This should be promptly sent (by Robert, by English visitors to this site) to the Financial Times. Let Armstron be asked to answer, point by point. If not, let her failure to do so be recorded by the newspaper.

Posted by: Hugh at April 28, 2007 9:02 AM

From 1962 to 1969, Karen Armstrong was a nun in the Society of the Holy Child Jesus. This was a teaching order, and once she had advanced from postulant and novice to professed nun, she was sent to St Anne's College, Oxford University, where she studied English. Armstrong left the order during her course of study.

After graduating, she embarked on a doctorate (still at Oxford) on Alfred, Lord Tennyson. She continued to work on it while later teaching at the University of London, but her thesis was rejected by an external examiner. She eventually left academia without completing her doctorate.

Posted by: DCWatson at April 28, 2007 9:02 AM

Armstrong is a feminist and a prolific scholar of religions. She has written on a multitude of faiths.

“I usually describe myself, perhaps flippantly, as a freelance monotheist. I draw sustenance from all three of the faiths of Abraham. I can't see any one of them as having the monopoly of truth, any one of them as superior to any of the others."

Posted by: DCWatson at April 28, 2007 9:07 AM

Karen Armstrong, a feminist.

Feminism and Islam go together like:

oil and water

milk and onions

spaghetti sauce and pancakes

sandals and snowstorms

Posted by: DCWatson at April 28, 2007 9:19 AM

"This should be promptly sent (by Robert, by English visitors to this site) to the Financial Times. Let Armstron be asked to answer, point by point. If not, let her failure to do so be recorded by the newspaper."

Posted by: Hugh at April 28, 2007 09:02 AM

Wonderful idea! If I was English, I'd be the first to send it in.

I saw Armstrong on C-SPAN not long ago. After she finished spouting off about her version of Islam, she didn't take questions from the audiance (this is rare on C-SPAN). Instead, the Muslim host of the program selected the written questions passed up from the audience.

It was obvious that the women was terrified that someone in the audience might be knowledgeable enough to challenge her sanatized version of Mohammad and Islam.

Don't look for her to be willing to debate anyone.

Posted by: rational at April 28, 2007 9:20 AM

"the Koranic emphasis on the primacy of forgiveness and peaceful negotiation: the second the enemy asks for peace, Muslims must lay down their arms and accept any terms offered, however disadvantageous."

Did anyone inform Yasser Arafat or the leaders of Hamas? Seems the Israelis have offered many generous terms for peace but have been met with warfare every single time.

As for forgiveness: why are today's Muslims bent on avenging wrongs committed more than eight centuries ago? Who hurt them or their families?

"Spencer makes no attempt to explain the historical, political, economic and spiritual circumstances of 7th-century Arabia, without which it is impossible to understand the complexities of Muhammad’s life."

So why aren't Muslims recognizing the complexities of the society in which WE live and why aren't they willing to accept that the rest of the world isn't interested in recreating 7th-century Arabian society? More to the point: why are modern-day Muslims not looking at Mohammad's teachings in the context of the times in which he lived and adjusting their views accordingly?

Posted by: PMK at April 28, 2007 9:27 AM

I agree that Robert Spencer should send his rebuttal to the Financial Times.

Posted by: Josephine at April 28, 2007 9:30 AM

Hear Hear. It seems everyone is in agreement. The next move is to contact the financial times. I suggest that JihadWatch readers write to the editorial staff and politely ask for the publication of Dr. Spencer's rebuttal.

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at April 28, 2007 9:41 AM

Karen Armstrong writes about God(s) and religions when she does not believe in God! Neither does she believe in the afterlife (calls it a "red herring." She freely admits that even as a nun she was not able to "find" God. That's pitiful.

IMO, she has no credentials to write about God(s) and religions when she has no belief.

Posted by: darcy at April 28, 2007 9:43 AM

i've just sent this in to the Financial Times with a note objecting to such sub-standard, mediocre and mendacious writing in a so-called quality newspaper...pointing out the necessity for more responsibility on the part of said newspaper in our very troubled times. More truth is found in sleazy tabloid 'The Sun'

Posted by: johndoe at April 28, 2007 9:44 AM

"It is easy, therefore, to quote so selectively that the main thrust of the faith is distorted. But Spencer is not interested in balance. He picks out only those aspects of Islamic tradition that support his thesis. " -Karen Armstrong

To quote Mark Steyn: "t’s a good basic axiom that if you take a quart of ice-cream and a quart of dog feces and mix ‘em together the result will taste more like the latter than the former."

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at April 28, 2007 9:48 AM

Letters to the editor at Financial Times can be e-mailed to:

letters.editor@ft.com

as noted on this website:

http://www.ft.com/comment/letters

Posted by: justamomof4 at April 28, 2007 9:49 AM

Good luck with getting a rebuttal published in the FT, which I seem to remember has a track record of (not believably innocent) wrongheadedness about Islam. Out of all the possible reviewers, they pick the egregious Armstrong. Must be all that Saudi money flowing into Londonistan, old boy (not to mention heavy UK investment in dar-al-Islam).

Posted by: Dane at April 28, 2007 9:50 AM

"For example, he cites only passages from the Koran that are hostile to Jews and Christians"

then why is the koran so "peaceful" that it includes any references of hostility to any "people's of the book".

does the bible or torah or bagadvita or buddist texts state that jews and christians are apes pigs and incites war and violence against "unbelievers"?

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at April 28, 2007 9:53 AM

My hunch is that Armstrong is a paid flunky (probably Saudi money). Someday the truth will come out re her. She's a dancing bear for those pay the piper.

Posted by: Frank at April 28, 2007 9:54 AM

"In Muslim Spain, relations between the three religions of Abraham were uniquely harmonious in medieval Europe"

harmonious?

was hitlers march through europe harmonious?

liberalism truly is a mental disorder.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at April 28, 2007 9:55 AM

She has to live with the knowledge that she is a hired flunky. I'm sure all the research grants are nice. But she has sold her integrity. She's in their pocket. That's the problem with those who compromise with the devil. Once you take a devil's money for an "accommodation", the bastard can broadcast everywhere that you are a paid flunky. She must hate herself.

Posted by: Frank at April 28, 2007 9:58 AM

He is a hero of the American right........NO...He is a hero of the people that seek truth!...he tells like it is and takes abuse from silly people like you Karen!....Are you afraid of truth?...will you melt?

Posted by: storagemanager at April 28, 2007 10:00 AM

Karen-

Who pays you?

Posted by: Frank at April 28, 2007 10:02 AM

Karen-

It may come out when you are dead and gone or it may come out while you are yet alive, but one day it will be known that you were a hired flunky. Meanwhile, enjoy the research grants.

Posted by: Frank at April 28, 2007 10:10 AM

I won't buy nothing from Armstrong to try and figure out what she does or doesn't know. She sure does not know how to answer questions unless she can research it or dictate it! Thanks for the warning now I am going to go buy YOUR book Robert,
The Truth about Muhammad! I only listen to those that are truthful. Thankyou Robert. It is our free will that drives us in search for the truth.
Something Armstrong cannot face for she is caught in her own upheavals!

Posted by: MZ at April 28, 2007 10:13 AM

Karen, you should try being like this guy. He was judge who couldn't be bought. In fact, mobsters are on FBI tapes saying that a gun could be put to Brendan Byrne's head and he would not sell out his integrity. When the public heard that they elected him Gov. of New Jersey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Byrne

Posted by: Frank at April 28, 2007 10:20 AM

Robert,
Maybe she is speaking about something in one of the lesser hadiths. I have never heard of such a verse and doubt I ever will except when listening to kitman or taquiya being spewed by a terrorist apologist.
Personally I wish I could see you debate this or any other mouthpiece for the islamists, but you know that they run from you or anyone knowledgeable enough to point out their lies.

Let me just take this opportunity to thank you again Robert for the great work that you do here on this sight and for America by revealing the truth that the America haters don't want revealed.
God bless you Robert Spencer and

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Posted by: Paratisi at April 28, 2007 10:25 AM

MZ-

Someday a book will come out called The Truth About Karen Armstrong. She is a dancing bear. In fact, a dancing circus bear could be a good jacket cover for the book. She dances as a circus bear for her keepers...

http://www.longagoandfaraway.com/ProductImages/Inuit2005/InuitOctober2005/Bears/NoahJawDancingBearD9H008D3.jpg

Posted by: Frank at April 28, 2007 10:32 AM

Karen Armstrong is a left wing nut. The only reason to pay attention to her is that the MSM picks this up and brainwashes the people.

