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
