“He has been poring over Islamic texts for decades, and can quote chapter and verse from the Koran (which he annoyingly spells “Qu’ran,” [sic] as if any western reader has a clue what to do with that “Q” and that apostrophe),”
It is Qur’an. Not “Qu’ran” Please quote correctly in the future. It may be a small detail, but if you cannot get this type of detail correct, the review becomes highly suspect.
“Whatever the facts of that, it can hardly be disputed that we have got into the mess we are in with Islam today not so much because of the letter of Islamic theology, or the failure of enough of us to knuckle down to our citizenly duty and read the Koran (personally, I would rather undergo radical dentistry), as because we have executed policies of staggering idiocy.”
“All that we know for sure about history and its great tides is that people here behaved like this, while people there behaved like that. Why? What were the determinants?”
A person who says, “Whatever the facts,” is usually a person who either knows precious few, or who disregards facts that are “inconvenient,” or both. In any case, the reviewer admits he has not read the Qur’an. In what way is he qualified to review Robert Spencer’s book?
Rather than see “we,” he should stick to the first person singular.
The fact that there are differing theories does not mean that we know nothing. His argument is the heart and soul of relativism. He might as well just say that he knows nothing.
“Mohammed’s flying through the air to Jerusalem on a white steed is no more preposterous than the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception;”
I am fairly certain that Mr. Derbyshire has confused Mary’s own birth with the birth of her son. This indicates that in addition to not reading the Qur’an, he is also quite ignorant about Christian theology. So again I ask this question; In what way is he qualified to review this book?
I believe that Mr. Derbyshire’s ramblings to be a parody of the intellectually ignorant. Unfortunately, he probably meant every word of what he wrote.
