"So what about it, Ms. Armstrong? What efforts are you expending in that direction?"

Sewage tends to flow in the path of least resistance.

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at February 13, 2008 10:55 AM

What is wrong with her? Can anyone check and see whether there's a lobotomy in her past?

Posted by: darcy at February 13, 2008 10:55 AM

Sewage tends to flow in the path of least resistance.

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at February 13, 2008 10:55 AM

LOL! Thanks for the laugh, XRDC!

Posted by: darcy at February 13, 2008 10:58 AM

What is wrong with her? Can anyone check and see whether there's a lobotomy in her past?

Posted by: darcy at February 13, 2008 10:55 AM

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 13, 2008 10:59 AM

What is wrong with her? Can anyone check and see whether there's a lobotomy in her past?
Posted by: darcy at February 13, 2008 10:55 AM

On the contrary! Maybe that's what she's in need of.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 13, 2008 10:59 AM

Well, hear I go again -LOL! You guys are giving me so many chuckles today, thanks. My God, what's happening in the world regarding the early 21st century Rise of Islam is so horrifying we have to make jokes sometimes.

You know "Age of Enlightenment" and other general labels to characterize a particular time period? Well, I call the early 21st century either the 1. Rise of Islam, or 2. Rise of Barbarism.

Posted by: darcy at February 13, 2008 11:07 AM

Ms. Armstrong obviously realizes that she'll always have an audience as long as she tells people exactly what they want to hear.

Posted by: s at February 13, 2008 11:08 AM

I saw 911. I saw the video of Nick Berg's head getting sawed off. I saw the bodies of Americans strung up from a Fallujah bridge. I saw a recent picture of the Muslim woman whose Muslim husband sliced off her nose. I saw Muslims fire rockets at Israel from housing complexes as shields. I see bombings of innocent civilians day after day by cowardly Islamic pukes. I read in the quran that every muslim is commanded to kill every non-muslim who will not surrender to Islam.

I've seen all I need to see to know about Islam.

Karen Armstrong can put on her burka and go get beat down by her romanticized Muslim heroes, but she certainly wouldn't be allowed to speak publicly like she is if her heroes were in power, which will happen only over my dead body.

Posted by: angryeagle at February 13, 2008 11:15 AM

What is wrong with so many Western woman?

Posted by: Elric66 at February 13, 2008 11:19 AM

Bilal Shahid reports about the audience hearing Karen Armstrong:

"There were academicians, intellectuals, scholars, journalists, senior civil and army officers, and a large number of male and female students."

Wow, male and female students! Indonesia is so "moderate" and "progressive"!

Posted by: cantor at February 13, 2008 11:20 AM

An article posted almost three years ago:

Karen Armstrong: 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."

April 22, 2005

Posted by: Hugh at February 13, 2008 11:26 AM

Actually, Pakistani journalist Bilal Shahid is taking instruction in "what is Islam" from Karen Armstrong. He can't conceive that anything demonstrably evil could ever emanate from "real" or "true" Islam. Cognitive dissonance, then, affects Muslims like Bilal Shahid, as well as affects pliant non-Muslims. (What a fairy-tale conception of a non-existant Islam--where, "if we turn the pages of history, we shall find that the non-Muslims cherished to live under Muslim rule." Yeah, and Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Mullah Omar's Afghanistan were paradises, too.)

Posted by: John C at February 13, 2008 11:28 AM

A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down,
The medicine go down,
The medicine go down.
Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down,
In the most delightful way.

How does it come to pass that in the minds of Karen Armstrong, and virtually every other Muslim and apologist for Islam, that we are the misunderstanders of Islam, and yet it's the Muslims who are murdering on behalf of Islam? How does it come to pass that we must receive the lecture, not the Muslims?

We are being ushered into the gas chambers, told not to worry while being lectured to about the importance of cleanliness.

Karen Armstrong is the absolute worst type of traitor. She is the worst type of appeasers. She is the lowest type of collaborator.

She lures us to our certan destruction one spoonful of sugar at a time, while explaining that it is we, and not she, who is utterly in the wrong... the hideous beast.

Posted by: jsla at February 13, 2008 11:29 AM

I prefer Robert Spencer's Jihad against deliberate, willful self-delusion.

The only cure for Karen is a healthy dose of reality. I suggest a couple years sabbatical in Saudi Arabia or Iran, where, under the care of the virtues police, she can learn to function in the real world before being released back into a rational society.