Keep going Robert! You are very heroic for doing what you are doing.

Question for Spencer; Does the Koran provide for love, forgiveness, repentence, and the forgiveness of sins as the New Testament does? If not, then that is the trouble with Islam and why it never has and never will succeed at producing a prosperous, productive culture.

Posted by: Crusader at April 28, 2007 10:36 AM

BTW, the links to Frontpage Mag are screwed up from where I sit.

Posted by: Crusader at April 28, 2007 10:37 AM

The following is an email exchange I had a couple of months ago regarding Armstrong's prevarications...

KAREN ARMSTRONG: "The veiling of women is neither an original nor a
fundamental practice in
Islam. The Koran does not command all women to cover their heads, and the
habit
of veiling women and secluding them in harems did not become common in the
Islamic world until some three generations after the Prophet's death, when
Muslims
began to copy the Christians of Byzantium and Zoroastrians of Persia, who
had
long treated their women in this way."

RESPONSE: Islamic scripture explicitly repudiates Armstrong's contention.

Below are several Hadith ('Traditions of the Prophet' that provide an
important component in Islamic jurisprudence) from the collection of
Bukari.....clearly establishing that the use of the veil was a dictate of
Muhammad himself and was in no way imported from other cultures. These
Hadith give theological confirmation to the contention of modern Muslim
extremists that women must be veiled....just as other Hadith continue to
provide extremists with the theological arguments to justify other facets of
their religious intolerance.

Karen Armstrong is a reknowned apologist for Islam who is either ignorant or
deliberately obfuscative of Islamic theology/tradition.

My suggestion old buddy is that you stick to the ethereal when trying
to impart wisdom. Diversions into religion or politics require actual
knowledge of the subject matter at hand.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The parenthesis are not mine but rather part of the Hadith....

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148:
Narrated 'Aisha:
The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near
Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. 'Umar used to say to
the Prophet "Let your wives be veiled," but Allah's Apostle did not do so.
One night Sauda bint Zam'a the wife of the Prophet went out at 'Isha' time
and she was a tall lady. 'Umar addressed her and said, "I have recognized
you, O Sauda." He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab
(the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah
revealed the verses of "Al-Hijab" (A complete body cover excluding the
eyes).

Volume 3, Book 48, Number 812:
Narrated Aisha:
Aflah asked the permission to visit me but I did not allow him. He said, "Do
you veil yourself before me although I am your uncle?" 'Aisha said, "How is
that?" Aflah replied, "You were suckled by my brother's wife with my
brother's milk." I asked Allah's Apostle about it, and he said, "Allah is
right, so permit him to visit you."

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 523:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet stayed with Safiya bint Huyai for three days on the way of
Khaibar where he consummated his marriage with her. Safiya was amongst those
who were ordered to use a veil.

Volume 1, Book 8, Number 347:
Narrated Um 'Atiya:
We were ordered to bring out our menstruating women and veiled women in the
religious gatherings and invocation of Muslims on the two 'Id festivals.
These menstruating women were to keep away from their Musalla. A woman
asked, "O Allah's Apostle ' What about one who does not have a veil?" He
said, "Let her share the veil of her companion."

Posted by: Cornelius at April 28, 2007 10:37 AM

Armstrong's critique of Mr. Spencer is as absurd as someone criticizing a doctor "for only concentrating on the diseased parts of the body".

It's the diseased parts of Islam that we have to worry about.

(As an earlier teacher noted that he came to confront the unsavory, since the healthy had no particular need.)

Islam's unsavory Koranic suras and Hadithic hate are the problem.

Concentrating on those aspects of Islam that won't hurt you is sophistic silliness when we are being threaten by its murderous malignancies.

And sugar-coating a cancer doesn't cure it.

Although it'll look cute in the short-term.

(Sadly, radio guy Glenn Beck was promoting her biography of Muhammad this past week as "really worth reading"- although he got her last name wrong. I emailed him to recommend a counterbalance in Mr. Spencer's bio of the pedophile "prophet". me@glennbeck.com)

Hitler liked dogs and cream-filled pastries, too.

But they were hardly his traits that Churchill and FDR worried about.

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 28, 2007 10:48 AM

Strange.

I thought Koran Armstrong was a 'revert'-
if she is not, she's definitely on the Islamic payroll...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 28, 2007 10:48 AM

I think you did an outstanding job of putting into plain language what the real character and motivation of someone like K. Armstrong is all about. Anarchists are at work in this nation, folks. The Leftists wish to eat away at the Union all in the name of individualism to an extreme, so woe be unto any of you if you have a wish to live within the Law, speak the Truth and stand up for the American Way! That makes you an enemy of the Righteous Left.

Karen Armstrong must be insane.

Posted by: Foehammer at April 28, 2007 10:54 AM

Karen is a bourgeois flunky who has been on some institutional shelf all her life. Her thinking is a brain-fart, devoid of real work for family, by necessity. She's born to be kept like a pet. She's a dancing bear. Enjoy the research grants, Karen.

Posted by: Frank at April 28, 2007 11:02 AM

A few days back, I was reading a review of a book by Karen Armstrong. I forget the title, but the reviewer had written what is referred to as a "rave review". After about 3 paragraphs she said something about a great man who founded a religion of peace and the justice that the author does to this prophet. Light dawned on me instantly. She was talking about big mo, uswa hasana. Seems our Karen has written an entire book about this light unto the human race. I need not say that the reviewer was a muslim.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at April 28, 2007 11:04 AM

"Karen Armstrong must be insane."
from above

Thinking about the descriptions of Karen Armstrong and I think mine would be "sociopath".
She knows right from wrong and chooses wrong because thats what a sociopath does.

Posted by: pismopal at April 28, 2007 11:08 AM

How can anyone actually read the basic Islamic texts and still think the way Karen Armstrong does? Okay, so it's not math, but read Fjordman on Tina Magaard's study for a scientific approach:
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/09/islam-is-most-warlike-religion.html

Posted by: jewdog at April 28, 2007 11:11 AM

arjun.sevak-

I know (from reading) that Robert's family came from Turkey after World War I and I have a hunch his people were not treated very well (maybe even some of them were killed) by Muslims. I detect a sense of obligation in him re a family memory of some injustice done to a family member by Muslims. He's a brave man with a cool head. In Armstrong, I detect a person who has been on some institutional shelf all her life (schools, e.g.). She is a born flunky. Robert would coolly expose her in a debate. All she can do is pose as being indignant because she has nothing else.

She dares not come into the real world. She better stay on some institutional shelf.

Posted by: Frank at April 28, 2007 11:18 AM

Forget these six-bit sound bite "debates" that get tossed into your lap, in which some apologist has just enough time to throw out a solid stream of ad hominem and to jump in every time you try to complete a sentence. Whether or not the host of these 3-minute sound bites has the sense to referee the proceedings they always come off as a monkey show. It is amazing, indeed, that you have the ability to show these goons up for what they are, even under these conditions.

No, you need proper debate forums in which you can systematically expose these lies and distortions. A little proactive work might make the difference. I would suggest the Horowitz Freedom Center sponsor a series of such debates, starting with Spencer vs Armstrong. However, the flaw would be obvious: HFC is seen as "biased" and it would be railed against as a clambake.

What HFC needs is a suitable antagonist that stands against Spencer's analysis, a comparable institute with a clear pro-islamist agenda that stands against the association of worldwide Jihad against unbelievers with Islam in general.

CAIR is not much as a respectable institute, and is really just a bunch of media hounds anyway. Perhaps MAS could serve in this capacity.

Then HFC and this institute could sit down and agree on a series of questions relevant to the debate, posed as catchy one-liners: (Proposed that) Islam is a Religion of Peace, or (Proposed that) Islam calls believers to armed conflict against unbelievers and so on. Hammer out a format in which each of two champions is given 30 minutes to hammer out their own position, 20 minutes to rebut their opponent's statements, and 10 minutes to defend their own, followed by questions to make up a 3 hour program. It could be sold to PBS or underwritten equally by supporters on both sides and distributed by agreement through internet sites sponsored by both institutions.

Audience chants or inappropriate behavior in support of one side of the debate would be converted into an equal amount of extra time for the opponent to state their position, PLUS an equal reduction of any remaining time for the debater on that side. Disrupters, of course, would be ejected right away, to minimize such annoyances.

