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 protege [sic] 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 deep need 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 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” she’s 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 were 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 nearly 700 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 Mudejares. 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 Mudejares 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 had remained were finally expelled, having in the meantime risen in revolt.
But Armstrong manages to smuggle in 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 for North Africa), 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 perfectly 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 disturb It 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 — as Armstrong wants us to believe –in that fateful year 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.
spiro says
Sorry to show my ignorance but who is she and why does anybody care what she thinks
Just another lost soul
mortimer says
Karen Armstrong is a DHIMMI historian for hire. But who hired her?
A dhimmi is a kafir who has submitted to Islamic supremacists.
very old white guy says
I have always enjoyed history as it is interesting even from a distorted point of view. That said , I really hate people who want to kill me and I am the type to fight back physically.
Infidel says
Well, to be candid, we’ve been ignoring who these people are, and what they have been teaching our kids in schools and universities. And then we are surprised when our kids resemble the Bolsheviks of 1917
The bad thing about the Chinavirus is that it has separated our kids from their schools. The good thing about the Chinavirus is that it has separated our kids from their schools
underbed cat says
Agree Infidel, I suppose the Bolsheviks of 1917 welcomed these people as professors in universities that may have been the propaganda machine to start the Russian revolution, just like the M**** Student Associations that appeared in the sixties, they move at a slower rate but strategically operate to influence their narrative of peaceful, at our universities and lower grade schools, that appeared innoculous, with omiision.The Black Panther power groups of the sixties now might be the blk separatists all very liberal radical, hopefully not to the ANC standards of land siezure, but definitely the aim is to remove some history, influence dissolution of the history of Lincoln. Many leftists /radicals found a welcoming door to universities and landed lucrative jobs and lead the way and created maoist touch to suppress speech or crimminalize it. Diversity is the cry, sympathy and space for mass migration. So now we have soft touch Biden to wash away fears but declare the any recent problems in Washington were Trump triggered. Right?
Cluelessly bad assumption but what is new lately.
James Lincoln says
Infidel,
Moving forward post Chinavirus, it is likely that a lot of parents will choose to homeschool their children in order to prevent Leftist indoctrination…
gravenimage says
Good post, Infidel.
Larry A. Singleton says
This is why these JW articles need a “Thumbs Up” feature. You’re right. Our schools are full blown Indoctrination Centers and there is no better place to learn about that then FrontPage Magazine, And Campus Watch and Campus Reform.
TruthWFree says
I have known of her but I agree, why waste your time on her, Robert, unless you think she might sow her ignorance on Islam (if that is what it is) to infect many others. I have studied Islam since 9/11/2001 and read the Quran and over 30 books on the subject, many by apostates who leave Islam under a death threat, plus many of your books, Robert Spencer, so hopefully she has been pushed to the sideline and ignored. Still, the question begs, what is her motivation if not ignorance…Same for Esposito. Are they taking Islamic dollars to attempt to lie about Islam?
gravenimage says
She’s written a slew of books on Islam, including the appalling best-selling “Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time”. This apologist for the savagery of Islam is grimly quite influential.
Larry A. Singleton says
It’s called Knowing Your Enemy and Studying the Issues. The latter is something leftists and Trump bashers Do Not Do. They Do Not Read. Especially when it comes to studying BOTH sides of the issues and even admit as much themselves when I suggest they go and read people like Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch and Daniel Greenfield at FrontPage:
“I wouldn’t read anything written by …..” Fill in the blank.
I eat the leftist screeds for breakfast. In order to COMPARE. And you’ll notice that what Fitzgerald says is true. It’s not what these hacks SAY in their screeds. It’s what the DON’T say and conveniently leave out. Like those screeds on “Islamophobia”. You’ll notice that not once, not ever, do they mention actual ISLAM.
The above comment is almost a canned pitch I used to kick leftists in the ass as I post on comments sections and Fakebook pages of useful idiots. It’s almost a hobby.
I submit to them that they are Lazy Thinkers who do not THINK. That they are too stupid and too morally lazy to look past the bullshit, study the ISSUES, and READ.
Again, I post these words over and over again constantly and routinely challenging them to discuss or debate the issues.
Nothing but the pleasant sounds of crickets chirping is the response.
gravenimage says
Fine post.
Buraq says
Karen Armstrong, long famous for her description of Muhammad as the consummate “peacemaker” who “brought together the warring tribes of Arabia,” ……….