Posted by: rational at February 13, 2008 11:32 AM

People like her are dangerous to us. Of course, the muslims are all grinning and wringing their hands in complete satisfaction over her stupidity.

Posted by: R_not at February 13, 2008 11:47 AM

She's hoping through appeasement Islam will moderate. It's not going to happen. What a shame such an intellectual woman can be so shamelessly stupid.

Notice, she isn't giving this speech in the Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Gaza, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bengal, Yemen, Qatar, etc... There are a host of Muslim countries that exist TODAY in a complete contradiction of what she claims Islam is.

Sigh... Fear is what drives her and the Left. What a shame.

Posted by: antishock8 at February 13, 2008 12:17 PM

Karen Armstrong focused her talk towards intolerance, which springs fanaticism and terrorism.

If only she were speaking of Islam, because that is where the intolerance, fanatacism and terrorism are coming from TODAY.

People can talk about the Crusades or the Inquisition all they like. Those were centuries ago. Western civilization evolved. It grew. The very countries that drove the Muslims from their midst over five centuries ago now welcome them with open arms. Muslim countries have never seen fit to do likewise with the Christians and Jews they drove from their own societies. Islam is still mired in the seventh century arabian desert from which it sprung. It is still tribal.

Posted by: PMK at February 13, 2008 12:21 PM

Darcy, why not just call this age The Rise of Islamic Barbarism"?

And cantor, if Indonesia is so "moderate" and "progressive", then I wonder why my local deli is staffed with MANY Indonesian Christians whe felt compelled to run away from there!

Posted by: Vee at February 13, 2008 12:30 PM

Karen Armstrong is bitten by the same bug that bite Mohd.(pbhu-in appx.570AD),Deoband in 1860 (appx.),Agha Khan (1906),Mohd. Ali Jinnah(1931)and some British who made Pak arround Lahore.

Posted by: Kash225 at February 13, 2008 12:32 PM

Re: "Well, as a "western companion" myself, I think that's just swell, but I wonder: what is Ms. Armstrong doing, or what is Bilal Shahid doing, or what is anyone doing, to educate Muslims about their misperceptions of Islam"?

Bingo. Karen is an indoor cat who has lived all her life in an institution. She's institutional from begining to end. She's afraid of "out there" and will not face hard questions. Her pet-owner(s) will pet her but laught at her behind her back.

Trust me, they don't laugh at Spencer or Fitzgerald.

Posted by: Frank at February 13, 2008 12:44 PM

Isn't Armstrong creating her own benign definition of "jihad" and then providing us with an example of it as a further smokescreen for the gullible?

Posted by: pismopal at February 13, 2008 12:45 PM

By their fruits shall ye know them.

Posted by: MP at February 13, 2008 12:49 PM

I personally dislike her very very much.

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at February 13, 2008 12:58 PM

Karen Armstrong is morally equivalent to a holocaust denier. She denies the Hindu genocide in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the Ghaznid and Mogul conquests. She claims that hindus were cherished by their muslim overlords.

Whether or not true Islam had anything to do with the massacres of 10s of millions of Hindus 1000 years ago can be debated, but to outright deny history like that is absolutely disgusting.

She should be ashamed of herself.

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at February 13, 2008 1:27 PM

What does she mean by jihad? Is she a muslim, I thought only muslims did any jihading.
Is she doing the inner struggle thing? I understand she is an unabashed supporter of everything Islamic,
but now she claims to be a jihadi?
Well I am a big supporter of muslims praying five to fifty times a day. I see this as a huge benefit, and I would expand prayer times and make them mandatory, no matter what else is going on. Can I say I am going on a jihad to remind the west that muslims spend a lot of time praying, and need more paid time off for more praying? I really do think it would be in Islams best interest if they prayed to Allah, maybe twenty to twenty five times a day. Fifty is a little to much, but half that is perfect. Five is not enough. How can any muslim claim that more prayer to Allah is not good? I would hope that praying muslims would join me in my jihad of opening up more prayer time, much, much more.
This is the basis of my personal jihad and fatwa.
The real answer to all our troubles with Islam, is frequency and time spent in prayer. A praying muslim is a peaceful muslim. This is my jihad...
Maybe Karen would join me since she is already jihading...

Posted by: duh_swami at February 13, 2008 1:34 PM

Off topic, I know, but ...

I haven't seen this posted on your website:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Three men have been charged in the firebombing of a small mosque over the weekend, federal prosecutors said Tuesday.

