View Full Version : John Quincy Adams on Islam
Warrior-Mentor
01-22-2010, 04:35
John Quincy Adams on Islam
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
The average American’s lack of awareness of the past has left our nation in an extremely vulnerable position. The multi-culturalism, pluralism, “diversity,” and political correctness that now blanket American culture mean that many are oblivious to and unconcerned about the threat that Islam poses to the American (and Christian) way of life. The Founders of the American Republic were not so dispossessed. They were well-studied in the ebb and flow of human history, and the international circumstances that could potentially impact America adversely. They, in fact, spoke openly and pointedly about the anti-American, anti-Christian nature of the religion of Islam.
Consider, for example, the writings of an early President of the United States, John Quincy Adams. Not only did Adams live during the founding era (born in 1767), not only was his father a primary, quintessential Founder, but John Quincy was literally nurtured by his father in the vicissitudes and intricacies of the founding of the Republic. John Adams involved his son at an early age in his own activities and travels on behalf of the fledgling nation. John Quincy accompanied his father to France in 1778, became Secretary to the American Minister to Russia, was the Secretary to his father during peace negotiations that ended the American Revolution in 1783, served as U.S. foreign ambassador, both to the Netherlands and later to Portugal, under George Washington, to Prussia under his father’s presidency, and then to Russia and later to England under President James Madison. He served as a U.S. Senator, Secretary of State under President James Monroe, and then as the nation’s sixth President (1825-1829), and finally as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, where he was a staunch and fervent opponent of slavery.
After his presidency, but before his election to Congress in 1830, John Quincy penned several essays dealing with one of the many Russo-Turkish Wars. In these essays, we see a cogent, informed portrait of the threat that Islam has posed throughout world history:
"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab [Mohammed] of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth.
"Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion.
"He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.
"Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.
"The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God, that this delusion should have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus." (Blunt, 1830, 29:269, capitals in original)
Observe that Adams not only documents the violent nature of Islam, in contrast with the peaceful and benevolent thrust of Christianity, he further exposes the mistreatment of women inherent in Islamic doctrine, including the degrading practice of polygamy.
A few pages later, Adams again spotlights the coercive, violent nature of Islam, as well as the Muslim’s right to lie and deceive to advance Islam:
"The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet [aka Mohammed] is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force." (Blunt, 29:274)
No Christian would deny that many Christians in history have violated the precepts of Christ by mistreating others and even committing atrocities in the name of Christ. However, Adams rightly observes that one must go against Christian doctrine to do so. Not so with Islam—since violence is sanctioned:
"The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike—all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war—it has softened the features of slavery—it has humanized the intercourse of social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse." (Blunt, 29:300, emp. added)
The Founders were forthright in their assessment of the nature and teachings of Islam and the Quran. Americans and their political leaders would do well to take a sober look at history. To fail to do so will be catastrophic.
REFERENCES
Blunt, Joseph (1830), The American Annual Register for the Years 1827-8-9 (New York: E. & G.W. Blunt), 29:267-402, [On-line], URL: http://www.archive.org/stream/p1americanannual29blunuoft.
SOURCE:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240151
dadof18x'er
01-22-2010, 06:23
"The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike—all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war—it has softened the features of slavery—it has humanized the intercourse of social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse."[/COLOR] (Blunt, 29:300, emp. added)
The Founders were forthright in their assessment of the nature and teachings of Islam and the Quran. Americans and their political leaders would do well to take a sober look at history. To fail to do so will be catastrophic.
REFERENCES
Blunt, Joseph (1830), The American Annual Register for the Years 1827-8-9 (New York: E. & G.W. Blunt), 29:267-402, [On-line], URL: http://www.archive.org/stream/p1americanannual29blunuoft.
SOURCE:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240151
reminds me of Matt. 5:14 "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. John Quincy Adams still shining.........:)
Dave Miller, Ph.D.Dr. Miller is a graduate of Lubbock Christian University, where he earned a B.A. degree in speech and Bible. He earned his M.A. degree in speech communication from Texas Tech University, and his M.Th. and M.A.R. from the Harding Graduate School of Religion. He also is a graduate of Southern Illinois University, where he earned his Ph.D. in Rhetoric and Public Address.IMO, there is nothing in Dr. Miller's piece that indicates his "awareness of the past" sets his knowledge of American history above that of the "average" American.
Precisely when have the issues of "multi-culturalism, pluralism, 'diversity,' and political correctness" not "blanketed" American culture?
For that matter, was there ever a single dominant culture in America during the seventeenth,eighteenth or nineteenth centuries?
Were those Americans who advocated Indian removal (and worse), slavery, curtailing the liberties of women, nullification, succession, and civil war any less Christians because they used their faith to defend their positions?
Sigaba
From a theological viewpoint, it would be fair to say that those individuals who have used Christianity for purposes other than Christ-like behavior, or as a barrier to social progress, are not real Christians. Talking the talk and walking the walk are two totally separate things. You either take a religion as a whole, or not at all.
From a social perspective, the general perception of a "religious" individual acting in such a manner leads to misunderstanding of what is truly acceptable in relation to the sacred texts. Perversion or religion on an individual level, even by a minority of the practitioners, leads to a very bad image.
The fact that Quincy recognized the danger of Islam so many years ago should serve as sound evidence that there must be dire action taken in the coming years.
From a theological viewpoint, it would be fair to say that those individuals who have used Christianity for purposes other than Christ-like behavior, or as a barrier to social progress, are not real Christians. Talking the talk and walking the walk are two totally separate things. You either take a religion as a whole, or not at all.
Wolf07,
I admire our founding fathers as well. However, I cannot concur it would be fair to say anything of the like. Religions and Holy Books across faiths can and have been interpreted to justify any purpose, and what is "truly acceptable" changes constantly. War is part of the human condition, and soldiers kill, I am grateful we have troops who fight for American interests. What is Christ like behavior? By taking the religion as a whole are you including the Old Testament, because it is filled with violence, now folks can interpret the though shalt not kill commandment as shall not murder etc. ( perhaps this initial interpretation coincided with a need to raise an army). Or, if as some modern Christians believe, the New Testament supercedes the old since the old was written for Israelis and the new for Christians, Is it as simple as love God and observe the Golden Rule? That is subject to interpretation, but there are violent passages in the New Testament as well, Matthew 10:34-36 comes to mind. We are at war with Islamic terror groups, and if we have to kill them to survive and keep our freedoms, we should. So respectfully, I don't think it's as simple as Good Christian = Peaceful, Good Muslim= Violent. What if it's even simpler, there are wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs in every faith?
