Re my DaVincititis, “Barrie” uses the phrase “intelligent evangelicals” and it would be a cheap shot indeed to suggest the phrase is an oxymoron, especially since I know a few intelligent evangelical Christians. But I still maintain that Da Vinci bypasses, in cultural terms, anything an evangelical OR fundamentalist Christians would find a significant falsification of their belief system. Biblically-based Christianity from Calvin onward separated itself from the complexity of patristic orthodoxy in favor of text-based surety. I actually find the distinction between evangelical and fundamentalist an important one, to be measured not just in terms of emotional barometers but also intellectual commitment. But my central point remains secure: Da Vinci’s emotional “load” depends on a Catholic view of history, not on Reformation and post-Reformation theologies.
Whatever one’s argument with Fallaci, to write tripe like:
“We must try to understand the root causes of Islamic recruitment among the so-called Moslem communities in the West. The dominant racism in state policies and attitude and systematic marginalization of these communities plus the aggression and militarism of the Western governments led by the US against the people in the Middle East, namely, Palestine and Iraq…”
puts you squarely in the apologist camp and makes your objections pointless.
There is much to object to in Fallaci’s post-9/11 writing, but she makes a point which almost no other progressives seem willing to make: that Westerners seem to lack the sort of emotional and moral compass that regards evil with anger and disgust.
The swastika, the burning cross, the orchestrated ‘spontaneous demonstration’ of support for the Leader–all these generate a visceral revulsion in any thinking observer. Fallaci rages at the West for failing to respond with an equivalent moral rejection to Jihadist imperialism.
Emotional politics is a dangerous thing, but the absence of emotional engagement is not an improvement. Orwell once wrote something to the effect that a person whose heart NEVER thrills to the sound of bugles will probably not be much use in a revolution.
David Thompson is 100% correct in his critique of Karen Armstrong’s scholarship and of the “interfaith” commitment that informs it. I wsouldn’t presume to know anything about Armstrong’s knowledge of Arabic, Muslim history, or Middle Eastern historiography. I do know that in the Middle East she is not regarded as a ‘scholar’ of Islam, respected or otherwise–though the parochial requirements for that honour may tell us more about Islam than about Armstrong. Increasingly,publishers which once cared deeply about the academic credentials of those who profess to be experts are more concerned with the public acceptance of a writer’s last book than with in-depth knowledge of a specialist field. Armstrrong belongs to a new breed of “respected scholars” who in an other generattions would be called articulate amateurs, and her work (and pronouncements) ought to be seen in this context.
As to the larger issue raised by Mr Thompson, it seems crystal clear to me that the religious inclusivists need to examine the tired premise that Islam has been responsible for exporting some of the foundational ideas of western civilization (yada yada yada) and square this with the unavoidable fact that in the lifetime of contemporary believers Islam has exported not Aristotle and physics but violence and oil.
Thanks for your kind remarks. I am, of course, thrilled to be “100% correct” in my critique of Karen Armstrong.
One of the things I was hoping to imply, albeit indirectly, is that Armstrong and her apologist peers seem determined to ignore what appears to be a fundamental problem. As I see it, it is the jihadists and assorted Islamist demagogues that have the stronger theological argument. Insofar as Islam pertains to Mohammed’s ‘exemplary’ deeds and purported ‘revelations’, and insofar as the Qur’an is conceived as the literal and immutable word of Allah, it’s difficult to see how violent jihad and its assorted horrors can be refuted in theological terms.
Doubtless there are those who seek to redefine terms like ‘jihad’ and to rewrite history to further a less belligerent conception of Islam. Unfortunately, these efforts are largely based on sophistry and evasion, often of a ludicrous kind. The jihadists can, of course, cite Mohammed’s own example, as celebrated in Muslim sources of the period, and thus gain kudos as more knowledgeable and “authentic”.
It isn’t entirely clear to me how one might reconfigure Mohammed’s role within Islam to make it less dissonant with the rudiments of modern morality. I suppose one might attempt to marginalise Mohammed, though I’m not sure that would leave much of a religion to observe.
Azar is raising the difficult, and classical, ethical dilemma of taking sides in case of war [“roast or be roasted”] and John’s reply is the political one. That is one fitting the man who has already made his mind to take sides and now what is left for him is to play down the moral costs so as to not be hindered in his pursuit.
