Author: Ophelia Benson

Karen Armstrong has been described as “one of the world’s most provocative and inclusive thinkers on the role of religion in the modern world”. Armstrong’s efforts to be “inclusive” are certainly “provocative”, though generally for reasons that are less than edifying. In 1999, the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Los Angeles gave Armstrong an award for media “fairness”. What follows might cast light on how warranted that recognition is, and indeed on how the MPAC chooses to define fairness.

In one of her baffling Guardian columns, Armstrong argues that, “It is important to know who our enemies are… By making the disciplined effort to name our enemies correctly, we will learn more about them, and come one step nearer, perhaps, to solving the… problems of our divided world.” Yet elsewhere in the same piece, Armstrong maintains that Islamic terrorism must not be referred to as such. “Jihad”, we were told, “is a cherished spiritual value that, for most Muslims, has no connection with violence.”

Well, the word ‘jihad’ has multiple meanings depending on the context, and it’s hard to determine the particulars of what “most Muslims” think in this regard. But it’s safe to say the Qur’an and Sunnah are of great importance to Muslims generally, and most references to jihad found in the Qur’an and Sunnah occur in a military or paramilitary context, and aggressive conceptions of jihad are found in every major school of Islamic jurisprudence, with only minor variations. Mohammed’s own celebration of homicidal ‘martyrdom’ makes for particularly interesting reading.

The Muslims who do commit acts of terrorism do so, by their own account, because of what they perceive as core Islamic teachings. The names they give themselves – jihadist, mujahedin, shahid – have no meaning outside of an Islamic context. But Armstrong would have us ignore what terrorists repeatedly tell us about themselves and their motives. One therefore has to ask how one defeats an opponent whose name one dare not repeat and whose stated motives one cannot mention.

In another Guardian column, Armstrong insists that, “until the 20th century, anti-Semitism was not part of Islamic culture” and that anti-Semitism is purely a Western invention, spread by Westerners. The sheer wrong-headedness of this assertion is hard to put into words, but one might note how, once again, the evil imperialist West is depicted as boundlessly capable of spreading corruption wherever it goes, while the Islamic world is portrayed as passive, devoid of agency and thereby virtuous by default.

According to Armstrong, Mohammed was, above all, a “peacemaker” who “respected” Jews and other non-Muslims. Yet nowhere in the Qur’an and Sunnah does Mohammed refer to non-Muslims as in any way deserving of respect as equals. Quite the opposite, in fact. Apparently, we are to ignore 1400 years of Islamic history contradicting Armstrong’s view, and to ignore the contents of the Qur’an and the explicitly anti-Semitic ‘revelations’ of Islam’s founder. Has Armstrong not read Ibn Ishaq’s quasi-sacred biography of Mohammed? Has she not read the Hadiths? Does she not know of the massacre of the Banu Qurayza and the opportunist raids against the Bani Quainuqa, Bani Nadir and Bani Isra’il and other Jewish tribes? Does she not know how these events were justified as a divine duty, one which formed the theological basis of the Great Jihad of Abu Bakr, setting in motion one of the most formidable military expansions in Islamic history? Does she not know how these theological ideas established Jews and Christians’ subordinate legal status throughout much of the Islamic world for hundreds of years?

In her latest offering, Armstrong is again given free rein to mislead Guardian readers and, again, rewrite history. Armstrong asserts that, “until recently, no Muslim thinker had ever claimed [violent jihad] was a central tenet of Islam”. In fact, contemporary jihadists draw upon theological traditions reaching back to Mohammed’s own murderous example. The Fifteenth Century historian and philosopher, Ibn Khaldun, summarised the consensus of five centuries of prior Sunni theology regarding jihad in his book, The Muqudimmah: “In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the… mission to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force… Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.” Shiite jurisprudence concurred with this consensus, as seen in al-Amili’s manual of Shia law, Jami-i-Abbasi: “Islamic holy war against followers of other religions, such as Jews, is required unless they convert to Islam.”

Given that Armstrong is regularly described as a “respected scholar” and an “expert on Islam”, she must surely know of Khaldun and his sources, and must surely know how Mohammed himself conceived jihad primarily as an expansionist military endeavour. Armstrong must also be aware of the jihad campaigns of religious ‘cleansing’ throughout the Arab Peninsula, in accord with Mohammed’s death bed words. Likewise, the five centuries of jihad campaigns in India, during which tens of millions of Hindus and Buddhists were slaughtered or enslaved to further Islamic influence, along with similar campaigns in Egypt, Palestine, Armenia, Africa, Spain, etc. All of these campaigns are thoroughly – indeed, triumphantly – documented by Muslim sources of the period and are available to any serious scholar. (For a detailed overview, see Andrew Bostom’s Legacy of Jihad.)

If Armstrong does not know of such things, in what sense can she be considered a “respected scholar” of this subject? For what, exactly, is she respected? For reaffirming popular misconceptions and PC prejudice, even when her claims are demonstrably false and egregiously misleading? It is, I think, more likely that Armstrong is aware of these inconvenient details and has chosen not to divulge them. Either way, Islam’s foremost hagiographer and shill has found an audience among Muslims and those on the left with little appetite for unflattering facts and a preference for being told whatever they wish to hear.

© David Thompson 2006

Dear Oriana Fallaci

As a veteran activist of women’s rights, for liberty and equality, as a first hand victim of political Islam, and a veteran fighter against it, as an atheist who is a staunch believer in a secular state and secular education system, as a woman who has fought against the hejab in any form and shape, as a secularist who has defended the latest French secular law to ban the wearing of any conspicuous religious symbols in public schools, as a campaigner for banning the veil for underage girls and banning religious schools, as a campaigner against honour killings, Sharia courts in Canada, Islamism and Islamic terrorism, as a staunch defender of unconditional freedom of expression and criticism who defended the right of those who ridiculed Mohammad in the row over the caricatures, I share some of your beliefs and find others very offensive, and let me make it clear, not to Islam, but to human values, egalitarian and libertarian values which are also part of “European culture”.