I cannot concur it would be fair to say anything of the like. Religions and Holy Books across faiths can and have been interpreted to justify any purpose, and what is "truly acceptable" changes constantly.
Jihad hasn’t changed since its inception.
No one is denying violence in the Bible. Nevertheless, the Jihadists do represent their religion and they represent it well. Islam is unique among the religions of the world in having a developed doctrine, theology, and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers, unlike any other religion.
dadof18x'er
01-23-2010, 07:14
Wolf07,
I admire our founding fathers as well. However, I cannot concur it would be fair to say anything of the like. Religions and Holy Books across faiths can and have been interpreted to justify any purpose, and what is "truly acceptable" changes constantly. War is part of the human condition, and soldiers kill, I am grateful we have troops who fight for American interests. What is Christ like behavior? By taking the religion as a whole are you including the Old Testament, because it is filled with violence, now folks can interpret the though shalt not kill commandment as shall not murder etc. ( perhaps this initial interpretation coincided with a need to raise an army). Or, if as some modern Christians believe, the New Testament supercedes the old since the old was written for Israelis and the new for Christians, Is it as simple as love God and observe the Golden Rule? That is subject to interpretation, but there are violent passages in the New Testament as well, Matthew 10:34-36 comes to mind. We are at war with Islamic terror groups, and if we have to kill them to survive and keep our freedoms, we should. So respectfully, I don't think it's as simple as Good Christian = Peaceful, Good Muslim= Violent. What if it's even simpler, there are wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs in every faith?
It helps me to consider Christianity a relationship with the Creator who gave us His operators handbook verified by hundreds of fulfilled prophecies. The story of the Bible is a chronicle of a plan to bring the Messiah into the world to save mankind from SIN. There can only be one truth, all these conflicts and false religions where very accurately prophesied (Matt 24). I think we effect society as Christians because what we are (like Christ). We are supposed to be salt and light in this life.
Along similar lines, here is another article by Andrew Bostom:
John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11283
From a theological viewpoint....Please elaborate as to precisely which theological viewpoint you have in mind.From a social perspective, the general perception of a "religious" individual acting in such a manner leads to misunderstanding of what is truly acceptable in relation to the sacred texts. Perversion or religion on an individual level, even by a minority of the practitioners, leads to a very bad image.What about the image propagated by those who claim to know best how Christians should interpret the texts and practice their religion?The fact that [John] Quincy [Adams] recognized the danger of Islam so many years ago should serve as sound evidence that there must be dire action taken in the coming years.I am not sure I see the reasoning of this argument. Why "must" "dire action" be taken in the near future because someone warned of something centuries ago?
dr. mabuse
01-24-2010, 13:18
*
Perhaps studying the Quran (and the Bible) would further your education in this matter.
IMO - the common failure to study both in the historical context in which the manuscripts appeared and for which they were written - neither being for or by their protagonists - along with how they have arrived at their currently perceived states after much word smithing - makes any such argument tantamount to the 'word of mouth'* scenario illustrated in this Norman Rockwell cover for the Saturday Evening Post.
However - YMMV - but IMO it's much like trying to teach Calculus to a pig, you'll only get frustrated and the pig won't be interested in anything you're saying...and so it goes...
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
* NOTE: The word 'Gawd' purposely ommitted.
dr. mabuse
01-24-2010, 16:15
*
Sigba seems to have issues with Dr. Miller's college pedigree. So what? Dr. Miller's point is valid, is it not?
And the statement, ""... his "awareness of the past" sets his knowledge of American history above that of the "average" American."" is confusing. The "average" (whatever that means) American's grasp of history does not impress. I have not seen anything to indicate Sigba's formal study of the Bible(or akv for that matter). Their comments are telling in this regard.
If either of you are trying to equate the core teachings/interpretations of Christianity or followers of Christ to the core teachings of Islam, you have failed.Dr. Mabuse--
Your attempt at pith is noted.
Your attempt to write a condescending reply might have worked better had you read more carefully.*
My screen name is not "Sigba," but Sigaba.
I did not raise questions about Dr. Miller's college pedigree. I raised questions about his areas of study in relation to his generalizations about American history and Americans' understanding of that history. (One might have noticed that the post does not highlight his schools.)
The foundation of Dr. Miller's argument is that the average American does not understand this nation's past. He implicitly argues that he does. It is from his superior understanding of America's past that Dr. Miller asserts the intellectual authority of his argument.
In that argument, Dr. Miller suggests that the contemporaneous political, social, and cultural environment prevents Americans from gleaning the wisdom of the Founding Fathers--a historical legacy that he allegedly appreciates and wants to share with his readers.
The questions I raised suggest to those who have studied America's past that perhaps Dr. Miller's understanding of American history is not as advanced as he believes.
To read AKV's post (or mine) and to conclude that either of us are making a comparison between Christianity and Islam is to indicate that you did not understand the points either of us made.
Your attempt to diminish AKV's contributions to this thread by pointing out where he lives is, bluntly, lazy. In his short time here, AKV has made his positions on GWOT, his views on Islamic theology, and his thoughts on the political sensibilities of the San Francisco area quite clear.
Your attempt to argue implicitly that your "formal study" of the bible is superior to mine is a straw man. My remarks about Christianity in this thread and elsewhere on this BB have been historical in nature.**
__________________________________________
* This post is not the first time you have given evidence that you do not read very carefully. Elsewhere on this BB, there is a thread in which you have managed to agree enthusiastically and simultaneously with conflicting view points. IMO, the fact that you still have not yet addressed this tension undermines ever so slightly your intellectual authority to suggest that others might "further" their "education" in any area of study--especially when that advice is offered in a patronizing tone.
**As I have intimated elsewhere, I declined invitations from the chair of a department of religion to study religion formally and to pursue divinity as a career path. It is just a hunch, but I think that had I taken that path, I would still have fundamental questions about your willingness to read carefully.
GratefulCitizen
01-24-2010, 19:02
* This post is not the first time you have given evidence that you do not read very carefully.
<snip>
I would still have fundamental questions about your willingness to read carefully.
Sigaba, in fairness to those who engage in debate with you, consider that this is a large board with many posts.
Not everyone has time or inclination to do detailed reading of all of your nuances.
Your posts are well-supported and argued, but it does not follow that this equates to effective communication.
This is not meant to be a slam (sincerely).
We all have to prioritize the intensity of our reading.
<shrug>
It's just a limitation of the medium.
akv makes a blanket statement regarding religion and says, "...what is "truly acceptable" changes constantly." Really? Perhaps in San Francisco.
Please give specific examples of this statement re: the Christian faith.