It is, obviously, not true that just every moslem is a brainwashed fanatic bent on assassination and carrying the jihad against West for bringing the world under islam’s rule.
Yet these people are trapped between the fundamentalist’s pressure to join the cause–fulfill their “religious duty”– and the western demonization of all muslims as all evil by definition.
The result of such politically expedient [see bellow why so] policy may easily become a sort of self fulfilling prophecy. They will join the cause as the best option to defend temselves rather than from religious convinction and we will say “voila !..didn’t I tell you that all were fundamentalists at heart ?”
About asking all the non-fanatic muslims to be happy with the war and the “colateral damages” on their relatives, or publicly curse the epileptic prophet revelation and contrast it with the western liberal values, it is as absurd as asking all americans to be happy that their sons die in this war.
Or expect from them to begin poke fun of Jesus teachings, as opposed to those of Adam Smith or Ayn Rand, under the threat that they not doing so is to be taken as proof that they are christians fanatics and crusaders, rather than enlightened liberals, in this war against militant islam.
>Emotional politics is a dangerous >thing, but the absence of emotional >engagement is not an improvement. >Orwell once wrote something to the >effect that a person whose heart NEVER >thrills to the sound of bugles will >probably not be much use in a >revolution.
No.
There just aren’t any instances where “emotionality” ( i.e., lack of rationality) is a virtue. And inflamming mob’s murderous feelings with rhetoric against the “expoloiting
capitalists” when the mob is gathered in front of the employer family house was an example that J.S.Mill gave in “On Liberty” as a punishable offense in spite of the freedom of speech right.
We do have this thorny, difficult, issues that Azar raised.
They are difficult problems but they
have to be addressed and precisely at the same time with adovocating awareness, as Oriana Fallaci does, over the rebirth of militant, aggressive islam.
It it difficult to bring yourself to do so because it stays in your way to argue that all is that simple as fighting against the evil muslims. Simplfying the issues, not giving headaches, and making appeal to emotions helps one removing the obstacles but the price for such dishonesty is in the end high.
We blind ourselves and fail for history repeating; for what the “revolutionaries” of Orwell robotically did each time in history: kill with gusto and “en masse”. Perhaps, btw of history repeating, that this is how the war will nuke-end…and I am ahead of the time since such ethical concerns are usually raised “after”, and thus vindicating the safely dead.
As an Islamicist who has studied Islam for something like 40 years, I find Karen Armstrong deeply irritating. She knows next to nothing about the religion (or chooses to write only favourable things about it). People who convey such rose-tinted views of the faith do little good to Muslims and a lot of harm to less informed non-Muslim readers. An honest approach would be to say what is genuinely good about Islam while emphasizing its many flaws as a system of thought and behaviour. The trouble is, there is no law against sugaring the truth or, for that matter, re-writing it completely. Thank you, David Thompson, for setting a little of the reciord straight.
Thank you David for a lucid and knowledgeable refutation of Karen Armstrong’s apologist version of Islam. In all her writings and appearances (on TV etc) Armstrong exhibits an unpleasant vanity and an unhealthy righteous absolutism which does not sit well with the epithet ‘respected scholar’. Because of the terrible happenings inflicted upon Western society by Islamic jihadists, I have made a study of the religion and find myself in agreement with your well-researched critique of Armstrong’s position.
Thanks for your kind remarks. It’s heartening to learn others have detected an elephant in the room, as it were.
Elisabeth said: “It seems as if your information has been around for awhile. Yet, I had no idea. My question is why has it taken so long to come to the fore?”
I think this question might be better directed towards Karen Armstrong, or her publishers, or her editors at the Guardian. Or indeed to any of those who advance a similarly skewed and revisionist view.
A few minutes with Google and a critical disposition would, I think, make Armstrong’s general position rather difficult to sustain. Further reading would make many of her claims – including those I’ve outlined – seem disingenuous or absurd. As to why our metaphorical elephant has gone undetected for so long, a reluctance to foster ill feeling may be one possible motive, along with ideological agendas of various kinds. And I suppose one should never underestimate the capacity for denial.
Dear Mr. Thompson: I appreciate your article. My coauthor Steven Fortney and I are finishing a book “Seeking Truth: Living with Doubt,” and will be looking for a publisher. In it we discuss truth seeking in science, the arts, and religions, which inevitably leads us to discuss the three Levantine religions. Having spent years now looking into Islam, I must say that your article is far closer to what I know than Dr. Armstrong’s comments that Islam is primarily a religion of peace. Perhaps it is among Muslims, although I frankly doubt that, but it emphatically is not toward non- Muslims. Best.