Let them produce their "champions", but I'd like to see Armstrong take the first shot.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at April 28, 2007 11:24 AM

On his show the other night Glenn Beck endorsed Armstrongs book. He is a man who knows Islam is inherently evil but is trying to find any explanation to prove him wrong even if it is based on lies.

Posted by: MadMom at April 28, 2007 11:26 AM

Boy, she is wrong on so many counts that it's hard for me to write a letter to FT. Perhaps people here who are more eloquent can do that.

Carry on Mr. Spencer, you evil right-winger you :)

Posted by: wrathofasma at April 28, 2007 11:28 AM

Oh how the jihad originated 1400 yrs back and how the pre-islam Arabs were the first people to be traumatized, and how types like Karen Armstrong will be the last to be utterly traumatized by islam no matter what the outcome.
This should be in dhimmi watch.
Frontpage mag site is screwed where I sit too...

Posted by: eloivsdiablo at April 28, 2007 11:32 AM

But the widespread ignorance about Islam in the west makes many vulnerable to Spencer’s polemic; he is telling them what they are predisposed to hear.

There's a "chicken and egg" argument in here that Armstrong gets wrong. The reason I am "predisposed" to hear a non-sugar-coated non-kumbayah-let's-all-get-along-in-a-great-one-world-culture message is because Muslims keep doing things that, if we're going to have one world culture, I don't want to have as part of that culture.

I grew up a Catholic and couldn't have cared less about Islam. For all I knew, it could have been the greatest thing since sliced bread. Once I saw what its adherents did, I became curious why they did it. Seeing the inadequacy and superficiality of the Marxist interpretation (i.e. that Muslims are 'alienated' due to the Arab-Israeli conflict), I came to view it more in a Weberian (as in Max Weber) vein and sought out the foundations of terrorism in the Muslim religion. Lo and behold, as Robert Spencer's works point out, just as the Protestants were driven to develop modern capitalism by their religion, Muslims are driven to terrorism by theirs.

It's actually so simple that the only reason every single person in Western society does not see it is that they are ignorant of Islam, but in the opposite way to what Armstrong argues. Our ignorance of the inevitability of conflict between our superior civilization and the inferior Muslim barbarism stems from the fact that we do not understand that the source of that barbarism and the source of Muslim identity are one and the same. I personally cannot even believe we debate things like "Are there Muslim moderates?" or "Why do they hate us?". I have zero personal incentive to care about the continued existence of Islam on this planet. My prediction is that eventually, enough people in the non-Muslim world will come to this same conclusion after enough acts of Muslim terrorism. The sad thing, for those who will die in the interim, is that there is sufficient evidence right now that my conclusion that Islam must be eliminated is the only possible conclusion, unless people are willing to give up modern society and all it entails.

Posted by: venividivici at April 28, 2007 11:34 AM

Not a fan of either Islamic or Christian dogma, nor impressed at all with either ideology's history.

What I can say is that when it comes to Rule of Law, and Liberal Democracy, pluralism, Human Rights, secular government, the West wins hands down. For the most part the Christian spokespeople bend over backwards to acknowledge the sins of their past.

I don't hear any of this from the Jihadists, who rather boast and pine for life 14 centuries ago.
Until the Muslims who are not Jihadists, and the whole cabal of Western apologists, like Armstrong get on board, nothing will change. And this means an openness to criticism like the rest of the human race.

Posted by: amana39 at April 28, 2007 11:51 AM

Hmmm... I sense a pattern here:

The Washington Post continually provides Jimmy Carter with a public forum for his tendentious views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.... but Carter refuses to debate Alan Dershowitz on the question of who is primarily responsible for 60 years of rejectionism and bloodshed in the Middle East.

The London Review of Books publishes a pseudo-academic paper on the power of the "Israel Lobby" by Professors Walt and Mearsheimer but the authors refuse to respond publicly to criticism of their screed.

The FT publishes Karen Armstrong's diatribe against Robert Spencer and his biography on Muhammad but Armstrong refuses to debate Spencer on the question of the true nature, history, and aims of Islam.

If I didn't know better, I would think that there's a concerted effort on the part of Islamists and their brethren in the mainstream media to stifle debate.

Posted by: Charles Martel at April 28, 2007 11:53 AM

I read Hugh's 1st comment and went directly to wiki's info on Armstrong. Looks like DCWatson beat me to it, but I try to minimize the C & P thing.

Armstrong seems to be typical of someone surrounded by and steeped in leftist academia. Her arguments are very similar to what I've heard from muslim 'scholars'. Selective quotes without balance and some outright fabrications do not a respectable treatise make.

Prior to heavy saudi investment (and some other 'deals') I had high hopes for Murdach's FNC but it has let us all down and we don't have any MSM outlet to lead the way for responsible journalism.

It's a sad commentary on our times that the 24 hour news cycle has unending reports of Alec Baldwin's personal life and Rosie O'Donnell's next career moves but nothing, NOTHING, about religiously motivated murders of Christians in Turkey, religio/racial atrocities in Darfur and so much more.

PBS' cavein this week on airing "Islam v Islamists" as part of their "America at the Crossroads" series should be an alarm for everyone but few even know it happened. How many other reports are spiked? We cannot know.

Posted by: turn at April 28, 2007 11:59 AM

2 points:

First, Mr. Spencer is not a hero of the right as if he was he would be featured as the poster speaker in every event. As it is now, he is about as rare as whooping crane on television.

Second, Ms. Armstrong is a bigot against Christians and an anti semite against Hebrews, including a complete ignorant against God in what Joshua was sent to do.
The reason Joshua was directed by God to wipe out the "peoples of the area" had to do genetic factors as they would have destroyed humanity. There is a reason the "giants", people who looked like lions which is a genetic condition and the inbreeding which was going on would have set a course for humanity where people would not have survived as a race.
The Canaanites were doing all sorts of things, including animal breeding which was destroying species. This is one reason the flood of Noah was sent in these later peoples were practicing the old arts.

This is about Spiritual corruption in a body which is designed with a soul to house an implanted Spirit from God to change people from base humans into the children of God.
Hebrew laid down the pracitcal day to day training to begin this and Christ laid down the Spiritual union aspect to purify the person which is love, caring and inviting God's Spirit in knowing that people can not do it alone, but it must be God.

That is where Islam fails in being a god of doom, judgement and hell from a male punishment perspective. There is no compassion in the religion as it is hearsay.
For Ms. Armstrong to miss the point that Muhammed stole Hebrew and Christian oral stories and bastardized the one part into Islam is complete ignorance and exposes her hatred for Judaism and Christianity.

There is a huge difference between Hebrew cleansing, Christian conversion in love compared to Islamic convert or have your head chopped off.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at April 28, 2007 12:02 PM

Karen Armstrong is in the same league as the halucaust deniers.

Posted by: sounder at April 28, 2007 12:11 PM

I would wear this one like a badge of honor, Robert. Really, is this unexpected? It just shows that what you are doing is effective, and it is being noticed as such by the people most likely to be financially and credibly damaged by it. Not bad publicity either. The book has been out a long time, I'm sure sales have plateaued or dropped, now this. Thanks, Karen!

I am surprised that Osama noticed you before she did though.

Keep up the good work!

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at April 28, 2007 12:16 PM

Explain me this. Why should games be islamic.

www.islamic-games.com

Islamic games is being held in south brunswick, NJ shcool?. Can someone explain why township resources are used to promote islamic games?
By the Way why should games be islamic?
Why should country be islamic?
Are rocks islamic?
Are animals islamic?

Where will this stop? I can't understand.

Posted by: Desi at April 28, 2007 12:20 PM

Karen Armstrong has evidently sold her soul.
If she can't see the difference between Christianity and islam....and defends islam, well she's not that stupid. She is an undeclared revert.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at April 28, 2007 12:27 PM

justamomof4 ,
Thank you for the address. I emailed them and asked for the chance for RS to answer her. Hopefully they will get enough mail to allow RS that privilege.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at April 28, 2007 12:42 PM

Desi-

Yes, games are islamic--especially burkha mud wrestling.

You ask if the rocks are islamic.

Why, yes Desi, the rocks that tell the muslim there is a Jew hiding behind them are very islamic, indeed!

You ask if animals are islamic.

Well...that depends. Apes and pigs are assigned to other religions. But goats. Goats can be islamic by injection.

Posted by: turn at April 28, 2007 12:45 PM

But afterwards the islamic goat can only be sold to the next tribe over.