Dr. Mabuse,
By your tone I would guess you are a Christian. I respect your faith. In matters of faith such as religion, politics, sports teams, and red headed women people tend to have fixed views. While religions promote moral values, they are unfortunately ripe tools for manipulation.
As for what is "truly acceptable" changing in Christianity and examples, this is low hanging fruit, in the interests of time I will only hit some of the historical highlights...
The Crusades- millions die as European Christians attempt to impose their view of religion on Muslims, Jews, and Orthodox Christians.
The Inquisition- torture, burning and chaos sanctioned by the Pope.
The Reformation- Protestants emerge, Protestants and Catholics kill one another
Colonization/Witch Trials
WW2- To clarify there were Christian nations on both sides of this conflict, but the Germans and Italians who plunged Europe into world war and holocaust, were they Christians, Hindus, or Muslims?
Before this gets out of hand my point is not to bash Christianity, you asked for instances of what is acceptable changing in Christianity, unfortunately there are similar examples across faiths. So now if you respond with Christianity is good, people who performed these acts were bad, okay but several of these act were led by the leaders of the faith at the time. So I would assume what is "acceptable" has changed?
Warrior-Mentor
01-25-2010, 11:38
SOURCE:
http://www.christian-community.org/library/crusades.html
"So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression--an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
______
The fact is that the Crusades were a "jihad" in reverse is easily proved by early Christian History. Muslims insist that Christians willingly converted to Islam. Three indisputable facts contradict that claim.
1. For the first 300 years of Christianity. the followers of Jesus would accept torture and death from the Roman Empire rather than forsake their commitment to Jesus. They believed any revocation of their declared faith would earn them a ticket into Hell. There is no reason they would have willingly changed their faith from Jesus to Muhammad except by force. Islam does not promise paradise for believers, as does Christianity. Even Muhammad said he did not know his final reward. That would only be determined on his judgment day.
2. Next, Islam had conquered Spain in addition to North Africa and the Middle East. When the Moors attempted to extend their empire into Europe, they were met at Tours by Charles Martel and were soundly defeated. From that point forward, Islam was pushed out of Spain. So, if Christians willingly converted to Islam, why did they resist it at Tours and push it out of Europe?
3. Christians never would have willingly given up their "holy" cities of Jerusalem and Alexandria.
Warrior-Mentor,
The Jews, Christians, and Muslims all have holy sites in these lands. Chronologically perhaps the Israelis have the oldest claim. Regardless of religion doesn't it seem wars are ultimately fought over land and resources?
How does one define defensive war?
I can see how someone would feel the Greeks at Thermopylae were fighting a defensive war when their country was invaded by Persia, or the examples of Belgium in 1914, perhaps Finland or the Poles defending themselves from the Soviets and the Germans respectively in 1939.
However when you have English, French and German armies stirred up by the Pope and attacking the Middle East how is this defensive in nature?
WM - Allow me in part to answer some of akv's questions.
All wars are fought over natural resources. Resources can be defined as mineral, warm water ports, terrain, and human labor to name a few. Irregardless of religion, France and England fought over timber, forests and shipping lanes. Some would argue that the war between Greece and Troy was not over a pretty face, but the expansion of territory, and yes, they shared simular faiths too.
Islamic migration beginning in the 8th century was nothing new. We have curtainly seen many wars of idealogy just in the past 100 years. But all wars, including A-stan, Iraq, and yes, here in the USA, we are at war over yet another 'natural resource', our very lives.
Wars themselves are defined as High, Mid, and Low intensity conflicts, Guerrilla warfare, war of attrition, etc. Vietnam has been argued as simply as a campaign of the Cold War. Europe is on the brink of collapse, our own system is in jeopardy.
If we are to win here or anywhere, we must put out the fires of any idealogy that threatens our survival.
That's all. WM, he's all yours.
WD
dr. mabuse
01-25-2010, 17:23
*
I was suggesting that your historical views perhaps would be enhanced by studying the Bible or Quran.
http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html
Richard
Warrior-Mentor
01-25-2010, 17:51
Many atrocities have been commited per the rule book on the Islam side of the equation, have they not?
Many atrocities have been commited by people under the Christian banner, breaking the rules in the rule book. Nazi's that you say were Chrsitians merely were wearing the banner. Nothing in the Bible endorses what Hitler and his people did.
That's the difference I feel was missed here by you and Sigaba. Many examples of those that broke the rules (in the Bible) vs those that followed the rules in the Quran. The posts seem to blur those lines.
The point I was making is that a honest, good-hearted effort to understand this conflict would be much easier if the "rule books" of the different
religions in question were studied. I was suggesting that your historical views perhaps would be enhanced by studying the Bible or Quran.
FWIW, some might think Warrior-Mentor is over the top against Muslims.
The fact is, he's done his homework more than most, and it shows. The more I study the Quran, the scarier it gets. Something to ponder.;)
I am not over the top against Muslims.
I am, however, unwilling to tolerate islam - an ugly, intolerant, racist, totalitarian supremacist ideology.
There is a difference.
An inspiration to me is Father Zakaria Botros:
"My program is to attack Islam, not to attack Muslims
but to save them because they are deceived.
As I love Muslims, I hate Islam."
If we are to win here or anywhere, we must put out the fires of any idealogy that threatens our survival.
Wet Dog,
I agree with your post entirely. As the sole superpower, until someone can defeat our Navy, we just need to be a "spoiling state" and maintain the balance of power. But if that is what it is lets call it just that, instead of proclaiming our current foe as incorrigible be it a nation or a religion, since history has shown todays enemy might well be tomorrow's ally and vice versa. War is part of the human condition, and as an American I want her to do what is in her best interests. Richard made the lucid comment last year that Islam replaced Communism as the new boogeyman.
For example,
We are at war with the _____. The _____ are a savage, violent, people with a militaristic culture and past. From childhood the _____ ideology and beliefs are immutable, evil, and barbaric. The _____ are a ruthless disciplined enemy, with no regard for the value of life, they kill civilians, they even employ suicide attacks if needed, the _______ culture is simply a treacherous threat to our existence and way of life, the only possible solution unfortunately since this is the way things are and will always be is to wipe the _______ off the face of the earth like some disease, since unfortunately the only good ________ is a dead ________.
In the interest of saving time one could fill in the blanks by time period. But notice as national interests continuously change with time enemies become allies and vice versa.
1870 : Comanches, Apaches, Sioux, etc.
1917 : Huns ( Germans), Turks
1941-45 : Japanese, (Germans again if you like)
1945-1991 : Communists
9/11 to current : Radical Muslims
2050 : ?????
Wet Dog, this is the only point I am making, and I'm grateful for your service, and that of all of our vets.