Thank you for your article. Please go on O’Reilly (or some other program with a massive audience) with this very useful and necessary information. The public needs it.
You are all of course aware that Karen Armstrong is a recipient of the highest honour that can be awarded by the University of Oxford, and that her ‘Short History of Islam’ is pretty much the standard introductory text for every Political Islam course in the world.
Frankly, I find all this ‘moral compass’ stuff rather self-righteous. You’re judging the actions of a 7th Century profit and his followers, from a Nomadic tribe, by 21st Century sedentarist values. Life in the desert is harsh, it breeds harsh men and harsh ways. I have serious objections to many of Islam’s teachings, which are a product of such an environment, but I am amazed at the progressiveness and tolerance of some of its scripture. Where in the Bible, or the Torah for that matter, is there a passage remotely similar to Mohammed’s directive to ‘respect all the people of the book.’ That is, that Monotheistic (especially Abrahamic religions) are valid belief systems, and a route to the divine, if a less perfect one than Islam. By contrast Christianity states that it is ONLY through faith in Jesus Christ that one may attain salvation, which has led to actions by Christian fundamentalists, and religious wars at least as brutal, if not moreso than anything produced by Islam.
Check yourselves guys, read the scriptures of all the faiths, and read them in their context. You sound like Hirsin Ali, calling the prophet a pedophile! By the rather spurious grounds she uses, William Shakespeare is a child pornographer.
Tolerance people, is going to be what helps us end this conflict in the Middle East. Armstrong has a fine record of promoting such tolerance, and should be applauded, not attacked by small-minded little bigots who can’t take anything positive, ever, being said about Islam, as David Thompson seems to be.
“You’re judging the actions of a 7th Century profit and his followers, from a Nomadic tribe, by 21st Century sedentarist values”
I am happy to stop doing this if Islam gives up trying to exist in the 21st century. But not only is that not likely, but Muslims are actively trying to convert us “sedentarists” whom they often consider contemptible, especially in our liefstyles.
So we have every right to judge Islam as we see fit and we have every right to proclaim and spread our opinions.
‘Against Nature: Why Nature Should Have No Say on Human Sexuality’. ….
Perhaps one should add .. and/or organisation of societies?
And then, simply add the following very famous quote:
“And, in that state of Nature: no arts, no letters, no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and fear of violent death; and the life of man: nasty poore brutish and short.”
“Pearse’s ‘Perfect Little Pigs’ or Translation Celsus” by R. Joseph Hoffmann
I confess I have read this article with special relish for a purely egoistic reason. I am now engaged on a book on Hypatia, the beautiful (in every sense of the word) Egyptian philosopher who was brutally murdered by a Christian mob in 415. I had for a long time nursed the idea of writing on Hypatia, but since, thanks to the efficiency of the Church who burned not only the body of the philosopher but also her books, we know next to nothing of her work, the idea remained a fond dream. Then after venturing on a fictional Socrates’ Prison Journal, which I have recently published, I plucked enough courage to start working on a similar treatment of Hypatia, though in this case the fictional element has to loom much larger.
In preparing for this work I was struck by the extent to which Christians “slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teachings.” Just look at the Epistles of Paul and the other apostles in the New Testament; see how often and how vehemently they inveigh against ‘wrong teaching’; they do not argue against the views opposed to their own; enough for them to consign the views and their authors to hell.
I find it completely baffling how any person of normal intelligence can read the New Testament (not to speak of the Old) without seeing the contradictions, banalities, and revolting atrocities spread throughout its pages. Take away a handful of pages in the Synoptic Gospels that are truly fine, and the rest is worse than worthless. How is it that people of normal intelligence can fail to see that? We all know the answer, but the puzzle remains as puzzling as ever!
The title “The State of Ayurveda” does not justify the contents which resemble street corner speeches made by the followers of Com.Brinda Karat during her assault on Ramdev.
