The Myth of Islamic Tolerance

The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims is a controversial collection of essays, including 17 by Bat Ye'or , edited by writer Robert Spencer , the director of Jihad Watch . [1] The collection of 63 essays features mid-east scholars and experts on Islam , including Ibn Warraq , Walid Phares , David Littman , Patrick Sookhdeo , and Mark Durie . Robert Spencer argues that Islamic advocates have promulgated a myth of Islamic tolerance that can be dispelled by examining the historical events that led to the destruction of the Zoroastrians in Iran ; the Armenians in Turkey ; the Buddhists and Hindus in India ; and the Jews in Morocco , Cordoba , Granada , Marrakesh and Baghdad . Ibn Warraq discusses the difficulties encountered when attempting to have an honest examination of this topic. Bat Ye'or discusses Dhimmitude historically and in modern contexts. Middle Eastern scholars Walid Phares and Bat Ye'or discuss life under Islamic rule and the toll it has taken on Middle Eastern Christians such as the Lebanese Maronites , the Egyptian Copts ; the Melkites ; the Anglican , Protestant and Catholic southern Sudanese Africans; Christian Syrians ; Iraqi Assyrians, Nestorians , Chaldeans , and Jacobites ; Iranian Persian , Armenian and Assyrian Christians ; and Christian Arab in the Palestinian territories. David Littman chronicles the advancement of Islamic intolerance at the United Nations . Patrick Sookhdeo and Mark Durie treat the rise of anti-Christian persecutions in Nigeria , Sudan , Pakistan and Indonesia in the first part of the 21st century. The book has received mixed reviews. Jeffrey Rubin in the Conservative Book Club writes that "[a]nyone concerned about the dangers of politically motivated distortions of Islamic theology and history should not miss this explosive and enlightening volume," while Publishers Weekly criticizes the authors for repetition, failure to define their terms, and quoting the Qur'an out of context: "The resulting repetition and monotone provide little insight and a disconnected feel. This book would have been more persuasive and less alarmist if it had excluded half the essays." [2]¹