Many atrocities have been commited per the rule book on the Islam side of the equation, have they not?
Many atrocities have been commited by people under the Christian banner, breaking the rules in the rule book. Nazi's that you say were Chrsitians merely were wearing the banner. Nothing in the Bible endorses what Hitler and his people did.
That's the difference I feel was missed here by you and Sigaba. Many examples of those that broke the rules (in the Bible) vs those that followed the rules in the Quran. The posts seem to blur those lines.
BTW, San Francisco is one of my favorite cities/areas. Have family/freinds living there. Not so excited by some of the people that live there. Too left/gun shy/right brain dominate for me.
The point I was making is that a honest, good-hearted effort to understand this conflict would be much easier if the "rule books" of the different
religions in question were studied. I was suggesting that your historical views perhaps would be enhanced by studying the Bible or Quran.
Dr Mabuse,
I certainly agree a great deal of blood has been shed under the Islamic banner. We are agreed on the demographics of SF as well, which is why I spend a good amount of time on PS.com. IMO both playbooks have good and bad plays, so maybe it boils down to leadership, but people break the rules when necessary.
dr. mabuse
01-25-2010, 19:20
*
Warrior-Mentor
01-25-2010, 19:27
Just as Daniel Pipes and Geert Wilders have their differences, yet Daniel supports Geert in his free speech trail...
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27234&highlight=geert+wilder
craigepo
01-25-2010, 19:32
The Jews, Christians, and Muslims all have holy sites in these lands. Chronologically perhaps the Israelis have the oldest claim. Regardless of religion doesn't it seem wars are ultimately fought over land and resources?...How does one define defensive war?...However when you have English, French and German armies stirred up by the Pope and attacking the Middle East how is this defensive in nature?
Essentially, the argument that the Crusades were defensive goes as follows:
"St. Louis University scholar Thomas Madden has been exceptionally active in pointing out the widespread conquest and subjugation of Christian lands by Muslim armies prior to the calling of the crusades and, consequently, has like many scholars argued that the crusades were effectively defensive wars. He wrote,
Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West's belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world. While the Arabs were busy in the seventh through the tenth centuries winning
an opulent and sophisticated empire, Europe was defending itself against outside invaders and then digging out from the mess they left behind. Only in the eleventh century were Europeans able to take much notice of the East. The event that led to the crusades was the Turkish conquest of most of Christian Asia Minor (modern Turkey). The Christian emperor in Constantinople, faced with the loss of half of his empire, appealed for help to the rude but energetic Europeans. He got it.(7)"
Source: http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/apologyforthecrusades.html
For a more in-depth discussion, see Robert Spencer's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades."
In 1094 what exactly caused Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus to ask western Christendom for help against the Islamic invaders?
The difference between what started the Christian Crusades and Jihad is that the former was a defense against the latter.
the crusade's real purpose was to turn back Muslim conquests. The entire history of the crusades is one of Western reaction to Muslim conquest, the crusades were no more offensive than was the American invasion of Normandy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WZYZ5CqT1Q&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSgpkG416oE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rweS_Dwad4k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nOg7_0UHQ8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUuH2G7dPFk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/user/OccidentalSoapbox#p/c/7398C647F839FF21/6/C8MCl0bHVXo
http://www.youtube.com/user/OccidentalSoapbox#p/c/7398C647F839FF21/7/tdabtVzZi2E
YGBSM. Simply put for those seeking a simple explanation - turf wars...and it's still going on. :mad:
Richard
Warrior-Mentor
01-25-2010, 21:05
Robert Spencer on the Crusades:
PART 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2ee4WzxV4c
PART 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Msoop3doigk
PART 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GdfAwwYLXw
PART 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-wt8Sd1PTc
PART 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKxrCjyb4x8
Spencer on the Crusades:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2ee4WzxV4c
Thanks for posting that Sir, adding them to my favorites.
In a historically important context, it is interesting to note how Spencer manages to 'skip' the period of the last decade of Muhammad's life and the events of the first century following his death which are critical to the understanding (but in no way acceptance) of the development of Islamic expansionist and conflict-oriented thinking as we know it today. To my way of thinking, it is curious as to why someone as 'educated' as Mr Spencer is purported to be would do such a thing...:confused:
And so it goes...:(
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
01-25-2010, 21:33
In a historically important context, it is interesting to note how Spencer manages to 'skip' the period of the last decade of Muhammad's life and the events of the first century following his death which are critical to the understanding (but in no way acceptance) of the development of Islamic expansionist and conflict-oriented thinking as we know it today. To my way of thinking, it is curious as to why someone as 'educated' as Mr Spencer is purported to be would do such a thing...:confused:
And so it goes...:(
Richard's $.02 :munchin
You must not have watched all 5 parts.
And he doesn't skip it here either:
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Muhammad-Intolerant-Religion/dp/1596980281/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264476711&sr=8-1
You must not have watched all 5 parts.
I have.
Anyone who can handle a needle convincingly can make us see a thread which is not there.
- E. H. Gombrich
Richard
Balancing the Prophet
Karen Armstrong, FinancialTimes, 27 Apr 2007
Part 1 0f 2
Ever since the Crusades, people in the west have seen the prophet Muhammad as a sinister figure. During the 12th century, Christians were fighting brutal holy wars against Muslims, even though Jesus had told his followers to love their enemies, not to exterminate them. The scholar monks of Europe stigmatised Muhammad as a cruel warlord who established the false religion of Islam by the sword. They also, with ill-concealed envy, berated him as a lecher and sexual pervert at a time when the popes were attempting to impose celibacy on the reluctant clergy. Our Islamophobia became entwined with our chronic anti-Semitism; Jews and Muslims, the victims of the crusaders, became the shadow self of Europe, the enemies of decent civilisation and the opposite of ”us”.
Our suspicion of Islam is alive and well. Indeed, understandably perhaps, it has hardened as a result of terrorist atrocities apparently committed in its name. Yet despite the religious rhetoric, these terrorists are motivated by politics rather than religion. Like ”fundamentalists” in other traditions, their ideology is deliberately and defiantly unorthodox. Until the 1950s, no major Muslim thinker had made holy war a central pillar of Islam. The Muslim ideologues Abu ala Mawdudi (1903-79) and Sayyid Qutb (1906-66), among the first to do so, knew they were proposing a controversial innovation. They believed it was justified by the current political emergency.
The criminal activities of terrorists have given the old western prejudice a new lease of life. People often seem eager to believe the worst about Muhammad, are reluctant to put his life in its historical perspective and assume the Jewish and Christian traditions lack the flaws they attribute to Islam. This entrenched hostility informs Robert Spencer’s misnamed biography The Truth about Muhammad, subtitled Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion.
