Greg here. My erstwhile employer - National Review - has for the most part shown itself on the wrong side of the Islam question, generally supporting a D'Souza-esque interpretation. A piece in NROnline today, however, "Islamic Apologetics" is encouraging. It picks up on the Armstrong-Spencer Financial Times tangle and generally sorts things out pretty well. One hopes we will see more of the author, Raymond Ibrahim (editor of The Al-Qaeda Reader), in NRO's pages in future.
Ibrahim writes:
Islamic apologist extraordinaire Karen Armstrong is at it again. In an article entitled “Balancing the Prophet” published by the Financial Times, the self-proclaimed “freelance monotheist” engages in what can only be considered second-rate sophistry.The false statements begin in her opening paragraph:
Ever since the Crusades, people in the west have seen the prophet Muhammad as a sinister figure.… The scholar monks of Europe stigmatised Muhammad as a cruel warlord who established the false religion of Islam by the sword. They also, with ill-concealed envy, berated him as a lecher and sexual pervert at a time when the popes were attempting to impose celibacy on the reluctant clergy.This is just an obvious error of fact. Armstrong and others try as a routine to tie European sentiments toward Islam to the Crusades, but in fact, “people in the west” had something of a “dim” view of Mohammed half a millenium before the Crusades. As early as the 8th century — just a few generations after Mohammed — Byzantine chronicler Theophanes wrote in his Chrongraphia:
He [Mohammed] taught those who gave ear to him that the one slaying the enemy — or being slain by the enemy — entered into paradise [e.g., Koran 9:111]. And he said paradise was carnal and sensual — orgies of eating, drinking, and women. Also, there was a river of wine … and the woman were of another sort, and the duration of sex greatly prolonged and its pleasure long-enduring [e.g., 56: 7-40, 78:31, 55:70-77]. And all sorts of other nonsense.[...]
Having distorted history, she next goes on to distort Islamic theology:
Until the 1950s, no major Muslim thinker had made holy war a central pillar of Islam. The Muslim ideologues Abu ala Mawdudi (1903-79) and Sayyid Qutb (1906-66), among the first to do so, knew they were proposing a controversial innovation. They believed it was justified by the current political emergency.Even better than a “major Muslim thinker,” Allah himself proclaims: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger [i.e., uphold sharia], nor embrace the true faith, [even if they are] from among the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay tribute with willing submission, and feel themselves utterly subdued” (Koran 9:29). Mohammed confirms: “I have been commanded [by Allah] to fight against mankind until they testify that none but Allah is to be worshipped and that Muhammad is Allah’s Messenger” (Bukhari B2N24; next to the Koran, the second most authoritative text in Islam).
This and countless other Koranic verses and oral traditions of Mohammed, not to mention the course of conquest the first “rightly-guided” caliphs followed, have given Islam’s jurists and theologians cause throughout the ages to reach the consensus — binding on the entire Muslim community — that whenever the Muslim world is militarily capable, it must go on the offensive until it subsumes the entire world. Moreover, this world-view was postulated well before Armstrong’s blame-all — the Crusades — ever took place.
[...]
In fact, Qutb was a staunch opponent of those apologists of Islam in his day who were — just like Armstrong — trying to reinterpret jihad into a defensive movement. Nearly half a century ago, Qutb wrote:
As to persons who attempt to defend the concept of Islamic jihad by interpreting it in the narrow sense of the current concept of defensive war… they lack understanding of the nature of Islam and its primary aim… Can anyone say that if Abu Bakr, Omar, or Uthman [the “rightly-guided” caliphs] had been satisfied that the Roman or Persian powers were not going to attack the Arabian penninsula [in the 7th century], that they would not have striven to spread the message of Islam throughout the world?During the reign of the “rightly-guided” caliphs, Islam burst forth from Arabia as far west as Spain, as far east as Afghanistan through the sword alone.
[...]
Moreover, if writers like Spencer are guilty of quoting Koranic verses “that are hostile to Jews and Christians” that may well be due to Islam’s pivotal doctrine of abrogation — verses revealed later in Mohammed’s career (all the violent and intolerant ones such as 5:73, 5:17, 9:5, and 9:29) supercede and annul any contradictory verses revealed earlier, such as Armstrong’s 29:46 and most of the other peaceful ones which apologists try to make the cornerstone of Islam.