But apart from that, there is one aspect of Ayurveda that needs to be addressed by the Government of India for encouraging authentic ayurveda. The Department of Indian Systems of Medicine (ISM) of Govt of India must evaluate and recognise/empanel good Ayurvedic Hospitals where Govt Employees and employees of Public Sector Undertakings can take treatment. Personally, I have got immense relief from chronic low backpain through the Panchakarma treatment at Arya Vaidya Sala, Kottakkal’s Delhi hospital. Though my company (SAIL) allows all kinds of allopathic treatment, the treatment which finally gave me relief did not qualify for reimbursement as Indoor treatment under Ayurveda System is not covered under its rules. The rules for Delhi Govt Employees health services and that of a few Public Sector Undertakings however allow this treatment. The state of Ayurveda in the country will improve financially and credibility-wise with the commencement of state patronage. The process of government level scrutiny of the credentials of the hospitals will ensure that users can go to genuine hospitals for treatment. The expenses incurred for Ayurvedic Indoor treatment in these recognised ayurvedic hospitals should also be exempted under Income Tax Rules.
I just want to comment on a common confusion of ideas, reiterated by Azar Majedi in her open letter to Oriana Fallaci. Azar Majedi writes: “Your justified hatred against Islam and Islamism has been extended to all Muslems and everyone living under Islam. I am sure you do not need anyone to remind you that this is racism.”
No, it’s not!
A hatred against people adhering to a specific religion or ideology is not racism – while a hatred against people of a certain skin colour or physiognomy would be.
Personally, I don’t think that Oriana Fallaci hates all Muslems, regardless of what their other virtues might be. More likely she despises the vast majority of them – which is not quite the same. Even so, Azar Majedi would’ve every right to voice her protest and indignation. Only she mustn’t call it racism. This kind of unfortunately widespread labelling is an unfair way of silencing all those who are not racists, but who wish to express their opinion about adherents of a specific religion or ideology.
Think of all the Norwegians who – during World War II – despised and – yes, hated – the Nazis. They hated them because they were followers of a despicable ideology – not because they belonged to the German race (to which the Norwegians themselves belong). Besides, the ones they hated most were the few Norwegians who deflected and became Nazis themselves. It ought to be clear that using the word racism in this context would be utterly misleading.
Therefore I’m afraid calling Oriana Fallaci a racist is a bit of a blow below the belt. However, I’m inclined to give Azar Majedi the benefit of the doubt and trust it’s not delibrate.
I just want to comment on a common confusion of ideas, reiterated by Azar Majedi in her open letter to Oriana Fallaci. Azar Majedi writes: “Your justified hatred against Islam and Islamism has been extended to all Muslems and everyone living under Islam. I am sure you do not need anyone to remind you that this is racism.”
No, it’s not!
A hatred against people adhering to a specific religion or ideology is not racism – while a hatred against people of a certain skin colour or physiognomy would be.
Personally, I don’t think that Oriana Fallaci hates all Muslems, regardless of what their other virtues might be. More likely she despises the vast majority of them – which is not quite the same. Even so, Azar Majedi would’ve every right to voice her protest and indignation. Only she mustn’t call it racism. This kind of unfortunately widespread labelling is an unfair way of silencing all those who are not racists, but who wish to express their opinion about adherents of a specific religion or ideology.
Think of all the Norwegians who – during World War II – despised and – yes, hated – the Nazis. They hated them because they were followers of a despicable ideology – not because they belonged to the German race (to which the Norwegians themselves belong). Besides, the ones they hated most were the few Norwegians who deflected and became Nazis themselves. It ought to be clear that using the word racism in this context would be utterly misleading.
Therefore I’m afraid calling Oriana Fallaci a racist is a bit of a blow below the belt. However, I’m inclined to give Azar Majedi the benefit of the doubt and trust it’s not delibrate.
Re my DaVincititis, “Barrie” uses the phrase “intelligent evangelicals” and it would be a cheap shot indeed to suggest the phrase is an oxymoron, especially since I know a few intelligent evangelical Christians. But I still maintain that Da Vinci bypasses, in cultural terms, anything an evangelical OR fundamentalist Christians would find a significant falsification of their belief system. Biblically-based Christianity from Calvin onward separated itself from the complexity of patristic orthodoxy in favor of text-based surety. I actually find the distinction between evangelical and fundamentalist an important one, to be measured not just in terms of emotional barometers but also intellectual commitment. But my central point remains secure: Da Vinci’s emotional “load” depends on a Catholic view of history, not on Reformation and post-Reformation theologies.
