of several trustworthy writers who witnessed the performance, he flew a considerable distance, as if he had been a bird, but, in alighting again on the place whence he had started, his back was very much hurt, for not knowing that birds when they alight come down upon their tails, he forgot to provide himself with one"
The thinness of the text means that key aspects of history concerning the term "Islamophobia" are missing, which is more interesting at least to me as a sociologist. As a neologism, I am not convinced that "Islamophillia" will catch on in quite the same way that the term, "regressive left" has in describing much of the same thing.
Given my view that the text needs refined, it should have end notes providing information regarding sourced material.
A good sequence of thoughts that should be beefed up into a larger, more argumentative book. It is fairly brave and surprisingly contrarian in being unshakably unapologetic and due to this conviction it reads very well. Part of its strength is in focusing in on the ways cultural sensitivity through political correctness has been afforded to Islam which is not afforded to other religions in the West. Legitimate criticism of the Quran (from a liberal perspective) is labelled as being islamophobic by many as outlined in the text.
The main thesis is that Islam is not afforded the same criticism that other religions are faced with, when it comes to our politicians, media and so on. All religion has good and bad parts, but as Murray suggests, we rarely hear about the bad when it comes to Islam. We need to be able to critique the aspects of Islam that lead to radicalization and bigotry. This is a highly debated and controversial point of view. Mainly because people often disavow any influence the religion might have on terrorism as this often reflects a bastardized and unhinged appropriation of Islamic values. The majority of Muslims are peaceful and so their interpretation is the correct one.
When Bill Maher and Sam Harris made comments similar to what Murray argues in this book on Real Time, it immediately caused significant tension in the liberal media, with Cenk Uygur and Glen Greenwald being opponents to their comments, suggesting that it tarnished all Muslims with the brush of extremism. The argument is that terrorists are not true Muslims, in the same way that right wing extremists who bomb abortion clinics are not indicative of Christians. Whilst this is true, the problem is that the goal posts are being moved. The discussion is on critiquing an ideology which has developed which is a legitimate reading (out of many) of a holy text which promotes these ideas. This does not tarnish all Muslims. Further, I believe we should be able to stand up for our principles of gay rights, women's rights et al and not allow these to be curtailed in anyway (the same for any religion trying to impose a way of life on a secular society). I am thus sympathetic to the views that Murray espouses here and believe that we have began gradually capitulating our liberal principles in order to appear culturally sensitive and inclusive.
The tone of the book is largely comedic reflecting of course the great aphorism of Wittgenstein that sometimes we can only speak of the most testing and difficult subjects in the form of jokes. However, the subject matter is of course very pressing and of great concern. The text makes good points regarding the religion of peace moniker that is attributed to Islam by pointing out the following:
"Mohammed was not a man to ‘turn the other cheek’. He was a man who slew his opponents and enslaved or beheaded his enemies."
A strength of the book is in delineating the preposterous Museum exhibit, "1001 Islamic inventions" and the dishonest and false claims that were made to try and attribute nearly everything we use today to Islamic culture. Murray notes that it is an example of reverse causation. The example of the argument structure here is as follows: We have predetermined that Islam is responsible for everything and so find evidence to justify said claim, regardless of how spurious. The most egregious being Cordoban Abbas ibn Firnas as "discovering flight" in 852, supported by unsourced contemporary accounts. Murray notes that these "flights" were more like plummets.
"We are reminded that pre-Islamic history is filled with stories of flight which people take to be just that – stories. But that does not dim the telling of these ‘real’ ‘Islamic’ flights. For now that we are after Islam it is not ‘stories’ but ‘facts’ which we must by necessity be dealing with."
Wikipedia notes a quote from the Moroccan historian Ahmed Mohammed al-Maqqari about the flight attempts by Cordoban Abbas ibn Firnas as follows, which is very revealing:
"Among other very curious experiments which he made, one is his trying to fly. He covered himself with feathers for the purpose, attached a couple of wings to his body, and, getting on an eminence, flung himself down into the air, when according to the testimony of several trustworthy writers who witnessed the performance, he flew a considerable distance, as if he had been a bird, but, in alighting again on the place whence he had started, his back was very much hurt, for not knowing that birds when they alight come down upon their tails, he forgot to provide himself with one"
The thinness of the text means that key aspects of history concerning the term "Islamophobia" are missing, which is more interesting at least to me as a sociologist. As a neologism, I am not convinced that "Islamophillia" will catch on in quite the same way that the term, "regressive left" has in describing much of the same thing.