Finally, if books like Spencer’s focus on the violent side of Islam without devoting enough attention to Islam’s more “positive” aspects — is that not only natural? Let us be perfectly clear: Most people in the West interested in learning more about Islam had their interest piqued by the 9/11 attacks, perpetrated by a Muslim group — al Qaeda — who insists that Islam informed its actions. Westerners are primarily interested in how Islam affects them, as non-Muslims. So it should be understandable if books written about Islam in the West focus more on that which concerns it — jihad — than on Islam’s more peaceful side.
Armstrong’s lament that “there is widespread ignorance of Islam in the west,” and that we should rectify this by developing a more “balanced” and “nuanced” understanding of the Koran is as ridiculous as asking Muslims living in Palestine and Iraq to overlook the “Crusader” presence there and instead consult the Bible itself to see how many portions of it accord with peace and justice. (Indeed, such a proposition is worse than ridiculous, since the Bible comes nowhere near to theologically justifying violence against the “Other” in perpetuity as found in the Koran.
In the final analysis, Armstrong’s historical and theological “discrepancies” (to be polite) are baffling — particularly her many oneline sentences that simply defy historical fact: “Muhammad was not a belligerent warrior.” “The idea that Islam should conquer the world was alien to the Koran…” “Muhammad did not shun non-Muslims as ‘unbelievers’ but from the beginning co-operated with them in the pursuit of the common good.” “Islam was not a closed system at variance with other traditions. Muhammad insisted that relations between the different groups must be egalitarian.”
Not too shabby, I'd say. Why not email NRO (letters@nationalreview.com) and tell them that they're on the right track?
Some other gems from Armstrong...
'that the Islamic veil was first imported from Byzantium and Persia after the conquests'....while there are half a dozen authenticated Hadith quoting the Prophet as saying women should be veiled...
...and my favorite....
'that the conquests were "political" and had nothing to do with theology.
Either she deliberately deceives or she is hopelessly ignorant. There is no other alternative.
Yes, National Review is turning. In giving Spencer a forum to answer D'Souza, they referred to Spencer as a "scholar," which is surely truer than "hateful," or whatever was the perception of Karen Armstrong, our best example of a fantasy-loving fraud.
Already wrote to them, great article!
Other news:
Doctors split on hymen repairs
“We get more and more women coming in and saying that their brothers or fathers will kill them if they find out they’ve slept with a man. But it’s important to say no, because if we don’t we’re giving in to the fundamentalists,” Professor Lansac said.
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/05/07/france-as-fundamentalist-islam-spreads-so-does-demand-for-hymen-repair/
Quite good, but I guess it's okay for him to write all that because he has a Muslim surname?
Maybe Robert should change his.
Robert Sameer?
Robert Sabir?
Robert Shareef?
Islam's Great apologist cheerleader Glenn Beck needs to read this. me@glennbeck.com
Karen Armstrong is indeed baffling. Either she is intellectually blind or she is attempting to steer the course of the fight between soft and hard Islam. I wonder if she does indeed "get it" but rather is attempting to bring the best of Islam to the forefront by denying its essential violence. I forget the quote but she did talk about the core good of each religion. If this is what she is doing, she is profoundly narcissistic and naive. I prefer Dr. Spencer's approach of just telling the truth about a religion. Jesus said "The truth will set you free." Tell the truth Karen Armstrong, your constructionism is little more than whitewashing a stinking tomb!
James Martel-
And some people like the scrawniest, orneriest critter in the litter.
Armstrong appears to think that Islam is a poor widdle "underdog" in need of her cootchie-cootchie care.
A lot of silly peole get bitten to death once their "underdog" grows its adult teeth. And expresses it true predatory nature.
She would have "half the value of a man" in any serious Muslim society. Be forced to have a male relative with her at all times, in public, in others. And be forbidden to worship anything but "Allah" at the root of intolerant Islam, Saudi Arabia. (And then, segregated as a female.)
That she wants to defend this backward silliness is:
A) demented.
Or B )masochistic.
Or C) suicidal.
(Not that the three are mutually exclusive.)
I would guess that most Muslims look upon her with a mixture of malicious mirth, moral revulsion, and supremacist contempt.
