cdtyrrell's review against another edition
1.0
I was disappointed. The author does a disservice to his thesis by conflating fact with appeals to nature and basing his position on appeals to emotion. This book falls short of the promise of its title.
saphawk's review against another edition
3.0
I felt this book was both true and biased at the same time.
I did learn a lot about the contents of the Koran and though he said that he read the Koran so you wouldn't have to read this book just made me want to read the Koran so that I could really see what is written in it myself. He gives some viable comments and queries, sometimes I feel like I need a second opinion. It was an interesting read.
I did learn a lot about the contents of the Koran and though he said that he read the Koran so you wouldn't have to read this book just made me want to read the Koran so that I could really see what is written in it myself. He gives some viable comments and queries, sometimes I feel like I need a second opinion. It was an interesting read.
thomcat's review against another edition
4.0
Some facets of this religion are incompatible with our form of government. The Mormons were willing to give up polygamy to live as Americans. Are Muslims willing to give up enough to live in peace with us?
gaiusgermanicus's review against another edition
4.0
Good for those who: want to understand the taliban, the islamic state, the government and citizens of the 13 countries where being a homosexual is punishable by death etc
Not good for those who: are lie loving jews (koran 5:41 - muhsin khan translation)
Not good for those who: are lie loving jews (koran 5:41 - muhsin khan translation)
bartimaeus2002's review against another edition
3.0
(Aud) So, I'll preface this by saying that I don't know anything about the author, apart from what I briefly scanned through other Goodreads reviews. I honestly thought it was a 'Koran for Dummies' type guide - what I got was equal parts 'dummies guide', 'angry white dude' rant, and well researched theological review. It's an op-ed basically and like most op-eds there are parts that I've learned from, there are parts that I find abhorrent and there are parts that make a lot of sense. So, a 3-star it is. Like any holy-book review, it's all about the interpretation and more importantly the application of that interpretation. We are human and the mechanisms we have created can generally be used for good or evil based on our mood.
the_cimmerian's review against another edition
3.0
Revelador y perturbante.
Realmente damos por hecho que el derecho a la libre expresión está garantizada, pero después de escuchar los casos y ver desde dónde proviene la censura, te das cuenta que no es así. Que hay ciertos temas y doctrinas que no desean ser puestos bajo la lupa.
El libro como tal está estructurado de una forma un tanto repetitiva, pues en cada capítulo existen las mismas secciones como el "did you know" (sabías que), que le da un aire libro de texto podrá pasar una materia; además, me hubiera gustado que se incluyeran varias de las caricaturas e ilustraciones a que se hacen referencia para visualizar mejor esos aspectos.
Finalmente, encontré diversas inconsistencias entre el ebook y el audiolibro; principalmente texto que no está incluído en la narración o que se encuentra en un orden diferente.
Realmente damos por hecho que el derecho a la libre expresión está garantizada, pero después de escuchar los casos y ver desde dónde proviene la censura, te das cuenta que no es así. Que hay ciertos temas y doctrinas que no desean ser puestos bajo la lupa.
El libro como tal está estructurado de una forma un tanto repetitiva, pues en cada capítulo existen las mismas secciones como el "did you know" (sabías que), que le da un aire libro de texto podrá pasar una materia; además, me hubiera gustado que se incluyeran varias de las caricaturas e ilustraciones a que se hacen referencia para visualizar mejor esos aspectos.
Finalmente, encontré diversas inconsistencias entre el ebook y el audiolibro; principalmente texto que no está incluído en la narración o que se encuentra en un orden diferente.
libra17's review against another edition
1.0
I found The Infidel's Guide to Free Speech while browsing and picked it up because of it's apparently excellent review history and high rating. I didn't realize until I was a good way into the book that it was written the Robert Spencer who's one of the more visible and outspoken members of the american white nationalist movement. I already didn't trust the book at that point, and this discovery put into perspective why the book took a flying leap off the diving board of reality into the dark, confused morass of conspiracy theory, factless accusations, and lies by omission during chapter three.
I was familiar with a good chunk of the examples used, and it would be difficult if not impossible to account for the ways in which they are either presented misleadingly or outright wrong. For example, Spencer claims the US signed an accord at the direction of the OIC regarding blasphemy laws. While a lot of people were afraid the administration would agree to the accord, it didn't actually happen. A similar book that's actually about free speech - Fleming Rose's The Tyranny of Silence - acknowledges this, but Spencer tries to claim otherwise so the lie will bolster his argument. In another example, Spencer tries to claim that Ghostbusters actress Leslie Jones got Milo Yiannopoulos banned from Twitter over some hurt feelings, which is distinctly NOT what happened. Yiannopoulos was banned because he ran a harassment campaign that resulted in in his hundreds of thousands of followers sending Jones torture, rape, and death threats. THAT is why his account was stripped of verified status and banned, not because someone complained about hurt feelings and Twitter felt like trampling over freedom of speech. This whole book is littered with similar examples, and unfortunately, the author's determination to create an alternate reality both in his books and the real world makes it hard to take any of his mostly false ranting seriously.
