Karen Armstrong the wannabe historian part five

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), May 4, 2007 at 20:08

Now in the previous post Ms Armstrong tells us that Umar al-Farooq allowed the Jews to live in Jerusalem (notice that such story more likely than not never happened) but she also forgot to tell us that the Islamic tradition tells us that the same Umar expelled the Jews and Christians from the Hijaz! So much for her fantasy.

But again she is a wannabe historian as the 7th cenutry literary Chrisrians as well as the rabbinical sources are silent about any Jewish or Christian communities in the Hijaz. The sources are silent and it can only mean one thing: There was no such communities in the first place! So much for the reliable Islamic historical tradition and for Ms Armstrong the poor, uncritical and wannabe historian .

Then she wrote

>He (Spencer) ignores the Koranic emphasis on the primacy of forgivness and peaceful negotiation: the second the enemy asks for peace Muslims must lay down their arms and accept terms offered, howvever disadvantageous

Well let us see, in ayat al-sayf Allah tells Muslims to kill the polythiests unless they convert to islam, and they will be forgiven if they do so. So much for Allah's compassion and tolerance. Or is it Q9:29 where Allah declares war on ahl al-kitab for no reason at all unless Islam becomes the supreme religion and ahl al-kitab pay the mafia tax al-jizya and be humiliated. Is she really that ignorant of what the Qur'an really says?

>people will be offended by an account of Judaism that dwelled exclusively on Joshua's massacres and never mentioned Rabbi Hillel's Golden rule

This is straight out of fraudulent tablihgee literature and it goes as follows: If Joshua killled why not Muhammad? Bogus as it can get because "Joshua's massacres" cannot justify Muhammad's massacres of his enemies!

>or a description of Christianity based on the bellicose Book of Revelation that failed to cite the Sermon on the Mount

Bogus again: Ms Armstong does not tell us that the Book of Revelation does not abrogate the Sermon on the Mount but Ayat al-sayf (Q9:4) and ayat al-jizya (Q9:29) abrogate Q2:256. Big difference

>But the widespread ignorance about Islam in the west makes many vulnerable to Spencer's polemic

Bogus again. Let us see; I know more about islam and the language of islam, and I can read the sources in Arabic a language that this woman does not know, and I still agree with Spencer. Ms Armstrong's book "Muhammad" is poor work, and I do not know of any academic institution that would use such poor book as a source for reading about the life of Muhammad when we have far better and more scholarly work than this poor book by this author. The real question is why such poor work as her "Muahmmad' was even published in the first place?

>His book is a gift to extremists who can use it to prove to those Muslims who have been alienated by events by events in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq that the west is incurably hostile to their faith

One word: gobbledugook. What she is saying is that Spencer's book is telling Muslims that the west is hostile to islam but she does not tell us why! Could it be because of, let us say, the 9/11 atrocity?

---

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".