Spencer has studied Islam for 20 years, largely, it seems, to prove that it is an evil, inherently violent religion. He is a hero of the American right and author of the US bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam. Like any book written in hatred, his new work is a depressing read. Spencer makes no attempt to explain the historical, political, economic and spiritual circumstances of 7th-century Arabia, without which it is impossible to understand the complexities of Muhammad’s life. Consequently he makes basic and bad mistakes of fact. Even more damaging, he deliberately manipulates the evidence.
The traditions of any religion are multifarious. It is easy, therefore, to quote so selectively that the main thrust of the faith is distorted. But Spencer is not interested in balance. He picks out only those aspects of Islamic tradition that support his thesis. For example, he cites only passages from the Koran that are hostile to Jews and Christians 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.”
Islam has a far better record than either Christianity or Judaism of appreciating other faiths. In Muslim Spain, relations between the three religions of Abraham were uniquely harmonious in medieval Europe. The Christian Byzantines had forbidden Jews from residing in Jerusalem, but when Caliph Umar conquered the city in AD638, he invited them to return and was hailed as the precursor of the Messiah. Spencer doesn’t refer to this. Jewish-Muslim relations certainly have declined as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but this departs from centuries of peaceful and often positive co-existence. When discussing Muhammad’s war with Mecca, Spencer never cites the Koran’s condemnation of all warfare as an ”awesome evil”, its prohibition of aggression or its insistence that only self-defence justifies armed conflict. He ignores the Koranic emphasis on the primacy of forgiveness and peaceful negotiation: the second the enemy asks for peace, Muslims must lay down their arms and accept any terms offered, however disadvantageous. There is no mention of Muhammad’s non-violent campaign that ended the conflict.
People would be offended by an account of Judaism that dwelled exclusively on Joshua’s massacres and never mentioned Rabbi Hillel’s Golden Rule, or a description of Christianity based on the bellicose Book of Revelation that failed to cite the Sermon on the Mount. But the widespread ignorance about Islam in the west makes many vulnerable to Spencer’s polemic; he is telling them what they are predisposed to hear. His book is a gift to extremists who can use it to ”prove” to those Muslims who have been alienated by events in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq that the west is incurably hostile to their faith.
Eliot Weinberger is a poet whose interest in Islam began at the time of the first Gulf war. His slim volume, Muhammad, is also a selective anthology about the Prophet. His avowed aim is to ”give a small sense of the awe surrounding this historical and sacred figure, at a time of the demonisation of the Muslim world in much of the media”. Many of the passages he quotes are indeed mystical and beautiful, but others are likely to confirm some readers in their prejudice. Without knowing their provenance, how can we respond to such statements as ”He said that he who plays chess is like one who has dyed his hand in the blood of a pig” or ”Filling the stomach with pus is better than stuffing the brain with poetry”?
It is difficult to see how selecting only these dubious traditions as examples could advance mutual understanding. The second section of this anthology is devoted to anecdotes about Muhammad’s wives that smack of prurient gossip. Western readers need historical perspective to understand the significance of the Prophet’s domestic arrangements, his respect for his wives, and the free and forthright way in which they approached him. Equally eccentric are the stories cited by Weinberger to describe miracles attributed to the Prophet: the Koran makes it clear that Muhammad did not perform miracles and insists that he was an ordinary human being, with no divine powers.
It is, therefore, a relief to turn to Barnaby Rogerson’s more balanced and nuanced account of early Muslim history in The Heirs of the Prophet Muhammad. Rogerson is a travel writer by trade; his explanation of the Sunni/Shia divide is theologically simplistic, but his account of the rashidun, the first four ”rightly guided” caliphs who succeeded the Prophet, is historically sound, accessible and clears up many western misconceptions about this crucial period.
Rogerson makes it clear, for example, that the wars of conquest and the establishment of the Islamic empire after Muhammad’s death were not inspired by religious ideology but by pragmatic politics. The idea that Islam should conquer the world was alien to the Koran and there was no attempt to convert Jews or Christians. Islam was for the Arabs, the sons of Ishmael, as Judaism was for the descendants of Isaac and Christianity for the followers of Jesus.
Rogerson also shows that Muslim tradition is multi-layered and many-faceted. The early historians regularly gave two or three variant accounts of an incident in the life of the Prophet; readers were expected to make up their own minds.
Similarly, there are at least four contrasting and sometimes conflicting versions of the Exodus story in the Hebrew Bible, and in the New Testament the four evangelists interpret the life of Jesus quite differently. To choose one tradition and ignore the rest - as Weinberger and Spencer do - is distorting.
Professor Tariq Ramadan has studied Islam at the University of Geneva and al-Azhar University in Cairo and is currently senior research fellow at St Antony’s College, Oxford. The Messenger is easily the most scholarly and knowledgeable of these four biographies of Muhammad, but it is also practical and relevant, drawing lessons from the Prophet’s life that are crucial for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Ramadan makes it clear, for example, that Muhammad did not shun non-Muslims as ”unbelievers” but from the beginning co-operated with them in the pursuit of the common good. Islam was not a closed system at variance with other traditions. Muhammad insisted that relations between the different groups must be egalitarian. Even warfare must not obviate the primary duty of justice and respect.
When the Muslims were forced to leave Mecca because they were persecuted by the Meccan establishment, Ramadan shows, they had to adapt to the alien customs of their new home in Medina, where, for example, women enjoyed more freedom than in Mecca. The hijrah (”migration”) was a test of intelligence; the emigrants had to recognise that some of their customs were cultural rather than Islamic, and had to learn foreign practices.
(cont'd)
Balancing the Prophet
Karen Armstrong, FinancialTimes, 27 Apr 2007
Part 2 0f 2
Ramadan also makes it clear that, in the Koran, jihad was not synonymous with ”holy war”. The verb jihada should rather be translated: ”making an effort”. The first time the word is used in the Koran, it signified a ”resistance to oppression” (25:26) that was intellectual and spiritual rather than militant. Muslims were required to oppose the lies and terror of those who were motivated solely by self-interest; they had to be patient and enduring. Only after the hijrah, when they encountered the enmity of Mecca, did the word jihad take connotations of self-defence and armed resistance in the face of military aggression. Even so, in mainstream Muslim tradition, the greatest jihad was not warfare but reform of one’s own society and heart; as Muhammad explained to one of his companions, the true jihad was an inner struggle against egotism.
