One can only hope that leads to more unmasking of Karen Armstrong's fanciful scholarship. It's so intellectually lazy to play pretend with Muhammad and be in denial of his dark side. Which is actually the only side I care about because his dark side guides today's Jihads and slaughterers of infidels such as in Darfur. And don't stop with non-Musims...His dark side also inspires the Sunnis who mass murder their fellow Shiite Muslims via bombings in Iraq

Posted by: dennisw at April 30, 2007 11:07 AM

I wonder when she will dissect the Bible and come out on Satan's side?

Posted by: interestinconundrum at April 30, 2007 11:21 AM

I enjoyed reading The Truth About Mohammed. I found it to be very well documented and not at all hysterical or outlandish, just a calm and carefully presented story about the shmuck who founded Islam.
Ali Sina has labeled Mohammed a narcissist, so I read up on narcissism. The main characteristic is an exaggerated sense of self-importance leading to a feeling of unjustified entitlement. That seems to fit Mohammed since he felt entitled to all sorts of earthly rewards based on alleged divine mandate. The scheme worked because there were also a lot of suckers.

Posted by: jewdog at April 30, 2007 11:23 AM

jewdog
I enjoyed reading The Truth About Mohammed. I found it to be very well documented and not at all hysterical or outlandish, just a calm and carefully presented story about the shmuck who founded Islam.

I skimmed it on line via google books and it's quite dry. Robert Spencer has written in a "just the facts ma'am" style

Posted by: dennisw at April 30, 2007 11:29 AM

He's a good chap is Damien Thompson.
I have been watching the comments mount up on his blog all day.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at April 30, 2007 11:32 AM

If the truth should set you free, then Karen Armstrong is doing a terrible disservice to the West.

Maybe she could round out a trilogy with Harry Read, and Nancy Pelosi as the stupidest people in our camp.

Quelle domage.

Posted by: dgene at April 30, 2007 11:33 AM

Re: "Karen Armstrong is a comically conceited feminist ex-nun who has assumed the duty of defending Islam from its critics".

She is a cartoon character. She has lived on the shelf of institutions all her life, from nunneries, to schools, to nutteries of unchallenged thought. She's an indoor cat, Robert is an oudoor cat who lives in the real world and is not afraid of debate and is a good mouser when it comes to the truth. Armstrong is afraid of the real world, a world she has avoided by looking down from some institutional shelf, by being a pet on a shelf.

She will pretend that indignation causes her not to debate Robert. But the real reason is that she will have to confront the truth about herself as they debate the Truth about Mohammed. The pose of indignation is empty of reality.

Posted by: Frank at April 30, 2007 11:38 AM

...it appears Karen fails to connect the dots...in almost all Muslim terrorist attacts, the Muslim terrorists cite Qur'anic authority to do so....and if she considers the writings of a deranged, violent caravan raider to be a gift to the people...then she has a poor conception of a gift....she needs to quit the qat...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 30, 2007 11:40 AM

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/april07/armstrong.htm

Karen Armstrong being slagged over at the blog comments. 25 good ones so far

Posted by: dennisw at April 30, 2007 11:51 AM

"...it appears Karen fails to connect the dots...in almost all Muslim terrorist attacts, the Muslim terrorists cite Qur'anic authority to do so...."

Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 30, 2007 11:40 AM

You are absolutely right exsgtbrown. For verification, all one has to do is turn on the TV and read the news each day.

We don't even need a Karen Armstrong to spread her version of the truth, it spreads itself.

Islamic violence, every day, proves their beliefs beyond any doubt. (Unless ones head is stuck somewhere else...)

Posted by: sounder at April 30, 2007 11:56 AM

l wonder when these so called elites such as the Karen Armstrongs will ever have the courage to face Robert on any debate forum. l will not hold my breath for that one, but would it not be grand!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at April 30, 2007 11:57 AM

So, Karen Armstrong was once a nun. A friend of mine once commented (many, many moons ago) that nuns were given that name based upon the number of brains on their head (none).

At the time I thought it was funny (now of course I can clearly see that it was an extraordinarily witless,insipid, and sophomoric remark). But I can also see that my friend had a valid point in the case of Ms. Armstrong.

Posted by: pythagoras at April 30, 2007 12:46 PM

Mohammed was a general whose army beheaded its captives.

Actually, in the early days Mohammed is more accturately characterized to have been a gang leader who ran a protection racket and also dealt in theft, rape, sex-slavery and, yes, frequently directed his fellow organized crime to mates to behead the gang's assault victims.

This is what ex-nuns dig?!

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at April 30, 2007 12:58 PM

Armstrong reminds me of all those "scholars" at America's best universities who spent the cold war years making excuses for the worlds communist regimes.

They seemed to have an uncanny ability to ignore the more murderous side of these regimes, constantly pointing out the great achievemts of universal health care and high literacy rates as proof of the true humanatarian side of Marxism.

Never mind that the heallth care was sub-standard, if not atrocious, or that literacy never translated into a right to read anything other than the propaganda the people were force- fed from the crable to the grave.

Never mind that whatever small benefits people might have enjoyed in these regimes, they paid for them with the loss of every emaginable human right.

I think that Armstrong shares that same uncanny ability to blot out the obvious in a quest to get a square peg into a round hole.

I never knew what the motivation of the appologists for Communism was, and I don't know what Armstrong's motivation is.

But one thing is for sure, neither are scholars, neither are interested in facts, and both are an embarrassment.

Posted by: rational at April 30, 2007 1:33 PM

I think the very 1st comment from "Holy Smoke" sums this up pretty well and we can set this aside like the irrelevant puff of smoke that it is.

Why bother?
I think Spencer is big enough to fight his own battles. Armstrong appears to be lacking in knowledge of Islam, and lacks also a certain academic rigour ; her word counts for little, and I don't think we ought to get worked up about it. Some criticism is in order, though, to try to save people from wasting their money on junk books. (What shall we call it? Chick S**t?)
Stuart at 29 Apr 2007 13:33

Posted by: turn at April 30, 2007 1:33 PM

rational-

My thinking has led me to believe that they (the apologists) have an unsustainable self-hate that is refocused on hate for the institutions that formed them--the entire US became the brunt of their dislike so they blindly admire(d) other systems like the Soviet model.

That, and many were/are commited socialists.

Posted by: turn at April 30, 2007 1:38 PM

The Truth About Mohammed was actually very well written; not stilted, pedantical, or dry.

Also, I did not find it emotionally charged at all.

Armstrong's book on the other hand tend to be embedded with emotional jabs and swipes at Christianity in general; historical facts are stretched to the breaking point in some places or completely ignored in others.

Obfuscation of names such as "Reed Sea vs Red Sea," is just one of hundreds of ridiculous examples that Armstrong tries to use to bolster her arguemnt on various subjects.

I gather she is a lunatic from her writings and really shouldn't be taken seriously let alone be called a "Biblical Scholar."

But, it will be interesting to see who is actually funding Armstrong -- I suspect that her interests are very much ground in "this world" expecially when it comes to cash.

How much Suadi dough is flowing into her coffers for her services? Is there a way to find out?

I wonder...

Posted by: witness at April 30, 2007 2:05 PM

Mr. Spencer, I do not understand why no one has yet taken off the gloves with Karen Armstrong in actually exposing with facts what she is.

Karen Armstrong is a professional apostate.

For her own reasons, she abandoned God when she left the order. Her entire mission since then has been to prove that Jesus the Christ, which means ALL Christianity is fake.
She is a member of a hundred or so like minded "intellectuals" who vote with beads on subjects pertaining to Christ and His miracles "if they are believeable or not.

Her mission in Islam is not promoting it, but she uses Islam like Jihadists to make war on western culture and hides behind it.
Karen Armstrong is Jihad in a skirt.

As for her review of your work Mr. Spencer, it has nothing to do with your work or statements.
It has to do with a 2005 review of her book which you published. The FT diatribe was payback and a way to "find a home" for her troubled soul deeper in Islam.

The only sources who Karen Armstrong has appeal are pointed headed godless liberal elites, apostates and Muslims.

Those are just a few facts about the psychopathy of this rather odd creature.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at April 30, 2007 2:11 PM

She is a cartoon character. She has lived on the shelf of institutions all her life, from nunneries, to schools, to nutteries of unchallenged thought. She's an indoor cat, Robert is an oudoor cat who lives in the real world and is not afraid of debate and is a good mouser when it comes to the truth. Armstrong is afraid of the real world, a world she has avoided by looking down from some institutional shelf, by being a pet on a shelf.

posted by Frank

Oh yeah, Mr. Spencer is a cat with dynamite when it comes to the truth:

http://members.optushome.com.au/evilpundit/blog/images/cat-detonator.jpg

Hopefully you like it Mr. Spencer. It was just too cute. I had to put it up.

Posted by: wrathofasma at April 30, 2007 2:18 PM

Little wonder Armstrong keeps avoiding debates with Robert Spencer.

Posted by: Witch-king of Angmar at April 30, 2007 2:30 PM

"But perhaps the Muslims like her. In which case, please persuade her to convert to Islam, as “a gift to the Christian people”. It would be good to see Karen back in the veil – only, this time, one that covers her mouth."

Ouch. Now THAT's a stinging retort.