Posted by: turn at April 28, 2007 12:48 PM

A piece by David Thompson on Karen Armstrong:

"Islam's Hagiographer

In my review of Robert Spencer's The Truth About Muhammad, I wrote: "In his book, Islam and the West, the historian Bernard Lewis argued: 'We live in a time when… governments and religious movements are busy rewriting history as they would wish it to have been, as they would like their followers to believe that it was.' This urge to sanitise unflattering facts is nowhere more obvious than in biographies of Muhammad, of which, Karen Armstrong’s ubiquitous contributions are perhaps the least reliable." I've since received a number of emails asking me to clarify why Armstrong is unreliable in this regard. To that end, here's a brief catalogue of Ms Armstrong's errors and distortions, a version of which was first published by Butterflies & Wheels. Some of her rhetorical airbrushing is, I think, quite spectacular.

"Armstrong would have us ignore what terrorists repeatedly tell us about themselves and their motives. One therefore has to ask how we defeat an opponent whose name we dare not repeat and whose stated motives we cannot mention..."

Karen Armstrong has been described as “one of the world's most provocative and inclusive thinkers on the role of religion in the modern world.” Armstrong’s efforts to be “inclusive” are certainly provocative, though generally for reasons that are less than edifying. In 1999, the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Los Angeles gave Armstrong an award for media “fairness.” What follows might cast light on how warranted that recognition is, and on how the MPAC chooses to define fairness.

In one of her baffling Guardian columns, Armstrong argues that, “It is important to know who our enemies are… By making the disciplined effort to name our enemies correctly, we will learn more about them, and come one step nearer, perhaps, to solving the… problems of our divided world.” Yet elsewhere in the same piece, Armstrong maintains that Islamic terrorism must not be referred to as such. “Jihad”, we were told, “is a cherished spiritual value that, for most Muslims, has no connection with violence.”

Well, the word ‘jihad’ has multiple meanings depending on the context, and it’s hard to determine the particulars of what “most Muslims” think in this regard. Doubtless countless Muslims would recoil from connotations of violence and coercion. But it’s safe to say the Qur’an and Sunnah are of great importance to Muslims generally, and most references to jihad found in the Qur’an and Sunnah occur in a military or paramilitary context. Aggressive conceptions of jihad are found in every major school of Islamic jurisprudence, with fairly minor variations. The notion of jihad as warfare against unbelievers is affirmed by Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi and Shafi'i traditions, to which the majority of Muslims belong. And Muhammad’s own celebration of military jihad and homicidal ‘martyrdom’ makes for interesting reading. How these ideas are reconciled by believers is not entirely clear.

Muslims who do commit acts of terrorism and intimidation do so, by their own account, because of what they perceive as core Islamic teachings. The jihadist movements in Indonesia, for example, refer to theological imperatives and the names they give themselves – jihadi, mujahedin, shahid – have no meaning outside of an Islamic context. Mukhlas Imron, the Bali bombing ‘mastermind’ and leader of the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, explained his actions not as a response to Iraq, Bush or Blair, but as intended to advance the creation of a vast Sharia state covering Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore and the Philippines. Imron pointedly cited Muhammad as his inspiration: "You who still have a shred of faith in your hearts, have you forgotten that to kill infidels and the enemies of Islam is a deed that has a reward above no other? Aren't you aware that the model for us all, the Prophet Muhammad and the four rightful caliphs, undertook to murder infidels as one of their primary activities, and that the Prophet waged jihad operations 77 times in the first 10 years as head of the Muslim community in Medina?"

In his book, Robert Spencer argues, “If peaceful Muslims can mount no comeback when jihadists point to Muhammad’s example to justify violence, their ranks will always remain vulnerable to recruitment from jihadists who present themselves as the exponents of ‘pure Islam’, faithfully following Muhammad’s example.” But Armstrong would have us ignore what terrorists repeatedly tell us about themselves and their motives. One therefore has to ask how we defeat an opponent whose name we dare not repeat and whose stated motives we cannot mention.

In another Guardian column, Armstrong insists that, “until the 20th century, anti-Semitism was not part of Islamic culture” and that anti-Semitism is purely a Western invention, spread by Westerners. The sheer wrong-headedness of this assertion is hard to put into words, but one might note how, once again, the evil imperialist West is depicted as boundlessly capable of spreading corruption wherever it goes, while the Islamic world is portrayed as passive, devoid of agency and thereby virtuous by default.

According to Armstrong, Muhammad was, above all, a “peacemaker” who “respected” Jews and other non-Muslims. Yet nowhere in the Qur’an and Sunnah does Muhammad refer to non-Muslims as in any way deserving of respect as equals. Quite the opposite, in fact. Apparently, we are to ignore over 13 centuries of Islamic history contradicting Armstrong’s view, and to ignore the contents of the Qur’an and the explicitly anti-Semitic ‘revelations’ of Islam’s founder. One therefore wonders whether Armstrong has read Ibn Ishaq’s canonical, quasi-sacred biography of Muhammad. Has she not read the Hadith, most notably Bukhari? Does she not know of the massacre of the Banu Qurayza and the opportunist raids against the Bani Quainuqa, Bani Nadir, Bani Isra’il and other Jewish tribes? Does she not know how these events were justified as a divine duty, one which formed the theological basis of the Great Jihad of Abu Bakr, setting in motion one of the most formidable military expansions in Islamic history? Does she really not know how these theological ideas established the subordinate legal status of Jews and Christians throughout much of the Islamic world for hundreds of years?

In her latest offering, Armstrong is again given free rein to mislead Guardian readers and, again, rewrite history. Armstrong asserts that, “until recently, no Muslim thinker had ever claimed [violent jihad] was a central tenet of Islam." In fact, contemporary jihadists pointedly draw upon theological traditions reaching back to Muhammad’s own example. The Fifteenth Century historian and philosopher, Ibn Khaldun, summarised the consensus of five centuries of prior Sunni theology regarding jihad in his book, The Muqudimmah: “In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the… mission to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force… Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.” Shiite jurisprudence concurred with this consensus, as seen in al-Amili’s manual of Shia law, Jami-i-Abbasi: “Islamic holy war against followers of other religions, such as Jews, is required unless they convert to Islam.”

Given that Armstrong is regularly described as a “respected scholar” and an “expert on Islam”, she must surely know of Khaldun and his sources, and must surely know how Muhammad conceived jihad primarily as an expansionist military endeavour. Armstrong must also be aware of the jihad campaigns of religious ‘cleansing’ throughout the Arab Peninsula, in accord with Muhammad’s purported death bed words. Likewise, the five centuries of jihad campaigns in India, during which tens of millions of Hindus and Buddhists were slaughtered or enslaved, along with similar campaigns in Egypt, Palestine, Armenia, Africa, Spain, etc. These campaigns are thoroughly – often triumphantly - documented by Islamic sources of the period and are available to any serious scholar. (For a detailed overview, see Andrew Bostom’s Legacy of Jihad.)

If Armstrong does not know of such things, in what sense can she be considered a “respected scholar” of this subject? For what exactly is she respected? For reaffirming popular misconceptions and PC prejudice, even when her claims are demonstrably false and egregiously misleading? It is, I think, more likely that Armstrong is aware of these inconvenient details, at least to some extent, and has chosen not to divulge them, or contest them. Either way, Islam’s foremost hagiographer and shill has found an audience among those with little appetite for unflattering facts and a preference for being told whatever they wish to hear."

© David Thompson 2007

Posted by: Hugh at April 28, 2007 12:52 PM

Karen Armstrong is one treacherous traitor as evidenced by this pitiful sladerous diatribe.

I used to question the wisdom of RS answering so many pathetic critics like this, however I have seen the light. As Hugh and other JW'rs note here, simply posting the plain and true rebuttal to the misinformation of this slander will suffice quite adequately as to leave NO DOUBTS about reality for any person the least bit interested in sorting fact from fiction.

Bravo Robert! Please continue to stand strong and lead by your example of integrity and your meticulous attention to upholding the truth. You are a great leader in our "Jihad watch."

