If it wasn’t already obvious, the Guardian has made clear its view that religion is at worst benign, but in general pretty good. This is clear not only from their continuous atheist-bashing and Dawkins-dissing, but also from their flogging of books that osculate the rump of faith. And they’ve gone overboard with Karen Armstrong’s latest book (Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence), not only giving it a glowing review (the reviewer was Ferdinand Mount), but also publishing a very long excerpt from it online (my printout in Word is 10 pages long).
Armstrong’s book, as well all know, is an attempt to show that religion has never been directly responsible for violence in history, especially wars. What happens, she says (and I’m taking this from the reviews, as I haven’t read the book yet), is that religion simply gets coopted under the umbrella of politics and culture, which are the real forces behind so-called “religious” violence. Religions, she says, always start out beneficent, but get corrupted when they’re used as instruments of state power. Ergo the violence.
As for the violence in the Middle East, Armstrong claims that it’s all the fault of the West, and not of Islam itself. This of course is the line that Armstrong has dined out on for years.
Well, if you want a précis of her book, go over to the Guardian and read her excerpt, called “The myth of religious violence.” I will reproduce only the last paragraph, which is a typical specimen of Armstrong Apologetics (my emphasis):
After a bumpy beginning, secularism has undoubtedly been valuable to the west, but we would be wrong to regard it as a universal law. It emerged as a particular and unique feature of the historical process in Europe; it was an evolutionary adaptation to a very specific set of circumstances. In a different environment, modernity may well take other forms. Many secular thinkers now regard “religion” as inherently belligerent and intolerant, and an irrational, backward and violent “other” to the peaceable and humane liberal state – an attitude with an unfortunate echo of the colonialist view of indigenous peoples as hopelessly “primitive”, mired in their benighted religious beliefs. There are consequences to our failure to understand that our secularism, and its understanding of the role of religion, is exceptional. When secularisation has been applied by force, it has provoked a fundamentalist reaction – and history shows that fundamentalist movements which come under attack invariably grow even more extreme. The fruits of this error are on display across the Middle East: when we look with horror upon the travesty of Isis, we would be wise to acknowledge that its barbaric violence may be, at least in part, the offspring of policies guided by our disdain.
Right: that’s why ISIS is killing Shiites right and left, as well as infidels. It’s all our fault. I wonder, though, since Armstrong says that ISIS’s violence is “at least in part” due to the West, what might be responsible for the other part? Could it be. . . religion? I doubt she’d agree. And I wonder what she means by “forced secularisation,” a term that can be stretched so far that it means nothing.
But I have neither the time nor energy to rebut this, nor do I really want to read her book to do so. So I will let Eric MacDonald (who hasn’t read her book either, but knows a lot more about religion and society than I) give his critique. Eric and I of course often cross swords on this site about scientism, but his comment on Armstrong’s book, which you can find at this link, seems quite sound to me.
I’ll quote just his last paragraph (as always, Eric is not sparing with the words!), but read the whole comment:
. . . Certainly, there were economic and political issues in Syria and Iraq that contributed to the rise of armed opposition to the established governments in the region. But Armstrong fails to notice that religion is not a peaceful subtext to these conflicts, and even attracts people who have no connexion with the economic or political issues involved. Thus they become primarily religious wars, in which the original economic and political problems are submerged by religious fanaticism. There is no way to separate the religious and the economic and political factors in the convenient way that Armstrong supposes, and then simply deny that the violence is in any way due to religion, especially when the primary justification given by the leaders of these conflicts is religious.
As I always say, “What would it take to make apologists like Armstrong admit that religion plays a substantial role in the violence?” Clearly it’s not the words of ISIS’s leaders and fighters, who Armstrong must perforce believe are either deluded about their motives or are lying to us—and why would they do that?
There’s no doubt that religion is waning in the West, and has already waned substantially in the UK. That’s why I continue to be surprised at the sympathy that Armstrong’s arguments garner in Britain. In that blessed plot people have left religion in droves, yet they still want to hear only good things about it.
I’m not quite sure why that is. Perhaps some of this rump-osculation comes from former believers who can’t stand to think that religion can be malign, and yet those same people have no trouble singling out the horrors of other ideologies, like Communism and Nazism, that, like religion, are based on irrational faith.