Posted by: Jonas Salk at April 30, 2007 2:51 PM

Although I'm not Muslim, like them I divide the world in two. Only my division isn't between halal and haram or believers and infidels. It's between those who "get it" and those who don't. Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald along with blogger/essayist fjordman "get it." So, too, do Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Melanie Phillips and Wafa Sultan, among other brave females. Karen Armstong, on the other hand, and all the wilfully ignorant apologists for Islam and sharia law definitely do not "get it." Nor is there any reason to suspect they ever will.

Posted by: scaramouoche at April 30, 2007 3:08 PM

Religions that have reformed and stopped killing over issues of "faith" are irrelevant to the current mortal debate.

Those who bring up the past cruelties of other faiths- which have given up this behavior, and begged mea culpa for their former inhumane acts- in order to speciously defend the current depredations of the murderous Islamofascists, are either insincere, or delusional, or malicious liars, or all three.

Otherwise no criminal could ever be accused or brought to justice, because some past crime by someone else would "excuse" them.

It's the current crimes of militant Islam that are threatening the infidel world with death or slavery.

Those, like Armstrong and her apologistas, who ignore this are traitors to Civilization now.

"Let the dead bury the dead." one prophet said.

Meaning: live in the present.

So let's not allow people to be killed -by modern monsters- because our side wasn't perfect in the past.

"The perfect is the enemy of the good."

This is the fallacy that makes all such irrelevant arguments about "The Crusades", "American Indians", etc. do nothing but disarm us now from defending ourselves.

If we listen to these suicidal sirens.

Or buffoons in mental burqas.

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 30, 2007 3:09 PM

I'm supremely grateful that Robert is a good mouser.

Posted by: Stendec at April 30, 2007 3:10 PM

Armstrong is an Islamic apologist.

Armstrong lacks any valuable historical knowledge of Islam.

Armstrong knows little about the texts themselves, with the exception of the ability to intentionally misrepresent them.

Armstrong is a well-paid Saudi emissary. A fine example of a desired blue-eyed slave as professed by King Fahd Bin Abdul-Aziz.

Armstrong also appears to be a new-favorite author of "conservative watchdog", Glenn beck.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/23/gb.01.html

Posted by: awake at April 30, 2007 3:28 PM

What can I say?

9-11 happened close to home. I began to wonder why muslims did what they did (today we may substitue asking why they deny fellow muslims did it).

I read Karen Armstrongs "A Short History" book about Islam. The actions and inactions of muslims around me still didn't add up with what she was saying. It is like Armstrongs arguments were castles made of clay.

Then I found jihadwatch.com and read Roberts books and many others and it explains fully because it is the truth and truth satifies.

Posted by: GreatShaitan at April 30, 2007 3:32 PM

About Glenn Beck -- I've noticed that at the same time that he presents himself as a "radical" and an outspoken person willing to speak the truth when everyone else remains silent -- there's another aspect, and that is a strong desire to seek approval. Thus, peppered throughout his interviews will be the question: "Am I right?" "Am I right?" He's looking for approval of some sort. So, every time he condemns terrorists, he'll tack-on, as a reminder, that "Islam is a Religion of Peace!!" I noticed a change in Beck (I believe it was after the show he did on radical Islam, and he, obviously, got death threats...I suspect that the threats severely rattled him -- so he's opted for a form of compromise...dishonest in some ways, but sufficient to pander to the Islamic apologists, the Dhimmis, like Armstrong. Hence, his safety, his well-being is bought (purchased) at the expense of truth by claiming "Islam means Peace!". Overall, I do think Beck is virtually the only person in the media who will speak out against the terrorists (but fail to identify Islam as a causative factor)...So he isn't wholly bad (not any where near as despicable as the outright panderers to the jihadists), nor wholly good.

Posted by: J.S. at April 30, 2007 3:55 PM

And the following is an example of the sort of bone-headed moral equivalence we are up against, on the site dennisw quoted:

a brief history

The silly comparisons most of you are indulging in seem to reiterate the sempiternal eurocentric mistake. You characterize the inhabitants of Muslim lands - and this is the big mistake of Mr. Spencer and the reason for which other scholars do not take him seriously - in a unidimensional facet. Everything they do seems to be because of their religion. You seem to forget that they are also human beings just like us who have invented things, written books, produced philosophy, music, movies and most of them go about living their lives, going to work and going to work, not worrying about your pseudo-theological quarrels.

To give you an example of the error you are committing, let us say that an ignorant Muslim regards the inhabitants of historically judeo-christian nations in the same unidimensional way. He might argue that Christianity was responsible for :

the Crusades,
the Inquisition,
the first, second, and third wars of religion,
but also the reign of terror,
the 100 year's war,
World War I (20 million victims)
World War II (60 million victims)
Vietnam
Korea
and the list could go on and on and on

Now you might correctly argue that most of these wars were not religious and you might even debatably argue that even the wars of religion were not religious.

But why would the ignorant Muslim care, if they all happened in "Christian" nations? The moral here is that before you utter some nonsense, please read your history books before saying that Islam was responsible for :

"The Crusades - obviously
Iraq
Iran/Iraq war
Afghanistan
Algeria
Darfur
Egypt
India/Pakistan
Bosnia......"

Most of the times, the reasons are geo-political, economic, or ethno-tribal. Religion is often used to rally the troops, and this is what Robert Spencer stubbornly fails to understand.

karen at 30 Apr 2007 19:50

And I wonder if that 'karen' is Karen Armstrong.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at April 30, 2007 3:56 PM

Not only is she unversed in Islam, but history as well...

Islam has a far better record than either Christianity or Judaism of appreciating other faiths. In Muslim Spain, relations between the three religions of Abraham were uniquely harmonious in medieval Europe.

WHAT?!?!?! This is absolutely, totally, unbelievably FALSE! I am quite surprised more people here didn't call this out. The Crusades weren't launched because there were a bunch of "Ned Flander"s hanging about. They were launched in direct response to decades of Muslim oppression.

That is revisionist history at it's FINEST...

Posted by: John in CO at April 30, 2007 4:08 PM

When is the last time this poor woman had a date?

If the Quran defines all warfare as awesome evil, why do muslims do so much of it? Oh, thats right, they are always being attacked by Jooos, Christians, Zoroastrians, polytheists, and wiccans. Modern muslims are only defending themselves from Jewish suicide bombers. Mohammad in his day was fighting off the same invaders, of course, he had the Angel Gabriel, and a thousand other angels on horses, fighting with him. I guess if you have Allah on your side, along with Gabriel and all those angel warriors, you cant be evil...can you??

Posted by: duh_swami at April 30, 2007 4:17 PM

swami:

well, it may be pure speculation, of course, but perhaps her antonio banderas blowup love doll was mistakebly mailed to a town called South Park & discovered by some kid named Eric Cartman?

Of course, it's speculation...ya never know.
lol

Posted by: jcom972 at April 30, 2007 4:26 PM

Let's hope there will indeed be "a mighty feud" between Armstrong and Spencer. She wouldn't stand a chance, with most observers, of winning in an open head-on debate. Unfortunately, she probably has at least a half-conscious inkling of that reality, and so will manufacture various self-deceptions about why she won't debate him. But it doesn't matter entirely if she won't debate him in person. The debate has already started via the internet, hasn't it...

Posted by: traeh at April 30, 2007 4:40 PM

Recommended reading for the U.S.A. Military:

Majors/Lieutenant Colonels, Generals

Armstrong, Karen. Islam: A Short History. New York: Modern Library; 2000. 272 pp. CARL 297.09 A736i

This book is a quick but thoughtful introduction to Islam. Throughout the book, Armstrong traces what she sees as Islam’s emphasis on right living over right belief. Armstrong is at her most passionate when discussing Islam in the modern world. She explains antagonisms between Iraqi Muslims and Syrian Muslims, and discusses the devastating consequences of modernization on the Islamic world.

From the CGSC Deputy Commandant's Deploying Officer Reading List

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/biblio/deploylist.asp

Posted by: remote_control at April 30, 2007 4:42 PM

At Damian Thompson's blog I made a long comment listing numerous dangers of Islam, relative to other religions, but the comment hasn't appeared yet (I wonder will it).

Posted by: traeh at April 30, 2007 4:46 PM

Published for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by National Defense University, here's an article that is in agreement with Robert Spencer:
Islam: A Broader Conceptualization

Posted by: traeh at April 30, 2007 4:55 PM

If Armstrong fights shy of debating Robert Spencer, a gentleman, then she would panic if Hirsi Ali issued a challenge to her. Wouldnt it be fun to see Hirsi Ali vs Armstrong.

Posted by: DP111 at April 30, 2007 5:05 PM

The link helpfully provided above to the Recommended Reading (one list for Lt. Cols. going to Afghanistan, another for Lt. Cols. going to Iraq, and a third list, the one I reprint below, for the same but also for the Generals -- not exactly mental caviar for the generals -- that shows one aspect of the problem.

Here is the list:

Majors/Lieutenant Colonels, General
Armstrong, Karen. Islam: A Short History. New York: Modern Library; 2000. 272 pp. CARL 297.09 A736i

This book is a quick but thoughtful introduction to Islam. Throughout the book, Armstrong traces what she sees as Islam’s emphasis on right living over right belief. Armstrong is at her most passionate when discussing Islam in the modern world. She explains antagonisms between Iraqi Muslims and Syrian Muslims, and discusses the devastating consequences of modernization on the Islamic world.