Given my view that the text needs refined, it should have end notes providing information regarding sourced material.
October 20, 2019
Douglas Murray delivers us yet another excellent work. Islamophilia is neither a praise nor a critic about Islam, rather, it's a critique of the hypocrisy of the West in allowing this barbaric cult to continue to rampage on the street, be it fear or genuine love. Murray used fresh examples from all around the world to challenge the problematic ideology that is spreading in the world.
October 29, 2013
Ballsy. Also food for thought. I wonder if anyone's tried to kill Douglas Murray yet...?
August 2, 2014
Well written. Funny, surprising and serious at the same time.
August 10, 2021
For a very short book, the four stars appreciation seems a little overshot, but the analyze is correct and clarifying.
February 21, 2021
Douglas Murray is a regular contributor to the Spectator magazine and my reason for a growing pile of back dated Spectator issues purchased on Ebay. His intelligence, wit and charm are disarming as he systematically takes down the mirrors and blows away the smoke around current issues in our country, (UK) and the western world at large.
The book is written in a satirical form and the humour makes it a lighter read though no less impactful for it, as he looks at the fawning over Islam in our society and the deep expressions of love for it, (islamophilia) by those who are not muslims and have no understand of it. He also examines the cowardly backtracking of those who have challenged Islam and the anomaly that it is the one religion in our society that no one in the media, the arts or literary circles wants to challenge.
It includes examples of the lies that people have been prepared to swallow about Islam believing that they are being progressive, when in fact they have just failed to do the detail.
Douglas reminds us that free societies, where all religions can be discussed and challenged without fear or favour are the only ones worth living in.
The book is written in a satirical form and the humour makes it a lighter read though no less impactful for it, as he looks at the fawning over Islam in our society and the deep expressions of love for it, (islamophilia) by those who are not muslims and have no understand of it. He also examines the cowardly backtracking of those who have challenged Islam and the anomaly that it is the one religion in our society that no one in the media, the arts or literary circles wants to challenge.
It includes examples of the lies that people have been prepared to swallow about Islam believing that they are being progressive, when in fact they have just failed to do the detail.
Douglas reminds us that free societies, where all religions can be discussed and challenged without fear or favour are the only ones worth living in.
July 5, 2013
The book has nothing to do with the teachings or practice of Islam. It explores the fawning over all things Islamic by many non Muslims. Many cases are so profound that, despite being practitioners of other religions, the people actually appear to be espousing Islam. There seems to be little corresponding behavior in relation to other religions. Whether because of fear or not this phenomena limits the rational exploration of ideas. It is troublesome that a minority group of terrorists can so profoundly affect public behavior and often even negatively affect the perception of the cause they so passionately espouse, By writing this book the author proves that he is neither Islamophobe nor Islamophile. The book does have many good points but I found it a bit boring by the end.
I received my copy of Islamophobia from Netgalley
I received my copy of Islamophobia from Netgalley
August 3, 2013
I suspect Douglas Murray has become a target for publishing what has been obvious to objective observers. Many politicians, entertainers, journalists and spokesmen have been so intimidated by Islam fanatics they resist even the slightest criticism or negative comments.
This short ebook is not anti-Islam but cites examples where the Muslim world is pacified at the cost of honesty or bashing of other religious faiths and cultures. I salute the author for speaking out and documenting this worldwide phenomena. Awareness is knowledge.
This ARC was provided by the emboss and www.netgalley.com and is available through online stores.
This short ebook is not anti-Islam but cites examples where the Muslim world is pacified at the cost of honesty or bashing of other religious faiths and cultures. I salute the author for speaking out and documenting this worldwide phenomena. Awareness is knowledge.
This ARC was provided by the emboss and www.netgalley.com and is available through online stores.
December 22, 2018
The book reads like an angry rant and weakens the author's arguments. That being said, his point has some truth: the West treats Islam different than any other religion.