I still have not yet come to grips with why religion, uniquely among all human worldviews and belief systems, is the only one that gets a pass—the only one that you’re typed as “rude” for criticizing. If you’re a Democrat in the US, you’re not called “strident” for criticizing Republicans. Ditto with the liberals vs. conservaties in the UK. I welcome readers’ theories.
_____________
Recommended reading: Sam Harris’s HuffPo column from 2011, “Losing our spines to save our necks.” One quote:
The connection between the doctrine of Islam and Islamist violence is simply not open to dispute. It’s not that critics of religion like myself speculate that such a connection might exist: the point is that Islamists themselves acknowledge and demonstrate this connection at every opportunity and to deny it is to retreat within a fantasy world of political correctness and religious apology. Many western scholars, like the much admired Karen Armstrong, appear to live in just such a place. All of their talk about how benign Islam “really” is, and about how the problem of fundamentalism exists in all religions, only obfuscates what may be the most pressing issue of our time: Islam, as it is currently understood and practiced by vast numbers of the world’s Muslims, is antithetical to civil society.
For God’s sake….
Yes, and Karen Armstrong is so pointlessly trite; meaningless blanc mange.
OK, so she’d have it that we can’t blame any Abrahamic religions for mysogyny. Men would seek to exploit and control women anyway. Yes, undeniably true. But to deny the significant role of religion in that “natural” tendency is to show yourself, Karen, to be a fool, an utter fool, not worthy of notice, not to even think of respect. How this woman has made a career baffles me. Wretched drivel.
Would Armstrong go so far as to decline to take the word of antebellum U.S. slave holders/supporters when they claimed biblical justification for slavery?
I don’t know what her views are, but I know that many apologists for religion insist that slave-owners were “twisting around” the words of the Bible to justify slavery. Just as today, some people will insist that the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality and the religious right is “twisting around” the words of the Bible when they say otherwise. I don’t know how Blacks and gays can support a book that has caused them so much trouble, but with faith all things are possible.
In short: religion is pure & beautiful so if it ever appears to lead to bad things it’s the fault of politics or other things intruding into the sacred. Secularism is nasty and grimy so when there are wars or violence which may appear to be religious, they are in fact the fault of secularism.
In shorter: Secularism poisons everything; religion gets poisoned by everything.
In even shorter: I know you are, but what am I?
Communism, Nazism, Liberals, and Republicans do not have any dusty tomes claiming they are backed by all-powerful deities (someone could probably argue against this statement) which a majority of people (read: people who vote) still believe in. We don’t care if Hitler turns in his grave every time Godwin’s Law is proven true but the idea that an actual god might be really cross with us is possibly still unsettling to the casual unbeliever.
Also, people aren’t born communists, nazis, liberals, or conservatives (again, someone could probably argue against this). For religious people, babies can be born religious. Ergo, it is much more offensive to criticize something someone was born into rather than something they chose. One is seen as cultural while the other is seen as political. This could also explain why racism is often conflated with criticism of religion.
It’s also hard to criticize someone’s religion in public when a lot of your friends and family follow that religion. The belief and the friendship will be simultaneously challenged. It’s convenient, then, to presume that the most criticized aspects of religion are all one big misunderstanding and that religion is alright. Chances are if you are a liberal you are already at odds with a conservative friend and that line is already crossed a billion times by others and this makes it socially acceptable. Now it’s much easier to continue to cross it.
“For religious people, babies can be born religious.”
The latest Nat. Geo. had a photo of two young girls, maybe 4 or 5, wearing (admittedly) beautiful garb in celebration of the martyrdom of Husayn, grandson of Muhammad.
Caption described them as “Two Shiite girls…” Cringe.
Nat. Geo. seems to be more apologetic these days…or perhaps they always were and I just haven’t caught on until now.
Oh yeah…then in another article about the next green revolution the author described a particular rice strain as having “genes blessed” with some particular trait…I forget exactly what, either drought or flood tolerance. “Blessed?” C’mon people!
I think that word is more and more commonly becoming a flowery synonym for “endowed”. I wouldn’t fret over it. It is possible that someone might confuse it for having religious connotation, though. It should be used cautiously.
“I still have not yet come to grips with why religion, uniquely among all human worldviews and belief systems, is the only one that gets a pass—the only one that you’re typed as “rude” for criticizing.”
Perhaps it’s because you can actually use facts and arguments to defend your political (or any other) beliefs, but religion can’t be defended that way. So all the religious have for a defence is offence.