Battle of Algiers. Movie. Video: Rome, Italy: Igor Films, 1966. CARL G003311 1966 DVD: Irvington, NY: Criterion Collection, 2004. CARL H000706 2004

Shot on location, and starring actual FLN rebels this is one of the most viciously realistic films of all time. Initially banned by the French government, it quickly won wide acclaim with Academy Award nominations for Best Foreign Film and garnishing 11 international awards. Struggling to rid their country of French colonialism, Ali L Pointed and his terrorist group let the blood of their enemies. Children shoot soldiers at point blank range. Women plant bombs in cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. You see the insurrection morph to meet every challenge by the French.

* Esposito, John L. Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. 196 pp. CARL 297.272 E77u 2002

Esposito, a professor of religion and international affairs and director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, methodically leads the reader through the complicated history of Islam. He explains the various conceptions of jihad, or holy war, ranging from internal movements for community reform to the modern explosive threat to all things external to Islam. One of the more useful elements of this account is the author’s review of the seminal thinkers of the Islamic world whose writings have given rise to the real-world events we have come to know all too well.

Esposito, John. What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. 144 pp. CARL 297 E77w 2002

Compact guide to understanding Islamic practices and beliefs, written in easy-to-read Question and Answer format and arranged topically. Short and very readable.

Friedman, Thomas L. The World Is Flat; A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005. 469 pp. CARL 303.483 FRI

Friedman explains how the flattening of the world happened at the dawn of the twenty-first century; what it means to countries, companies, communities, and individuals: and how governments and societies can, and must, adapt. The World Is Flat is the timely and essential update on globalization, its successes and discontents, powerfully illuminated by one of our most respected journalists.

Gaddis, John Lewis. Surprise, Security, and the American Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. 150 pp. CARL 355.033073 G123s 2004

The post–September 11 strategy of the Bush administration is often described as a radical departure from U.S. policy. Gaddis, one of America's leading scholars of foreign policy and international relations, provocatively demonstrates that, to the contrary, the principles of preemption, unilateralism and hegemony go back to the earliest days of the republic. Gaddis resurrects the 18th-century idea of an "empire of liberty": whether as a universal principle or in an American context, liberty could flourish only in an empire that provided safety.

* Galula, David. Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice. New York: Praeger, 1964. Hailer Publishing Paperback reprint c2005. 143 pp. CARL 355.425 G181c

David Galula's experience with multiple insurgencies is significant. He provides the best description available of how insurgency differs from war. Further, his book provides the principles which apply to counterinsurgency and a template for building a campaign plan and executing counterinsurgency operations.

Kaplan, Robert. Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos. New York: Vintage Press, 2003. 224 pp. Hardback (New York: Random House, 2002, 198 pp. CARL 320.019 K17w

Kaplan argues that sound foreign policy should be "comprehensive pragmatism" rather than "utopian hopes." Kaplan calls for a reestablishment of American (primarily) real-politik, one distanced from Judeo-Christian (or private) virtue and closer to a "pagan" (public) one. He aligns himself with America's Founding Fathers, who, he says, believed good government emerged only from a "sly understanding of men's passions." His book is a mix of principal pronouncements, brief contemporary political analyses, rapid-fire parallels between conflicts ancient and current, and copious quotes from historians and thinkers through the ages (Livy, Thucydides, Sun-Tzu, Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes among them).

* Lawrence, T. E. Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph. New York : Anchor Books, 1991. 784 pp. CARL 940.415 L423sp or Audio CARL C001350 1994

A flamboyant and intellectual British officer named T. E. Lawrence embarked on a journey to the Arab Prince Feisal (later King Feisal I of Iraq) in the Hejaz (present-day Saudi Arabia), where he would eventually unite warring Arab tribes against the Turks, sabotage railroad lines, and rewrite the political history of the Middle East. "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" is T. (Thomas) E (Edward) Lawrence's own adventure-strewn account of these events. Movie version is Lawrence of Arabia.

* Lawrence, T. E. "Twenty-Seven Articles", The Arab Bulletin, 20 August 1917. Downloaded text available at: http://www.cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/biblio/27articles.asp

Published by Lawrence in 1917, these brief articles serve as a guidebook for officers working with Arab troops.

* McMaster, H. R. Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Lies That Led to Vietnam. New York : HarperCollins, 1997. 446 pp. CARL 959.7043373 M167d or Audio CARL C000688 1997

For years the popular myth surrounding the Vietnam War was that the Joint Chiefs of Staff knew what it would take to win, but were consistently thwarted or ignored by the politicians in power. Now H. R. McMaster shatters this and other misconceptions about the military and Vietnam in Dereliction of Duty. Himself a West Point graduate, McMaster painstakingly waded through every memo and report concerning Vietnam from every meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to build a comprehensive picture of a house divided against itself: a president and his coterie of advisors obsessed with keeping Vietnam from becoming a political issue versus the Joint Chiefs themselves, mired in inter-services rivalries and unable to reach any unified goals or conclusions about the country’s conduct in the war.

Small Wars Manual 1940 FMFRP 12-15. Marine Corps Command. Quantico, VA. US Government Printing Office, 1940. 496 pp. CARL: 355.42502 S635 & URL: http://www.smallwars.quantico.usmc.mil/sw_manual.asp

Small Wars / 21st Century Addendum 2005. Marine Corps Combat Development Command. Quantico, VA. 2005. 109 pp. Available on the CARL Private site.

Since the Small Wars Manual was published in 1940, world events have dramatically reshaped the strategic landscape. The rise and fall of great powers, the introduction of nuclear power and weaponry, and a host of technological changes have significantly influenced the characteristics and conduct of conflict. The last half century has also produced numerous additional examples of the particular type of war the Marines have called Small Wars. It should not be surprising, therefore, that we need to update our thinking on small wars, although the Small Wars Manual retains much of its utility, particularly when viewed in its historical context. This addendum seeks to add to our classic manual. Small Wars/21st Century redefines small wars, describes what has changed since World War II, and identifies ways to plan, prepare for, and conduct future small wars. In addressing this changing character of warfare, importantly, this work also remains mindful of warfare’s unchanging nature – a contest of human wills shaped by chance, uncertainty and chaos.

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

Compiled by DJMO and the CGSC-CARL Reference Staff.

Please note the counter-insurgency favorite David Galula, and the belief, expressed in an article by Arthur Herman in the latest Commentary, that Galula's strategy of dividing a city block by block, into what is already secure, what is so-so, and what is completely insecure, and how to hold, block by block, an entire city, in this belief of Herman, who is excited by the recent "rediscovery" of this amazing new idea of David Galula (a Tunisian Jew, and intelligent strategist, who fought in the French army in the last years of the attempt to keep Algerie francaise), so excited indeed that he has forgotten or perhaps is unwilling to concede the many important differences between Algeria and Iraq, beginning with the fact that in the former there were more than a million French, and that Algeria had been regarded as French for 132 years, and France was just a hop, skip, and a jump over the Mediterranean (la mer blanche du midi), and also with the fact that in Algeria the Arabs were not directing their hostility at each other (save for the FLN fighting the Arabs who were in the French forces, usually for pay and not deep belief) but at the French, whereas in Iraq the main sectarian (Sunni-Shi'a) and ethnic (Kurd-Arab) fissures are not to be solved by the Americans,and indeed the goal is not, as in Algeria, to "retain Iraq" but rather to get out of Iraq, and the larger goal in Iraq is, or rather should be, to weaken the Camp of Islam.

All of this is ignored by Herman who is uncomrehending of the larger world-wide Jihad, and has nothing to say about its instruments beyond that of terror -- nothing about the money weapon, Da'wa, demographic conquest -- and nothing about why the Sunnis will never acquiesce nor the Shi'a ever give in. Why is Herman so blind? Possibly because he starts from the party line about this being a "war on terror" and about how bringing "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" will somehow -- no one has yet been able to tell us how, not even give us a hint of a glimpse of an argument -- this will help us neutralize or even defeat the menace of Jihad, the menace of Islam.

It is incredible that a dangerous ignoramus such as Armstrong is on the list. It is incredible that Pontecorvo's movie about Algiers, full of i8ts obvious "anti-colonial bias," is also recommended.

Who compiled this list? John Esposito? John Esposito and someone in the State Department who is one of the old apologists for Islam, such as Peter Bechthold of the Foreign Service Institute (see his comments two years ago to the members of MESA, reassuring them that their fellow travellers and collaborators were still fighting the good fight as apologists for Islam)?

What the hell is going on? There is no longer any excuse for assigning the likes of Armstrong, or shunting Pentagon personnel over to hear the likes of Esposito, or as audio-visual aides, a left-wing anti-French movie about the war in Algeria. This tragicomical farce must stop.

The grownups need to step in.

Posted by: Hugh at April 30, 2007 5:08 PM

A posting from January 23, 2005:

Lt. Gen. John H. Vines, who is set to take command of American ground forces in Iraq, has assigned a series of books on Islam to his staff members. Here are comments on Vines' choices from Jihad Watch Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald:

"The Reading List of General Vines deserves further detailed study. There are two books by Esposito. There is one by Karen Armstrong, whom, one would have thought, is by now regarded as a complete buffoon. There is something about Islam for Dummies. There is a book by the jejune Sandra Mackey on Iraq, when either the Letters of Gertrude Bell (those from Baghdad up to 1927, when she killed herself), or Philip Ireland's book published in 1939 would have helped -- and best of all would have been the essay on Iraq by the native of Baghdad, Elie Kedourie, published in Islam in the Modern World.