May 25, 2019
As a right-wing voter I was expecting so much more from this book. Yet, all I got was a boring and a forgettable rant which was so one-sided that it made me feel sorry for the poor Islam.
October 12, 2025
Douglas Murray discussing his findings for his already biased perspective. An interesting yet prejudiced essay on the irrational adoration and uneven treatment of religions by public figures.
June 14, 2020
Another book by Douglas Murray that exposes the weaknesses of the Western political systems and how easy it is for outsiders to take advantage of them. He describes behaviors that are tantamount to treachery that lead to the implementation of a new order where citizens of the "free" world are slowly deprived of their freedoms.
It would be unthinkable in countries like China or Russia to permit these agents of discord-both local and foreign-to act in such manner but the E.U has no problem in endorsing actions that are destroying centuries of tradition and well being. If you happen to be one of those that believe that what is going on is karmic payment for centuries of colonialism, then what about countries like those of the Balkans, which apart from having no colonial past, have suffered due to Islam rule for centuries.
One thing is certain. This won't be over anytime soon. We still need half a million years 'till the end of Kali Yuga.
It would be unthinkable in countries like China or Russia to permit these agents of discord-both local and foreign-to act in such manner but the E.U has no problem in endorsing actions that are destroying centuries of tradition and well being. If you happen to be one of those that believe that what is going on is karmic payment for centuries of colonialism, then what about countries like those of the Balkans, which apart from having no colonial past, have suffered due to Islam rule for centuries.
One thing is certain. This won't be over anytime soon. We still need half a million years 'till the end of Kali Yuga.
June 28, 2024
Brief, written in a hurry and with a remarkable number of grammatical errors, it nevertheless contains a few of Murray’s best quips about those who love to ingratiate themselves at all costs (and always AT great cost) to Islam and its militant wing. For a more thorough treatment that Murray would go on to develop after this, I recommend The Strange Death of Europe. This is a decent enough primer.
July 7, 2020
Be Sure To Read This Book!
Let me nail my colours firmly to the mast right now: I love Douglas Murray so I’m not impartial.
I remember searching for this book online years back to no avail before forgetting about it. Then, the other day, whilst I was trawling through Amazon, it popped up on my feed.
My luck didn’t stop there, however and I was lucky enough to get a ‘double dose’ of Douglas Murray that day when I checked his twitter feed and noticed he had called James O Brien a ‘simpleton’ for denying the existence of a culture war (I was very pleased to see one of my favourite people insult one of my least favourite people). Douglas’s tweet, just like his writing, cheered me up no end and I mediate my bought the book and devoured it.
All I will say is that this book, like all of Douglas’s work, does not disappoint, although some of it does surprise like Prince Charles saying we should look to Islam to develop environmental policy (true story).
If you haven’t done so already, read the ‘Neoconservatism and Why We Need It’ book, it’s a mind blowing read.
My only criticism of this book is that it’s a little short. The sad fact is that with all of the appeasement that’s so rude in society now several ‘War and Peace’ sized volumes could easily be filled on the subject dealt with by the book.
Let me nail my colours firmly to the mast right now: I love Douglas Murray so I’m not impartial.
I remember searching for this book online years back to no avail before forgetting about it. Then, the other day, whilst I was trawling through Amazon, it popped up on my feed.
My luck didn’t stop there, however and I was lucky enough to get a ‘double dose’ of Douglas Murray that day when I checked his twitter feed and noticed he had called James O Brien a ‘simpleton’ for denying the existence of a culture war (I was very pleased to see one of my favourite people insult one of my least favourite people). Douglas’s tweet, just like his writing, cheered me up no end and I mediate my bought the book and devoured it.
All I will say is that this book, like all of Douglas’s work, does not disappoint, although some of it does surprise like Prince Charles saying we should look to Islam to develop environmental policy (true story).
If you haven’t done so already, read the ‘Neoconservatism and Why We Need It’ book, it’s a mind blowing read.
My only criticism of this book is that it’s a little short. The sad fact is that with all of the appeasement that’s so rude in society now several ‘War and Peace’ sized volumes could easily be filled on the subject dealt with by the book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 93 reviews