Posted by: BB at April 28, 2007 12:53 PM

And from the JW Archives, an analysis of a single paragraph by Karen Armstrong:

Fitzgerald: A tribute to Karen Armstrong, or The Coherence of Her Incoherence

Karen Armstrong, long famous for her description of Muhammad as the consummate “peacemaker” who “brought together the warring tribes of Arabia,” has assumed the mantle, yet again, not of the Prophet, but of the Prophet’s defender. In an article in The Guardian she retells in her inimitable fashion the story of European Christendom’s relations with Islam and with Muslims. In her retelling, the Muslims are innocent victims, and more than innocent victims, likened again and again to the Jews. They are also the only people who provided, in that bright shining moment of European history known as Islamic Spain, the only real tolerance and humanity to be found anywhere in Europe before the modern era. It is a tough job, but Karen Armstrong proves equal to the task. And her real theme is not history, but that Europeans should feel ashamed themselves for showing any signs of wariness or suspicion about the millions of Muslims who now live in Europe, having come among the indigenous Infidels to settle, but not to settle down.
It is curious to see how often in this article Karen Armstrong makes references to examples of historic mistreatment of the Jews. For in her previous books she has exhibited a palpable distaste for Israel, and has attempted on every occasion to pretend that the claims of the “three abrahamic faiths” to Jerusalem are identical in the importance that each attaches to the city (but as a city Jerusalem is not holy in Islam, and never was), and she is fond, in her discussion of “fundamentalisms”—always presented in the plural – to make reference to the one or two examples of what she calls “Jewish terrorism.” She fails to consider whether or not the assassination of Rabin by a Jewish political opponent, or the mental collapse of Dr. Baruch Goldstein which led him, acting entirely alone and on impulse, to wreak his solitary revenge on those whose victims Goldstein treated every day as a doctor, until he could no longer stand it, really can be compared to the thousands of planned acts, many of them fortunately foiled, and others not, that are part of the world-wide Jihad against completely innocent Infidels, within Muslim lands, and without.

Here is how she begins:

“In 1492, the year that is often said to inaugurate the modern era, three very important events happened in Spain. In January, the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella conquered the city of Granada, the last Muslim stronghold in Europe; later, Muslims were given the choice of conversion to Christianity or exile. In March, the Jews of Spain were also forced to choose between baptism and deportation. Finally, in August, Christopher Columbus, a Jewish convert to Catholicism and a protégé of Ferdinand and Isabella, crossed the Atlantic and discovered the West Indies. One of his objectives had been to find a new route to India, where Christians could establish a military base for another crusade against Islam As they sailed into the new world, western people carried a complex burden of prejudice that was central to their identity.”

This first paragraph is a scandal, consisting almost entirely of baseless assertions, incredible omissions, and complete fabrications. But it is not inexplicable. For Karen Armstrong history does not exist. It is putty in the hands of the person who writes about history. You use it to make a point, to do good as you see it. And whatever you need to twist or omit is justified by the purity of your intentions – and Karen Armstrong always has the purest of intentions. She knows that we in the “white Western world” (as some like to call it) fail to understand others. She knows of our deepneed to create “the Other” – a psychic need felt exclusively, and with great intensity, apparently, only by us, and never by anyone else. Though Western civilization, a product that was formed from the inheritance of both classical antiquity and and of Christianity (which itself has a strong Hebraic element, that it should be called Judeo-Christianity, a word about which some are still self-conscious), has far outstripped any rival in its achievements, collective and by individuals, in art and science, in political and economic thought, in social development, and has really never needed to create the “Other” (the entire business is a reason ideological fashion which is by this point getting long in the seminar and call-for-papers tooth). Indeed, it is Islam which, though Karen Armstrong does not see it, because she knows nothing about Islam (which doesn’t keep her from writing about it, endlessly), has the strongest claim to being based on the need of its Believers for “the Other.” It is in Islam that emphasis is placed constantly on the only division that matters: that between Believer (to whom all loyalty is owed by other Believers, and for whom all transgressions may be forgiven, except that of disloyalty to Islam) and the Unbeliever, or Infidel (who must be opposed, and subjugated if such an Infidel refuses to accept Islam or stands in the way of its spread). That Armstrong fails to see this is extraordinary; it is everywhere in Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira. But she is on a mission: to make us feel guilty about our treatment of Muslims in the past (hence the harping on the Crusades, and the failure to offer the context of those Crusades, or the difference between the Crusades and Jihad). She wants to evoke a guilt that need not exist at all, so that we will, today, be inhibited from responding to Muslim atrocities and the attitudes that promote such atrocities – this she cannot abide.

“In 1492, the year that is often said to inaugurate the modern era…” Who says that the year 1492 inaugurated the modern era? And what does the phrase “the modern era” mean in any case? The year 1492 was chosen by this lover of symmetries and “three monotheisms” (now said to be studying Buddhism as the latest stop in her Spiritual Search) because in that year, in Spain, Jews and Christians and Muslims each acted, or was acted upon, in ways that Karen Armstrong finds useful to both misstate, and exploit. She will not mention what happened before 1492. She will not tell us about the Muslim invasion and conquest of Spain, or about the 500 years of the Reconquista, nor will she tell us when the Jews first came to Spain, long before the Muslim invasion, even before the Visigoths arrived. She will not point out that the Jews were inoffensive victims, and unlike the Muslims, never invaded, never conquered, never held the Christians of Spain in thrall, never posed a threat to the body politic.

In 1492 “the Catholic monarchs conquered Granada, the “last Muslim stronghold in Europe.” What then should we call all those lands in southern and eastern Europe that the Ottomans were at that very moment busy conquering and seizing, including Constantinople, the richest, most populous, most important city in all of Christendom for 800 years (taken by the Turks on a Tuesday – May 29, 1453), and the Balkans (including the then-vast Serbian lands), and what are modern-day Albania, Greece, Rumania, Bulgaria, and they continued to press northward and westward, later seizing much of Hungary and threatening Vienna twice. Were these not parts of Europe, and was not a good deal of Europe, including what had been its most important city for a millennium, Constantinople, firmly in Muslim hands before Granada fell – and after?

But it would not do to remind readers that while the Muslim invaders and conquerors of Spain lost their last “stronghold” in Granada, other Muslim invaders and conquerors were busy at the other end of Europe, seizing lands and subjugating the native populations to the devshirme (the forced levy of Christian children) as well as to the jizyah (the tax on non-Muslims) and all the other disabilities that, wherever Muslims conquered, were imposed, as part of a clearly elaborated system, and not merely the whim a ruler, on all non-Muslims.

Now having begun with that year 1492, Armstrong has a bit of a problem. It was that year that Jews were forced to be baptized or to leave. But though Granada had fallen, nothing then happened to the Muslims. In fact, they were treated with the same gentleness that all the Mudejares (Spanish Muslims) who had been defeated, in successive campaigns, were always treated by the Christian victors.
Henry Lea, the pioneering historian of the Inquisition, who was hardly looking for ways to exculpate Christianity, describes the generosity with which the defeated Muslims were treated in Granada, and after the prior victories:

“It was the Jews against whom was directed the growing intolerance of the fifteenth century and, in the massacres that occurred, there appears to have been no hostility manifested against the Mudéjares. When Alfonso de Borja, Archbishop of Valencia (afterwards Calixtus III), supported by Cardinal Juan de Torquemada, urged their [the Mudejars] expulsion on Juan II of Aragon, although he appointed a term for their exile, he reconsidered the matter and left them undisturbed. So when, in 1480, Isabella ordered the expulsion from Andalusia of all Jews who refused baptism and when, in 1486, Ferdinand did the same in Aragon, they both respected the old capitulations and left the Mudéjares alone. The time-honored policy was followed in the conquest of Granada, and nothing could be more liberal than the terms conceded to the cities and districts that surrendered. The final capitulation of the city of Granada was a solemn agreement, signed November 25, 1491, in which Ferdinand and Isabella, for themselves, for their son the Infante Juan and for all their successors, received the Moors of all places that should come into the agreement as vassals and natural subjects under the royal protection, and as such to be honored and respected. Religion, property, freedom to trade, laws and customs were all guaranteed, and even renegades from Christianity among them were not to be maltreated, while Christian women marrying Moors were free to choose their religion. For three years, those desiring expatriation were to be transported to Barbary at the royal expense, and refugees in Barbary were allowed to return. When, after the execution of this agreement, the Moors, with not unnatural distrust, wanted further guarantees, the sovereigns made a solemn declaration in which they swore by God that all Moors should have full liberty to work on their lands, or to go wherever they desired through the kingdoms, and to maintain their mosques and religious observances as heretofore, while those who desired to emigrate to Barbary could sell their property and depart."
It was not until 1502, after difficulties ensued between Spanish authorities, including the famous Cardinal Ximenes (he of the Complutensian Polyglot), and the Muslims (Mudejares) that they were given the choice of expulsion or conversion. And a great many of them pretended to convert, and remained in Spain – far more Muslims were capable of engaging in dissimulation of their faith than were the hapless Jews, who were expelled, in 1492, virtually overnight. It was much later, in 1570, under Philip II, that the Muslims (“Moors”) who remained were finally expelled, having in the meantime risen in revolt.