Nothing by Lewis. Nothing by Kedourie. Nothing by J. B. Kelly, not even that essay "Of Valuable Oil and Worthless Policies" which, while it dates in the section on the Soviet threat, does not date as a description of the misperception of Saudi Arabia. The spirit of ARAMCO propagandists still lives.

What is good about the Reading List is that it is so bad, so truly bad, that eyebrows should be raised all over Washington. Who compiled this list? Who carefully allowed in, as the single sop, the Naipaul, but left out the Lewis, the Kedourie, the Kelly? Who left out any serious essays on the nature of Islam, on Jihad? How are the Infidel soldiers supposed to comprehend the hostility that is felt towards them, even though they are only there to "rebuild" Iraq? For if they cannot understand that hostility -- which is in every textbook, every mosque, every madrassa, every Arab satellite channel, every Qur'an and volume of the Hadith and every life of Muhammad, they will be eternally confused. And confusion and incomprehension, or miscomprehension, leads to demoralization.

Here is an example of a little colloquy reported by NPR Correspondent Deborah Amos this morning. She was reporting from Basra. She interviewed a man, asking him as follows:

Amos: "Do you want foreign troops to leave?"
Iraqi: "Would you want your country to be occupied?" (Iraqis, she said, and soldiers know, tend to reply to questions cannily, warily, with questions of their own, and almost never give a straight answer to anything).

When Amos then presses him if he wants the Americans to leave, he answers:

"Yes, I do. But not before they fix everything, and stop terrorism."

How nice. I hate you, and I want you to leave. But first you have to "stop terrorism" and, oh by the way, "fix everything."

That kind of attitude will not be understood by reading Karen Armstrong, who describes Muhammad as the man who "brought peace" to the Arabian Peninsula. It will not be understood by reading John Esposito, author of The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? (we know which he chose), a man who in previous editions of his books does not give more than a single mention of the word "Jihad" and has never treated of the dhimmi.

How can American officers figure out why the Christians are being terrorized, if they know nothing about the 1350 year history of Jihad-conquest and of the imposition of dhimmitude? How?

How can American officers understand what is going on if the inculcated hostility toward them is not understood?

The greatest Intelligence Failure of the Iraq War was not about WMD. It was about Islam, its tenets, its nature, the attitudes and atmospherics it engenders. It was an intelligence failure that continues as long as we prate about how everyone wants freedom (nonsense), that "democracy" will lessen the threat in the Middle East (double-nonsense), that the best way to limit a threat based entirely on the classic ideology of Islam is to say nothing, to learn nothing, to hint at nothing, about Islam itself.

Supposedly, the "faculty at Yale" and people at the "Foreign Service Institute" were responsible for this list. Let's find out something more about precisely who was involved in the selection of the final group of eight books. What are their names? What are their own interests?

Note to Hollywood: it is time for movies and television stories, not about Muslim terrorists, but about those who are apologists for Islam, and who are determined to keep certain truths from getting out, in very high places indeed. One need not be of a conspiratorial frame of mind to see that with such a Reading List, something is very amiss -- and very high up.

This has to be thoroughly investigated.

[Posted by Hugh at January 23, 2005]

And a comment by me on the thread under that article:

"The whole universe of the busy-busy-busy in Washington, with their one-page executive summaries, or perhaps a country set down in two, or even three, pages, is a recipe for silliness. The reliance on people who have titles -- you know, like Peter Bechtold, the head of the Middle Eastern training section of the Foreign Policy Institute (now please, google "Peter Bechtold" to get a purchase on what he is all about -- an apologist of the Esposito school, who went out to attend the last meeting of Mesa Nostra and assured one and all that only a "handful of neo-cons, about 30" were the problem, so you Mesans, don't worry, you apologists who want no mucking about with the Arabs and Islam will triumph in the end (he didn't say that part, but it was clear).

The government needs to train -- not with the Espositos of this world but possibly at the Jihadwatch Training Institute just set up, in my imagination, for this very purpose -- to learn about Islam. To wit: how it started, of what elements is it composed, what is the history of Jihad-conquest (same, or different, in time and space), what is the history of the treatment of non-Muslims whose lands have been subjugated by Islam (same, or different, in time and space), what is the current attitude toward non-Muslims taught in Qur'an, Hadith, and sira, what are the doctrines of taqiyya and kitman? How, beginning in the late 19th century, did some would-be reformers of Islam emerge, and why did they all fail so completely? What is the role of "defectors" or ex-Muslims, and how can they help the Infidel West in understanding Islam, and in constructing strategies to weaken it from within?

Oh, there is much more. Il y a si peu d'esprits et tant de sots.

Really, for just a teeny-tiny bit of the Pentagon's budget (not much more than few armored Humvees), so many hundreds of billions could be saved, so many American lives saved from being ended, or damaged forever. Isn't it worth it?

For best results, Pentagon, Media, Big Wall Street Firms who want to "know about Islam," kindly contact us at the usual Jihadwatch address.

Then we shall create a cadre of a few hundred officers, and civilians, who have not gone through the Esposito-Bechtold-MESA Nostra school, but rather something quite different, which will have a distinct advantage over all the others: It Will Tell the Truth. And on the faculty will be, among others, the most distinguished and articulate ex-Muslims in the world.

On-site visits can be arranged for those Wall Street Firms, of course.

So how about it? Ball's in your court.

Posted by: Hugh at January 23, 2005 05:04 PM
And another posting at the same thread, a reply to someone who asks about "MESA Nostra:

"'Mesa' or 'MESA' is the acronym of the Middle East Studies Association, the professional group of those who at American universities and colleges are charged with the responsibilty of teaching the American young, those trusting, innocent, infinitely malleable young, with learning about the Middle East -- which is to say, about Islam.

As an organization, MESA has over the past two decades slowly but surely been taken over by apologists for Islam. Many of these are Muslims, and many are non-Muslims. The latter includes quite a few people who are married to Muslims, or who, to get along with their colleagues (and remember, the most political place in the entire universe is a university faculty, and that institution which, alas, Randall Jarrell failed to immortalize (if memory serves), the Departmental Meeting. Junior faculty owe everything to, and therefore must curry favor with, senior faculty. If that means signing an anti-divestment petition that has the mighty empire of Israel, fons et origo of everything that has ever gone wrong with the Muslim and Arab states and peoples, then so be it. Funny thing about being a trimmer, however, is that the mere act of signing something you really don't believe helps to convince you that you really do believe it, otherwise you would have to come to terms with your own cravenness, your own pusillanimity. And no one wants to do that.

The method of apologetics is simple: concentrate on Israel, or the more tendentious reification of an alternative state, "Israel/Palestine," keep clear of such topics as land ownership under the Ottoman Empire, the actual demographics of the Ottoman vilayets and sanjak that made up what became Mandatory Palestine, don't even whisper that more than half of the Jews in Israel had never left the Middle East but lived as dhimmis in the Yemen (virtual chattel slaves), in Iraq, in North Africa, in Syria and Egypt -- because officially, all Israeli Jews are "European colonialists"; finally, do not under any conditions mention that a goodly number of the ancient "Palestinian people" (invented post-1967) are the descendants of Arabs and Berbers who were veterans of Abd el-Kader's campaign, Egyptians who came with Mehmet Ali, Muslims from the Balkans and Bulgaria and other Ottoman territories in Europe who were transferred, en masse, by the Turkish government as the high tide of Islam receded -- for that area (a/k/a in the West as "Palestine") was by far the most desolate and under-populated in the Ottoman Empire, always excepting the Empty Quarter of Arabia).

The apologetics consists in hardly ever discussing Jihad, dhimmitude, or indeed even introducing the students to Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. Sometimes an expurgated version -- the Michael Sells horror -- is assigned to students. The Hadith and Sira are never mentioned. Books on the level of Armstrong and Esposito are assigned, and feelgood nonsense like Maria Rosa Menocal's "The Ornament of the World."

But not everyone who is a member of MESA is completely awful. There are a few reasonable people, some of the Ottomanists and suchlike. MESA is a little like the Soviet Union of Writers, which had thousands of members and hardly a real writer. When one considers Michael Cook, Patricia Crone, Bernard Lewis, and a feew others, on one scale, and the assorted khalidis and dabashis and massads and bahranis in the other, you can guess which side kicks the beam. No member of MESA has done as much to make available to a wide public important new work on Muhammad, on the origins of the Qur'an, and on the history of early Islam, as that lone wolf, Ibn Warraq. No one has done such work on the institution of the dhimmi as that lone louve, Bat Ye'or. It is an astounding situation, where much of the most important work is not being done in universities, because many university centers have been seized by a kind of Islamintern International. Willy Munzenberg could have learned a lot from Edward Said, who was only begetter, with his "Orientalism" for a good deal of this "post-colonial hegemonic discourse" stuff that permanently stunts the mental growth.