David Thompson’s article “Karen Armstrong: Islam’s Hagiographer” is spot on.
Thanks, David, for the clear rebuttal of Ms Armstrong.
Re: Open letter to Fallaci
Shame on you, Azar.
Whatever one’s argument with Fallaci, to write tripe like:
“We must try to understand the root causes of Islamic recruitment among the so-called Moslem communities in the West. The dominant racism in state policies and attitude and systematic marginalization of these communities plus the aggression and militarism of the Western governments led by the US against the people in the Middle East, namely, Palestine and Iraq…”
puts you squarely in the apologist camp and makes your objections pointless.
There is much to object to in Fallaci’s post-9/11 writing, but she makes a point which almost no other progressives seem willing to make: that Westerners seem to lack the sort of emotional and moral compass that regards evil with anger and disgust.
The swastika, the burning cross, the orchestrated ‘spontaneous demonstration’ of support for the Leader–all these generate a visceral revulsion in any thinking observer. Fallaci rages at the West for failing to respond with an equivalent moral rejection to Jihadist imperialism.
Emotional politics is a dangerous thing, but the absence of emotional engagement is not an improvement. Orwell once wrote something to the effect that a person whose heart NEVER thrills to the sound of bugles will probably not be much use in a revolution.
David Thompson is 100% correct in his critique of Karen Armstrong’s scholarship and of the “interfaith” commitment that informs it. I wsouldn’t presume to know anything about Armstrong’s knowledge of Arabic, Muslim history, or Middle Eastern historiography. I do know that in the Middle East she is not regarded as a ‘scholar’ of Islam, respected or otherwise–though the parochial requirements for that honour may tell us more about Islam than about Armstrong. Increasingly,publishers which once cared deeply about the academic credentials of those who profess to be experts are more concerned with the public acceptance of a writer’s last book than with in-depth knowledge of a specialist field. Armstrrong belongs to a new breed of “respected scholars” who in an other generattions would be called articulate amateurs, and her work (and pronouncements) ought to be seen in this context.
As to the larger issue raised by Mr Thompson, it seems crystal clear to me that the religious inclusivists need to examine the tired premise that Islam has been responsible for exporting some of the foundational ideas of western civilization (yada yada yada) and square this with the unavoidable fact that in the lifetime of contemporary believers Islam has exported not Aristotle and physics but violence and oil.
R Joseph Hoffmann & Atanu Dey,
Thanks for your kind remarks. I am, of course, thrilled to be “100% correct” in my critique of Karen Armstrong.
One of the things I was hoping to imply, albeit indirectly, is that Armstrong and her apologist peers seem determined to ignore what appears to be a fundamental problem. As I see it, it is the jihadists and assorted Islamist demagogues that have the stronger theological argument. Insofar as Islam pertains to Mohammed’s ‘exemplary’ deeds and purported ‘revelations’, and insofar as the Qur’an is conceived as the literal and immutable word of Allah, it’s difficult to see how violent jihad and its assorted horrors can be refuted in theological terms.
Doubtless there are those who seek to redefine terms like ‘jihad’ and to rewrite history to further a less belligerent conception of Islam. Unfortunately, these efforts are largely based on sophistry and evasion, often of a ludicrous kind. The jihadists can, of course, cite Mohammed’s own example, as celebrated in Muslim sources of the period, and thus gain kudos as more knowledgeable and “authentic”.
It isn’t entirely clear to me how one might reconfigure Mohammed’s role within Islam to make it less dissonant with the rudiments of modern morality. I suppose one might attempt to marginalise Mohammed, though I’m not sure that would leave much of a religion to observe.
Azar Majedi’s letter and John Coffin’s reply
Azar is raising the difficult, and classical, ethical dilemma of taking sides in case of war [“roast or be roasted”] and John’s reply is the political one. That is one fitting the man who has already made his mind to take sides and now what is left for him is to play down the moral costs so as to not be hindered in his pursuit.
It is, obviously, not true that just every moslem is a brainwashed fanatic bent on assassination and carrying the jihad against West for bringing the world under islam’s rule.
Yet these people are trapped between the fundamentalist’s pressure to join the cause–fulfill their “religious duty”– and the western demonization of all muslims as all evil by definition.
The result of such politically expedient [see bellow why so] policy may easily become a sort of self fulfilling prophecy. They will join the cause as the best option to defend temselves rather than from religious convinction and we will say “voila !..didn’t I tell you that all were fundamentalists at heart ?”