But Armstrong manages to smugglein that first, rather ineffective expulsion of 1502: “later [i.e. in a different year altogether] Muslims were given the choice of Christianity or exile.” .She does not add, and may not know, that Muslims in Spain after the fall of Granada were not under any danger of expulsion, and it was only when they showed signs of refusing to integrate as asked (and it was assumed that over time they would share the Christian faith, though at first nothing was done to demand such a sign). She may not know, either, that Muslims in a Spain now everywhere ruled by Christians asked members of the ulema in North Africa (in present-day Morocco) to determine whether they might continue to live under non-Muslim rule, and were told that it was not licit, and it was important for them not to be ruled by non-Muslims, and they must, therefore, return to the Muslim-ruled lands of North Africa. Such details provide a rather different slant on what Karen Armstrong offers – she takes the real tragedy, the overnight expulsion of the hapless and inoffensive Jews, and attempts to make the reader think that the Muslims were equally inoffensive, equally harmless, and treated with equal ferocity, as the Jews. But they were not equally inoffensive, not equally harmless, and not treated with equal ferocity..

First comes the fall of Granada. Then, second in time, and certainly in Karen Armstrong’s indignation, came the expulsion of the Jews “In March, the Jews of Spain were also forced to choose between conversion and exile.” Note how that “also” is dropped in, as if the real event, the main event, was the nonexistent (in 1492) expulsion of the Moors, which she had taken care to slip into her discussion of the Fall of Granada, so that she could diminish the significance of the expulsion of the Jews. That afterthoughtish “also.”

But the Muslims were invaders and conquerors, who had been resisted for 500 years of the Reconquista, and were expelled merely across the Straits of Gibraltar from whence they had come, to live again among fellow Muslims, under Muslim rule. Armstrong never says that. Nor does she point out, as she would if she were trying to compare the quite different treatments of Jews and Muslims, that the Jews of Spain never invaded, never conquered, never represented a threat to the political or social order. And when they were expelled they were not to find refuge, like the Muslims, in lands ruled by co-religionists, but again, to be scattered, to Ottoman domains and to Christian ones, Salonika or Amsterdam, to be treated indifferently, or kindly, or with contumely, or worse.

Under Muslim rule, despite their sometimes horrendous treatment, as recorded by Maimonides in his “Epistle to the Yemen” (Maimonides fled Islamic Spain), the Jews managed to make important cultural contributions as translators (along with Christians), as physicians, and as poets (the name Judah Halevi comes to mind). They were perfecdtly willing to live in Spain under Christian rule. They did nothing to deserve their expulsion. But Karen Armstrong has sympathy for the Jews only insofar as that sympathy can be transferred to the real objects of her pity, the Muslims, and she will do nothing to cause readers to see the difference in the two cases, one of clear mistreatment, the second a matter of prudence. It took a full decade for the Spanish rulers and clergy, or some of them, to realize that the Muslims, though conquered, were not about to eventually mold into one faith (that faith being Christianity), and their signs of remaining insubmissive and therefore potentially subversive or rebellions could only disturbIt had taken 500 years for the Reconquista. Why should the Spanish Christians, now that they were militarily victorious everywhere, take a chance that the Muslims would not rise in revolt?

And such revolts took place in the sixteenth century, and led, in 1570, under Philip the Second, to a second and more thorough expuslon of those Muslims who had remained in Spain, and feigned outwardly to have accepted Christianity, but had quietly waited to rise in revolt. That is why the real expulsion of the Muslims (Moors) took place not in 1502, but in 1570, nearly 80 years since the fall of Granada which Armstrong appears to believe led ineluctably to the expulsion of the Moors. It did not.

Both Jews and Moors were expelled from Spain, but however determined Armstrong may be to convince us (most unconvincingly) that these were identical historical events, both prompted by the demonization of “the Other” ( a phenomenon which apparently results from the peculiar psychic deficiency of Christian Europe) they were not identical/ The phrase “the expulsion of the Jews and the Moors” comes trippingly off the tongue, but without more, remains an offense to history and the truth.

The third great event, after the conquest of the “last stronghold” of Islam in Europe, and the two “identical” expulsions of identically unthreatening Muslims and Jews, in that fateful 1492 was the voyage of Columbus: “In August, Christopher Columbus, a Jewish convert to Catholicism and a protege of Ferdinand and Isabella, crossed the Atlantic and discovered the West Indies.”

Note how casually Armstrong drops in her astonishing remark: Columbus was a “a Jewish convert to Catholicism.” She treats it as a given, and finds no need to offer sources or evidence. But she must. For there is not a single authority on Columbus who has ever claimed this. Not Samuel Eliot Morison. Not Paolo Taviani. Not Salvador de Madariaga. Not all of the hundreds or thousands of scholars who have written about Columbus. What some have suggested or argued, is that Columbus came from a family of Genoese wool merchants, that Jews were prominent in that trade, that there is other evidence that his family originally had been Jewish but generations before had converted (and since, without conversions, and slaughter, the numbers of Jews in Europe would now be not a few million but 200 million, quite a few people must have converted over time). This was Salvador de Madariaga’s argument, and that of others. It convinced Indro Montanelli, the celebrated Italian journalist and popular historian, and he was by nature a skeptic. But that has nothing to do with Columbus himself.

Armstrong offers no authority for her statement. But why should she? Her purpose here is twofold. What better way to establish, in her vulgar, “some-my-best-friends-and-discoverers-of-the-New-World-are-Jewish” way, than to claim Columbus for the Jews (of course, assuming that people still honor Columbus for his deeds of derring-do, which would exclude the Ward Churchills of this world). At the same time, she can have this “Jewish” Columbus be depicted as part of a larger problem, for now he, that “Jewish convert to Catholicism,” has embraced the (non-existent) aggressive military plans of Ferdinand and Isabella. Columbus did not obtain royal support to find a new trading route to the east (now that the Muslim conquests in Byzantium have totally blocked the overland routes), or – as of course he would – along the way to spread the Gospel, but to find the best route to “India, where Christians could establish a military base for another crusade against Islam.”

Having been transformed into a “Jewish convert to Catholicism,” Columbus can more conveniently be depicted by Armstrong as a Pentagon Proto-Neo-Con, Jewish-but-also-Christian-fundamentalist, off on his voyage to “establish a military base” for “another crusade against Islam.” A regular Donald Rumsfeld, negotiating for American bases in Uzbekistan. And Kyrgyzstan.

“A military base for another crusade against Islam” – what can we say? Armstrong appears to believe that the Crusades, which were limited in space to the recapture of the Holy Land, and in time to 200 years (1090-1290, roughly) in fact were some kind of permanent impulse, just the way the unmentionable (in all of Armstrong’s copious published vaporings on Islam) Jihad remains a permant and central feature of Islamic teaching. But she is wrong. There was no ongoing effort in 1492 to embark on a new Crusade. Not a word about it, from Columbus, from Luis Santangel, from Los Reyes Catolicos themselves.

And had such a thought occurred to someone, what kind of sense would it have made, militarily, to try to attack from India? Europeans may not have known how far India was from Europe by sea, but they knew that it was very far from the Holy Land (in fact, Columbus thought it was much closer to Europe – that was his happy miscalculation). By 1492, the southeastern part of Europe itself had been for many decades under constant military assault by the powerful Ottoman armies. A few decades before, the first city of Christendom had fallen to the Ottoman Turks, to the Mulsims. How, with such constant dangers, could anyone even think of launching a new Crusade from India? How would tens of thousands of men be transported there, stationed there, and then transported again to the Holy Land? How would they make their way safely through the vast Muslim-controlled lands of Persia, of Mesopotamia, of Syria, in order to reach the Holy Land and fight the Saracens?

Armstrong’s nonsense perhaps has to do with some rude and indigestible bits of history that she dimly recalls, about the story of Prester John, the mythical Christian king of a mythical Christian kingdom, placed first, in European imaginations, in India, and later transferred to Ethiopia – a fable, designed to hearten European Christians who were always fearful of Muslim assaults, the Arab raiding parties by sea, up and down European coasts, and the Turkish land armies of the mighty Ottoman Sultan.