The Koran teaches that, while warfare must be avoided whenever possible, it is sometimes necessary to resist humanity’s natural propensity to expansionism and oppression, which all too often seeks to obliterate the diversity and religious pluralism that is God’s will. If they do wage war, Muslims must behave ethically. ”Do not kill women, children and old people,” Abu Bakr, the first caliph, commanded his troops. ”Do not commit treacherous actions. Do not burn houses and cornfields.” Muslims must be especially careful not to destroy monasteries where Christian monks served God in prayer.
Ramadan could have devoted more time to such contentious issues as the veiling of women, polygamy and Muhammad’s treatment of some (though by no means all) of the Jewish tribes of Medina. But his account restores the balance that is so often lacking in western narratives. Muhammad was not a belligerent warrior. Ramadan shows that he constantly emphasised the importance of ”gentleness” (ar-rafiq), ”tolerance” (al-ana) and clemency (al-hilm).
It will be interesting to see how The Messenger is received. Ramadan is clearly addressing issues that inspire some Muslims to distort their religion. Western people often complain that they never hear from ”moderate” Muslims, but when such Muslims do speak out they are frequently dismissed as apologists and hagiographers. Until we all learn to approach one another with generosity and respect, we cannot hope for peace.
Karen Armstrong, a former Catholic nun, is the author of ”Muhammad: Prophet For Our Time” and numerous other works on comparative religion.
http://www.bookbrowse.com/biographies/index.cfm?author_number=423
Karen Armstrong's Islamic Apologetics
by Raymond Ibrahim
10 May, 2007
Islamic apologist extraordinaire Karen Armstrong is at it again. In an article entitled "Balancing the Prophet" published by the Financial Times, the self-proclaimed "freelance monotheist" engages in what can only be considered second-rate sophistry.
*
The false statements begin in her opening paragraph:
Ever since the Crusades, people in the west have seen the prophet Muhammad as a sinister figure.… The scholar monks of Europe stigmatised Muhammad as a cruel warlord who established the false religion of Islam by the sword. They also, with ill-concealed envy, berated him as a lecher and sexual pervert at a time when the popes were attempting to impose celibacy on the reluctant clergy.
This is just an obvious error of fact. Armstrong and others try as a routine to tie European sentiments toward Islam to the Crusades, but in fact, "people in the west" had something of a "dim" view of Mohammed half a millenium before the Crusades. As early as the 8th century -- just a few generations after Mohammed -- Byzantine chronicler Theophanes wrote in his Chrongraphia:
He [Mohammed] taught those who gave ear to him that the one slaying the enemy -- or being slain by the enemy -- entered into paradise [e.g., Koran 9:111]. And he said paradise was carnal and sensual -- orgies of eating, drinking, and women. Also, there was a river of wine … and the woman were of another sort, and the duration of sex greatly prolonged and its pleasure long-enduring [e.g., 56: 7-40, 78:31, 55:70-77]. And all sorts of other nonsense.
It wasn't only during the Crusades -- when, as Armstrong would have it, popes desperately needed to demonize Mohammed and Islam in order to rally support for the Crusades -- that Westerners began to see him as a "sinister figure." Many in the West have seen him as that from the very start. So, claims of Mohammed being a "lecherous pervert" were not due to any "ill-conceived envy" on the part of 12th-century popes trying to "impose celibacy on the reluctant clergy." (Indeed, this last notion posited by Armstrong -- an ex-nun -- appears to be more telling of her own "ill-conceived envy" against the Church.) Despite the oft-repeated mantra that the West is "ignorant" of Islam -- dear to apologists like Armstrong -- this passage reveals that, from the start, Westerners were in fact aware of some aspects of the Koran.
Having distorted history, she next goes on to distort Islamic theology:
Until the 1950s, no major Muslim thinker had made holy war a central pillar of Islam. The Muslim ideologues Abu ala Mawdudi (1903-79) and Sayyid Qutb (1906-66), among the first to do so, knew they were proposing a controversial innovation. They believed it was justified by the current political emergency [emphasis added].
Even better than a "major Muslim thinker," Allah himself proclaims: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger [i.e., uphold sharia], nor embrace the true faith, [even if they are] from among the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay tribute with willing submission, and feel themselves utterly subdued" (Koran 9:29). Mohammed confirms: "I have been commanded [by Allah] to fight against mankind until they testify that none but Allah is to be worshipped and that Muhammad is Allah's Messenger" (Bukhari B2N24; next to the Koran, the second most authoritative text in Islam).
This and countless other Koranic verses and oral traditions of Mohammed, not to mention the course of conquest the first "rightly-guided" caliphs followed, have given Islam's jurists and theologians cause throughout the ages to reach the consensus -- binding on the entire Muslim community -- that whenever the Muslim world is militarily capable, it must go on the offensive until it subsumes the entire world. Moreover, this world-view was postulated well before Armstrong's blame-all -- the Crusades -- ever took place.
Qutb and Mawdudi were certainly not, as she puts it, "the first major Muslim thinkers to do so." Their claim to fame is that they were great articulators of jihad who awoke the umma to its obligation -- an obligation, however, which was formulated by the great sheikhs of Islam (such as revered scholars Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim of the 13th century) who, in their turn, based it on the words of the Koran and Mohammed. But Armstrong is right in that they did stress jihad due to the "current political emergency" -- but not in the way she means (i.e., "self-defense"): In their lifetime the Ottoman empire -- which, until its last moribund centuries, waged one jihad after another, terrorizing and conquering many of its Christian neighbors -- fell and there was no longer a central Muslim sultanate, or "caliphate," to maintain even a semblance of Islamic power, authority, and expansion. This needed -- and still needs -- to be rectified under Islam's worldview.
In fact, Qutb was a staunch opponent of those apologists of Islam in his day who were -- just like Armstrong -- trying to reinterpret jihad into a defensive movement. Nearly half a century ago, Qutb wrote:
As to persons who attempt to defend the concept of Islamic jihad by interpreting it in the narrow sense of the current concept of defensive war… they lack understanding of the nature of Islam and its primary aim… Can anyone say that if Abu Bakr, Omar, or Uthman [the "rightly-guided" caliphs] had been satisfied that the Roman or Persian powers were not going to attack the Arabian penninsula [in the 7th century], that they would not have striven to spread the message of Islam throughout the world?
During the reign of the "rightly-guided" caliphs, Islam burst forth from Arabia as far west as Spain, as far east as Afghanistan through the sword alone.
Armstrong then spends an inordinate amount of time criticizing author Robert Spencer and his new book The Truth about Muhammad:
The traditions of any religion are multifarious. It is easy, therefore, to quote so selectively that the main thrust of the faith is distorted. But Spencer is not interested in balance. He picks out only those aspects of Islamic tradition that support his thesis. For example, he cites only passages from the Koran that are hostile to Jews and Christians 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 [29:46]'.
