Karen Armstrong the wannabe historian part four

Submitted by dihmmi no more (United States), May 2, 2007 at 08:27

And the fantasy goes on and on as Ms Armstrong then writes

>islam has a far better record than either Christianity or Judaism of appreciating other faiths

Again notice that MS Armstrong does not seem to know that Islam cannot tolerate polytheists as in the case of the so called Meccan polytheists and it is: convert to islam or be killed. As for Jews and Christians Allah declares unconditional war on the followers of both religions (Q9:29) and demands that they pay a mafia tax called al-jizya and they must be humiliated. As for Buddhism it was eradicated by Muslims in its birth place of India. And millions of Hindus were killed by Muslim fanatics the likes of Mahmud of Ghazni whose life is still celebrated by Muslims to this day. And more recent is the Armenian genocide and the mass killing of Greeks in Constantinople in 1963 and the expuslion of Greeks from Asia minor in 1922. How come she did not know that?

And now I will pick up an example at random about Muslims appreciating (sic) other faiths: I also wonder if Ms Armstrong would go and tell the Coptic villagers in the village of al-Kashih in Upper Egypt whose loved ones in 1999 were killed in cold blood for no other reason than being non Muslims! I think that they will think that she is out of her mind. So much for tolerance.

>In Muslim Spain relations between the three religions of Abraham were uniquely harmonious in medieval Europe

Bogus. The Arabs had no rights to invade Spain. It was Arabian imperialism. Shame on her for not stating the truth and that is no one should tolerate imperialism. She also does not tell us that both Jews and Christians were treated as dhimmis in their own homeland of Spain. And what right did those Arab invaders have to invade the lands of others? But it seems that in this case Ms Armstorng has no difficulty with Arabian imperialism.

>The Christian Byzantines had forbidden Jews from residing in Jerusalem

Well, the Arabs expelled the Jews and Christians from al-HIjaz, so what is her point?

>but when Caliph Umar conquered (i read this as invaded) the city in AD638 he invited them to return and was hailed as the precursor of the Messiah

The story of Umar al-farooq or Umar the redeemer/Messiah is another fancy story that more likely than not never happened. We are told by Muslim sources in the 3rd century of Islam (or some 300 years after the Arab invasion of Jerusalem) that Umar entered Jerusalem while riding a donkey through one of its gates and he was al-farooq or the redeemer/messiah! The image here is Judeo-Chrsitian but the sources are islamic! Go figure. What is amazing here the extant Muslim sources in the first 150 years are silent about such story and about this character Umar al-farooq and why is that? and the chances are no such thing happaned. How did this story come about? We will never know. The extant sources (see Sophronious in Hoyland) speaks of destruction, killings and damage by the moagaritoi (Greek) or Mihgraye (Syriac) (or al-Muhajiroon and this is what the invading Arabs called themselves) but we do not hear of Umar al-Farooq! So much for poor and uncritical scholarship

>Spencer doesn't refer to this.

And neither does Ms Armstrong refer to the killing of Jews by Muhammad, or the final expulsion of the Jews from the Hijaz! But Spencer does not refer to such a bogus story because more likely than not it never happened.

>When discussing Muhammad's war with Mecca Spencer never cites the Koran's condemnation of all warfare as an "awesome evil"

Well, Ms Armstorng is refering to Q2:217, so let us see what is says: and it says that war during the "sacred months" _only_ is a great transgression and i do not know where she got her "awesome evil" from. So the author is saying do not fight during the sacred month that is it but it is OK to fight the rest of the year! Bogus claim again. Now read Q2:216 and this is the foundation of holy war in Islam and it says: "Kutiba 3aliaykum al-qital" or "War is ordained for you"! And in Q2:217 it says but do not fight during the "sacred months"! More nonsense from this poor wannabe historian.

>its prohibition of aggression or its insistence that only justifies armed conflict

Bogus again. We are told by Muslims that the last revealed sura is number 9 and based on the doctrine of al-nasikh wa al-mansukh any dispensation in sura 9 will aborgate an older dispensation in the same subject matter so in Q9:29 Allah declares war on ahl al-kitab for no reason at all and this is the final word of Allah. How come she did not know that? And how come she does not quote the likes of great scholarly work on the subject by Firestone and Peters or even Malik's Kitab al-Jihad?

And if she is correct then why did the Arabs invade the Middle East in 633CE?

My advice to Ms Armstrong: stop reading foolish tablighee nonsense.

---

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".