Now, recent presidents of MESA have included Lisa Anderson, the well-versed and compleat academic (and beyond, what with the Councils on this and the Committees on that, all very impressive if you are impressed with that sort of thing) operator, Dean of the School of International Blah, and then Laurie Brand, about whom you may google, and Rashid Khalidi, and -- has Juan Cole served his term, or is that coming up? Well, you get the dreary picture.

In any case, even MESA has its constraints. For example a few years ago it had to award, it could not avoid awarding, a prize for the best book of the year to Michael Cook for his 720-page "Commanding Right and Prohibiting Wrong in Islam," even though Cook is suspiciously learned and has written a book, perhaps too warily not permitted to be reprinted, with Patricia Crone (who herself is very good, but also, at times, as in her treatment of Christoph Luxenberg, not quite as brave as she should be).

Why do I refer to MESA as "Mesa Nostra"? Because it is a kind of "Our Thing" conspiracy, but not nearly as appealing, as folkloric, as the Mafia, or the 'ndrangtheta, or the camorra, for in Italy the malavita has three main components. Everyone knows everyone else; the maneuvering, the politicking, the fear that the hot breat of Campus Watch, and perhaps even Congress, will take away all that government money that the khalidis and the dabashis et al. wanted to use to spread their anti-Israel anti-American and "why-do-they-hate-us?" and "it is only a handful-of-extremists" message, and how can that mean old U.S. government not want to fund that,huh?

"Mesa Nostra" is my little invention. It communicates the doubtflness, and more, of the enterprise. It has nothing to do with real scholarship. Ask yourself this: could Joseph Schacht, the great authority on Mohammedan law, or Arthur Jeffery, an authority on Islam, on Muhammad, even on aspects of the lexicon of the early Qur'an, both of them once starts in Columbia's middle-eastern firmament, have been hired today -- at Columbia, or indeed, anywhere that the plotters of Mesa Nostra rule the roost?

The Arabs have poured money into various Georgetown Centers for this and that (because that's where the power is, that's where the foreign service officers are trained, that's where Peter Bechtold, who gave a cheerleading address to the last meeting of Mesa, heads the "Foreign Policy Institute" and was so instrumental in drawing up that farcical list for General Vines). They have also bought up chairs: the nice "Guardian of the Two Holy Places" professorship of law that Frank Vogel holds, and a King Abdul Aziz thisorthat, and so on. Oh, they get their money's worth. They do, indeed they do.

So that's why I call it "Mesa Nostra." Everybody should.

[Posted by: Hugh at January 23, 2005 11:27 PM]

Posted by: Hugh at April 30, 2007 5:14 PM

Armstrong would make quite a pet for some jihadis, they could change her mind about Islam...

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
beat women who misbehave
.

Posted by: USpace at April 30, 2007 5:31 PM

"Jihad in a skirt" heh, heh, heh... thanks Lame C.

Posted by: MP at April 30, 2007 5:34 PM

J.S.

I agree with your historical assessment of Glenn Beck. The one step forward, two steps back approach, however, renders him quite valueless in the war against Islam.

He unfortunately acts out of character. A supposed conservative would not be pandering to the likes of Dinesh D'Souza and Karen Armstrong to suit his political purposes. He would however invite Robert to speak on the subject again.

Waiting.

Posted by: awake at April 30, 2007 5:34 PM

"Everything they do seems to be because of their religion. You seem to forget that they are also human beings just like us who have invented things, written books, produced philosophy, music, movies and most of them go about living their lives, going to work and going to work, not worrying about your pseudo-theological quarrels."

You need only look at the strange, irrational responses pollesters get from Muslim "human beings" when asked about Jews, Christians, Jihad, 9/11, sharia law, democracy, to understand that something has short-circuted their ability to think logically about these anything.

True, "most of them go about living their lives, going to work not worrying about your pseudo-theological quarrels," but most of their minds are still infected with an inability to think rationally about the world around them, and it appears to be an infection that is universal to Muslims.

You can't expect more from a people who's minds and spirits are wholely dominated by a pseudo- religion like Islam.

,

Posted by: rational at April 30, 2007 5:34 PM

OT, re: defenders of 9/11 conspiracy theories....

Any hope that one of the main 9/11-Truther claims has been permanently laid to rest, with this recent event?

THE MAZE MELTDOWN: Eyewitness sees driver emerge from inferno

.
.
.
A tanker truck carrying 8,600 gallons of gasoline had overturned at 3:41 a.m. and burst into flames on the 50-foot-high ramp connecting westbound Interstate 80 to southbound Interstate 880. Within minutes, the ramp above it -- connecting eastbound I-80 to eastbound I-580 -- collapsed in the 3,000-degree cauldron.
.
.
.
The driver escaped just before the overhead ramp collapsed -- the fire had melted its steel undergirders.
.
.
.
Engineers estimated that the flames reached close to 3,000 degrees -- hot enough to melt the green steel frame and bolts of the I-580 overpass.
.
.
.

Posted by: yadayada at April 30, 2007 6:00 PM

I don't know. The argument that the events of revelation are fiction, and that they are to be taken as symbolism or allegory, is not very convincing either. There are plenty from both camps that are literalists, and believe their books to be the perfect word of their particular God.

One might be better to focus on actual behavior, rather than get into the pointless argument of one book is to be taken not at face value and the other is.

Posted by: amana39 at April 30, 2007 6:10 PM

Mr. Spencer,

I assume you have a agent that takes care of media appearances and such.

Why not get on Beck's show, quickly refute Ms. Armstrong and make your own points for educating he and his audience.

Posted by: turn at April 30, 2007 6:35 PM

Koran Armstrong and Yvonne Ridley have much in common, one is a lose cannon and the other a potential terrorist in the making.

I have difficulties keeping the 2 apart. They're almost like identical twins, but Koran Armstrong doesn't wear a hijab, not yet...

If the letter above (posted by spirit of 1683) is indeed written by Armstrong, (it probably is) then we can safely assume that she doesn't quite have her faculties intact.

Here is another taqiyya spin doctor exposed:

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/04/30/ameer-ali-blow-me-a-kiss/

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/04/30/karen-armstrong-defender-of-the-wrong-faith/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 30, 2007 7:26 PM

Turn,

Thanks. You can't just get on any show. You have to be invited.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at April 30, 2007 7:47 PM

I feel ashamed of myself, because 3 years ago, I got a copy of one of Karen Armstrongs books on Islam on the strength of this self-proclaimed "expert" on Islam who has managed to fool politicians and journalists of her credentials.

And the lessson out of this is to always check up on the credentials of so-called "experts". See what their peers say about their published works.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at April 30, 2007 8:35 PM

Well any feminist that defends Islam has a whole hardware store worth of loose screws in her head.

Defend a religion that treats women like 2nd class property that populate hell in the after life, subject to justified beating by their husbands?

"Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half that of a man?" The women said, "yes," He said, "This is because of the deficiency of the woman's mind. " Vol. 3:826

Maybe Karen Armstrong is trying to prove this verse to be true or something for the sake of Islam :)

ROFL.

Posted by: SoteriA at April 30, 2007 9:23 PM

If I remember correctly the Nazis also "inventing things, writing books, going to the movies", played music, running the most modern factories, airports, and shipyards, and also just went about "living their lives".

All while committing genocide, conquering Europe, demonizing the "untermenschen" (Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Slavs, etc.), and trying to construct a National Socialist nuclear bomb to put on the tips of the V-3 intercontinental rockets. (Luckily they were defeated at the point of only the V-2 rockets and no functioning A-bomb.)

Just because people move around and do things that appear normal doesn't mean that they are not animated by a heinous, murderous, anti-freedom ideology.

Like Nazi fascism.

Or Islamofascism.

Ms. Armstrong is delusional.

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 30, 2007 9:33 PM

true beard:
as per this video by David Horowitz

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/islamic-mein-kampf/

It speaks for itself.

Posted by: jcom972 at April 30, 2007 9:49 PM

Poor deluded karen,
no one's caring or gives a flip
for her lack of scholarship.

karen laughs nervously
all the way to the bank
where she deposits her gold,
having sold her soul
to the devil.

Posted by: the poetess at April 30, 2007 9:50 PM

Very OT but I don't know where to put this. I emailed Robert this story but I don't know if he'll put it up. Anyway, the 910 blog group just put up audio of Nihad Awad speaking to the ADAMS center in Virginia. Here's the link:

http://www.vigilantfreedom.org/910blog/2007/04/30/audio-from-cairs-meeting-on-6-imams-at-adams-center/

And here is part of his speech:

There were 196 cases reported by the Justice Department for Muslims in civil rights cases. There were over 1008 cases reported by the Jewish faith. We need to do a much better job not only in recognizing our civil rights but also in reporting it to the government. Which is very critical and very important.

And that is why, I think, this kind of program is important to the purpose of being able to inform the government official places ...[garbled].

We will talk about the case, about the case of the imams, about the implications, about where the case is now...we’ll talk about the 6 imams case...Muslims who fly within the states, and also the lawsuit that we helped file, and the reaction, both in public, in the media and in Congress. What it means to civil rights and what it means to Muslims. This is very important. You will know that history is being made.

...It is very important for Muslims to understand the law, and it’s also very important for Muslims to exercise their legal rights in the country. And it’s also important that if these rights are violated, that Muslims recognize that these rights are violated. Many Muslims,they are discriminated against or mistreated, they overlook or ignore or they are afraid to say or challenge or report these mistreatments. Which means, more of the same will take place against the same person or persons or against Muslims. And when people stand up and say something and challenge them, then there will be change.