“When secularisation has been applied by force, it has provoked a fundamentalist reaction – and history shows that fundamentalist movements which come under attack invariably grow even more extreme.”
So basically, if a society tries to enforce a sensible concept, it will lead to a hostile reaction by conservatives and thence to extremism.
According to this type of reasoning, any social progress is impossible.
“There’s no doubt that religion is waning in the West, and has already waned substantially in the UK. That’s why I continue to be surprised at the sympathy that Armstrong’s arguments garner in Britain. In that blessed plot people have left religion in droves, yet they still want to hear only good things about it.”
Speaking as a Brit, I think you’re being misled by appearances – in this case, misled by the fact that rump-osculation of this particularly noxious sort may well appear in publications of wide circulation such as The Guardian, but said publications are not representative of the broad mass of the British public with regard to religion. In normal circumstances I’m the first one to say that anybody who in an argument deploys such phrases as “metropolitan elite” and “liberal elite” pretty well outs themselves immediately as a swivel-eyed right-wing loon; that said, the faitheism of Armstrong, the ghastly Brown and others belongs only to a coterie of people (of a certain socioeconomic class) who happen to find themselves with a voice – typically London-dwelling middle-class journalists/writers/media people generally who would classify themselves as liberals with a small l.
In actual fact, surveying the broad mass of the British public in general, the facts and figures speak for themselves. That public cannot be counted as a broadly atheistic one, it’s true, where that atheism is over, conscious and explicit; but the overwhelming majority are so apathetic and uninterested in religion as to count as atheists. Some people – by and large the older age groups, who at the risk of seeming brutal will be winnowed out by cohort replacement in short order – do cling on to church weddings, church christenings for babies and religious funerals, it’s again true; but (a) those numbers are on the slide year on year on year, and (b) the greater part of these choices are made out of habit and with social custom in mind rather than religious conviction, which is a result of England specifically (not Britain or the UK) still inexplicably having an established state church which offers these services by default as it were. When somebody dies, the C of E (Church of England) seem to step in as the default option – as I’ve often said before, a bog-standard C of E funeral is what happens when you do nothing else.
I’m glad Jerry linked religion with National Socialism and Communism. Many theists often drag out the canard that Stalin was an atheist (which is true) (and that Hitler was an atheist (which is patently untrue): ergo, atheism is responsible for many of the horrors of the twentieth century. But in reality, ideologies like those mentioned above have more to do with religion than what might be called scientific or rational skepticism. They are absolutist; they activley work to suppress other candidates for truth; they see a utopian future which justifies atrocities in the present. Science, and rational skepticism as I call it (much of this has been hashed out by Karl Popper, who uses the term “critical rationalism”) is provisionalist; is willing to consider competing truth claims; and willing to adjust such claims in the light of new evidence or a better argument. Thus, again, absolutist ideologies like those of Hitler, Stalin, or Mao, have more in common with religion than with skeptical rationalism (or whatever term one prefers).
— Bertrand Russell, Freedom and the Colleges, 1940
Excellent quote. B. Russell is spot on with his typical force and brevity.
Very astute observation by Russell, and whatever their differences, communists, nazis and fascists were all illiberal in the extreme. Oh, and while Stalin was unquestionably an atheist, it is also true that he spent many years during his adolescence in a very strict seminary school, training to become a priest. He would later use the lessons he learned there in the school’s attempts to control its students in his efforts to control the masses he ruled. From what I’ve read, his parents were very religious and his father was very brutal towards young Joseph, at least once hitting him hard enough to knock him out.
Also, of note, Czar Nicholas II was not a particularly bright or enlightened ruler, but he was very religious. Didn’t help him in either World War I or in saving himself and his family after he was taken hostage by the Communists. Prayer failed Nick II spectacularly.
Why does religion get a pass?
1) Perhaps because religion is perceived as an immutable part of people’s make-up like skin-color or gender.
2) Because the public is all too aware that people have been persecuted on the basis of their religion.
I think the first of those reasons can be challenged. In the same way that anti-smoking groups emphasize the existence of ex-smokers and how much their lives have improved, we have to let the public know that ex-Christians and ex-Muslims exist. That it is possible for people to leave behind the religion of their parents.
With regard to worries over religious persecution, I think us atheists should recognize that in many people’s minds, criticizing religion is often *perceived* as being motivated by a desire to persecute the religious. I hope that’s wrong, but still, the perception persists. So I think we should let people know that we’re only interested in criticizing religion — we’re not looking to curtail anyone’s religious freedoms.