Authorities said Eric Ian Baker, 32, Michael Corey Golden, 23, and Jonathan Edward Stone, 19, had planned for a week to burn down the Islamic Center of Columbia, about 40 miles southwest of Nashville, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul O'Brian said.

The men are accused of using gasoline, rags and empty beer bottles to set fire to the storefront mosque on Saturday. The men, who were arrested later that day, are facing federal charges of unlawful possession of a destructive device and state charges of arson.

The federal complaint filed against the men says Stone and Baker told officers they were members of the Christian Identity movement, an extreme doctrine that claims white Europeans are God's chosen people.

The complaint also said Baker spray-painted swastikas on the walls of the building, including the phrase "White Power."

When asked if the men could face hate-crime charges, O'Brian said the investigation is continuing and more federal charges could be filed.

Police used surveillance video from a local gas station to identify the suspects.

According to the complaint, Stone said he earned "two stripes" for the act from Baker, who was described as his sponsor in the movement.

"Stone admitted to special agents that he is a member of the Christian Identity movement and that stripes or promotions are earned for committing acts of violence against 'enemies,'" the complaint said.

"Baker explained to the special agents that 'What goes on in that building is illegal according to the Bible,'" the complaint says. "Baker also explained to the agents that the Nazi symbols painted on the building meant 'freedom on the streets.'"

Local District Attorney General Mike Bottoms said Baker had been appointed a public defender, who was not in the office Tuesday and did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Bottoms said Nashville attorney Ron Freeman was representing Stone but a listing was not immediately available. Prosecutors said they didn't know if Golden had retained an attorney.

Columbia Police Chief Barry Crotzer said authorities were not aware of any activities by the Christian Identity movement in the city before the fire-bombing.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks the activities of hate groups, listed only two Christian Identity organizations in the state in 2006, both located in eastern Tennessee.

Mark Potok, director of the center's Intelligence Project, said the Christian Identity movement is not a single organization, but a theology that is associated with several groups, such as the Aryan Nation.

Posted by: 13 Martyrs at February 13, 2008 1:35 PM

What does she mean by jihad? Is she a muslim, I thought only muslims did any jihading.
Is she doing the inner struggle thing? I understand she is an unabashed supporter of everything Islamic,
but now she claims to be a jihadi?
Well I am a big supporter of muslims praying five to fifty times a day. I see this as a huge benefit, and I would expand prayer times and make them mandatory, no matter what else is going on. Can I say I am going on a jihad to remind the west that muslims spend a lot of time praying, and need more paid time off for more praying? I really do think it would be in Islams best interest if they prayed to Allah, maybe twenty to twenty five times a day. Fifty is a little to much, but half that is perfect. Five is not enough. How can any muslim claim that more prayer to Allah is not good? I would hope that praying muslims would join me in my jihad of opening up more prayer time, much, much more.
This is the basis of my personal jihad and fatwa.
The real answer to all our troubles with Islam, is frequency and time spent in prayer. A praying muslim is a peaceful muslim. This is my jihad...
Maybe Karen would join me since she is already jihading...

Posted by: duh_swami at February 13, 2008 1:37 PM

Here's another useful idiot--and one, it seems, who should know better. Paul Barret is a business writer with the Wall Street Journal. After experiencing the attack on the WTC on 9/11 and its horrible aftermath from the nearby Journal offices, he was moved to write the book "American Islam".

I only heard about this edifying tome because he read from it last Friday at an interfaith-sponsored event in Piedmont, CA, and it was covered in the Contra-Costa Times. Piedmont is an extremely affluent suburb of Oakland, with a very well-educated populace.

I hardly needed to read on after the first paragraph--there was every imaginable cliche from an apologist for Islam.

It starts:

"There are Muslims. There are Americans. And they aren't mutually exclusive. Or monolithic."

There are other gems--his estimating that there are as many as six million Muslims in the US, and an apologia for shari'ah, claiming that it holds value even for a "progressive feminist". He compares the Muslim community of today to his own immigrant Jewish ancestors at the turn of the last century--even though Jews were not blowing up large parts of lower Manhattan at the time, as I recall.

His stated purpose is to ""peel back some of the prevalent stereotypes of Muslims". As usual, the practice of Islam--even horrifying actions such as 9/11--is not the problem. No, it is the groundless prejudices of Westerners.