About asking all the non-fanatic muslims to be happy with the war and the “colateral damages” on their relatives, or publicly curse the epileptic prophet revelation and contrast it with the western liberal values, it is as absurd as asking all americans to be happy that their sons die in this war.
Or expect from them to begin poke fun of Jesus teachings, as opposed to those of Adam Smith or Ayn Rand, under the threat that they not doing so is to be taken as proof that they are christians fanatics and crusaders, rather than enlightened liberals, in this war against militant islam.
>Emotional politics is a dangerous >thing, but the absence of emotional >engagement is not an improvement. >Orwell once wrote something to the >effect that a person whose heart NEVER >thrills to the sound of bugles will >probably not be much use in a >revolution.
No.
There just aren’t any instances where “emotionality” ( i.e., lack of rationality) is a virtue. And inflamming mob’s murderous feelings with rhetoric against the “expoloiting
capitalists” when the mob is gathered in front of the employer family house was an example that J.S.Mill gave in “On Liberty” as a punishable offense in spite of the freedom of speech right.
We do have this thorny, difficult, issues that Azar raised.
They are difficult problems but they
have to be addressed and precisely at the same time with adovocating awareness, as Oriana Fallaci does, over the rebirth of militant, aggressive islam.
It it difficult to bring yourself to do so because it stays in your way to argue that all is that simple as fighting against the evil muslims. Simplfying the issues, not giving headaches, and making appeal to emotions helps one removing the obstacles but the price for such dishonesty is in the end high.
We blind ourselves and fail for history repeating; for what the “revolutionaries” of Orwell robotically did each time in history: kill with gusto and “en masse”. Perhaps, btw of history repeating, that this is how the war will nuke-end…and I am ahead of the time since such ethical concerns are usually raised “after”, and thus vindicating the safely dead.
Ovidiu
It seems as if your information has been around for awhile. Yet, I had no idea. My question is why has it taken so long to come to the fore?
As an Islamicist who has studied Islam for something like 40 years, I find Karen Armstrong deeply irritating. She knows next to nothing about the religion (or chooses to write only favourable things about it). People who convey such rose-tinted views of the faith do little good to Muslims and a lot of harm to less informed non-Muslim readers. An honest approach would be to say what is genuinely good about Islam while emphasizing its many flaws as a system of thought and behaviour. The trouble is, there is no law against sugaring the truth or, for that matter, re-writing it completely. Thank you, David Thompson, for setting a little of the reciord straight.
Thank you David for a lucid and knowledgeable refutation of Karen Armstrong’s apologist version of Islam. In all her writings and appearances (on TV etc) Armstrong exhibits an unpleasant vanity and an unhealthy righteous absolutism which does not sit well with the epithet ‘respected scholar’. Because of the terrible happenings inflicted upon Western society by Islamic jihadists, I have made a study of the religion and find myself in agreement with your well-researched critique of Armstrong’s position.
I
Elisabeth Morton, Kate Scott & Dr Denis MacEoin,
Thanks for your kind remarks. It’s heartening to learn others have detected an elephant in the room, as it were.
Elisabeth said: “It seems as if your information has been around for awhile. Yet, I had no idea. My question is why has it taken so long to come to the fore?”
I think this question might be better directed towards Karen Armstrong, or her publishers, or her editors at the Guardian. Or indeed to any of those who advance a similarly skewed and revisionist view.
A few minutes with Google and a critical disposition would, I think, make Armstrong’s general position rather difficult to sustain. Further reading would make many of her claims – including those I’ve outlined – seem disingenuous or absurd. As to why our metaphorical elephant has gone undetected for so long, a reluctance to foster ill feeling may be one possible motive, along with ideological agendas of various kinds. And I suppose one should never underestimate the capacity for denial.
Dear Mr. Thompson: I appreciate your article. My coauthor Steven Fortney and I are finishing a book “Seeking Truth: Living with Doubt,” and will be looking for a publisher. In it we discuss truth seeking in science, the arts, and religions, which inevitably leads us to discuss the three Levantine religions. Having spent years now looking into Islam, I must say that your article is far closer to what I know than Dr. Armstrong’s comments that Islam is primarily a religion of peace. Perhaps it is among Muslims, although I frankly doubt that, but it emphatically is not toward non- Muslims. Best.
