Karen Armstrong the wannabe historian part three

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), May 1, 2007 at 18:07

Oh it gets better. Now Ms Armstrong goes after Robert Spencer for being the author of two books that are best sellers and it makes you wonder that this poor and wannabe historian is telling herself that exposing Islam for what it is pays and she likes making some money. So let us see what she will be writing next

>Spencer has studied Islam for 20 years, it seems to prove that it is evil

Well let us see I can paraphrase what she is saying and say: "Ms Armstrong the wannabe historian has studied Islam for 20 years largely it seems to prove that it is not an evil inherently violent religion and in the process make some money from the Saudis and the likes."

>He is a hero of the American right

Well I think Robert Spencer tells us what islam is all about based on what the early Muslim sources tell us as in Muhammad was a caravan raider and an Arabian warlord. What is wrong with that?

And let us see; I'm pro-choice and abortion , pro-gay and gay marriage, I'm a democrat, I'm for women's rights, I'm pro-equal opportuniy programs and yes, I'm anti-Islamo-fascism. So where do I stand in the strange world of this strange woman? It just makes you wonder.

>and he is the auhtor of the US bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam"

Ms Armstrong is jealous!

>Like any book written in hatred, his work is a depressing read

Well I can paraphrase this and Say: "Ms Armstrong book Muhammad is written in total ignorance of how to read historical sources (see below) and the strange thing is how did such poor work get published?"

>Spencer makes no attempt to explain the historical political, economic and spritual circumstances of 7th century Arabia

This is the most absurd remark by this poor author. The truth is the sources about the rise of islam come to us not from Arabia but from Iran and Mesopotamia and almost all of it written by Persians and Mesopotamians and all this literature was written 300 years after the death of Muhammad. Just imagine if you or I trying to write the biography of let us say George Washington with no available written sources! The end result will be guessing but it for sure will not be history.

What is more damaging to her case is that there are no literary sources be it codices, papyri, epigraphy, monuments, coins etc.,.. that we have from al-Hijaz prior to 632CE when Muhammad died. The sources are silent and the silence here is significant. (see Hoyland's "Arabia and the Arabs from the bronze age to the coming of Islam" and Crone's "Meccan Trade and the rise of islam") Even the likes of the so called Meccan trade is bogus. This means that Ms Armstrong's claim is nothing but another bogus claim by a poor wannabe historian.

Now even the Qur'an itself does not tell us anything about the life of Muhammad period and does not tell us anything about the "political economic, spritual circumstances of 7th century Arabia" except in the mind of this poor historian. The Qur'an as Peters have said is a "text with no context."

>...without which it is impossible to understand the complexties of Muhammad's life

Let us see Muhammad's biography that we have is a _redaction_ by Ibn Hisham which comes to us more than 200 years after the death of Muhammad and even the souce of such redaction Ibn ishaq is the grand son of a Christian and he, Ibn Ishaq that is, is supposed to have composed the Sira some 125 years after the death of Muhammad! And it is very clear that the sira is unhistorical and it is another way of exegesis of the Qur'an and it is not an independent historical source. So you can see that if you build up a "biography" based on such poor source we only get fanatsy and not real history. The truth is we do not know very much about Muhammad's life but this woman does not get it. So much for "understanding the complexties of Muhammad's life"!

>Consequently he makes basic and bad mistakes of fact

My question here is: Name one mistake! And do not forget that garbage in is grabage out.

>Even more damaging he deliberately manipulates the evidence

Again notice that Ms Armstong has a claim but she never explains the "why" did she write the above drivel.

>For example he cites only passages from the Qur'an that are hostile to Jews and Christians

Let me see, as in calling the Jews khanazeer wa quruud (pigs and monkeys) and why would the God of the universe utter such nonsense and why would the God of the universe get himself in metamorphosis? As far as I know we do not have any Jews that were metamorphosed to pigs and monkeys! As for the Christians I find it depressing when the God of the universe would ask Muslims not to be friends with the likes of Mother Teresa but Muslims can be friends with the likes of Osama bin Laden.

>and does not mention the numerous verses that insist on the continuity of Islam with the people of the book "Say to them: We believe what you believe your God and our God is one"

This must be the most absurd remark by this woman. As a matter of fact Spencer quotes Q29:46 is his book which makes you wonder that may be she did not really read the book But more impotant her translation as I pointed out before is a poor traslation

1. Notice that the verse says; Qulu or say (plural) and why would Allah address Muhammad in the plural Qulu unless it is Muhammad who is the author of such verse and in this case the Qur'an cannot be the word of Allah at least in the case of this verse.

2. There is no "them" in the verse but the qulu is supposed to be addressed to ahl al-kitab and they are supposed to be the Jews and the Christians and as per Ms Armstrong included here would be the Hindus and the Buddhists. But do you know what this means? Congratulation Ms Armstrong Jesus is indeed Allah and more damaging to your case is Rama the Hindu God is Allah too!

3. Also notice that the verse says: "wa ilahuna wa ilahukum wahid" or "and your God and our God one" as there is no "is" and it does not say that " and your God and our God is the same one" or nafsu al-wahid it only says that our God is one and your God is one that is it.

So her evidence here is bogus evidence.

Stay tuned for part four

---

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".