The article ends with a quote from a Muslim resident of Piedmont, who says, "I think it's a wonderful way for people to realize that Islam is not something way out there. It's an American thing. I kept thinking that in like 10 or 20 years there will be a Muslim Jerry Seinfeld."

The fact that there is no such high-profile Muslim comedian here has nothing to do, of course, with the widespread ban on humor in many parts of Islam. Such as Ayatollah Khomeini' well-known saying, "There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious." No, instead, the implication is that it is the prejudices of the West that have prevented the embrace of Muslim humor.

Here's the article:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/alamedacounty/ci_8205821

Posted by: gravenimage at February 13, 2008 1:48 PM

Robert states: "If these people are all misunderstanding their own religion, wouldn't it be far more important to educate them about the true, peaceful Islam, than to educate Western non-Muslims who aren't killing people on the basis of their 'misperceptions' of Islam?"

I posed this same question to one of our newbies, and he never answered my question; but instead he got defensive and then told me off, which only left me scratching my head.

It certainly is an important & reasonable question to ask, but it sure seems to hit a nerve with some. Why do they avoid this particular point? And why the defensive response?

Posted by: champ at February 13, 2008 1:49 PM

People like Armstrong (and Esposito) are doing irreparable damage.

Armstrong should be in prison, in an Islamic one, that's where she belongs. These people are Muhammedan agit-props, enemy agents, they have to be seen as what they are, and treated accordingly.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 13, 2008 2:08 PM

apologies for the OT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7242258.stm

I predict a riot!

Posted by: Meccano at February 13, 2008 2:12 PM

13 Martyrs,

You didn't see that article on this site because the primary topic here is Jihad, not Christian extremism. Perhaps you have a diminished ocular capacity which contributed to such a gross over site. But more than likely you myopically drew a connection between this site, Islamic extremism and Christian extremism.

I would imagine that the authors and commentators here would be much more interested in Christian extremism if such a strong connection could be made between such violence and Christian doctrine as has been made right on this site between the violence committed by Muslims and the Islamic texts themselves.

Cheers!

Posted by: deesine at February 13, 2008 2:16 PM

And by covering up the Islamic practice of armed jihad as she has been doing (along with John Esposito and other reprobates)what Ms. Armstrong is actually doing is aiding and abetting the spread of first degree mass murder around the globe by militant Muslims.

Ms. Armstrong is a willing accomplice and accessory to mass murderers.

If anyone has "misperceptions" about Islam it's MS. ARMSTRONG!!!

Posted by: pythagoras at February 13, 2008 2:21 PM

The Espositios and Armstrongs rise to the top because, as my father succinctly put it "sometimes sh-t floats".

Posted by: poetcomic1 at February 13, 2008 2:23 PM

She's obviously barking mad.
She's going on a jihad?
Something wrong here methinks...
Who is she trying to please here? and why?

Posted by: Ken CleanAirSystem at February 13, 2008 2:39 PM

For those of you who still have some illusions that Japan is somehow immune and not a da'awa target:

http://sheikyermami.com/2008/02/13/japan-jihad-just-in-case-you-thought-japan-was-immune/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 13, 2008 2:43 PM

"Danish newspapers have reprinted one of several caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad which sparked violent protests across the Muslim world two years ago.
They say they wanted to show their commitment to freedom of speech after an alleged plot to kill one of the cartoonists behind the drawings."

How refreshing!!! My respect for the Danes soared on seeing this.

Now if only our own chicken-livered press would do the same.

Posted by: rational at February 13, 2008 2:44 PM

13 Martyrs,

Notice how in the US, "Christian Identity" members, when they commit crimes against Muslims and their property, are (rightly) hunted down by the police and put in prison upon being captured.

Does this typcially happen to people who commit crimes against Christians in the Islamic countries? The evidence I've seen gives a clear 'no'. In fact, often the ones infringing on the rights of Chrisians and Jews in Islamic countries *are* the police.

Also note that the FBI monitors the activity of "Christian Identity" members, as the FBI monitors Islamist activity, and has done so for many years, on the grounds that it (again, like Islamist activity) is prone to encouraging violence and crime.

Thankfully, the apologists for Christian Identity afe few, and nowhere near as well funded and well connected as apologists for Islamism, and thus the threat we face from them -- while still solid justification for the FBI monitoring and the police work -- is *relatively* minor, in the big picture. (They're kooks, essentially everyone who knows about them knows that they are kooks, and they don't have the force of the academy behind them, nor the ear of the president; neither have they infiltrated the State Department, the DoD, and so on.)