It’s not difficult to bring tribes together if you promise them booty, sex slaves and 72 virgins in the hereafter!
gravenimage says
Yep.
mortimer says
A forensic audit of Karen Armstrong should be done to uncover the nefarious funding of her whitewash of political Islam.
Keys says
I agree, mortimer. I am suspicious that she has been secretly paid to gush about Islam and Mohammad.
The problem is that the payment is probably put into foreign bank accounts where it can not be easily traced. Following the money may be near impossible.
Where are the Biden payoff accounts ? Well, son of a bitch if I know !
underbed cat says
In the sixties some muslims spoke honestly, not fearing for their life in a country with lots of space and fewer fellow muslims than today. What I was told disturbed and then shocked me as a teenager. Today very few speak as honestly, the population has grown, the national security does keep it secret, or are clueless, I know because that was the time frame I was told a more honest representation. Today they deny the ties of motivation for terror..groups …what I heard years ago was conquest, but today their information is pulling towards believeing it is peaceful is also used so the terror groups of Isis, al queda and many more are denied but only to migrate and get in the door. So be aware of pleasant faces, one way bridges, cookies and tea.
adairan says
wow
Ecosse1314 says
Armstrong is nothing but a literary whore who spreads literary STDs throughout history and theology.
Islam_Macht_Frei says
I recall her insisting that “Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God.”
Oh really Karen? So what about all the Muslims who denounce Christianity’s “polytheism” (due to the Trinity – 3 persons in 1 god)??
And let me know when you can get a Muslim to fervently shout “Yahwehu akbar!!!”
She is a poster girl for dhimmi propaganda who takes us all for fools.
Rob says
The killer for me is the fact that IF the Crusaders were anti Muslim rather than intent on resecuring pilgrimage access to the Holy places in the ME why didn’t they just pop next door and attack the Muslims in Spain?
Ecosse1314 says
Don’t let the facts interfere with Armstrongs narrative, Rob
GreekEmpress says
I agree. Our ancient ancestors in Byzantium pleaded for help from the
west to repel the Muslim invaders who were wreaking havoc across the empire. Sure, atrocities probably occurred on both sides, but I get tired of seeing the Muslims portrayed as victims of bigoted European crusaders.
Glyndwr says
I LIKE the last post from Mr. McD. JW is the best website ever. Bar none.
Glyndwr says
Can anyone give me an example of something undeniably good about Islam? Do Muslims win many Nobel prizes for science or engineering or literature? There MUST be something…
Infidel says
The only Nobel Prizes they win are the peace prizes, which are political prizes given to Leftists
Glyndwr says
I just thought of something. They’re VERY good at killing other Muslims.
Walter Sieruk says
It’s fitting to reiterate ,in a slightly different way, that Keran Armstrong is completely blind ,ignorant and in the dark about the reality of the truth or she is very disingenuous and an outright blatant outright liar.
For Armstrong had written something so absurd as “The Jews had their prophets but the Arabs had no prophet of their own until Muhammad…”
Armstrong had written nonsense ., As seen in the Bible God has chosen, so far, to sent all genuine prophet to people through the Jewish line of descent .
The most important thing to understand is that by reading the Bible any person will discover that Jesus , the Prophet ,Priest and King is for all humankind Arabs Jews, French Greeks and so forth. Everyone all humans Jesus loves all people and He is more than enough for all persons
The different Christian Arabs I’ve met through the years have all embraced only Jesus as their final and Supreme Prophet and accepted Him as the Lord and complete and total savior by Him paying the price of their sin on the cross for them, As found ,in Second Corinthians 5:21. That verse also applies to and for all humans.
Armstrong with her foolish folly expressed in writing about the idea idea about the times past wrote “The Jews had Jesus walk among in their land but the Arabs had no one in their land until the comming of Muhammad.”
Her thought of that nonsense. invalid and false.,
For both the Arab and Jews as well as the French ,Dutch , English and all other people have Jesus waiting for them to come to Him . Jesus is more than enough for all people.
As Jesus so clearly declared ” I am the way, the the truth ,and thel life,. No one comes to the Father except by Me.” John 14:6.
Likewise, Jesus also taught ” I have come to give live,and that they may have it more abundantly” John 10:10.
The “scholar” Armstrong is a falsehood speaker a disingenuous ,lying ignorant woman.
gravenimage says
Karen Armstrong: The Coherence of Her Incoherence
………….