Her every word adds to the absurdity. There is no evidence for Armstrong’s assertions about Columbus himself, or about what motivated him. History is putty in her hands, we said earlier. But the word putty does not do her infantile approach to history justice. History is for Karen Armstrong not so much putty as Playdoh. She can roll it about, she can pull it apart, she can twist and turn it with the same delight exhibited by a two-year-old when too-too-solid block of Playdoh is finally softened up for use by grown-up hands. But the two-year-old is an innocent at play, and even if he leaves a momentary mess, he has done no real harm. Karen Armstrong is not innocent, and manages to do a great deal of harm, careless or premeditated harm, to history. Too many people read that she has written a few books, and assume, on the basis of nothing, that “she must know what she is talking about” – and some of the nonsense sticks. And perhaps an enraged professor or two bothers to dismiss her, but mostly – this is how the vast public, in debased democracies, learns its history today. It is hearsay as history – “Karen Armstrong says” or “John Esposito says.”

And that is only her first paragraph.

[Posted by Hugh at April 22, 2005]

Posted by: Hugh at April 28, 2007 12:55 PM

Desi-

If the "Islamic games" are being played and promoted in a public school, on public property, the school and officials should be sued. The first amendment clearly mandates that our secular government may not establish religion by giving such preferences on the tax-payer dollar. Unless there are Hindu games, Jewish games, Catholic games, etc.-there should be no "Muslim games" on public property. The right to the free exercise of religion does not mean any preference should be given to any one religion in the use of public property.

If they held the games as a "Special Olympics" that would be another matter. That does not promote religion. Religion is not an issue in such games as "Special Olympics" for mentally/physically handicapped people.

Posted by: Frank at April 28, 2007 1:02 PM

Koran is a person that feels if she wrote it on b&w that proves what she said. Not so.
Robert having nothing to hide, honest, knowledgeable, good willed, in search for the truth like so many of us. She cannot stand up to the truth. None of them can! Since she likes b&w here it is THE ISLAMIST HAVE ATTACKED OUR BELIEFS OUR RELIGION! The Bible!
If they cannot prove what they say, it should be banned!! People can't just throw crapp out there. Another Churchhill? Dangerous thing to do. I would love to see the debate though!
This would of been a good opportunity for her to walk the walk and talk the talk. She could have helped solve the Big Problem. Who is their devil anyways? They must have devil worshippers like we do in our religion! Their "religion" seems to set themselfs up for that! Being possessed!

Posted by: MZ at April 28, 2007 1:04 PM

I don't remember reading anything so vile as this 'review." If Mohammed taught only defensive warfare, how is it that, a century after his death, Arabs ended up in North Africa and Spain, most of the time making their way with the sword??

What's really distressing is that very few people are willing to challenge Armstrong. The majority are afraid. They are cowards.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at April 28, 2007 1:08 PM

What is scary Frank is some day her books turn into another religion-of stupidity and the bear will become their god!

Posted by: MZ at April 28, 2007 1:11 PM

Robert,

If you get a chance, it would be worthwhile to do detailed reviews of Armstrong's and Ramadan's recent books on Muhammad.

Also the FT article by Armstrong is positively loaded with easy-to-refute erroneous claims...though I realize there is only so much time in the day!

Armstrong: "Like any book written in hatred, his new work is a depressing read. Spencer makes no attempt to explain the historical, political, economic and spiritual circumstances of 7th-century Arabia, without which it is impossible to understand the complexities of Muhammad’s life. Consequently he makes basic and bad mistakes of fact."

As usual, an Islam apologist makes an accusation of hate, fails to substantiate that, then makes an accusation of mistakes, errors, etc., and fails to substantiate any of those...

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at April 28, 2007 1:16 PM

"As they sailed into the new world, western people carried a complex burden of prejudice that was central to their identity.”

Armstrong has a childish blame mentality. The truth is that all groups of people have used religion-ideology as a rationalization for conquest throughout history. All of history is the the record of the removal of some "indigenous people" by another. Every nation, every empire has been established by violence. The Arab Empire, the ottoman Empire, etc., are typical of this pattern in history. However, Islam is best at rationalizing conquest, extermination (India), occupation, prejudice and is at its core the engine of Arab Imperialism. The Arabs carried with them a complex burden of prejudice that was/is central to their identity.

Posted by: Frank at April 28, 2007 1:27 PM

No debate required.

No matter what one finds out and re-states about Islam, Muslims, and their Armstrong like sympathaziers, deny that you found out any facts even though your facts came from Muslims and Islamic writings in the first place.

We always have it wrong, misquoted, misinterpreted, taken out of context, just plain wrong. But....

Anyone with a brain will see through this. If not, anyone with a half a brain can turn on the TV or read the news, and yes read some blogs if you want. The unmistakable facts are: ALL radical violence in the world today is conducted by one group, Muslims against Muslims or Muslims against infidels. Pictures are worth a thousand words, in spite of the talking heads in the Media.

The MSM obviously sanitizes the reporting for public consumption, as does Armstrong, however, the clear images of those spewing 'Death to America", "Death to Israel", "we won't rest til the crescent moon flys over the White House, over the UK", blah, blah, blah, are etched in my mind forever.

No debate required.

A while back, that's how I got interested in Jihad Watch. There were just too many world problems and war, acts of violence and hate, all involving Muslims, to be a coincidence.

Even my pea sized brain could figure out it's not a coincidence, but there is a common denominator, Islam, an ideology sanctioned by the Koran and the supporting Islamic writings.

No debate required.

To refute Robert Spencer's books, when you can't refute him based on the written facts, the only way to attack him is to question his knowledge, and steer away from the stark facts and that's what Karen Armstrong is doing.

Similar to..........

What the Dems (and most world governments) are doing today: focusing on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the deaths of US and NATO soldiers, the money spent, aplealing to public opinion but at all costs, steer clear of the underlying facts, dangers and root causes of the bigger problem, naming the enemy, and it works, for now.

None of these people want to honestly discuss what happens when the US and NATO capitulates because that won't bring votes. Irrespective of our belief in the war or not, as with all spineless (for today only) approaches, our children and grand children will have to pay the ultimate price.

How quick we forgot 9/11, the message delivered, the idealogy behind it, seemingly now taken as a one time message.

"Fool me once, shame on you!, fool me twice shame on me!"

The world has a cancer, it's spreading, and it will continue to spread irrespective of foreign nations with foot on muslim lands, and true to the human psyche, most are in denial.

Deny any of it, then we must face the road paved, and subsequently, what we get.

No debate required.

Posted by: sounder at April 28, 2007 1:33 PM

Come off your academic shelf, Karen. My hunch is that you have been on or part of some institutional shelf all of your life. It's made you into a self-righteous flunky who is afraid to confront open questions of your assertions re Islam (and other things)in the give-and-take of debate. No one is fooled by your poses of indignation. Get into the real world, Karen.

You are afraid of what you will see if you get off that institutional shelf that you have lived on all of your life. I'll bet I'm right.

Posted by: Frank at April 28, 2007 1:35 PM

Sorry, Hugh length alert--but I have to.

This post is nothing more than a cry-fest because people don't think like Spencer and another chance to plug his and others in his circle's upcoming books.

Quran 29:46--Spencer uses it as an example of an Islamic attempt to convert all non-Muslims to Islam before they start murdering in his interpreted 3-Step program, which was neither the intention of the verse, nor the interpretation that was garnered throughout history (see your good friend Ibn Kathir's discussion on the topic, or there are some good modern books that discuss this as well.)

The paragraph which concludes with this aya:
"Fighting is prescribed for you..."
--Interestingly enough, this is a perfect example of how Spencer jumps around, picking and choosing the translations that fit his political goals the best. In his bio, he argues that Yusuf Ali is not very credible, and states that someone such as Pickthal would perhaps be more reliable in garnering an accurate meaning. However, this is the Yusuf Ali translation. If you read the Pickthal translation as well as the original Arabic, this verse means that WAR IS A PART OF LIFE THAT IS INESCAPABLE, whether you like it or not. Who will argue with me that this is not the case, regardless of religion. Islam is intended to provide a comprehensive guide to life, and any analysis of ANY part of human history (Cain and Abel on) knows that war and fighting are parts of human life, and therefore should be discussed in a religion that comprises a guide to everything in life.

Last thing for now, is the fact that Spencer suggests that Islam doesn't allow negotiations to be made or that a Muslim should seek peace first (completely contrary to everything Islamic, you are supposed to be the first to seek peace [Hadith & Quran] and even those verses that describe war completely forbid aggression [offensiveness]). Spencer is the quickest draw when it comes to diverting you from his literalism, but goes out of his way to make sure that everybody else is taken literally.