3) The idea that religion, unlike politics, is something private and personal. Who are you to tell me what to believe in?
And I think that’s actually quite a good argument. If someone wants to believe in talking snakes, then that’s really their business, not yours. Of course, I’m aware of the arguments that religious beliefs often do affect others and when that happens, it *does* become others’ business. Even so, that’s an argument which is up to us to make and we have to make it carefully.
Finally:
4) The argument that being tolerant involves not causing offense to others.
I think this argument confuses even many atheists. We all want to be seen as nice people and so we do our best not to cause undue offense to others. But criticizing others’ religious beliefs really can cause genuine offense. What do?
Personally, I think it’s time for atheists (and others) to make a greater effort to embrace the *principles* of free-speech. To recognize that in a free-speech society, people *will* sometimes get offended when their deepest held beliefs are challenged. And that this is not necessarily such a bad thing. (That’s not me advocating bullying – rather, this is about attacking *ideas*, as opposed to the people who hold them.)
I used to think that atheism was super-important, but nowadays I think that free-speech is even more fundamental. Want to avoid the worst effects of all bad ideologies? Fight for a free-speech society. Because in such societies, bad ideas will eventually be challenged and discarded.
Yes, there is no “right to be protected from being offended”. And there never should be.
The difference between Islam and other religions is neatly crystallized by the difference in reactions to:
1. The “Danish Cartoons”
2. The Play “The Book of Mormon”
3. The Piss Christ
Muslims don’t get to play the butt-hurt card and get away with it.
Sam Harris .covers this nicely
To wit: “Here is where the line must be drawn and defended without apology: We are free to burn the Qur’an or any other book, and to criticize Muhammad or any other human being. Let no one forget it.” [Emphasis in the original.]
“right to be protected from being offended”
It seems to me our society is building a cultural edifice to protect those in “less-privileged” classes from being offended.
What greater privilege is there than the ability to think critically, rationally, and see through others’ delusions.
So why should not the deluded be included as a protected class, especially when it comes to being denigrated for their delusions? After all, if Jerry is right, they can’t help being a member of the deluded class any more than those that are members of other protected classes.
As to your number 3: in what sense is religion actually ‘private’ or ‘personal’? Any system of belief, once institutionalized, irrevocably becomes social and political, and therefore subject to analysis and criticism. For instance, if a Catholic took communion privately and the priest stayed away, there would be no reason for the greater society to object. And, of course, the institutionalized Roman Catholic church would find itself without not only spiritual but temporal authority.
Are not all religions institutional? Even, say, the Society of Friends? Fortunately for the world, this group has used what power it has as an institution to promote peace.
And we wouldn’t call it “communion”. We’d call it “lunch”.
What I don’t understand is the obsession with beheading in Islam.
Islam is a peaceful, loving religion. (Until it’s not.)
It’s in the Qur’an, and was commended by Muhammad. That’s all you really need to know.
(I forgot my “rhetorical question” tags.) 😉
I heard about that incident…and the right-wing are touting it as an ISIS inspired attack. Keep fanning those flames of fear…if it bleeds it leads.
It was an Islam inspired attack.
Maybe if we close our eyes and wish real hard it will all go away?
I just did. Now let’s wait and see.
the french used the guillotine until 1977.
Actually… 1932.
“The last public execution in France took place on June 17, 1939 when serial murder Eugen Weidmann was guillotined outside the Prison St. Pierre in Versailles.”
Here.
Yes, and the guillotine was a huge improvement in humane execution relative to what came before it.
The Islamic beheadings aren’t intended to be humane and I’m sure they are not.
The guillotine sounds far more preferable than the barbaric drug cocktails the US has been using of late. Or than the electric chair, for that matter.
Karen Armstrong writes as if “religion” (of any sort) has an objective, autonomous existence, as opposed to what people have conceived, thought, said or written about it, or done with it. This seems to be part of her mind-set that she never thinks to question.
You can take the believer out of the nunnery, but…
What did you expect? She’s had success doing that with God, it seems natural for her to extend it to everything.
Coming soon, apophatic dining. “5 stars: the ideals of their food are near perfection! You have to look past the actual food they serve (which is barely palatable mush) because they’re forced to hire a secular cooking staff and comply with health and safety regulations (politics!). But when you look past all of that, it’s quite brilliant.”