She’s a nasty piece of work–an apologist for Islamis savagery.
Billy Chickens says
“And that is only her first paragraph”. LOL
Infidel says
I sometimes miss the ole Hugh, who would write really long, run-on sentences going past 1000 words, and including words that would send me hurtling towards a dictionary
Those were the days ??
gravenimage says
Hugh Fitzgerald has greatly enriched my vocabulary.
James Lincoln says
gravenimage,
The average person uses a mere fraction of the words available in the English language, which is unfortunate.
Years ago, I picked up a copy of “Word Wealth” by Ward S. Miller which enabled me to start to expand my vocabulary…
Infidel says
James, I used to listen to Leo Rosten back in the day on KSFO 640 on Fridays on the Lee Rodgers, Melanie Morgan and Officer Vic show: that did my vocabulary quite a bit of good! But nothing even close to Hugh. I miss words like ‘polypragnomic’ and ‘hobbyhorse’ these days in JW ?
gravenimage says
There used to be a website lovingly titled “Pompous Ass Words”. Much missed.
MADELEINE says
The Jewish convert to Catholicism Columbus who plays into the new neo black marxist ideas about the evil European colonization of America. He is a double wammy, a white Christian male and a Jew dirtying the innocense of the new found western lands.
Otter says
Karen Armstrong: a delusional white woman like o many others who are destroying the West from within. They long for male Supremacists but have given up on white men because of the thrall of the ideal of equality.
Billy Chickens says
So they love Islam instead because they secretly long for that strong male influence over women.
gravenimage says
Otter, I know you have made the claim many times that white women are destroying the world because they long for male supremacy, and you have demanded that white men “control” their women.
But you have never backed up this claim.
And dhimmitude is *hardly* just found among women, or just among whites. There are plenty of dhimmi men–recent articles here have included Craig Considine, French Christian clerics Jean-Claude Hollerich and Robert Le Gall, German Johann Hinrich Claussen. “Palestinian” Christian Muwaffaq Matar, and such well-known figures as Pope Francis.
Then, the idea that equality is something to be “in thrall to” is *very* odd phrasing–the truth is that equallity is far less entralling than is slavery.
And I know that you have suggested that Infidels ape Muslim men and control and abuse women–but the fact is that this is not only repugnant in and of itself, but it means that Infidel women will have no chance to stand against the horrors of Islam, because they will all be suffering just as much as though they have already been conquered by Islam.
Most of us here who oppose Islam do so because we love freedom–*not* because we simply prefer to be abused by Infidel men.
Larry A. Singleton says
Here’s the Guardian article:
Root out this sinister cultural flaw
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/apr/06/election2005.religion
Larry A. Singleton says
Root out this sinister cultural flaw
Karen Armstrong
Even vote-hungry politicians fail to see anti-semitism for what it is
Tue 5 Apr 2005
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 protege 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.
Western Europe found it impossible to live side by side with people of other faiths. Islamic Spain had been the great exception. As was customary in the Muslim world, Jews, Christians and Muslims had coexisted there for centuries in relative harmony. But the Catholic monarchs brought their ingrained anti-semitism to the Iberian peninsula, and the chief targets of their Spanish Inquisition were Jews. Ever since the armies of the First Crusade conquered Jerusalem in 1099, Jews and Muslims had become the epitome of everything that western Christians believed they were not.
Almost every time a pope called for a crusade to the Middle East, Jews were attacked at home. Christians seemed to find it psychologically impossible to accept the Jewish roots of their religion. At the same time, Islam was stigmatised as a religion of the sword, addicted to jihad, at a time when Christians were fighting their own brutal holy wars. Christians blamed Muslims for giving too much power to menials and women at a time when the social structure of Europe was deeply hierarchical.
It would be wrong to imagine that we have left these hag-ridden prejudices behind. They may take new forms, but even in the post-Enlightenment era anti-semitism and Islamophobia are alive and well. We recently witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of a government that had proposed legislation outlawing religious hatred comparing Michael Howard to Fagin. We also saw Ken Livingstone comparing a Jewish reporter to a Nazi guard in a concentration camp.