When you came to Iran to interview Khomeini, I was fighting against him and the Islamic regime, and for women’s rights, against the hejab, and for freedom. I knew you first and foremost for your interview with the Shah. I admired your courage and frankness then. I feel indignant now when I read some of your comments and your latest interview with Margaret Talbot in the New Yorker. Your justified hatred against Islam and Islamism has been extended to all Moslems and everyone living under Islam. I am sure you do not need anyone to remind you that this is racism. I am bewildered when I read your comments against immigrants and immigration from countries under the rule of Islam, and find this in contrast with the justified pride you take in your history for fighting against Nazi-Fascism.

It seems to me that the hate against Islam has pushed you towards Christianity. You have even visited the Pope asking him to take a stronger stance against Islamism. This I find puzzling. How does an atheist of one religion take refuge in another? Your hate against Islamism and political Islam finds expression in Eurocentrism. Your disapproval for multiculturalism and cultural relativism has led you to defend “western culture”, instead of universal rights and secular, humanitarian, and libertarian values.

As a young girl growing up in Iran, under the rule of Islam, I read western philosophers and writers to educate myself with enlightened principles and values regarding equality, freedom and women’s rights. I chose the libertarian and egalitarian side of Western culture, and I am bewildered why, you an atheist, a fighter against fascism, had to resort to Eurocentrism and racism in order to defend Western culture.

Your defence of a superior culture goes as far as expressing more concern about the beheading of statues of Buddha than about murdered, maimed women and men in Afghanistan whose rights are violated daily, who are victims of political Islam and American militarism. This perplexes me. I found it offensive that a human being who enjoys a freedom-fighter stature in the eyes of many, cares more about the cultural and physical ambiance of her native country than all those men, women and children who are killed, maimed and violated daily in Iraq. It seems that in defence of “your culture” you, a self-professed atheist, in attacking mosques end up defending the church. As a staunch campaigner against terrorism, I feel indignant when I see our “Western” anti Islamist can voice condemnation only of terrorism taking place in the West. All terrorist acts which take place daily in countries under Islam are mentioned at best only in passing. Are people who have, by the draw of a lottery, been born under the rule of Islam not worthy of your attention, passion and rage?

All these become so ironic when one looks deeply into the root of political Islam. When one remembers how the Western governments unleashed this monster on the people of the region, how they created the Mojahedin in Afghanistan in the cold war era, and then helped the Taliban, how in the fear of a leftist revolution in Iran dumped Khomeini on us and helped bring about an Islamic state, when one remembers these recent historical facts, one cannot help but discern a profound sense of hypocrisy and double standard. Sadly the saga of helping political Islam and Islamic terrorism by the Western governments is an ongoing effort. Just look at Iraq! The US and Britain, by invading Iraq, helped Islamists grow monstrously therein. Have you forgotten who the friend of Bin laden was? The tragedy is that as long as this monster was strangling the “native” people, our rage could stay under control, our passion not moved. Those people were not worthy of our passion and compassion!

Western academia and journalists invented and nurtured the concept of cultural relativism, so that on its basis they could justify compulsory veiling, stoning, maiming and torturing of the people under the rule of Islam. That gave justification for turning one’s head while one’s government made deals with those Islamic states. This concept was invented so under the guise of “respect for other cultures” the brutal crimes and violation of human rights will be brushed aside “respectfully”. We have witnessed how European courts have resorted to cultural relativism in defending the deportation of immigrants fleeing the rule of Islam. They have gone as far as stating that the prison conditions in those countries are suitable for those people.

I must state that these arrogant, hypocritical and racist attitudes and policies are an important tool to foster political Islam. If one does not distinguish between the Islamic movement, a reactionary and brutal political movement, and ordinary Moslems who are the first hand victims of this, if one does not distinguish between the oppressor and the oppressed, one becomes an accessory to Islamic brutality.

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, have directed the youth in these communities to despair and frustration. The revolt of the “suburb” in France is a vivid and sad example of such policies. By rejecting these communities as part of “us” we leave them at the mercy of the “leaders of the community”, who foster traditionalism, Islamism, sexism, and glorification of the “home land”. These are poisonous brain washings. And I must say that your stance is aiding this process.

I find it so hard to understand that in despising the oppressor and oppressing ideology you come to despise the victims just as much. No sympathy, no compassion for the victims. No rage and passion provoked for these people who live under these inhumane and brutal conditions. It is amazing that in Mexico, witnessing the brutal crushing of a student demonstration and becoming a victim of it, you came to hate the sufferers just as much as the oppressors. So flippantly, you state you hate “Mexicans” and as a result despise the most impressive show of power and solidarity in the US for the rights of immigrants in recent months.

I was enraged by reading your racist comments. I was indignant at sensing your Euro centrism, at your lack of human compassion for millions who fled the rule of Islam and took refuge in the West in the hope of a better life. I share your indignation for the Islamist movement. But I denounce categorically the racism that is openly expressed by you. And last but not least I must state that I defend the unconditional freedom of expression, and condemn the court which is to try you for what you have expressed in your books. One must be free to express any opinions. This is the pillar of a free society.

Azar Majedi

The chair of Organisation for Women’s Liberation- Iran; Producer and host of TV programmes on New Channel satellite TV, including “No to Political Islam”; Editor of Medusa

Azar Majedi

azarmajedi@yahoo.com