Well, yes. She has painted her apophatic god into such a tiny corner that no-one else can get to grips with it.
But at the same time she seems able to tell everyone who uses religion for ends that she disapproves of that they’re doin’ it rong.
From what I can tell Armstrong believes that the real heart of religion — the fount from which it all springs — is pure mystical experience.
Everything else is dressing.
Her thesis is effectively refuted by a single, undeniable fact: People flock from all over the world to fight with ISIS (and they are all Muslims). They can have no other reason than religion to be there.
If they experienced western oppression in their homes, why aren’t they there, fighting, rather than with co-religionists in a place far from their homelands?
But then, Armstrong is a past master at ignoring evidence.
I watched the parliamentary debate on ISIL today and speaker after speaker claimed ISIL is nothing to do with Islam, honest to goshen.
I think it’s trivially true that wars of conquest and such are motivated by greed and such.
But some of them would be harder to sell if they were not packaged as god’s will.
Has anyone noticed that god’s will can be read as god swill?
Karen Armstrong’s book is a reprise of religious history told through the medium of a box of crayons ; it’s that simple! Her colouring-book approach to difficult facts remains so very annoying. Beneath it all is her obvious desire to exonerate her gods for fact that religion is so very often behind violent conflict. It is all Special Pleading; an unconvincing whitewash. Clearly Miss Armstrong feels impugned by the beheaders of Isis.
Of her many howlers one fact stands out, her attempt to distance the cruel Inquisition in time. I have a leather-bound book of 1811 by the Reverend Claudius Buchanan describing his visits to the Catholic Portuguese colony of Goa, India, and his eye-witness of the burning alive of heretics. This was eighty years before the birth of my own father. When you want to bamboozle the public for religious reasons, Karen, it’s best to get your facts straight.
It’s unfortunate that Ms. Armstrong regards secularism as a political ideology that can be forcefully applied on any community. She apparently forgot that secularism is an outcome of thousands of years of peaceful co-existance of humanity in the form of functional civilizations. Like altruism it has taken humanity this far. Otherwise, we’d have gone extinct like our earlier cousins-Neanderthals. Democracy and secularism are the achievements of our community living. Religion, on the other hand, is at tug of war with these humanistic values. A non-secular society in modern times is not only bound to be disfunctional but also self-destructive. That is the reason why the most violent societies in the world are also the most religious ones and the top 20 most peaceful and advanced countries in the world are the least religious. Religion has lost all its ground to science (which explains almost everything) and thereby, has become obsolete. Besides, we always refer to religion as one coherent ideaology or one set of dogmas. There are more than 6000 religions in the world; to each believer his/her religion is the right one.
Extremely well said.
Ms Armstrong says that if society had taken a different path, “modernity would take a different form”. I.e. non-secular. That assumption doesn’t work, because it assumes god/s is/are real. As a society evolves, it does things like make decisions based on data, not anecdotes. I wonder if the current rise in fundamentalism is the last gasp of religion. It’s doomed to failure with nothing other than faith backing it, and that would be the case however society evolved.
Well said, Heather! I predicted earlier that all religions will go extinct like the old pagan religions before the current ones and just the belief in spirits of ancestors and animals even before them, in about 200 years from now. Islam being the most rigid and non-reformatory will probably be the last one to go. It’s a passing phase in the evolution of human mind. Eventually we’ll come to our senses and reason.
” the top 20 most peaceful and advanced countries in the world are the least religious.”
Unless you count the USA in the ranks of those 20. Though secular in theory, in practice religion occupies an exalted, priviliged place in America, particularly in the legal system. There is basically a separate set of laws for religious organizations and the religious.
How far up a list of ‘peaceful’ countries do you think the USA would get?
Oh, here it is: number 101.
But yeah, relatively ‘advanced’: USA Number 5!
With the right arbitrary weighting scheme, you could get it into the top 20 on a combined score.
“If you’re a Democrat in the US, you’re not called “strident” for criticizing Republicans. Ditto with the liberals vs. conservaties in the UK.”
I recently attended a CFI-DC discussion that touched on this topic.
It seems to me that when I (as a liberal) argue politics with a conservative, I’m generally accorded equal status with them. However, when I argue as an atheist with religious people, I’m treated as though my position is a non-starter. That I don’t belong in the debate to begin with. We talked about how sometimes it appears that there’s a moral component to this. The religious person assumes they have the high ground, so I can be dismissed as lacking in that arena. It’s immensely frustrating.
