Secrets of the Koran: Revealing Insight Into Islam's Holy Book

This book's title says that it explains the secrets of Quran , wrong! The author is actually attacking Islam with lies and fiction instead of facts! If he thinks that he was saying the truth then he would not have to hide the objective of the book under a deceiving name ! He knows that he is lying! If you are really looking for the facts don't read this lying book!

This book is excellent and reveals the truth about true Islam, its origins, its past, its present, and its designs on the future. This book is not for the politically correct, or for those who are unwilling to look at the facts of the Koran and the many Hadiths, or the facts of the history of Islam. The book is VERY well written, and is extremely well substantiated with facts.

I have just finished reading Secrets of the Koran and am excited, but at the same time concerned for the future of our freedom. I am excited because such a truthful and uncompromising book has been (and still can be) written and made available. I am concerned because I do believe that Mr Richardson's description of what the world could be like under future Islamic domination is all too real. This book is so important that it should be made available wherever it can be safely sold (or made available in libraries) without having a fatwa issued against those responsible. Please approach your bookshop and suggest that they make some shelf-space available for this great, new book. Please buy a copy and offer it as a donation to your local library. You may wish to give it to them to peruse first, with a note inserted that if they don't want to keep it, it should be returned to you. If the librarian says that the book is too biases or unacceptable for any other reason, be prepared to come back at them regarding the anti-Christian and pro-Islamic books already on their shelves. Write letters. Ask your Christian friends to get involved. Speaking of Christian friends. Something so refreshing about this book, written by a fellow Christian, is that it faces reality about humanistic professors in Western countries needing to show a little more kindness towards Christianity, as it fills a gap which militant Islam will all-too-willingly march into. And militant Islam will have no respect for the rights of the great-grandchild of the humanistic professor! I, myself, have heard mounds of anti-Christian diatribe from university professors which was *totally* off-topic. The only reservation I have of this book is that I found most of Appendix A unnecessary. The inclusivist/exclusivist controversy within Christianity is, more or less, relevant to how we dialogue with Muslims, but this could have been condensed into a brief description (or, better, chart/table) of the difference between general and special Revelation, the summation on page 247 and a few references for further reading. However, I wouldn't blame Mr Richardson if he responded (to me) "write your own book!" and "I could carve a better man out of a banana!" (see Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse 5"). (...)

I'm not sure if these hostile reviewers have actually read this book. If so, I would be interested to read some substantive rebuttal of the book's contents if they had any. I have read other, more friendly books on Islam. But this book reports some alarming facts and raises some pointed questions. For example: why is it that there are no vital democracies among the Muslim nations (with the possible exception of Turkey)? Why is it that on human rights lists, the Muslim nations are consistently among the worst? Which type of Muslim is living by what the Koran says; the moderate peace-loving Muslim, or the radical militant? (You might be surprised by the answer to that question!) And if the radicals are the ones most faithful to the Koran, what does that mean for Western nations who have growing populations of resident Muslims? If you are interested in a critical assessment of Islam, especially at its foundations - the Koran itself and the person of Mohammed - then read this book. You'll get a more sympathetic treatment from the popular media, but this side of the story in unfortunately harder to find. Consider yourself a juror and read a book like Karen Armstrong's _Muhammed_. There you'll get the case for the defense form a Westerner's perspective. Then read Richardson's book and hear the case from the prosecution. Decide for yourself who is telling the truth.

Don Richardson presents an eye-opening expose into Islam. He tackles the question, "Is Islam a religion of peace?" After studying multiple translations of the Koran, he came to his conclusion: No, Islam is not a religion of peace. Mr. Richardson cites different translations of the Koran to prove his points. The book is laid out in a straight-forward manner, the author using logic to point to his conclusions. All one has to do to verify Richardson's points is to simply read the Koran. This book is NOT about hating Muslims, it is about exposing the Koran. In fact, the author makes it clear to his readers to treat Muslims with kindness and respect, but also to tell them the truth. I would also recommend www.faithfreedom.org; it is a webpage by some ex-Muslims. It makes many of the same points as does Richardson.

Readers of my most recent book, Secrets of the Koran, should expect to be startled by what it reveals. I was startled by my own research, because I had read authors who were quite positive on the Koran but--like many other authors I have since discovered--I found my study was leading me to views that stand in polar opposition to the views of authors favoring the Koran.A major concern today is the Koran's war, plunder and enslavement verses, verses that command Muslims to kill, ravage, maraud, enslave and oppress 'infidels' (those who reject Islam). Even torture is commanded ("Chop off their fingertips!"). Again and again I heard apologists for Islam claim in television interviews that the Koran contains very few such verses. I decided to count and found 109! One out of 55 verses in the Koran advocates violence. Again and again I heard apologists warn against taking the Koran's "very few" war verses "out of context." Heeding the warning, I very carefully drew from Muslim sources, linking verses with their context. By the way, those contexts do not show, as Muslims always claim, that Mohammed used bloodshed only for "justifiable self defense." He very definitely was the aggressor!Muslims frequently quote war verses from early Old Testament books to justifyMohammed's attempt to return us all to late Bronze Age violence in the 600s AD. They overlook the new ruling God ordained in I Chronicles 22:7-9. King David was the last writer of Scripture who was permitted to use the sword in God's name. Beginning with Solomon and his writings--Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon--all the way to Malachi and his book of prophecy, there are no more Old Testament war verses.Israel's kings (perceived from that time on as primarily secular, not religious) still waged war and God still punished from heaven. But no servant of God mentioned in Scripture was permitted in all those centuries to wield the sword in God's name. Of course the New Testament follows suit with not one single war verse among its 7992 components. Anyone who did subsequently claim any part of the Bible as justification for violence was violating the Bible.My book explains all this, yet some still accuse me of overlooking war verses in the Old Testament (as if such verses do indeed justify a horrendous outbreak of Muslim religious violence in the 600s AD.)I firmly believe that a critical mass of readers of my book will carefully check the facts before reaching a conclusion. My bibliography lists 19 other authors, many of them secularists such as the former Muslim Ibn Warraq, who have also published recent criticisms of various aspects of Islam. I am far from alone.We must let Muslims know that as surely as they bring their religion to America,-and most Muslims in America are clearly nonviolent, decent people-they must expect it to be critiqued freely and thoroughly, because that is what Americans do! There needs to be an open debate, but not violence or hate in either directio