Another Juicy Obfuscation by "The Guardian"

Karen Armstrong
Monday September 18, 2006
The Guardian

In the 12th century, Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, initiated a dialogue with the Islamic world. “I approach you not with arms, but with words,” he wrote to the Muslims whom he imagined reading his book, “not with force, but with reason, not with hatred, but with love.” Yet his treatise was entitled Summary of the Whole Heresy of the Diabolical Sect of the Saracens and segued repeatedly into spluttering intransigence. Words failed Peter when he contemplated the “bestial cruelty” of Islam, which, he claimed, had established itself by the sword. Was Muhammad a true prophet? “I shall be worse than a donkey if I agree,” he expostulated, “worse than cattle if I assent!”

Peter was writing at the time of the Crusades. Even when Christians were trying to be fair, their entrenched loathing of Islam made it impossible for them to approach it objectively. For Peter, Islam was so self-evidently evil that it did not seem to occur to him that the Muslims he approached with such “love” might be offended by his remarks. This medieval cast of mind is still alive and well.

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI quoted, without qualification and with apparent approval, the words of the 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The Vatican seemed bemused by the Muslim outrage occasioned by the Pope’s words, claiming that the Holy Father had simply intended “to cultivate an attitude of respect and dialogue toward the other religions and cultures, and obviously also towards Islam”.

But the Pope’s good intentions seem far from obvious. Hatred of Islam is so ubiquitous and so deeply rooted in western culture that it brings together people who are usually at daggers drawn. Neither the Danish cartoonists, who published the offensive caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad last February, nor the Christian fundamentalists who have called him a paedophile and a terrorist, would ordinarily make common cause with the Pope; yet on the subject of Islam they are in full agreement.

Our Islamophobia dates back to the time of the Crusades, and is entwined with our chronic anti-semitism. Some of the first Crusaders began their journey to the Holy Land by massacring the Jewish communities along the Rhine valley; the Crusaders ended their campaign in 1099 by slaughtering some 30,000 Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem. It is always difficult to forgive people we know we have wronged. Thenceforth Jews and Muslims became the shadow-self of Christendom, the mirror image of everything that we hoped we were not - or feared that we were.

The fearful fantasies created by Europeans at this time endured for centuries and reveal a buried anxiety about Christian identity and behaviour. When the popes called for a Crusade to the Holy Land, Christians often persecuted the local Jewish communities: why march 3,000 miles to Palestine to liberate the tomb of Christ, and leave unscathed the people who had - or so the Crusaders mistakenly assumed - actually killed Jesus. Jews were believed to kill little children and mix their blood with the leavened bread of Passover: this “blood libel” regularly inspired pogroms in Europe, and the image of the Jew as the child slayer laid bare an almost Oedipal terror of the parent faith.

Jesus had told his followers to love their enemies, not to exterminate them. It was when the Christians of Europe were fighting brutal holy wars against Muslims in the Middle East that Islam first became known in the west as the religion of the sword. At this time, when the popes were trying to impose celibacy on the reluctant clergy, Muhammad was portrayed by the scholar monks of Europe as a lecher, and Islam condemned - with ill-concealed envy - as a faith that encouraged Muslims to indulge their basest sexual instincts. At a time when European social order was deeply hierarchical, despite the egalitarian message of the gospel, Islam was condemned for giving too much respect to women and other menials.

In a state of unhealthy denial, Christians were projecting subterranean disquiet about their activities on to the victims of the Crusades, creating fantastic enemies in their own image and likeness. This habit has persisted. The Muslims who have objected so vociferously to the Pope’s denigration of Islam have accused him of “hypocrisy”, pointing out that the Catholic church is ill-placed to condemn violent jihad when it has itself been guilty of unholy violence in crusades, persecutions and inquisitions and, under Pope Pius XII, tacitly condoned the Nazi Holocaust.

Pope Benedict delivered his controversial speech in Germany the day after the fifth anniversary of September 11. It is difficult to believe that his reference to an inherently violent strain in Islam was entirely accidental. He has, most unfortunately, withdrawn from the interfaith initiatives inaugurated by his predecessor, John Paul II, at a time when they are more desperately needed than ever. Coming on the heels of the Danish cartoon crisis, his remarks were extremely dangerous. They will convince more Muslims that the west is incurably Islamophobic and engaged in a new crusade.

We simply cannot afford this type of bigotry. The trouble is that too many people in the western world unconsciously share this prejudice, convinced that Islam and the Qur’an are addicted to violence. The 9/11 terrorists, who in fact violated essential Islamic principles, have confirmed this deep-rooted western perception and are seen as typical Muslims instead of the deviants they really were.

With disturbing regularity, this medieval conviction surfaces every time there is trouble in the Middle East. Yet until the 20th century, Islam was a far more tolerant and peaceful faith than Christianity. The Qur’an strictly forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as coming from God; and despite the western belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword.

The early conquests in Persia and Byzantium after the Prophet’s death were inspired by political rather than religious aspirations. Until the middle of the eighth century, Jews and Christians in the Muslim empire were actively discouraged from conversion to Islam, as, according to Qur’anic teaching, they had received authentic revelations of their own. The extremism and intolerance that have surfaced in the Muslim world in our own day are a response to intractable political problems - oil, Palestine, the occupation of Muslim lands, the prevelance of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, and the west’s perceived “double standards” - and not to an ingrained religious imperative.