Sir why are you printing out articles? Just curious.
and yes this IS the important thing from the article 🙂 because I already know Armstrong is a useless apologist),
“Religions, she says, always start out beneficent, but get corrupted when they’re used as instruments of state power. Ergo the violence.”
So obviously Armstrong has never paid much attention to any religious texts. Sorry, but Abrahamic religious texts glorify violence and repeatedly recount God’s command to kill the infidel. And she believes no real violence is evident until state power gets a hold of it? Wow! Talk about mental compartmentalizing.
Nail. On. Head.
Hurtz!
“I still have not yet come to grips with why religion, uniquely among all human worldviews and belief systems, is the only one that gets a pass—the only one that you’re typed as “rude” for criticizing.”
Religion is a bit like one’s spouse or one’s baby: *always* attractive and it rude to say otherwise. This is lampooned here (a wedding’s “best man” gives an honest speech, and isn’t well received).
I’m inclined to agree with Armstrong (I’ve not read and don’t intend to read her book) but ONLY to the extent that she argues religion is not per se responsible for Islamic barbarism. I have neither time nor inclination to really set forth a complete argument, but basically it seems to me that our motivations come from other sources, and religion along with other cultural mechanisms play roles in amplifying, controlling and manipulating those other sources. That is, I think, why religion has been so successful that its roots remain in our genes: it amplifies control in situations where control has been evolutionarily useful, even if ugly. And I don’t think one can deny that Christianity was a strong force in implementing a good deal of organized rapine, murder and other assorted violence over the centuries. That is, religion is not the root of anything, but an amplifier of other forces, forces that can do good, evil or whatever.
Don’t underestimate the wide-ranging power of the Little People Argument.
Spiritual/religious experiences and doctrines tend to frame reality in terms of a Parent-Child relationship. You open your mind to your own insignificance and gratefully partake in the glory of the Higher Power. People who believe in God are thus seen as being like sensitive and simple children, struggling to hang on to their faith and clinging to the sacred in fear, trembling, and wide-eyed wonder. Their beliefs have become their identity and it’s fragile. Change their minds and it’s like they die.
Somehow, this is supposed to be emotionally and culturally healthy. It’s humble. Respect and forbearance are therefore mingled into one.
I do not think any other system of thought requires that sort of self-debasement and infantilization.
The rosy picture of religion pervades our history.. Who you going to Call syndrome. Him (God) saves people.. and has a nice place. Who wouldn’t want to be a part of that? this is one reason why religionist only quote the best bits from the bible, the rosy picture. It is activated when you think religion by its availability as opposed to thinking of burning in hell! or perhaps a massacre, a sacrificial child episode. It is basically an intuitive response by association, feels good and we know it has some beneficial effects which reinforces this rosy picture that dominates the illusion. Why else would it have lasted so long? if it was horrible it would have died a natural death.
This (the rosy picture) has been going on decades if not for centuries, violence failed religion (now only the domain of the demented) As a result, religion has refocused as the nice guy in town. When one abuses or points out some relevant piece of information contradicting that glorious rosy picture, a serious insult and infraction on a poor religion has occurred, who is only doing gods work, (that rosy picture) Bad form, bad atheist, shame atheist and given that this is gods rosy picture it needs defending,
the Charge Of the Apologist Brigade.
And right now religion is under heavy attack like it has never known.
Well put, Keith!
“Religions, she says, always start out beneficent …”
If that is an accurate characterization, it is simplistic to the point of fraudulence. If I were to attempt such a broad generalization it would be that religions tend to start out as a way of cementing a hierarchical structure in a tribal group. This has some beneficial aspects and some negative aspects, and usually has negative effects outside the group. The Aztec and Norse religions come to mind.
The key point it seems to me is that religions are like soylent green – they are people, just people. Warlike people have warlike religions. Religions which start out with the intent of being beneficient, such as Communism (from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs) become corrupted because they are composed of people – not inspired by some divine force.
sub
. It is time to see and react to the reality of slaughter and of the evil deeds. Do not try to find elaborate excuses for the evil and do not demand from the families of victims to apologize to the slaughterers: to show compassion!!
During her discussion BBC Radio 4 this Monday morning about her new book “Fields of Blood”, Karen Armstrong mentioned many times as a matter of fact that violence is hard wired into the nature men !! in order to explain wars!!.
