Changes

==Critical analysis==  

==Critical analysis==  

While Armstrong presents the Qur'an as saying that "It says that every rightly guided religion comes from God. And there must be no compulsion in religion,"  while the Bible has no clear answers or theology in the Bible, the reality is that the Qur'an is hardly a cohesive, progressively comprehensive revelation, but its disjointed suras support an exclusive and elite view of Islam, and that unbelievers are worthy of repression, such as it expressed in the Pact of Umar.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/pactofumar.html</ref> Moreover, anything close to a "New Testament" with its rejection physical violence 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 "It says that every rightly guided religion comes from God. And there must be no compulsion in religion,"  while stating that the Bible has no clear answers or theology. However, the reality is that the Qur'an is hardly a cohesive, progressively comprehensive revelation, while its disjointed suras do support an exclusive and elite view of Islam, and that unbelievers are worthy of repression, such as is expressed in the Pact of Umar.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/pactofumar.html</ref> Moreover, anything close to a "New Testament," with its rejection physical religious violence, 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, which for Islam would enable restricting its religious violence to simply a defensive context or a limited geographical areas, 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, which for Islam would enable restricting its religious violence to simply a defensive context or a limited geographical areas, 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>

While it is also evident that perhaps the majority of Muslims, especially in the West, seek to live in peace with their neighbors and uphold traditional moral values and understand the Qur'anic suras exhorting violence in a much more limited and spiritual sense, in contrast to Armstrong, it is understand by many that the fundamentalists such as [[Osama Bin Laden]] have a strong case, partly based upon the manner of their leader in regard to the use of the sword.  

 

While it is evident that perhaps the majority of Muslims, especially in the West, seek to live in peace with their neighbors and uphold traditional moral values and understand the Qur'anic suras exhorting violence in a much more limited and spiritual sense, in contrast to Armstrong, it is understand by many that the fundamentalists such as [[Osama Bin Laden]] have a strong case, partly based upon the manner of their leader in regard to the use of the sword.  

Robert Spencer, director of [[Jihad Watch]], and a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law, criticizes Armstrong for spending a great deal of time propagating "a highly tendentious version of Islam, as benign as Quakerism and as expansive as the most liberal form of Anglicanism." In regards to the tendency to emphasize pacifist texts, and to see exhortations to violence as defensive, Spencer responds,   

Robert Spencer, director of [[Jihad Watch]], and a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law, criticizes Armstrong for spending a great deal of time propagating "a highly tendentious version of Islam, as benign as Quakerism and as expansive as the most liberal form of Anglicanism." In regards to the tendency to emphasize pacifist texts, and to see exhortations to violence as defensive, Spencer responds,   

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

The Trinity, she says, "only makes sense as a mystical or spiritual experience" [117], which is an "only" only without recorurse to the relevant literature: The Trinity makes sense in light of the Wisdom tradition, and "experience" is unnecessary to understand it...In sum, Armstrong is singularly unimpressive as a source, both in terms of logic and in terms of scholarly acumen.

The Trinity, she says, "only makes sense as a mystical or spiritual experience" [117], which is an "only" only without recorurse to the relevant literature: The Trinity makes sense in light of the Wisdom tradition, and "experience" is unnecessary to understand it...In sum, Armstrong is singularly unimpressive as a source, both in terms of logic and in terms of scholarly acumen.

</blockquote>  

</blockquote>

==Awards and commentary==

==Awards and commentary==