But is Armstrong not herself being a bit disingenuous by assuring the people of the West -- primarily Christian -- that the Koran's notion of God "insists on continuity" with theirs? What about the other koranic verses: "Infidels are those who say Allah is one of three… [i.e., the Christian Trinity; ]" (5:73). "Infidels are those who say Allah is the Christ [Jesus], son of Mary" (5:17). The divinity of Christ -- anathema to Islam -- is fundamental to the Christian view of God. Surely Armstrong has not forgotten this from her days at the convent.
Moreover, if writers like Spencer are guilty of quoting Koranic verses "that are hostile to Jews and Christians" that may well be due to Islam's pivotal doctrine of abrogation -- verses revealed later in Mohammed's career (all the violent and intolerant ones such as 5:73, 5:17, 9:5, and 9:29) supercede and annul any contradictory verses revealed earlier, such as Armstrong's 29:46 and most of the other peaceful ones which apologists try to make the cornerstone of Islam.
Finally, if books like Spencer's focus on the violent side of Islam without devoting enough attention to Islam's more "positive" aspects -- is that not only natural? Let us be perfectly clear: Most people in the West interested in learning more about Islam had their interest piqued by the 9/11 attacks, perpetrated by an Muslim group -- al Qaeda -- who insists that Islam informed its actions. Westerners are primarily interested in how Islam affects them, as non-Muslims. So it should be understandable if books written about Islam in the West focus more on that which concerns it -- jihad -- than on Islam's more peaceful side.
Armstrong's lament that "there is widespread ignorance of Islam in the west," and that we should rectify this by developing a more "balanced" and "nuanced" understanding of the Koran is as ridiculous as asking Muslims living in Palestine and Iraq to overlook the "Crusader" presence there and instead consult the Bible itself to see how many portions of it accord with peace and justice. (Indeed, such a proposition is worse than ridiculous, since the Bible comes nowhere near to theologically justifying violence against the "Other" in perpetuity as found in the Koran.
In the final analysis, Armstrong's historical and theological "discrepancies" (to be polite) are baffling -- particularly her many oneline sentences that simply defy historical fact: "Muhammad was not a belligerent warrior." "The idea that Islam should conquer the world was alien to the Koran…" "Muhammad did not shun non-Muslims as 'unbelievers' but from the beginning co-operated with them in the pursuit of the common good." "Islam was not a closed system at variance with other traditions. Muhammad insisted that relations between the different groups must be egalitarian."
Still, in the end one can sympathize with Armstrong's closing sentence: "Until we all learn to approach one another with generosity and respect, we cannot hope for peace." But we should also hasten to add the more important virtues of honesty, sincerity, and truthfulness.
http://article.nationalreview.com/314354/islamic-apologetics/raymond-ibrahim
Yet again - IMO - the common failure of all sides of this issue is the penchant to study/cite modern Islamic scripture (what I think of - based on readings and a general sense of broad historical perspective - as post-Muhammad Islam) merely as it exists in written form after much editing vs the historical context in which the manuscripts appeared (who, what, when, how) and reasons (why) for which they were written over the several centuries post-Muhammad - a lengthy record of yet another politicized theological hijacking used to foster the nefarious fulfillment of our more baser human behaviors. In this way and to this end, I find Mr Ibrahim's critique of Ms Armstrong falling short of his attempt to summarily discredit and dismiss her scholarship, while also placing into question the merits of his own.
As my wife is wont to say - perception is reality - and, as I have experienced on a number of occasions with life, such may be the case here...with the perception of what Islam is or isn't by so many usurping any chance of our understanding its reality.
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Richard,
Will you be quoting John Esposito as well?
Who is Karen Armstrong?
* Professor at London’s Leo Baeck College
* Justifies Palestinian suicide bombers as being motivated by “absolute hopelessness,” not hatred
* Outspoken critic of Israel and America
* Whitewashes the intolerant and violent elements of Islamic tradition
Karen Armstrong is a former Catholic nun who currently teaches Christianity and comparative religion at London's Leo Baeck College. Born in 1945, Armstrong entered a Roman Catholic convent in 1962 and left seven years later. She authored the 1982 book Through the Narrow Gate, wherein she detailed her experiences in the cloistered, regimented life of the convent. She earned an undergraduate degree in literature from Oxford University and thereafter taught literature at the University of London while she worked toward a PhD. Her doctoral dissertation was rejected three years later, however, thus precluding her from securing a permanent position at the university level. Armstrong found employment as head of the English department at a girls' school in London, but in 1982 she left the school and devoted her energies to working on television documentaries.
Armstrong recounts how, while in Israel in the mid-1980s producing a documentary about Saint Paul, she heard some Israelis refer derisively to "dirty Arabs" -- an incident that led her, she explains, to instantly recognize that "there was something fundamentally wrong" in Israel. Today's Israelis, says Armstrong, generally and inaccurately view themselves as victims of anti-Semitism and "cannot believe that it is not 1939 any more; the Israeli people are emotionally stuck in the horrors of the Nazi era." Moreover, she says "the Israelis can do what [wrongs] they want because America will always support them."
Armstrong contends that the 9/11 attacks taught Americans "that we now live in one world; that what happens in Gaza or Afghanistan or Arabia today will have repercussions in the United States or London tomorrow; that America is no longer protected by its great oceans or wealth or military prowess."
Dismissing the notion that radical Islam poses any special threat to non-Muslims, Armstrong largely blames the West for the deeds of Palestinian suicide bombers who target Israeli civilians: "The West has to share a responsibility for what is happening in the Middle East. If it had not persecuted the Jews, there would not have been the need for the creation of the state of Israel. The Muslim world did nothing to the Jews, and the Palestinians are paying the price for the sins of Europe."
According to Armstrong, suicide bombers are motivated by "absolute hopelessness," not by hatred. The Palestinians, she explains, "don't have F-16s, and they don't have tanks. They don't have anything to match Israel's arsenal. They only have their own bodies."
Armstrong played a key role in the production of a PBS series celebrating the life of the Prophet Muhammad, and offering a sanitized account of the prophet’s life, his deeds, and the religion he founded.