But the psyche of Muslims have to change. The laws are there, fortunately, but the laws are not utilized. They’re not understood and they’re not followed by the victimizers or the victims. So there’s a lot of ignorance about the law, and that’s why Muslims usually find themselves being mistreated or discriminated against. Reporting to an organization like CAIR is important, because it is empowering. It is empowering to the Muslims themselves who report, it is empowering to the organization, and it is important to the status of Muslims within the United States. Also it is a powerful tool and message to the government and the legislators, to those who make the laws in the country, to know that this phenomenon has to be dealt with, it has to be dealt with effectively, and results have to be seen....

The Department of Justice, in their annual report, don’t be surprised that if you feel Muslims are not treated well in the country, that the number of reports of incidents against Muslims or hate crimes is very low. Whereas the number of incidents and hate crime cases against the Jewish community is very very high. Maybe dozens of [incidents] against Muslims, but against Jews are in the thousands. But when you examine the situation you say, We really feel our community is more targeted.

Posted by: wrathofasma at April 30, 2007 9:55 PM

jcom972-

Exactly.

(Caught that video at FPM a month or so ago. Apt and chilling.)

I wish Muslims would get the hell out of Islam.

Its a soul cage. A mind dungeon. A spirit prison.

Build on a pedophile, what good could come from it?

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 30, 2007 10:56 PM

wrathofasma wrote:
"Maybe dozens of [incidents] against Muslims, but against Jews are in the thousands. But when you examine the situation you say, We really feel our community is more targeted."
-from Awad's speech

The reality of the Jew suffering more than the Muslim in the US is completely missed by Mr. Awad. It is merely apathetic in nature, mixed with some perverted joy.

In spite of the mathematical statistics that profess otherwise, Mr. Awad continues to make his irrational pro-Islamic intentions known, by inverting reality, or attempting to do so, at the very least.

No one actually believes they are the victims, but they will collectively and arrogantly profess that they are. This is a common face of Islam, one example on the many fronts it puts forth. Illogical, contradictory, both suitable advectives to describe it, yet there are few who seem to notice. A menace for sure, it just needs to be properly identified.

Once political correctness is likewise identified, and summarily eradicated, the rest should fall into place in short order. Otherwise, fasten your safety belts and get ready to experience some turbulence ahead.

Posted by: awake at April 30, 2007 10:57 PM

OT, but concerning NOI.
I just spent some very disturbing time at YouTube.
"Kill Them All" is a lovely little video. I can't believe YT leaves that sort of thing up when anti-jihad videos are pulled as quickly as they appear. Remember "It's In the Koran"? just a funny song and video of the lyrics, not allowed. Funny set of values they have.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at April 30, 2007 10:59 PM

Actually it was "Kalid Muhammad" that was the offensive video. The above video was in response..
KTA was a voice over with pictures of women and babies.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at April 30, 2007 11:05 PM

I believe that Hugh hit the nail on the head regarding Karen Armstrong in the previous thread, when he posted:

“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 deep need to create “the Other” – a psychic need felt exclusively, and with great intensity, apparently, only by us, and never by anyone else.”
[Posted by Hugh at April 22, 2005]
Posted by: Hugh at April 28, 2007 12:55 PM

Hugh's post, for me, sums it up. I do not believe that Karen Armstrong has malevolent intentions in writing what she does. On the contrary, I believe she represents the liberal school of thought that "Muslims are the new Jews". And she is afraid ( as she actually stated in previous interviews) that history will be repeated with the Muslims as it was with the Jews.

It is in that sense that KA's intentions are "pure". She wishes to prevent a second holocaust. But Hugh is quite right in pointing out that she feels entitled to play hard and fast with the truth so that the ends justify the means.

IMO opinion, what she is guilty of is moral hubris. She is a moral elitist. And that means that she doesn't trust other lesser mortals to make an informed moral opinion about the most humanitarian course to pursue when confronted with terrible alternatives. So she lies. (although she lies with good ends in mind, i.e. "white-lies", i.e "white-washing"). What she will discover, if she lives long enough, is that in her moral hubris, which failed to trust in the fair judgement of others raised in not only the Christian faith but other good and decent faiths as well, including Judaism, Hindusim, Buddhism, etc- she will have deprived reasonable and decent people of any chance to chart a humane course of action, based on reality, based on the stark human truth, which isn't always pleasant. In her moral hubris, presuming to make the decision for all of us as to how we should view Islam, by painting a false picture, she will invite and unleash all that she probably genuinely hoped to avoid. That would be the definition of tragedy, from a Shakespearian perspective. Ergo, I view Karen Armstrong as a tragic human being, in the best Shakespearian sense of the word.

Posted by: Caroline at April 30, 2007 11:37 PM

"Hugh's post, for me, sums it up. I do not believe that Karen Armstrong has malevolent intentions in writing what she does."
-- from a posting above

Well, I think she is malevolent in every word she writes or speaks. I think Karen Armstrong is crazed. I think she's a shit. That's what I think.

Posted by: Hugh at April 30, 2007 11:45 PM

Hugh: "Well, I think she is malevolent in every word she writes or speaks. I think Karen Armstrong is crazed. I think she's a shit. That's what I think."

Oh my! Well having seen her speak on C-Span, I beg to disagree for the time being, until at least I see further evidence for your point of view (as to her malevolence). Consider me on the fence as to the evilness of her intentions until then. Believe me, it's entirely possible that I could be shoved off the fence and take a tumble in your direction with a slight shove. But in the meantime, it's a straddle!

Posted by: Caroline at April 30, 2007 11:54 PM

OK Hugh - now you've got my curiosity up. How do you come up with pure malevolence, as opposed to say, misguided moral hubris?

Posted by: Caroline at April 30, 2007 11:59 PM

Yes, Awake,

It would be (hmmm) true to a true Conservative Spirit to invite Robert Spencer onto the Glenn Beck show...

We can always hope.

I agree with Hugh, I hear in Armstrong's writings a voice of malice -- a kind of sweet viciousness...she's as evil (or perhaps somehow even worse ?) as any Jihadist. She's utterly despicable. I can only wish that she'd do all the world a favour and take up a religious vow and go into a retreat...remain silent...or adopt the Black Bag that Islam prescribes for females and be done with it. The vicious retard deserves to become a "revert" -- and thereby be silenced.

Posted by: J.S. at May 1, 2007 12:15 AM

IMO, Karen Armstrong strikes me as a psychopath (perhaps being a psychopath is why she's so attracted to the religion of Islam). I don't believe she's so intellectually impaired or mentally retarded that she actually believes that Islam is a religion of peace, rather, she is morally impaired. (Look at her obvious deceptions -- the so obvious lies...) She's like a psychopath who has a facade (say, the "oh, I'm sooo concerned about 'humanity' and I'm such a great, wondrous humanitarian"...then, the reality appears and the self-proclaimed "saint" turns out to be a pedophile or worse... ditto for Armstrong -- she wishes to convey the image of the "spiritual" and deeply "moral" person -- but it's just a fraudulent veneer.

Posted by: J.S. at May 1, 2007 12:42 AM

Ex-nun?? WHY???

Me thinks therein lies the answer, or key if you will, to the mystery of Msssssss Armstrongs hubristic "behaviour".

"Ex" meaning exit from faith which leads to thoughts generated from entities who now have access to thought processes which were previously "protected" by the living God whom she originally sought to serve.

Posted by: guide inside at May 1, 2007 12:58 AM

"Ex-nun?...Me thinks therein lies the answer..."
-- from a posting above

Not all ex-nuns turn out to be full of indecent anti-Western resentment and malevolence as has the self-declared depressive Karen Armstrong. I know one or two; they gave up the convent early not for a political or religious, but for another, perfectly understandable, reason.

Posted by: Hugh at May 1, 2007 1:43 AM

From the article

She is herself the author of a sanitised life of “the Prophet” (as she calls him, despite not being a believer) that she grandly offered as “a gift to the Muslim people”.

Actually, now I'm kind of curious. How does one sanitise a life such as Muhammad's? How does one write a biography of him, and leave out the caravan raiding, slave taking, poet killing, loot dividing, child raping, and mass beheading episodes of his life? What is there left to write about? It's like writing a biography of Mickey Mantle, and never mentioning baseball or Marilyn Monroe. I'm half tempted to check her book out of the library, hold my nose and take a look, just to see how she does it.

Posted by: special_guest at May 1, 2007 2:03 AM

From Hugh above:

" What the hell is going on? There is no longer any excuse for assigning the likes of Armstrong, or shunting Pentagon personnel over to hear the likes of Esposito, or as audio-visual aides, a left-wing anti-French movie about the war in Algeria. This tragicomical farce must stop.

The grownups need to step in. "

I could not agree more. The reading list of the generals and on down is by and large incomprehensible. They are fighting not only with lawyers tieing them up with regulations but they are engaging the enemy without understanding the enemy - they have been spoon-fed enemy propaganda by highly placed enemy advocates such as Armstrong and Espesito. Indeed, what the hell is going on?

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at May 1, 2007 3:22 AM

Hugh said--"Not all ex-nuns turn out to be full of indecent anti-Western resentment and malevolence".