Who is David Thompson and what is his bio?
His article was very informative.
You wrote;
“Does she not know of the massacre of the Banu Qurayza and the opportunist raids against the Bani Quainuqa, Bani Nadir”
In response to your question, I would like to direct you to my review of Armstrong’s book “Muhammad.” Here is a key quote from the book:
“In the early seventh century, an Arab chief would not be expected to show any mercy to traitors like the Qurayzah” (p 208).
Here is the link:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A3J3QSQTGSU0TY/ref=cm_cr_auth/103-4080677-0408653?ie=UTF8
So as you see, Ms Armstrong has done her homework. What she lacks is a moral compass to see these things in perspective!
Thank you for your article. Please go on O’Reilly (or some other program with a massive audience) with this very useful and necessary information. The public needs it.
You are all of course aware that Karen Armstrong is a recipient of the highest honour that can be awarded by the University of Oxford, and that her ‘Short History of Islam’ is pretty much the standard introductory text for every Political Islam course in the world.
Frankly, I find all this ‘moral compass’ stuff rather self-righteous. You’re judging the actions of a 7th Century profit and his followers, from a Nomadic tribe, by 21st Century sedentarist values. Life in the desert is harsh, it breeds harsh men and harsh ways. I have serious objections to many of Islam’s teachings, which are a product of such an environment, but I am amazed at the progressiveness and tolerance of some of its scripture. Where in the Bible, or the Torah for that matter, is there a passage remotely similar to Mohammed’s directive to ‘respect all the people of the book.’ That is, that Monotheistic (especially Abrahamic religions) are valid belief systems, and a route to the divine, if a less perfect one than Islam. By contrast Christianity states that it is ONLY through faith in Jesus Christ that one may attain salvation, which has led to actions by Christian fundamentalists, and religious wars at least as brutal, if not moreso than anything produced by Islam.
Check yourselves guys, read the scriptures of all the faiths, and read them in their context. You sound like Hirsin Ali, calling the prophet a pedophile! By the rather spurious grounds she uses, William Shakespeare is a child pornographer.
Tolerance people, is going to be what helps us end this conflict in the Middle East. Armstrong has a fine record of promoting such tolerance, and should be applauded, not attacked by small-minded little bigots who can’t take anything positive, ever, being said about Islam, as David Thompson seems to be.
Daragh wrote:
“You’re judging the actions of a 7th Century profit and his followers, from a Nomadic tribe, by 21st Century sedentarist values”
I am happy to stop doing this if Islam gives up trying to exist in the 21st century. But not only is that not likely, but Muslims are actively trying to convert us “sedentarists” whom they often consider contemptible, especially in our liefstyles.
So we have every right to judge Islam as we see fit and we have every right to proclaim and spread our opinions.
‘Against Nature: Why Nature Should Have No Say on Human Sexuality’. ….
Perhaps one should add .. and/or organisation of societies?
And then, simply add the following very famous quote:
“And, in that state of Nature: no arts, no letters, no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and fear of violent death; and the life of man: nasty poore brutish and short.”
“Pearse’s ‘Perfect Little Pigs’ or Translation Celsus” by R. Joseph Hoffmann
I confess I have read this article with special relish for a purely egoistic reason. I am now engaged on a book on Hypatia, the beautiful (in every sense of the word) Egyptian philosopher who was brutally murdered by a Christian mob in 415. I had for a long time nursed the idea of writing on Hypatia, but since, thanks to the efficiency of the Church who burned not only the body of the philosopher but also her books, we know next to nothing of her work, the idea remained a fond dream. Then after venturing on a fictional Socrates’ Prison Journal, which I have recently published, I plucked enough courage to start working on a similar treatment of Hypatia, though in this case the fictional element has to loom much larger.
In preparing for this work I was struck by the extent to which Christians “slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teachings.” Just look at the Epistles of Paul and the other apostles in the New Testament; see how often and how vehemently they inveigh against ‘wrong teaching’; they do not argue against the views opposed to their own; enough for them to consign the views and their authors to hell.
I find it completely baffling how any person of normal intelligence can read the New Testament (not to speak of the Old) without seeing the contradictions, banalities, and revolting atrocities spread throughout its pages. Take away a handful of pages in the Synoptic Gospels that are truly fine, and the rest is worse than worthless. How is it that people of normal intelligence can fail to see that? We all know the answer, but the puzzle remains as puzzling as ever!