"The heart of Islam," says Armstrong, "beats with the heart of the American people. The passion that Islam has for equality -- Islam is one of the most egalitarian religions I know and has always lived out its egalitarianism. It's at its best historically when it has had egalitarian forms of government, and [it is] unhappy with authoritarian forms of government, as it has now. That's one of the reasons Islam is unhappy, because it has a lot of despots and bad government and tyrannical government, some of which are supported by the United States and the West generally. Similarly [there is] its passion for justice. The bedrock message of the Qur'an is not a doctrine but a simple command that it's right to share your wealth equally, bad to build up a private fortune selfishly, and good to try to create a just and decent society where poor and vulnerable people are treated with respect.... And Islam is a religion of peace. Like all the great world traditions, it recoils in horror from the violence of the world and struggles through to a position of peace. You can see that in the life of the Prophet Muhammad. The word 'Islam' is related etymologically to the word 'Salaam' -- 'peace.'"
Armstrong draws a parallel between conservative Christians and Muslim terrorists: "[T]he Christian right today has absorbed the endemic violence in American society: they oppose reform of the gun laws, for example, and support the death penalty. They never quote the Sermon on the Mount but base their xenophobic and aggressive theology on Revelation. Osama bin Laden is as just as selective in his use of scripture."
In her book, Islam: A Short History, Armstrong blames Christians for the alleged misapprehension that Islam is not a peaceful religion:
"Ever since the Crusades, the people of Western Christendom developed a stereotypical and distorted vision of Islam, which they regarded as the enemy of decent civilization.... It was, for example, during the Crusades, when it was Christians who had instigated a series of brutal holy wars against the Muslim world, that Islam was described by the learned scholar-monks of Europe as an inherently violent and intolerant faith, which had only been able to establish itself by the sword. The myth of the supposed fanatical intolerance of Islam has become one of the received ideas of the West."
After the deadly July 7, 2005 terrorist bombings in London, Armstrong said that “our priority must be to stem the flow of young people into organizations such as al-Qaida, instead of alienating them by routinely coupling their religion with immoral violence. Incorrect statements about Islam have convinced too many in the Muslim world that the west is an implacable enemy.”
Armstrong declared that “these [terrorist] acts may be committed by people who call themselves Muslims, but they violate essential Islamic principles. The Qur’an prohibits aggressive warfare, permits war only in self-defence and insists that the true Islamic values are peace, reconciliation and forgiveness.”
“Like the Bible,” Armstrong says, “the Qur’an has its share of aggressive texts, but like all the great religions, its main thrust is towards kindliness and compassion. Islamic law outlaws war against any country in which Muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely, and forbids the use of fire, the destruction of buildings and the killing of innocent civilians in a military campaign.”
Minimizing the oppressive nature of the fanatical form of Islam known as Wahhabism, Armstrong contends that “even though the narrow, sometimes bigoted vision of Wahhabism makes it a fruitful ground for extremism, the vast majority of Wahhabis do not commit acts of terror.”
In 2006, as Muslims around the world protested what they perceived to be negative remarks about Islam by Pope Benedict XVI, Armstrong published a piece in The Guardian which stated, “We cannot afford to maintain these ancient prejudices against Islam: The Pope’s remarks were dangerous, and will convince many more Muslims that the west is incurably Islamophobic.” “Our Islamophobia,” intoned Armstrong, “dates back to the time of the Crusades, and is entwined with our chronic anti-semitism.”
Armstrong alleges that “[U]ntil 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.”
Parts of this profile are adapted from the article"Professors for Suicide Bombers," written by Edward Alexander and published by FrontPageMagazine.com on June 26, 2003
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=773
Both Mr. Spencer and Ms. Armstrong make interesting points. The prevailing perception of the efficacy of either point of view seems subject to what is politically pragmatic for the time.
In Flags of Our Fathers, James Bradley talks about visiting Japan after college. As a young man he couldn't understand why his father, a gentle and intelligent man couldn't forgive the Japanese or wouldn't set foot in Japan. In time as he learned what his father endured on Iwo Jima he understood how Pacific war veterans could feel this way.
It makes me wonder if in 2050 if the US is in global conflict with China, and our NATO allies, particularly Turkey are fighting at our side, if people will perceive Ms. Armstrong's take on the characteristics of Islam to be more sensible than Mr. Spencer's?
To quote George Friedman: " There are no friends in geopolitics just shared interests, passion is overrated."
Will you be quoting John Esposito as well?
"Notes on the Ideological Patrons of an Islamophobe, Robert Spencer"
by Carl W. Ernst - William R. Kenan, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
Who are the publishing firms that publish Spencer's works? Who funds them? Who supports his work? Some information on these patrons is given below (the numbers refer to the citations of the organizations marked in bold in the paragraph above). This information is significant because these books are not scholarly, and they do not pass the review of blind refereed evaluation practiced by university presses. They are instead supported by specific political and ideological interests through think-tanks and private foundations. They need to be evaluated differently from scholarly studies, since their agenda does not have to do with the scholarly goals of the humanities and the social sciences. In particular, the lectures given by authors such as Spencer on college campuses may be misunderstood as being equivalent to scholarly research. While it certainly may be acknowledged that scholarship has political implications, independent research needs to be distinguished from hired polemics.
http://www.unc.edu/~cernst/courses/2004/026/001/spencer.htm
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
testedone
01-26-2010, 11:22
"blind refereed evaluation practiced by university presses"
What? I see just as much of an agenda in the universities as there are in every place, both while I was in College and now seeing my daughter go through what they are teaching.. The universities are not blind at all when it comes to there agenda..
FYI - http://www.unf.edu/library/guides/refereedarticle.html
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
01-26-2010, 12:43
I'm not buying it. When you reach a certain level of scholarship, the names don't need to be attached. Experts can read an al qaeda release and tell if it was written by UBL or Zawahiri. So too can other experts tell if things were written by Pipes, Spencer or Esposito by position and writing style.
And don't be fooled by stating that "because it's a university, it doesn't have an agenda."
How much have the Saudis donated to Esposition's Center for Christian Muslim Propaganda?
http://www.investigativeproject.org/1443/john-esposito-reputation-vs-reality
There's a very warped agenda there...and IMO it should be illegal for foreign entities to fund our schools and universities...just as it is for them to fund political campaigns.
FWIW - the UNC-Chapel Hill is Spencer's alma mater.
Richard
Warrior-Mentor
01-26-2010, 13:06
FWIW - the UNC-Chapel Hill is Spencer's alma mater.
Richard
And Bill O'Reilly graduated from Harvard. Your point?
What? I see just as much of an agenda in the universities as there are in every place, both while I was in College and now seeing my daughter go through what they are teaching.. The universities are not blind at all when it comes to there agenda..
Ain’t that the truth…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6955013541295584775#
http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/intro/
Ahhh - Newton's Third Law of Motion as experienced by Billy in Slaughterhouse Five.
And so it goes...
Richaard's $.02 :munchin