You'll find that the vast majority of people who oppose the violence and ideology of Islamists similarly oppose the violence and ideology of "Christian Identity" members. However, the fact that the US government does fully look at the ideological motivations behind "Christian Identity" violence while refraining from doing so with Islamist violence, justifies the focus of this particular website.

(Also take note that theologically, "Christian Identity" is heretical, and is not actually a variety of Christianity.)

Posted by: hope_and_justice at February 13, 2008 2:57 PM

I'm going on a jihad of my own. Unlike Ms. Armstrong, I will never submit.

Posted by: tanstaafl at February 13, 2008 3:14 PM

"educate Muslims about their misperceptions of Islam?"

HAHA...love the sarcasm. Thank you for making my day!

Posted by: SoteriA at February 13, 2008 3:41 PM

“I am doing a jihad to educate western companions about the misperceptions of Islam.”

This is much like educating a camper about how cute and cuddly teddy bears are, while a Grizzly is gnawing at his leg!

Posted by: StephenDvd at February 13, 2008 3:44 PM

Given that Sister Armstrong penned that hagiographic bio of the "Holy Prophet" entitled Mohammed, a Prophet for Our Time, perhaps she can tell us what exactly he prophesized?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 13, 2008 3:50 PM

I could never understand what motivates Karen Armstrong.

I once saw her lecture to a group on C-span. After her presentation she answered questions from th audience. The questions were passed forward on slips of paper to the Muslim host, who then proceeded to pick and choose the questions to be asked of Armstrong.

It was obvious that it was his job to filter out any difficult or unpleasant questions from the audience.

Besides being an unusual way of asking questions of a speaker in most events covered by C-span, it seemed obviously to me that Ms Armstrong was perfectly aware that there are questions about Islam that she preferred to avoids all together, knowing full well that even her usual irrational critique of Islam would not pass muster with a reasonably intelligent audience.

She knows she's blowing smoke in peoples faces, she knows that Islamic teaching is the baises for Muslim terrorism, she knows that that Islamic societies are a dysfunctional mess, so why does she go on as she does.

Which brings me back to my original question: What is her real motivation?

Posted by: rational at February 13, 2008 3:56 PM

"sometimes sh-t floats".

Especially when full of gas and hot "air".;)

Posted by: Kevin at February 13, 2008 4:04 PM

Karen Armstrong is a very, very bitter woman.
She seems to have made it her life’s mission to ruin Christendom by convincing people that Islam is not a dangerous belief system.
Whereas formerly Christians were taught and believed that it was at best heresy and at worst evil.

What accounts for this terrible hatred of Christianity, whence the burning desire for revenge?
Well she spent several years in a convent and didn’t much enjoy the experience and……..
That’s it really.

Talk about self-pity!

No the Spanish inquisition didn’t torture her.
But the Islamic inquisition might if they get the chance.

Posted by: Odyessus at February 13, 2008 4:09 PM

This is a little off-topic but what does anyone think of Steven Spielburg’s decision to boycott the Bejing Olympic games because of China’s support of Sudan?
Bizarre isn’t it?
Can he not admit to himself that Islam might have something to do with the problems in Darfur?

Posted by: Odyessus at February 13, 2008 4:28 PM

Sounds like Karen A is getting her seething outrage groove on.........

Posted by: n.a. palm at February 13, 2008 4:57 PM

The following is my critique of an article Karen Armstrong offered a couple of years ago to a Left-wing blog. Notice the deceptiveness of her points...and how easily refutable they were...

1) ARMSTRONG on the roots of the "conquests": "The early conquests in Persia and Byzantium after the Prophet’s death were inspired by political rather than religious aspirations."

RESPONSE: Karen has pulled this nonsense right out of thin air. On what does she base it? As we all know, in Islam, the political - as with every other facet of human existence - is merely an extension of religion. So intertwined is church and state in the Muslim tradition that the word 'ecclesiatical' does not exist in the Arab vocabulary.

The Prophet Muhammad had invited the Emperor of Byzantium to Islam...as he did the ruler of Persia. This is a necessary pre-requisite before attack in the Muslim ethos. Bin Ladin has issued just such an "invitation" to America.

Shortly after the Prophet’s death, the Islamic invasion of Byzantium and Persia commenced.