We have not absorbed the lessons of the past; already – at some level – we seem to have forgotten Auschwitz. Prince Harry found it acceptable to go to a fancy dress party as a Nazi; is this attitude common among the young? After the Fagin debacle, the government added insult to injury by branding Howard a pig and a mongrel, jibes that come straight out of Nazi propaganda, and Howard himself lost the moral high ground by attacking the Gypsies, who were also victims of Nazi persecution.
This is a sinister development. Racial and religious stereotyping became a chronic disease in Europe at the time of the Crusades. We developed the habit of projecting our own fears and anxieties on to other people, who thus became a distorted mirror image of ourselves. This led to some of the most shameful incidents in western history.
September 11 has, perhaps inevitably, stirred up the old Islamophobia. The action of an extremist minority has confirmed the old violent image of Islam. The government is right to be concerned about religious hatred; what is worrying is that it failed to connect this with its own behaviour. These episodes are a reminder that anti-semitism is still so ingrained in our culture that even vote-hungry politicians can fail to see it for what it is. We cannot continue to ignore this deep cultural flaw, which can surface in the most unexpected ways.
So entrenched is our anti-semitism that even support for the Jewish people can be tainted by prejudice. Lord Balfour, who crafted the declaration in favour of a Jewish homeland in 1917, had anti-semitic feelings, which, his daughter recalled, greatly disturbed him.
Christian fundamentalists in the United States, who strongly influence American policy in the Middle East, are also prey to anti-semitic fantasies. They are zealous supporters of Israel, because they believe that unless Jews are living in the Holy Land and fulfilling the ancient prophecies, the second coming of Christ will be delayed. But the Israelis are simply there in a “holding” capacity, because once the last days have begun, the Antichrist will massacre them all.
We cannot ask other nations to dismantle their habits of hatred when we fail to be aware of our own cultural bias. Muslims are well aware of this anti-semitic strain in the Christian Zionism of the US. How can we expect them to abandon their resentment of Israel when our own ideology is so muddled? Why should they be impressed by our liberal culture when we persistently cultivate an inaccurate image of Islam that has its roots in the medieval prejudice of the crusaders? And how can Israelis feel secure enough to make peace when they see that anti-semitism is still rife among the British establishment?
For centuries, Jews and Muslims were the shadow-self of Europe. Sadly, we have passed our anti-semitism to the Muslim world. Until the 20th century, anti-semitism was not part of Islamic culture. The Qur’an speaks respectfully of all the “people of the Book” and honours the Jewish prophets. But now our anti-semitic mythology is one of the few western products that Muslim extremists are happy to import. It is another sad twist in the tragic and convoluted history of the three religions of Abraham.
Simone says
I wonder if you, Hugh are able to confront Ms Armstrong with your incredible armoury of facts?
Quazgaa says
I think Karen Armstrong would not accept the challenge on account of being afraid of what real history might teach her.
Quazgaa says
P.S. ..sort of..
On the other hand, a Fitzgerald vs. Armstrong match would be something to behold.
Quazgaa says
Putting lipstick on a pig might sound like funny business.
Not in this case.
What’s funny though is this Karen’s attempts to sell said pig as a Barbie doll.
Abu Nudnik says
What a superb article. A slight quibble: the author seems to have misspelled the Moops.
gravenimage says
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 is of course utter bullsh*t. The search for a route to the Indies that bypassed the Muslim world–which was just that–a “work-around” the increasingly hostile and monolithic Muslim block that barred European access to the Indies and its treasured spices. There were also voyages around the Cape of Good Hope at the tip of Africa, and the following discovery of a route to India by sea that preceded Columbus’ voyages of discovery.
More:
In 1492, the year that is often said to inaugurate the modern era
……………………
This is true–but *not* in the way Armstrong implies. The set of Encyclopedia Britannica I had as a child made it *very* clear that this date is not about the Spanish reconquista–or only incidentally at most. It is the date of the European discovery of the “New World”–the Americas–and the subsequent circumnavigation of the globe. Ravening Muslims may have served as spur to European voyages of discovery, but that was the end of it.
Nicholas Sessa says
Carol Delaney’s “Columbus and the Quest for Jerusalem” makes the argument that part of what drove Columbus WAS in fact his desire to use the proceeds from the new sea route to India to fund a crusade. He never intended to strike FROM India. But he did desire to meet with the Great Khan in an effort to entice him to wage war on Islam from the East partly because he believed the Khan was friendly to Christianity. Columbus, did not know that the Great Khan was dead and probably did not realize the vast distance involved but nevertheless, those were part of his motivations.