Of course, tragic as it may or may not be, there are many valid reasons why anyone leaves a nunnery or any other valid ministry. I was offering the thesis as a POSSIBLE reason for the behaviour, not as a known fact or forensic conclusion.

She, as do all of us, have the right to "take captive all thoughts that exalt themselves above the knowledge of God" as 2 Corinthians 10: 3-5 indicates.

Posted by: guide inside at May 1, 2007 3:30 AM

Caroline, if Karen Armstrong were a rare bird, I'd be more prone to think malevolence motivates and informs her agenda; but since millions of Westerners share her views down to a structural tee -- and thousands among them have dipped their toes into the waters of scholarship to about the same degree as she has, with perhaps some smattering hundreds among them more deeply than she -- there's no need, without further evidence to presume malevolence (unless we're prepared to say the majority in the West are malevolent). Ockham's razor, and all that.

Posted by: remote_control at May 1, 2007 3:32 AM

I do not wish to imply anything disrsepectful about people with epilepsy, but I note from her Wikipedia entry that Karen Armstrong is an epileptic.

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

I believe there is a strong suspicion that Mohammed also suffered from epilepsy; maybe in this respect, she identifies with him and perhaps feels that she has a special understanding of his convulsion-induced revelations.

Posted by: The Northumbrian at May 1, 2007 4:00 AM

there's no need, without further evidence to presume malevolence (unless we're prepared to say the majority in the West are malevolent). Ockham's razor, and all that.

Posted by: remote_control at May 1, 2007 03:32 AM

REALLY??

WELL IF SHE IS AS CLAIMS TO BE THE EXPERT She is a lier because just reading a little I found he to be totaly WRONG!!!

Look to some of history well she left out all those mulsum wars against the west?

and as for the qu-ran well it speaks for it's self?

Qur’an 9:81 “Those who stayed behind rejoiced in their inaction behind the back of the Messenger. They hated to strive and fight with their goods and lives in the Cause of Allah. They said, ‘Go not forth in the heat.’ Say, ‘The fire of Hell is fiercer in heat.’ If only they could understand! So let them laugh a little, for they will weep much as a reward for what they did. If Allah brings you back (from the campaign) to a party of the hypocrites and they ask to go out to fight, say: ‘You shall never go out to fight with me against a foe. You were content sitting inactive on the first occasion. So sit with the useless men who lag behind.’ Do not pray for any of them (Muhammad) that die, nor stand at his grave. They rejected Allah and disbelieved His Messenger. They died in a state of perverse rebellion.”

WHAT DOES SHE SAY ABOUT THIS??

Qur’an 9:93 “The (complaint) is against those who claim exemption [from fighting] while they are rich. They prefer to stay with the (women) who remain behind (at home). Allah has sealed their hearts. They are content to be useless. Say: ‘Present no excuses: we shall not believe you.’ It is your actions that Allah and His Messenger will observe. They will swear to you by Allah, when you return hoping that you might leave them alone. So turn away from them, for they are unclean, an abomination, and Hell is their dwelling-place, a fitting recompense for them.”

WHAT DOES SHE SAY ABOUT THIS??

Tabari VII:148 “Amr said, ‘Let’s wait here until the cry has died down. They are sure to hunt for us tonight and tomorrow. I was still in the cave when Uthman bin Malik came riding proudly on his horse. He reached the entrance to our cave and I said to my Ansar companion, ‘If he sees us, he will tell everyone in Mecca.’ So I went out and stabbed him with my dagger. He gave a shout and the Meccans came to him while I went back to my hiding place. Finding him at the point of death, they said, ‘By Allah we knew that Amr came for no good purpose.’ The death of their companion impeded their search for us, for they carried him away.”

WHAT DOES SHE SAY ABOUT THIS??

Tabari VII:149 “I went into a cave with my bow and arrows. While I was in it, a one-eyed man from the Banu Bakr came in driving some sheep. He said, ‘Who’s there?’ I said [lied], ‘I’m a Banu Bakr.’ ‘So am I.’ Then he laid down next to me, and raised his voice in song: ‘I will not believe in the faith of the Muslims.’ I said, ‘You will soon see!’ Before long the Bedouin went to sleep and started snoring. So I killed him in the most dreadful way that anybody has ever killed. I leant over him, struck the end of my bow into his good eye, and thrust it down until it came out the back of his neck. After that I rushed out like a wild beast and took flight. I came to the village of Naqi and recognized two Meccan spies. I called for them to surrender. They said no so I shot and arrow and killed one, and then I tied the other up and took him to Muhammad

WHAT DOES SHE SAY ABOUT THIS?

Qur’an 5:33 “The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and make mischief in the land, is to murder them, crucify them, or cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides...their doom is dreadful. They will not escape the fire, suffering constantly.”

WHAT DOES SHE SAY ABOUT THIS??

Tabari VIII:122/Ishaq:515 “The Prophet gave orders concerning Kinanah to Zubayr, saying, ‘Torture him until you root out and extract what he has. So Zubayr kindled a fire on Kinanah’s chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kinanah was near death. Then the Messenger gave him to Maslamah, who beheaded him.”

NOW THATS SOMETHING I MISSED IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE WHAT DOES SHE SAY?

Bukhari:V4B52N260 “Ali burnt some [former Muslims alive] and this news reached Ibn Abbas, who said, ‘Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, “Don’t punish with Allah’s Punishment.” No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, “If a Muslim discards his Islamic religion, kill him.”’

NOW WHAT DOES SHE SAY ABOUT THIS?

Qur’an 9:5 “When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

IS SHE SURE SHE READ AND STUDIED I DON'T THINK SO?

Qur’an 5:37 “The [Christian] disbelievers will long to get out of the Fire, but never will they get out there from; and theirs will be an enduring torture.”

NOW SEEING WHAT THEY DO TO THEIR OWN WHAT DOES SHE THINK THEY DID TO OTHERS??

NO I DON'T THINK THIS ARMSTRONG BABE IS TRUTHFUL BUT A PAID ASSIASSEN OR AS SOME MIGHT SAY ASS-IN-NINE

Tabari IX:6 “The chief sheep tender sent out spies to obtain intelligence. But they came back with their joints dislocated. When he asked what had happened, they said, ‘We saw white men on black horses. Before we could resist, we were struck as you see us now.”

OR JUST TO PAVE THE WAY FOR?
THIS IS CAIR AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS THAT HAS BEEN SWADED BY THE MONEY OF TERRORIST??

Qur’an 8:12 “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.”

SO SHE CLAIMED TO BE AN EXPERT BUT NEVER EVEN DID HOMEWORK HELL EVEN THE CLIFT NOTES

IF I WERE YOU WHO BOUGHT ANY OF HER BOOKS I WOULD DEMAND MY MONEY BACK!!!

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
http://www.beecy.net/frank/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymLJz3N8ayI

Posted by: Catherine at May 1, 2007 5:40 AM

I'm replying to remotecontrol.

You find certain verses of the Qur'an objectionable. Armstrong doesn't seem to object to them. Why is that? You've provided translations of those verses, but you never provide the contexts. Do you know the contexts? What could possibly be objectionable in verses 9:81 and 9:93? These verses were revealed in regards to specific people and specific events of the past. They have no statutory relevance to us today, and their political significance is almost entirely missed out by everyone living today.

If someone attacked you, would you attack back? If you respond yes, then your objection to 9:81 and 9:93 doesn't make sense. When a nation invades another nation, the nation fights back. The same is true whether our subject is a person, tribe or nation. I bet the difference between you and Armstrong is an open mind. Try reading those verses and their exegesis from varyious sources. Just make an attempt to learn what the context of those verses is, what politics were involved, and then please tell me what it is that you object to about 9:81 and 9:93.

As for the ahadith: Most Muslims realize that these narrations are the products of fallible men; therefore their weight is gradually diminishing as more people discover the absurdities contained within them.

The Laws of Islam are contained only in the Qur'an. These Laws are of a general nature, meaning that verses containing those Laws don't have specific subjects. I bet you'll have a hard time finding any such Law objectionable.

You all can discuss this with me if you like. I'm a moderate Muslim. I've lived in the US, Saudi Arabia and other places. My western education, coupled with my interests in the Arabic language and Message of the Qur'an may offer you a more rational interpretation of the holy Qur'an.

Posted by: marblejack9 at May 1, 2007 12:00 PM

marblejack9,

9:93 and 9:81 were quoted by Catherine, not remote control. However, if you have comments on the historical context of those verses specifically, and can provide references/links to back up what you are saying, please post.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 1, 2007 12:40 PM

marblejack9 said

therefore their weight is gradually diminishing as more people discover the absurdities contained within them

As a "moderate" Muslim, could you be so kind as to inform us which of the ahadith have been discovered to be incorrect or untrue? And tell us who decided they were incorrect or untrue? And tell us how many Muslims agree with those decisions that the ahadith are incorrect or untrue?

Do you agree that Muhammad is uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, the Perfect Man, the moral example for all to follow, or has that been found to be incorrect and untrue as well? How did so many mortal men, contemporaries of Muhammad, agree so precisely when describing the life and words of Muhammad? Actions such as killing a sleeping poet as she suckled one of her children. What exactly was Muhammad's occupation; how did he earn his living, if not from raiding caravans and stealing?

