Changes

Her conclusions regarding God conform to her experience, or lack thereof, and the faith that Armstrong promotes is seen by some as being closer to atheism than that of the [[Bible]]. She rejects the Biblical revelation of God as a literal benign creator, and is akin to [[atheists]] and [[evolutionists]] in imagining that there is "no Intelligence controlling the cosmos, and that life itself is the result of a blind process of natural selection." In an interview with the [[Wall Street Journal]],<ref>Sept. 12, 2009</ref> the militant [[atheist]]  [[Richard Dawkins]], who himself wars against a god of his own imagination, responded to Armstrong's arguments in her book A ''Case for God'' by stating, "Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They'll be right."

Her conclusions regarding God conform to her experience, or lack thereof, and the faith that Armstrong promotes is seen by some as being closer to atheism than that of the [[Bible]]. She rejects the Biblical revelation of God as a literal benign creator, and is akin to [[atheists]] and [[evolutionists]] in imagining that there is "no Intelligence controlling the cosmos, and that life itself is the result of a blind process of natural selection." In an interview with the [[Wall Street Journal]],<ref>Sept. 12, 2009</ref> the militant [[atheist]]  [[Richard Dawkins]], who himself wars against a god of his own imagination, responded to Armstrong's arguments in her book A ''Case for God'' by stating, "Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They'll be right."

In contrast to the consistent references in the Bible to God as the literal Creator of the [[Universe]], and who does reveal Himself through what He has made and has worked in literal events, Armstrong subscribes to the discredited<ref> http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-J.html#jedp</ref> Documentary Hypothesis Theory, and also asserts that the literalistic reading of Scripture, when contrary to what [[science]] may say, was a development that began in the 17th century. She contrasts this to the "a good myth" of paganism, which she sees as as "an early form of psychology," and which she advocates as showing"how to cope with mortality, discover an inner source of strength, and endure pain and sorrow with serenity."  Rather than being a literal reality one can experience, the "God" Armstrong advocates "is '''merely''' a symbol that points beyond itself to an indescribable transcendence, whose existence is only intuited by means of spiritual exercises and a compassionate lifestyle that enables cultivating new capacities of mind and heart."<ref>''Man vs. God'', The Wall Street Journal,  Sept. 12, 2009</ref>

In contrast to the consistent references in the Bible to God as the literal Creator of the [[Universe]], and who does reveal Himself through what He has made and has worked in literal events, Armstrong subscribes to the discredited<ref>http://www.ukapologetics.net/docu.htm</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-J.html#jedp</ref> Documentary Hypothesis Theory, and also asserts that the literalistic reading of Scripture, when contrary to what [[science]] may say, was a development that began in the 17th century. She contrasts this to the "a good myth" of paganism, which she sees as as "an early form of psychology," and which she advocates as showing"how to cope with mortality, discover an inner source of strength, and endure pain and sorrow with serenity."  Rather than being a literal reality one can experience, the "God" Armstrong advocates "is '''merely''' a symbol that points beyond itself to an indescribable transcendence, whose existence is only intuited by means of spiritual exercises and a compassionate lifestyle that enables cultivating new capacities of mind and heart."<ref>''Man vs. God'', The Wall Street Journal,  Sept. 12, 2009</ref>

In another statement which further defines this she states,  

In another statement which further defines this she states,  

*On the [[Crusades]]:

*On the [[Crusades]]:

"Islam was everything that the West thought it was not, and it was at the time of the Crusades that the idea that Islam was essentially a violent religion took hold in the West. "Europe was projecting anxiety about its own behaviour onto Islam, and it did the same thing too with the Jewish people."<ref>[http://www.islamfortoday.com/karenarmstrong02.htm ''Islam and the West,'']  interview by  Omayma Abdel-Latif for Islam for today.</ref><ref>http://www.islamamerica.org/ArticleLibrary/tabid/55/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/13/Default.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_armstrong.html</ref><ref>http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/transcript1.html?print</ref> <ref>guardian.co.uk, ''Do unto others'' Friday 14 November 2008</ref>

"Islam was everything that the West thought it was not, and it was at the time of the Crusades that the idea that Islam was essentially a violent religion took hold in the West. "Europe was projecting anxiety about its own behaviour onto Islam, and it did the same thing too with the Jewish people."<ref>[http://www.islamfortoday.com/karenarmstrong02.htm ''Islam and the West,'']  interview by  Omayma Abdel-Latif for Islam for today.</ref><ref>http://www.islamamerica.org/ArticleLibrary/tabid/55/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/13/Default.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_armstrong.html</ref><ref>http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/transcript1.html?print</ref><ref>guardian.co.uk, ''Do unto others'' Friday 14 November 2008</ref>

==Critical analysis==  

==Critical analysis==  

Armstrong presents the Qur'an as saying "that every rightly guided religion comes from God. And there must be no compulsion in religion,"  while failing to see clear answers or theology in the Bible. However, the reality is that the Qur'an is hardly a cohesive, progressively comprehensive revelation, while what is expressed in its disjointed suras is an exclusive and elite view of Islam, and that unbelievers are worthy of repression, such as is seen in the [[Pact of Umar.]]<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/pactofumar.html</ref> Moreover, anything close to a "New Testament," with its rejection of physical religious violence and retaliation , was part of Muhammad's earlier preMedenic  "revelations" (when he was a minority, and militarily weak), in which there is one verse (2:256) clearly stating there should be "no compulsion in religion," while it is well evident in many other places that the Qur'an clearly exhorts retaliation and religious violence.  