2) ARMSTRONG on the benign nature of Islamic rule: "Until the middle of the eighth century, Jews and Christians in the Muslim empire were actively discouraged from conversion to Islam, as, according to Qur’anic teaching, they had received authentic revelations of their own."

RESPONSE: What Karen so deviously fails to mention here is that the reason for this was so the new Muslim rulers could continue the extremely profitable extortion perpetrated upon the conquered peoples in the form of Jizyah. Those rulers were finally prevailed upon by the Muslim clergy and scholars to encourage the subject peoples to convert.

3) ARMSTRONG on misperceptions of Islam: "The 9/11 terrorists, who in fact violated essential Islamic principles, have confirmed this deep-rooted western perception and are seen as typical Muslims instead of the deviants they really were."

RESPONSE: Recent polls in Muslim countries show support for Bin Ladin at 49%. If this is "deviancy", it certainly is widespread!

4) KAREN on the Crusades: "...the Crusaders ended their campaign in 1099 by slaughtering some 30,000 Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem."

RESPONSE: Can you imagine Karen ever making reference to similar Muslim atrocities, such as the slaughter of Jews in so-called "enlightened" Muslim Spain in 1066?

5) KAREN on Christian anti-Semitism: "this 'blood libel' regularly inspired pogroms in Europe, and the image of the Jew as the child slayer laid bare an almost Oedipal terror of the parent faith."

RESPONSE: And who is repeating the blood libel today. A dramatization of the 'Protocols' was recently broadcast in Egypt and Syria, portraying Jews in the most vile, blood-thirsty manner. Karen had not a word to say about that.

6) KAREN on Quranic tolerance: "The Qur’an strictly forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as coming from God; and despite the western belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword."

RESPONSE: Both parts of the above sentence are outright lies. First, the faith was indeed imposed by the sword, first on the tribes of Arabia during the life of the Prophet (according to the Hadith) and later on the Christian peoples of the Middle East, North Africa, and the Hindus of south Asia…and in spite of the Quran’s call for no coercion in religion, the Prophet himself, again, according to the Hadith, ordered the killing of any Muslim who "discarded" his religion. If this isn’t coercion, I don’t know what is.

7) KAREN on the importance of appeasement: "But if we are feeding our prejudice in this way, we do so at our peril."

RESPONSE: Spoken like a true dhimmi. God forbid we make them angry by expressing our opinions. Better to keep silent and/or validate Islam by conferring upon it the established moniker "religion of peace"...in spite of all evidence - theological and historical - to the contrary.

Karen Armstrong is a dhimmi extraordinaire. She deliberately falsifies the historical record to lull Westerners into a false sense of security. She is a traitor to her civilization and to the cause of human freedom.

Posted by: Cornelius at February 13, 2008 5:58 PM

Armstrong strongarms The Koran and twists root, terroristic concepts into happy little bows to tie in the hair of airheads.

Before "Strike at their necks!" raises its malignant head to remove theirs.

A shame none of her audience does the basic work of actually reading the pedophile prophet's playbook of intolerance, misogyny, hate and tyranny.

But that requires more effort than nodding.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 13, 2008 6:25 PM

"Darcy, why not just call this age The Rise of Islamic Barbarism"? --posted by Vee

Fine with me, Vee.

Posted by: darcy at February 13, 2008 7:04 PM

Style it as The Third Wave of Islamic expansion(perhaps The Third Caliphate if it is not stillborn and meets weak, irresolute opposition).

The First Wave: from Islam's dawn to the Baghdad Caliphate's destruction by the Mongols.

The Second Wave: the rise of the Turks and the Ottoman Caliphate.

Posted by: John C at February 13, 2008 9:25 PM

I suppose when you live in the West, you can say all kinds of things and get away with it. Karen - go move to Iran, etc. Marry some Islamic male and then let's hear your thoughts on the wonderful world of islam. And this woman can vote...

Posted by: HOV Dummy at February 13, 2008 9:47 PM

She reminds me of conservationists who tell me that they "have never seen a bad rattlesnake". They tell me that rattlers try to avoid biting humans...they didn't see the one that pursued my son on his bicycle, head raised to strike.
Reality, different than theory.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at February 13, 2008 10:50 PM

Koran Armstrong, this disaffected nun come propagandist for a 7th century blood-cult, swims like a fish in Lahore, wrapped in the affection of uncritical, brainwashed followers of the profit Muhammad. How will she cope with those disaffected, irritated and annoyed infidels back home who have nothing but scorn for her pathetic endeavors, nothing but ridicule and cynicism?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 14, 2008 1:22 AM

I wonder if she has bothered taking the recent Jeff Foxworthy (compiled with the assistance of US troops in Afghanistan) Taliban Top Ten Test Question Criteria:

You Might Be Taliban if you answer yes to any of the following questions.....