D. R. Khashaba
Cairo, Egypt
Website: http://www.Back-to-Socrates.com
Weblog: http://khashaba.blogspot.com
Re. On nature and justice, a chance to use my favourite quote from the much-underrated US sitcom *Kate and Allie*:
“If we never went against nature, we’d be having this conversation in a cave!”
The title “The State of Ayurveda” does not justify the contents which resemble street corner speeches made by the followers of Com.Brinda Karat during her assault on Ramdev.
But apart from that, there is one aspect of Ayurveda that needs to be addressed by the Government of India for encouraging authentic ayurveda. The Department of Indian Systems of Medicine (ISM) of Govt of India must evaluate and recognise/empanel good Ayurvedic Hospitals where Govt Employees and employees of Public Sector Undertakings can take treatment. Personally, I have got immense relief from chronic low backpain through the Panchakarma treatment at Arya Vaidya Sala, Kottakkal’s Delhi hospital. Though my company (SAIL) allows all kinds of allopathic treatment, the treatment which finally gave me relief did not qualify for reimbursement as Indoor treatment under Ayurveda System is not covered under its rules. The rules for Delhi Govt Employees health services and that of a few Public Sector Undertakings however allow this treatment. The state of Ayurveda in the country will improve financially and credibility-wise with the commencement of state patronage. The process of government level scrutiny of the credentials of the hospitals will ensure that users can go to genuine hospitals for treatment. The expenses incurred for Ayurvedic Indoor treatment in these recognised ayurvedic hospitals should also be exempted under Income Tax Rules.
I just want to comment on a common confusion of ideas, reiterated by Azar Majedi in her open letter to Oriana Fallaci. Azar Majedi writes: “Your justified hatred against Islam and Islamism has been extended to all Muslems and everyone living under Islam. I am sure you do not need anyone to remind you that this is racism.”
No, it’s not!
A hatred against people adhering to a specific religion or ideology is not racism – while a hatred against people of a certain skin colour or physiognomy would be.
Personally, I don’t think that Oriana Fallaci hates all Muslems, regardless of what their other virtues might be. More likely she despises the vast majority of them – which is not quite the same. Even so, Azar Majedi would’ve every right to voice her protest and indignation. Only she mustn’t call it racism. This kind of unfortunately widespread labelling is an unfair way of silencing all those who are not racists, but who wish to express their opinion about adherents of a specific religion or ideology.
Think of all the Norwegians who – during World War II – despised and – yes, hated – the Nazis. They hated them because they were followers of a despicable ideology – not because they belonged to the German race (to which the Norwegians themselves belong). Besides, the ones they hated most were the few Norwegians who deflected and became Nazis themselves. It ought to be clear that using the word racism in this context would be utterly misleading.
Therefore I’m afraid calling Oriana Fallaci a racist is a bit of a blow below the belt. However, I’m inclined to give Azar Majedi the benefit of the doubt and trust it’s not delibrate.
I just want to comment on a common confusion of ideas, reiterated by Azar Majedi in her open letter to Oriana Fallaci. Azar Majedi writes: “Your justified hatred against Islam and Islamism has been extended to all Muslems and everyone living under Islam. I am sure you do not need anyone to remind you that this is racism.”
No, it’s not!
A hatred against people adhering to a specific religion or ideology is not racism – while a hatred against people of a certain skin colour or physiognomy would be.
Personally, I don’t think that Oriana Fallaci hates all Muslems, regardless of what their other virtues might be. More likely she despises the vast majority of them – which is not quite the same. Even so, Azar Majedi would’ve every right to voice her protest and indignation. Only she mustn’t call it racism. This kind of unfortunately widespread labelling is an unfair way of silencing all those who are not racists, but who wish to express their opinion about adherents of a specific religion or ideology.
Think of all the Norwegians who – during World War II – despised and – yes, hated – the Nazis. They hated them because they were followers of a despicable ideology – not because they belonged to the German race (to which the Norwegians themselves belong). Besides, the ones they hated most were the few Norwegians who deflected and became Nazis themselves. It ought to be clear that using the word racism in this context would be utterly misleading.
Therefore I’m afraid calling Oriana Fallaci a racist is a bit of a blow below the belt. However, I’m inclined to give Azar Majedi the benefit of the doubt and trust it’s not delibrate.