Armstrong presents the Qur'an as saying "that every rightly guided religion comes from God. And there must be no compulsion in religion,"  while failing to see clear answers or theology in the Bible. However, the reality is that the Qur'an is hardly a cohesive, progressively comprehensive revelation, while what is expressed in its disjointed suras is an exclusive and elite view of Islam, and that unbelievers are worthy of repression, such as is seen in the [[Pact of Umar.]]<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/pactofumar.html</ref> Moreover, anything close to a "New Testament," with its rejection of physical religious violence and retaliation , was part of Muhammad's earlier preMedenic  "revelations" (when he was a minority, and militarily weak), in which there is one verse (2:256) clearly stating there should be "no compulsion in religion," while it is well evident in many other places that the Qur'an clearly exhorts retaliation and religious violence.  

   

   

The Qur'an is far more restrictive in its scope of communication than the Bible,<ref>http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/Gilchrist/Vol1/4a.html</ref><ref>http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/bravo_r4bc.htm</ref>  lacking the manner of context and clarity of theology which the Bible provides in this area, with its extensive historical narratives and theological treatises. If this was the case in the Qur'an then it might enable restricting its religious violence to simply being sanctioned in a truly defensive context or offensively in a limited geographical area, versus commands such as to fight until the only worship be of Allah (2:193; 8:39) being used to justify world - wide physical Jihad. In addition, oppressing or making war against Islam can easily be understood to include ideological opposition. <ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/JESUS.Vs.Muhammad.html</ref> It is also evidenced that the teaching of the [[Hadith]] promotes physical violence.<ref>http://www.muslimhope.com/WarInIslam.htm</ref>   

The Qur'an is far more restrictive in its scope of communication than the Bible,<ref>http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/Gilchrist/Vol1/4a.html</ref><ref>http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/bravo_r4bc.htm</ref>  lacking the manner of context and clarity of theology which the Bible provides in this area, with its extensive historical narratives and theological treatises. If this was the case in the Qur'an then it might enable restricting its religious violence to simply being sanctioned in a truly defensive context or offensively in a limited geographical area, versus commands such as to fight until the only worship be of Allah (2:193; 8:39) being used to justify world - wide physical Jihad. In addition, oppressing or making war against Islam can easily be understood to include ideological opposition.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/JESUS.Vs.Muhammad.html</ref> It is also evidenced that the teaching of the [[Hadith]] promotes physical violence.<ref>http://www.muslimhope.com/WarInIslam.htm</ref>   

In contrast to the Qur'an, the New Testament is clearly and consistently contrary to the use of violence by the church, either in retaliation, church discipline or ruling over those without (1Cor. 5:12,13; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:3; Eph. 6:12) in contrast to the State, (Romans 13:1-7; 1Pet. 13,14) with the violence of the Crusades and Inquisitions being accompanied by widespread ignorance of the Bible.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/JESUS.Vs.Muhammad.html Jesus versus Muhammad]</ref>

In contrast to the Qur'an, the New Testament is clearly and consistently contrary to the use of violence by the church, either in retaliation, church discipline or ruling over those without (1Cor. 5:12,13; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:3; Eph. 6:12) in contrast to the State, (Romans 13:1-7; 1Pet. 13,14) with the violence of the Crusades and Inquisitions being accompanied by widespread ignorance of the Bible.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/JESUS.Vs.Muhammad.html Jesus versus Muhammad]</ref>

Also, look closely at Armstrong’s wording: “Islamic law outlaws war against any country in which Muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely.” This is similar to a fatwa of Mufti Ebrahim Desai of South Africa: “if a country doesn’t allow the propagation of Islam to its inhabitants in a suitable manner or creates hindrances to this, then the Muslim ruler would be justifying in waging Jihad against this country, so that the message of Islam can reach its inhabitants, thus saving them from the Fire of Jahannum [hell]. If the Kuffaar [unbelievers] allow us to spread Islam peacefully, then we would not wage Jihad against them.”

Also, look closely at Armstrong’s wording: “Islamic law outlaws war against any country in which Muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely.” This is similar to a fatwa of Mufti Ebrahim Desai of South Africa: “if a country doesn’t allow the propagation of Islam to its inhabitants in a suitable manner or creates hindrances to this, then the Muslim ruler would be justifying in waging Jihad against this country, so that the message of Islam can reach its inhabitants, thus saving them from the Fire of Jahannum [hell]. If the Kuffaar [unbelievers] allow us to spread Islam peacefully, then we would not wage Jihad against them.”

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

{{Cquote|...she is right again when she says that “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 seemingly intractable and increasingly perilous problems of our divided world.” Yet ironically enough, it is clear from her own obfuscations and distortions of Islam that she herself has not made this disciplined effort. Her continuing influence, however, is just one indication of why it is so crucial today that other, less-biased analysts do so, and do so quickly.<ref>[[http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=7978 Robert Spencer,  ''Karen Armstrong's Fantasies About Islamic Terror'']  FrontPageMagazine.com,  Tuesday, July 12, 2005</ref>}}

{{Cquote|...she is right again when she says that “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 seemingly intractable and increasingly perilous problems of our divided world.” Yet ironically enough, it is clear from her own obfuscations and distortions of Islam that she herself has not made this disciplined effort. Her continuing influence, however, is just one indication of why it is so crucial today that other, less-biased analysts do so, and do so quickly.<ref>[http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=7978 Robert Spencer,  ''Karen Armstrong's Fantasies About Islamic Terror'']  FrontPageMagazine.com,  Tuesday, July 12, 2005</ref>}}

James Patrick Holding, in his brief critical analysis of  Armstrong's ''The History of God,'' states,  

James Patrick Holding, in his brief critical analysis of  Armstrong's ''The History of God,'' states,