1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to beer.

2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.

3. You have more wives than teeth.

4. You wipe your butt with your bare left hand, but consider bacon 'unclean.'

5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.

6. You can't think of anyone you HAVEN'T declared Jihad against.

7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives and blasting caps in your pockets.

8. You've felt the urge to 'yank one off' after seeing a woman's exposed ankle.

9. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.

10. You've ever uttered the phrase, 'I love what you've done with your cave.'

Posted by: Lucky Star at February 14, 2008 2:41 AM

"Koran Armstrong," --posted by shiek

Nail on head, shiek. Love it.

10. You've ever uttered the phrase, 'I love what you've done with your cave.'

Posted by: Lucky Star at February 14, 2008 2:41 AM

LOL

Posted by: darcy at February 14, 2008 9:18 AM

"This is a little off-topic but what does anyone think of Steven Spielburg’s decision to boycott the Bejing Olympic games because of China’s support of Sudan?
Bizarre isn’t it?
Can he not admit to himself that Islam might have something to do with the problems in Darfur?"

The handwringing among certain Westerners (Spielberg, Mia Farrow, Don Cheadle, George Clooney) over the Sudanese genocide resembles that of the Rwandan genocide -- curiously (yet normally) absent is any condemnation of the actual perpetrators and their culture: The process is treated as though it were an event of Nature, a typhoon or tsunami, an ecological disaster, or perhaps a tragic attack by one species of animal against another: it becomes a "tragedy" which is our Western obligation to stop as best we can. The language, attitudes and posturing (e.g., as plaintively expressed in the nostril-flared and clear-eyed sincerity of Don Cheadle) border on making that obligation into not only exclusively our problem, but also our guilt. Virtually lost amid this posturing is the scathing condemnation those peoples and cultures -- now Islam and Muslims in the Sudan, yesterday black African in Rwanda -- so richly deserve.

The reason why it is continuing to be so difficult for Westerners to criticize (let alone condemn) Islam is the same reason why it is so difficult for Westerners to condemn any Third World culture: both of these taboos stem from the same PC MC.

Posted by: cantor at February 14, 2008 10:17 AM

Armstrong has made her choice. She will be counted with the jihadists when push comes to worldwide shove. Perhaps she should research,when not applying her talents for revisionism,the fate of those who sided with the Vichy government. Don't hold your breath through,she probably devotes too much of the day justifying the slaughter of the Khaybar oasis. They were running arms after all,eh Karen?

Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at February 14, 2008 3:17 PM

13 Martyrs:

Islam teaches first degree murder and should be oulawed in all democratic lands (it actually teaches anti-democratic dogma as well in a number of verses). Surah 9.5 is all the evidence anyone needs to ascertain Islam's violent stance against human life.

By western legal statutes Islam is a CRIMINAL and theocratic institution that incorporates first degree murder on an unlimited scale into its "religious" practices.

No one in America or any other democratic land should EVER sympathize with Muslims in their homeland or anywhere else until Islam either reforms (which is virtually impossible) or until Muslims convert en masse to something that respects human life.

Thus I don't care about your posts concerning Islamic grievances!

Posted by: pythagoras at February 14, 2008 3:19 PM

Why does she call her campaign to deceive and misinform the ignorant a "jihad"? Why not call it what it is: a malignant propaganda and disinformation extravaganza.

Has this woman transformed herself into islam's foremost apologist for respect, recognition, fortune, or to gain the affection of muslims? What motivates her to defend the most hideous, vile, and malevolent ideology that ever plagued mankind? What satisfaction could she possibly derive from her flawed, shallow, and grossly inaccurate portrayals of islam? I guess some people will do anything to make an impact, even endanger and betray their own civilization and people. Western apologists for islam are more insidious than muslims, especially those who influence powerful people.

Karen Armstrong is a dilettante, a phony, and a fraud. People like her little books because they are short, simple, non-controversial, non-confrontational, and non-judgmental. Too bad they are the antitheses of historical and doctrinal accuracy, but that doesn't seem to bother her fans.

Posted by: Susanp at February 15, 2008 12:53 AM