Just doing some thinking...
(PS. Spencer has read the Quran "innumerable" times and knows Arabic, right??? Why does he need to use an English search engine to find the verse that Armstrong refers to?...weird...even though the engine locks up and is unable to process the inquiry for awesome evil [I don't know why, there is a difference between unable to process and 0 results, but you guys don't really know about that]) See 2.191 and its interpretations as well as others (where they talk about killing is a sin no matter what for. But please don't listen, take it literally and use your own preconceived notions and interpret it based on your pre-judged hatred of Islam)

Posted by: An American at April 28, 2007 1:36 PM

Glenn Beck recommended Her as a good source for getting a fair view of Islam and Mohammad wednesday on his radio show.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at April 28, 2007 1:40 PM

Re the post above by "An American":

Rather than take the time to write a lengthy reply, allow me to quote Qur'an 2:191 (from Pickthall, not Ali, since "An American" prefers Pickthall), which "An American" represents as being about how "killing is a sin no matter what for." Here it is:

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers."

You can be the judge of the veracity of the rest of what he says.

Cordially,
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at April 28, 2007 1:45 PM

An American,

You can window dress all you like, but to paraphrase Forrest Gump, "Evil is as evil does".

Look at the recent history of your "faith".

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at April 28, 2007 1:46 PM

It's telling that the Financial Times would even choose Armstrong to review Spencer's book, knowing she is Spencer's polar opposite and was going to piss all over it before she read it (if she even did).

It's also extremely revealing that Armstrong, a supposed expert on Islam, tries to put Muhammad's example in a historical context, as if the Qur'an, written by Allah himself, doesn't say Muhammad was without err and was nothing less than an inspiration inspired. It would be fitting to put his life into the context of the time and place he lived in were it not for the annoying little fact that Muslims believe he was an apostle of God - the last of Allah's prophets, in fact, and thus conveying Allah's final message and example to mankind.

She fools no one but herself and the extremely ignorant.

Posted by: Gnosis at April 28, 2007 1:53 PM

DCWatson-

I'm not surprised she was a nun. This is a woman who has lived in institutional settings all her life and is really separated from the real world in many ways. (Mother Theresa was a practical, doer type. That's a different kind of nun.) From Karen's high institutional shelf she looks down on folks like Robert. But the truth is that she's scared of people like him and hides her fear behind a pose of indignation.

Posted by: Frank at April 28, 2007 1:57 PM

Robert

I have done a google search for "awesome evil".

It appears here:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/88/story_8849.html

The article is by Karen Armstrong where she claims..

"Therefore the only war condoned by the Qu'ran is a war of self-defense. "Warfare is an awesome evil" (2:217), but sometimes it is necessary to fight in order to bring the kind of persecution suffered by the Muslims to an end [2:217] or to preserve decent values [22:40]. But Muslims may never initiate hostilities, and aggression is forbidden by God [2:190] While the fighting continues, Muslims must dedicate themselves wholly to the war in order to bring things back to normal as quickly as possible, but the second the enemy sues for peace, hostilities must cease. [2:192]"

I have just looked at my translations of 2:217 and find no such statement. Also at:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html

No mention? What is she talking about?

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at April 28, 2007 1:59 PM

A simple analogy for "An American":

Since the ice cream/dog feces combination (Steyn) above went over your head, consider camel urine. Heals all that ails you, and tastes great, too, right? But add one drop of pig fat, and the entire glass is defiled.

Islam is just like that camel urine with the pig fat. Any good in it (appropriated from true faiths) is defiled by the hedonism, misogyny, and conscience-free violence. And it's more than a drop.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at April 28, 2007 1:59 PM

Karen Armstrong is another dangerour "author" who is in complete denial about Mohammad -- plain and simple. Her statements only reveal someone who WISHES these things were true about Mohammad/Qur'an/Islam, but they aren't.

Robert's book is not only supported by 9/11 and years of other terrorist attacks, but by the Qur'an itself; and her observations about Islam are empty and void of truth because she's living in La-La-Land, where lies are the truth and the truth needs to be silenced.

Posted by: champ at April 28, 2007 2:00 PM

oops..."dangerous"...not dangerour

Posted by: champ at April 28, 2007 2:02 PM

"Great Comet of 1577":

Thanks. This is Qur'an 2:217:

"They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein."

Thus, contrary to Armstrong's statement that this verse refers to "all warfare" as "an 'awesome evil,' in fact the verse refers only to warfare during the sacred month as evil at all, and then goes on to say that "persecution is worse than killing."

In context, this verse was revealed to justify a Muslim raid on a Quraysh caravan: the raid took place during a sacred month, during which war was forbidden. But the Quraysh were allegedly persecuting the Muslims, so this verse absolves the Muslims of guilt for the raid -- since "persecution is worse than killing."

So in fact, the verse that Armstrong is using to argue that the Qur'an teaches that war is an "awesome evil" actually teaches that moral precepts, such as the prohibition on fighting during the sacred month, may be set aside to benefit the Muslims.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at April 28, 2007 2:07 PM

"Karen Armstrong, a feminist.

Feminism and Islam go together like:

oil and water

milk and onions

spaghetti sauce and pancakes

sandals and snowstorms

DCWatson,

All true, but remember that Armstrong, like so many apologists for Islam, live in the West. They can be feminist and Muslims at the same time, and not fear for their lives. She's a very convenient mouth piece for Islam, and Muslim clerics are happy to use her as such. In reality, Armstrong would be considered nothing short of a common prostitute in many Islamic countries.

For all her vaulted education in world religions, Armstrong is sorely lacking in firsr-hand knowledge of the Islam she's always defending.

I would suggest a couple years in Saudi Arabia where she might earn that P.H.D after all -- in dodging the virtues police, of whom she'd be a prime target.

Posted by: rational at April 28, 2007 2:10 PM

The correct translation is Fighting therein is a great (transgression) but a greater (transgression) with Allâh is to prevent mankind from following the Way of Allâh, to disbelieve in Him, to prevent access to Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (at Makkah), and to drive out its inhabitants, and Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.

Fitnah = disbelief and is equated with persecution because your open disbelief hinders others from the path of Allah, opening the road to hell; it would be better for them if you killed them than to send them to hell for eternity. As Ibn Kathir commented,

Since Jihad involves killing and shedding the blood of men, Allah indicated that these men are committing disbelief in Allah, associating with Him (in the worship) and hindering from His path, and this is a much greater evil and more disastrous than killing. Abu Malik commented about what Allah said:
(And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.)

Meaning what you (disbelievers) are committing is much worse than killing." Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, `Ikrimah, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that what Allah said:


(And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.)

"Shirk (polytheism) is worse than killing."

http://www.geocities.com/ibniblis/dictionary/#FITNAH

Posted by: Gnosis at April 28, 2007 2:14 PM

"Spencer makes no attempt to explain the historical, political, economic and spiritual circumstances of 7th-century Arabia, without which it is impossible to understand the complexities of Muhammad’s life.
"

For Karen Armstrong, explain means "explain away".
Let's substitute the handy little word mystify for understand. We can also change complexities to historical acts. Lets change circumstances to acts while we are at it.

Now lets see it

"Spencer makes no attempt to explain away the historical, political, economic and spiritual acts of 7th-century Arabia, without which it is impossible to mystify the historical acts of Muhammad’s life.
"

Paul Begala should apologize to Bay Buchanan, Pat and Virgil Goode

We can compare this to the Begala attack on Virgil Goode.

"PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: You know, well, first, just call a spade a spade. Virgil Goode is a bigot and he’s an idiot. Let’s hope he clears that up when he has his press conference, because lots of people misspeak."

Begala was the one who said Pat Buchanan was a bigot in 1992 to defeat Bush Sr. When Begala got in power, he and Clinton ignored the WTC 1993 attack and instead, because to recognize it would be to admit it was done by an immigrant, and that it was a ploy to call Pat Buchanan a bigot in 1992 to get Clinton elected in 1992. So they let in the 19 hijackers as legal immigrants after 1993, making no attempt to even screen, and the result was the 2001 attacks.

In the meantime, Begala, Clinton, etc. got power, celebrity, TV exposure on CNN and money. They have personal lifetime security and can even advance their relatives and friends into this inner circle.

Begala and Karen Armstrong are not just blowing smoke for no reason, they have responsibility for deaths to cover up because of immigration they advocate.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at April 28, 2007 2:16 PM

002.217
YUSUFALI: They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.
PICKTHAL: They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein.
SHAK