Finally, if books like Spencer’s focus on the violent side of Islam without devoting enough attention to Islam’s more “positive” aspects — is that not only natural? Let us be perfectly clear: Most people in the West interested in learning more about Islam had their interest piqued by the 9/11 attacks, perpetrated by a Muslim group — al Qaeda — who insists that Islam informed its actions. Westerners are primarily interested in how Islam affects them, as non-Muslims. So it should be understandable if books written about Islam in the West focus more on that which concerns it — jihad — than on Islam’s more peaceful side.
This is what I call "getting it" in spades! I could care less what Muslims believe about Allah, since there are people in the West who probably believe things just as stupid ('solopsism' comes to mind as something as stupid as Islam), but their right to worship their god ends at the tip of my nose, to paraphrase. Since the central doctrines through which Muslims view non-Muslims is either attempts to convert, "d'awa", or "jihad", those are the only two things I care about. Since I will never be converted peacefully (the whole idea of a man being a slave to god seems flat out wrong to me), that only leaves jihad as a concern of mine.
Even more specifically, that means I don't care if jihad also means "inner personal struggle", because your right to inner personal struggle also ends at the tip of my nose.
People like Armstrong are even worse than the Muslims. At least most Muslims are just ignorant of the philosophical foundations of the West.
For an unconventional view of Islamic history derived from otherwise conventional sources see
http://islamicexpansionanddecline.blogspot.com/
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week602/armstrong.html
“And Islam is a religion of peace. Like all the great world traditions, it recoils in horror from the violence of the world and struggles through to a position of peace. You can see that in the life of the Prophet Muhammad. The word "Islam" is related etymologically to the word "Salaam " -- peace.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1044413,00.html
“and there is nothing mysterious about the source of these extremist groups: to a significant degree, they are the result of our own policies.”
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=16888
"This [the Arab-Israeli conflict] is at base a political problem.”
Well Mack the Finger said to Louie the King
I got forty red white and blue shoe strings
And a thousand telephones that don't ring
Do you know where I can get rid of these things
And Louie the King said let me think for a minute son
And he said yes I think it can be easily done
Just take everything down to Highway 61.
Armstrong lives out on Highway 61 doesn’t she?
National Review does not "get it." They are blissfully unconcerned about the Islamic menace that is infiltrating our society and government at every level. By the time they wake up, we will all be wearing loaded sidearms and bandoliers as we weave our way around bomb craters on our way to work each day, always alert to the possibility of being ambushed or kidnapped or raped for Allah.
butterfly
Bob Dylan rocks. And Mr. Spencer will concur.
Just fired off an email to National Review complementing them on Ibrahim's article.
Hey, I didn't know Greg Davis not only can write a cool book and make a cool movie -- he worked for National Review! And to think that the first day he showed up on this site I somehow got the mistaken idea he was just some blogger Spencer had dredged up from some anonymous internet backwater and mysteriously let loose in here.
Folks, if you haven't ordered Greg Davis' Religion of Peace?, in my opinion it's very much worth it. It's a quick read yet comprehensive, with no punches pulled. It's having an impact already on the culture (W.F.Buckley found it fascinating, and Gary Bauer, Serge Trifkovic, and of course Robert Spencer all reviewed it very favorably. I bet it will become very popular.
... focus on the violent side of Islam without devoting enough attention to Islam’s more “positive” aspects...
And just what are Islam's positive aspects? Not the plastic arts, not kindness, not charity, not respect for women, or children, not love for innocence, not design or engineering, not manufacturing, not literature, not theater, not history, not humor, not economics, not planning, not a damned good thing nohow nowhere. Not.
* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *
What is it?
Not that Ms. Armstrong has an ax to grind-- being a former nun. If she had done this in her new found gentle ROP religion, she would have had first hand knowledge of how gentle it is.
"Karen Armstrong (born November 14, 1944 in Wildmoor, Worcestershire, England) is an author who writes on Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism.
Armstrong is a former nun, now a "freelance monotheist."[1]
She has advanced the theory that fundamentalist religion is a response to and product of modern culture. She was born into a family with Irish roots who after her birth moved to Bromsgrove and later to Birmingham. Karen Armstrong has been influential in conveying post-19th-century scholarship of Islam to a wide reading in Europe and North America."-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong
02000,
Exactly right! Armstrong is an apostate from Catholicism yet no bishop or priest has ever called for her death. In fact, she is welcomed at Catholic univerities. Had she been an apostate from Islam, would her former co-religionists have been so tolerant? I don't think so. Perhaps someone should ask her.