I am an advocate of free speech, and I think the only speech that should be banned is that which is explicitly threatening (such as, 'I will kill you') or that which calls for violence against others (such as, 'There is a holy reward coming for anyone who kills [insert name/race/religious affiliation/profession/etc here]'). However, I can understand why there are few who might seriously believe free speech rights are under attack from religious fundamentalists (ALL religious fundamentalists, btw; not just those who are muslim) worldwide if this delusional-sounding liar is the spokesperson for the issue. What little useful information and good points there are buried in The Infidel's Guide to Free Speech are couched in so much misleading framing and outright lies that they are useless to a reader who isn't very familiar with the topic of the book and the many examples used.
I would not recommend this book, except perhaps as an example of what writing from an alternate universe looks like (and, even then, I would insist that the person read my copy that has all my notes in the margins). The only reason I forced myself to finish it is so I could leave it the 1 star review that it rightly deserves, so hopefully at least a few others will be able to avoid wasting their time with this sad excuse for a book. If I could leave it 0 stars, I would. For those who are interested in learning more about free speech issues in the context of the 21st century and the value's struggle with resurgent religious fundamentalism, I suggest The Tyranny of Silence. It is written by Fleming Rose, now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who is probably most well known for commissioning the cartoons that became the epicenter of the 2006 cartoon crisis when he was the culture editor for the right-leaning danish paper Jyllands-Posten. The Tyranny of Silence is a well-written half memoir, half free speech manifesto that is both more coherent than The Infidel's Guide to Free Speech and actually based in fact.
I was familiar with a good chunk of the examples used, and it would be difficult if not impossible to account for the ways in which they are either presented misleadingly or outright wrong. For example, Spencer claims the US signed an accord at the direction of the OIC regarding blasphemy laws. While a lot of people were afraid the administration would agree to the accord, it didn't actually happen. A similar book that's actually about free speech - Fleming Rose's The Tyranny of Silence - acknowledges this, but Spencer tries to claim otherwise so the lie will bolster his argument. In another example, Spencer tries to claim that Ghostbusters actress Leslie Jones got Milo Yiannopoulos banned from Twitter over some hurt feelings, which is distinctly NOT what happened. Yiannopoulos was banned because he ran a harassment campaign that resulted in in his hundreds of thousands of followers sending Jones torture, rape, and death threats. THAT is why his account was stripped of verified status and banned, not because someone complained about hurt feelings and Twitter felt like trampling over freedom of speech. This whole book is littered with similar examples, and unfortunately, the author's determination to create an alternate reality both in his books and the real world makes it hard to take any of his mostly false ranting seriously.
I am an advocate of free speech, and I think the only speech that should be banned is that which is explicitly threatening (such as, 'I will kill you') or that which calls for violence against others (such as, 'There is a holy reward coming for anyone who kills [insert name/race/religious affiliation/profession/etc here]'). However, I can understand why there are few who might seriously believe free speech rights are under attack from religious fundamentalists (ALL religious fundamentalists, btw; not just those who are muslim) worldwide if this delusional-sounding liar is the spokesperson for the issue. What little useful information and good points there are buried in The Infidel's Guide to Free Speech are couched in so much misleading framing and outright lies that they are useless to a reader who isn't very familiar with the topic of the book and the many examples used.
I would not recommend this book, except perhaps as an example of what writing from an alternate universe looks like (and, even then, I would insist that the person read my copy that has all my notes in the margins). The only reason I forced myself to finish it is so I could leave it the 1 star review that it rightly deserves, so hopefully at least a few others will be able to avoid wasting their time with this sad excuse for a book. If I could leave it 0 stars, I would. For those who are interested in learning more about free speech issues in the context of the 21st century and the value's struggle with resurgent religious fundamentalism, I suggest The Tyranny of Silence. It is written by Fleming Rose, now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who is probably most well known for commissioning the cartoons that became the epicenter of the 2006 cartoon crisis when he was the culture editor for the right-leaning danish paper Jyllands-Posten. The Tyranny of Silence is a well-written half memoir, half free speech manifesto that is both more coherent than The Infidel's Guide to Free Speech and actually based in fact.
More...