And suppose we ignore the ahadith, because 1400 years later we just decided that it never really happened, because we mere mortals decided that the description of Muhammad's life was absurd. Fine, let's stick to the Qur'an. Catherine included several quotes from the Qur'an (9:81, 9:93, 5:33, 5:37, 8:12, and there are so many more), could you please explain the context, the exegesis, that would show us the peaceful interpretation of "smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them"? Or have those quotations also been found to be incorrect or untrue?

But, honestly, marblejack9, are you sure you're not "cherry picking" just the verses that you choose to believe and to follow? Are you one of those referred to in 9:93, who claim exemption from fighting?

Posted by: special_guest at May 1, 2007 1:06 PM

Catherine,

I agree that Karen Armstrong is absurdly myopic to the evils of Islam and of the Koran. But when we know that this myopia is shared by millions of Westerners who are at least passingly familiar with two or three of the evil passages of the Koran, and that in addition the thousands and thousands of Westerners who have dipped a little deeper into the Koran as she has (along with the few hundreds more who have dipped deeper than she has) -- then we must conclude that "malevolence" is not the problem here, but a much broader and deeper and more complex social problem of the West that enables this normal madness and myopia.

Bottom Line: If you don't have an accurate assessment of the nature of the problem, your efforts at fighting it will be guaranteed to be less effective.

Posted by: remote_control at May 1, 2007 4:00 PM

marblejack9 said

You all can discuss this with me if you like.

Thanks. It's been another fascinating discussion with a "moderate" Muslim. Your "nuh uh" was most convincing.

Posted by: special_guest at May 1, 2007 11:33 PM

Khaybar Oasis, in my next post I'll try to provide the contexts for those verses and something to support my claims.

Special Guest, which ahadith are deemed authentic depends on who you ask. In the States, some Muslims reject all ahadith as a source of Islamic law. Some reject those ahadith which conflict with their beliefs. Around the world, the Sunni majority accepts only ahadith authenticated by official organizations such as national-government (Awqaf) religious establishments or international ones. The ahadith are so numerous and varying that most Muslims are unsure what role they play in Islam. In general, however, most Muslims seem to accept the six Sehah collections as almost-divine revelations from God. A small portion of them equate hadith with Qur'an. I can't list for you which ahadith are true and which are false because I don't know.

I agree that Mohammad is an "uswa hasana", because he is, as the Qur'an portrays him, the most righteous of humans and the finest example to follow. He was not perfect; he was human after all. He made mistakes, the Qur'an asserts, despite the prevalent belief that he was perfect. You use the hadith establishment to paint an ugly picture of him. But you can't use those ahadith with me because I don't accept them - not because I reject them but because I don't know if they're true or not. I know Mohammad from the Qur'an, and you'll be hard-pressed to find anything negative about him there.

Mohammad's occupation was messenger of God. He was a spiritual follower of revelation. He did not earn his living by raiding caravans, which happened for good reason a small number of times. He never engaged in theft. During the course of pursuing justice, the Muslims encountered bounties of war which helped sustain them. The people of Arabia at that time did not observe careers as we do today. When one member of a tribe had wealth or a business, he would support his tribe and their affiliates. Most people did not have regular jobs, but a large portion of them were involved in trading and herding. For a long part of his life, Mohammad was a trader.

You want the exegesis of some verses and the peaceful interpretation. I'm not saying I'm going to interpret them to be peaceful. Some of these are verses of war, but it is a war with justification by victims against aggressors. Defending oneself is a natural part of life, and God's dictation how and when the Muslims were to fight for their rights is nothing abnormal or immoral. I'll try to do to that in my next reply when I have more time.

No, Special Guest, I am not "cherry-picking" the verses I like and ignoring others. I believe in the Qur'an wholesale. In my world, it is God's Message, and it is the greatest source of righteousness I ever witnessed. Unfortunately, it's been misunderstood by just about everyone. I couldn't possibly be mentioned in 9:93 because that verse refers to specific people who are now dead.

Posted by: marblejack9 at May 2, 2007 12:39 PM

marblejack,

We have been through this many times before on this website: apparently intelligent and amenable-sounding Muslims drop in, seemingly willing to engage in reasonable discussion/debate with us. We start asking tough questions. The Muslim slowly starts to disengage himself from the tough questions by not answering them, more and more. Soon the Muslim is cherry-picking from among the interlocutors here. Finally, the Muslim vanishes and is never seen from again. We have seen this pattern here over and over again. So excuse us for being wary. Perhaps you will be different and will actually address each and every substantial question we have with the thoroughness and responsiveness that respect for reasonable debate obliges. That would be nice and refreshing.

I have some questions:

You wrote "I believe in the Qur'an wholesale."

Do you believe that Allah told Muslim men it's okay to beat their wives under certain conditions? (4:34)

If so, you must believe it is a good command from Allah. Do you?

Do you realize that this command from Allah is directly contradicted and overturned by the laws of every Western country and most non-Muslim countries (as well as those Muslim countries who, under pressure from the West, no longer practice Sharia law) -- laws which consider what Allah permits to be criminal based upon social ethics which furthermore consider what Allah permits to be evil?

How do you feel about the fact that globally powerful polities (America and Europe) empower laws that directly contradict the command of Allah?

Posted by: remote_control at May 2, 2007 1:33 PM

"The ahadith are so numerous and varying that most Muslims are unsure what role they play in Islam"

Posted by: marblejack9

...that is why the Muslims rely on crazed, bearded, finger pointing Muslim clerics to explain it to them....

...when explained, the bottom line translates to "kill the infidel".....

...the Muslim faithful gleefully reply.."alllaaaahh akkkkbaaarrr"..

Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 2, 2007 3:11 PM

"The Laws of Islam are contained only in the Qur'an. These Laws are of a general nature, meaning that verses containing those Laws don't have specific subjects. I bet you'll have a hard time finding any such Law objectionable."

Posted by: marblejack9

...on the contrary, I find any law that doesn't have specific subject matter highly objectionable...without specific subject matter, it leaves the meaning of the law open to definition by the user....which makes it a worthless law...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 2, 2007 3:17 PM

Qur'an:8:12 "I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle."
Qur'an:8:67 "It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land."
Qur'an:8:39 "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah."
Qur'an 5:33 "The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and make mischief in the land, is to murder them, crucify them, or cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides...their doom is dreadful. They will not escape the fire, suffering constantly."
Qur'an:9:123 "Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you."
Qur'an:4:76 "Those who believe fight in the Cause of Allah."
Qur'an 47:33 "Believers, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger. Do not falter; become faint-hearted, or weak-kneed, crying for peace."

I could go on and on....I really don't think this is who God chose for the "perfect man".

Posted by: interestinconundrum at May 2, 2007 3:19 PM

marblejack9, thank you for your response. Please forgive me if I think that your answers have been vague and evasive.

He made mistakes, the Qur'an asserts

Which passages in the Qur'an are you referring to? The Satanic Verses, or something else? Please try to provide the verse number.

I know Mohammad from the Qur'an, and you'll be hard-pressed to find anything negative about him there.

Well, given that the Qur'an was dictated by Muhammad, it's not suprising that he didn't describe his own behavior as immoral.

Mohammad's occupation was messenger of God.

Jesus Christ was the son of God, but his occupation was carpenter. Are you saying that Allah gave money and food directly to Muhammad?

He did not earn his living by raiding caravans, which happened for good reason a small number of times.

You seem to be minimizing the caravan raiding. He thought it important enough to include verses that told how to divide the loot taken from caravan raids in the Qur'an. Why did he include instructions for something that rarely happened and were not important anyways?

During the course of pursuing justice, the Muslims encountered bounties of war which helped sustain them. [...] Some of these are verses of war, but it is a war with justification by victims against aggressors. Defending oneself is a natural part of life

I think we may have a failure to communicate here. What you feel are "justice", "victims", and "aggressors", I think I might have very different interpretations of those terms.

Here are a couple of verses:

Qur'an 7:97Did the people of the towns feel secure against the coming of Our wrath by night while they were asleep? Or else did they feel secure against its coming in broad daylight while they played about (carefree)? Did they then feel secure against the Plan of Allah? But no one can feel secure from the Plan of Allah, except those (doomed) to ruin!

Were sleeping people the aggressors against the Muslim victims who attacked them in the night?

Qur’an 4:91You will find others who, while wishing to live in peace and being safe from you to gain the confidence of their people; thrown back to mischief headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and offer you peace besides restraining their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear sanction and authority.

This is a case of non-Muslims who want to live peacefully alongside the Muslims, but Allah is demanding that the Muslims seize them and kill them.

I couldn't possibly be mentioned in 9:93 because that verse refers to specific people who are now dead.

Do the majority of Muslims agree with your interpretation that 9:93 refers only to specific people who are now dead, and that it is now devoid of significance, and that Allah no longer requires his followers to strive in the way of Allah? As of today, is it the mainstream Islamic belief that it is acceptable to Allah that his able-bodied men stay at home and enjoy their riches and their wives, and avoid fighting for Allah?

Posted by: special_guest at May 2, 2007 4:54 PM

“Mohammad's occupation was messenger of God.”

Mohammad’s occupation was acquiring booty. Look in the Qur’an and see how many time “booty” is mentioned.

“He was a spiritual follower of revelation.”

He was a follower of booty. Booty, booty, booty, and more booty, Alla