But the old myth of Islam as a chronically violent faith persists, and surfaces at the most inappropriate moments. As one of the received ideas of the west, it seems well-nigh impossible to eradicate. Indeed, we may even be strengthening it by falling back into our old habits of projection. As we see the violence - in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon - for which we bear a measure of responsibility, there is a temptation, perhaps, to blame it all on “Islam”. But if we are feeding our prejudice in this way, we do so at our peril.

my comments:

verses from the Koran

"Those that make war against Allah and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter." (Sura 5.33-34)

"Allah revealed His will to the angels, saying: 'I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!' That was because they defied Allah and His apostle. He that defies Allah and his apostle shall be sternly punished by Allah." (Sura 8.12-13)

"In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [i.e. non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost." (Sura 8.37)

"Muster against them [i.e. non-Muslims] all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to Allah." (Sura 8.60)

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal harshly with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate." (Sura 9.73)

"When We resolve to raze a city, We first give warning to those of its people who live in comfort. If they persist in sin, judgment is irrevocably passed, and We destroy it utterly." (Sura 17.16-17)

"We have destroyed many a sinful nation and replaced them by other men. And when they felt Our Might they took to their heels and fled. They were told: 'Do not run away. Return to your comforts and to your dwellings. You shall be questioned all.' 'Woe betide us, we have done wrong' was their reply. And this they kept repeating until We mowed them down and put out their light." (Sura 21.11-15)

"When you meet the unbelievers in jihad, chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended." (Sura 47.4)

"Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Sura 48.29)

the verses above are the current verses, the ones which supersede any other "dictate" within the Koran. if there is a contradiction within the writings of the Koran, it is the most recent (by date) verse which is the bottom line, so to speak

in ancient times, the time of Mohammed's beginnings, Islam was, out of the necessity of physical survival, tolerant of non-believers in their quest to convert people to Islam. Islam was the minority back then. they had to "get along" to be accepted in society

as the faithful of Islam grew in number and power, the Allah of Mohammed changed his mind, too, so very conveniently. soon it became time to "call people by the sword", conversion of the infidel to Islam by violence, of any means, and in all situations

once Mohammed conquered Mecca, he was all set for the great Jihad against the non-Muslim world. the prior teachings in the Koran of peace and religious tolerance flew right out the window

modern-day Islam certainly does not interpret these verses literally, but the Islamic extremists do

therein lies the difference, to my way of thinking, between Islam and radical Islam; they cannot be lumped together as a single religion

for the author to lump all of Islam together is naïve, dangerous, and medieval, no matter her scholarly accolades, as is her assertion that separatism exists and is rampant in today's world

it's radical Islam which is frowned upon, shunned, and feared. the followers of the twisted version of Islam which encourages and demands hate for fellow human beings (infidels); their destruction and eradication the only goal of those hateful and vicious believers that hold the decapitating sword in their hands

i find this article completely dishonest

in today's societies, in all the larger cities of the West, communities of differing ethnicity and religion are stacked on top of one another for block after block

all living in peace and harmony, or, at the very least, tolerating well the people next door

here in the US, there are good-natured (but completely tasteless) jokes about how 7-11's are always managed by someone from the Middle East, some gas stations, and some taxi drivers, as well

i don't see anyone avoiding 7-11s, gas stations, or taxi rides because the person behind the counter, at the pump, or behind the wheel may be of Islamic origin

i don't see our schools or universities turning away those of Middle Eastern descent; as professors, teachers, faculty, or students

i don't see hospitals or social welfare organizations ignoring those of the Muslim religion; as doctors, patients, or those in need

ever since the 1960s when race relations were so strained and then civil rights were instituted and made law, don't you feel that ever since that time, that "awakening", each generation has made sure the mistakes of the past are not repeated?

did your parents/teachers/society teach you that races other than your own were inferior or less worthy? no, they did not. and if they did, you certainly know better... but radical Islam does

did your parents/teachers/society teach you not to associate with those of other races or religions? no, they did not. and if they did, you certainly know better... but radical Islam does

did your parents/teachers/society teach you that it was very wrong to cast aspersions, on any one, regardless of race, color, or creed? yes! they did! and if they did not, you certainly know better...

i don't see this hate of Islam the author (whose article is rife with personal opinion and her own brand of hate for Christianity) speaks about at all

except, perhaps, in the minds of those that wish to keep things as an "us" vs "them" scenario, keeping the murky and distasteful soup of victimization and entitlement on a slow, rolling boil

i see this kind of mind-set alive and well for those that need to have a "cause"; something to keep their social and politically correct "compassionate" egos afloat... and thus, the separatism lives on in their minds where none exists in civilized society at large

why is it we do coexist, and quite well, and then someone like Ms Armstrong comes along and infers, persuasively yet incorrectly, that we do not? it's that word "hate" she chose to use to illustrate and sensationalize the article. it's the juicy "gossip" in which some relish and twist before passing it on to two friends, then they twist it some more and tell two friends, and so on. convoluted and misguided

do you, or the people you associate with on a daily basis, hate Islam or the people of Islam? i'm betting - "no". so, where are these masses of people that hate Islam? in the mind of Ms Armstrong?

radical Islam is a wholly different mosque

this is present day. we don't live and function in yesterday or medieval times or the times of the Crusades. the past is over and cannot be changed. we're a forward looking people, the sun will come up tomorrow kind of folks. the history of religions and the lessons well-learned from those histories remain with us, yes, and we live in much more harmonious times because of those lessons

there is no Western prejudice toward Islam and our peril is at the sword bearing hands of radical Islam; to which Ms Armstrong seems to have sympathy since she is unable to realistically differentiate between the two