Karen Armstrong the wannabe historian part two

Submitted by dihmmi no more (United States), Apr 30, 2007 at 19:04

Now Ms Armstrong tells us:

>Our suspicion of Islam is alive and well. Indeed understandably perhaps, it has hardened as a result of terrorist atrocities committed in its name. Yet despite the religious rhetoric, these terrorists are motivated by politics rather than religion

Here is an example of the bogus and shallow way of thinking of Ms. Armstrong. Notice that she proclaims that terrorsim in Islam is motivated by politics, and not by Islam itself and she never tells us the "why" or what are really these politics? Well, could it be that it is all about the vrigins and ghulaman (boys) in Allah's little paradise? I just wonder.

>Like "fundamentalists" in other traditions their ideology is deliberately and defiantly unorthodox

Now i will leave this little gem the readers to judge Ms. Armstrong. Notice that she jumps from her fraudulent little thesis about "it is politics and not Islam" to the fact that these terrorist acts are "unorthodox" and more bizarre she never tells us what is really "unorthodox" about such terrorist attacks.

>Until the 1950's no major Muslim thinker had made holy war a central pillar of Islam

Bogus. One of the very ancient Quranic commentaries was by Muqatil where he defines the pillars of islam as: Faith (iman), prayer (salat), almsgiving (zakat), fating (Suum), pilgrimage (hajj), lesser pilgrimage (3umra), and Mazalim or wrongs and jihad or holy war. (see QS page 173). So why do we have only five pillars now? Who knows! And how come she did not know that? And why does she pontificate about an issue that she does not know? So much for Ms Armstrong the wannabe historian

>The muslim ideologues Abu ala Mawdudi (1903-1979) and Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966) among the first to do so

No, Sayyid Qutb was more subtle than this. What he was really saying is that the world now, be it non-Muslim ,as in during his stay in the US or in Muslim Egypt, is nothing but _religious_ jahiliya or ignorance and that Muslims should abandon such jahiliya and declare the rest of the non-Muslimas well as Muslimworld as kuffar living in jahiliya and establish a real Muslim sphere, and hence the so called al-takfeer wa al-hijra (see Malise Ruthven's "A Fury for God" and for those that can read Arabic I suggest reading Qutb's "Ma3alim fi al-Tariq" and this is going to the source).

>(they) knew they were proposing a controversial innovation

Notice that Ms Armstrong never defines what is really this "controversial innovation", and what she seems not to be aware of is that Ibn Taymiyya was the one who really said that all non-Muslims are kuffar, and even a Muslim can be a kaffir, even if he declares al-shihada. What Sayyid Qutb did is that he went one more step beyond ibn Taymiyya and said that real Muslims should abandon the world of the Kuffar. But again I doubt very much that Ms Armstrong ever read Qutb and if she did she for sure did not know what he was talking about

>They believed it was justified by the current political emergency

What on earth is she talking about? What "political emergency" is she talking about? Oh, it gets better

>The criminal activities of (Muslim) terrorists have given prejudice a new lease on life.

Most absurd. Again this is another case of reversing cause for effect typical of this poor so called scholar. Logic would dictate that there must be doctrines in Islam that would justify such criminal behaviour. So what is it? Could it be Q2:216 the corner stone on holy war in islam and Q9:4 or ayat al-sayf or is it Q9:29 where Allah declares an uncondtional was on ahl al-Kitab what ever that is? But again MS Armstrong is style but no substance . The world should be alarmed by Muslims and starting in 633CE Muslims destroyed the great empires of the late antique and were responsible for countless atrocities against humanity and it extends all the way to the 9/11 atrocity. They are all linked by the demands of a God who is supposed to get 1/5 of the loot from infidels. Do we need to say more?

>People often seem eager to believe the worst about Mahammad

Let see that he was a caravan raider and an Arabian warlord! But this is from the sira and al-maghazi and it is not from some monk sitting some place and telling us tales! Shame on this woman.

>(they) are reluctant to put his life in its historical perspective

Bogus again. The truth is we do not know very much about the life of Muhammad as the sources we have are unhistorical and bogus. The sira is unhistorcial, the Qur'an does not tell us any thing about the life of Abul Qasim and oh I forgot the hadith is bogus! So we do not know very much about the life of Muhammad period except from what we have been told by Persians and Mesopotamians in the 3rd century of islam. So much for the truth.

>and assume the Jewish and Christian traditions lack the flaws they attribute to islam

Fraudulent logic. Ms Armstrong is saying that Christianty and Judaism have flaws so it is OK for islam to have flaws but we should not talk about such flaws

>The entrenched hostility informs Robert Spencer misnamed biography The truth about Muhammad subtitled Founder of the World's Most Intolerant religion

So what is wrong with such title? all I can say to Ms Armstrong is, then prove him wrong

Stay tuned for part three.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".