This is very naïve point of view and superficial thinking which is astonishing coming from her, a good writer.
The same naivety is in her writing about Islam (surrender) . Surrendering to divine, to Allah ,”that every human being should make to the divine” she writes as she is eager to impress upon the readers her belief that
“Muhammad’s career illustrated the perfect surrender – In Arabic the word for surrender is “Islam”. (Her words and explanation).
She and other God believers, to varying degree, undoubtedly understands that kind of surrender to God, and the relation is between the person and the divine (surrender).
However, Muhammad and all his followers since then to present day and to the future aeons they demand surrender to him, to his God Allah, to the rules of his religion.
Surrender or else. “Fight against those who do not believe in Allah nor in the Last Day who do not forbid what Allah and his Apostole have forbidden, nor practice the true religion .. May God fight them! How they are deceived! [Koran , ix 29-30].
Throughout history the millions who were slaughtered in the march of Islam is a ;proof that Islam is a religion of conquest by the sword. Here is what the historian Steven Runciman writes in his book “the fall of Constantinople” (page 145)
“ .. They slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women and children without discrimination. The blood ran in rivers down the steep streets from the heights of Petra towards the Golden Horn. When their lust for slaughter was assuaged, the soldiers realized that captives and precious objects would bring them greater profit”. The terrible scenes of destruction were more evil when they entered the Great Church Agia Sophia, packed with people women and children where the Holly Liturgy was in progress (the last liturgy). “ They prayed in vain. It was not long before the doors were battered down. The worshipers were trapped. The old and infirm were killed on the spot; but most of them were tied or chained together. Veils and scarves were torn off women to serve as ropes. Many of the loveliest maidens and youths and many of the richer-clad nobles were almost torn to death as their captors quarreled over them. ..” “Anyone who collapsed from frailty was slaughtered, together with infants who were held to be of no value”
“there were still great libraries in the city… Most of the books were burnt; but there were Turks astute enough to see that there were marketable objects and saved a number that were later sold for a few pence to anyone who might be interested..” “there were scenes of ribaldry in the churches. Many jeweled crucifixes were borne away with Turkish turbans rakishly surrounding them. Many buildings were irreparably damaged.”
This is the way of Islam and its way continues to date. It has never stopped. It will never stop until everybody is brought down to their knees and kiss the robe of the Sultans, and of every leader of Islam, the conquerors. They have masterful propaganda. Bridget Kendall the BBC correspondent from Istanbul reported the night Abdullah Gull then president of Turkey landed in London for an official visit, what she was seeing written of a large placard in Istanbul
” THANKS TO THE TURKS ISTANBUL WAS RESCUED FROM THE BYZANTINES” !!! Outrageous but effective because people are both ignorant and indifferent of what happened in history particularly when the Turks slaughter Greeks. It seems that this delight the British no end.
The Islamists see as the historical task of Islam to be their “mission of anti-Christianism” This is the mission of the Turks.
Statement by the Turk Professor Dr Ilber Ortayil addressing the Nazi Gold conference in London 2-4 December 1997 .
In 1994 at a stadium in Anvers, Belgium, in an audience of thousands of Turks in the presence of Erbakan, Abdulah Gull and Erdogan the current president of Turkey, Shaykh Maulana Nazim el Kibrisi in a voice as that of Hitler he was urging the Turks who responded jumping up to their feet and shouting like the Nazi crowds in Hitler’s time the following:
“You are the grandchildren of Ottomans.”
“It will be the Ottomans who will make the World to tremble again”
“If the Ottomans do not come back the unbelievers will never be brought down to their knees”
Karen Armstrong talks about compassion. It is almost as she is asking the victims to apologize to the slaughterers.
Talk about compassion after all that slaughter might be less obscene to ask compassion from the victims if the Turks and other Islamists show remorse for their crimes against humanity. They never do. Instead they mention these as their glorious deeds for which they are proud.
This is where Karen Armstrong has been very naïve to the level of obscene insensitivity to the families of victims of slaughter and genocide.
Throughout history, the marching-hordes of Islamists, of the Turks and others are not “explained” as prime school playground urge to fight. No. They want territory. They want to conquer the world and make everybody to surrender to them so they can do whatever they like with your life and your children and your family. Plunder and slaughter. Down to your knees as Erdogan and the Islamic State will demand
This is where Karen Armstrong has been very naïve to the level of obscene insensitivity to the millions of victims of slaughter and genocide by the followers of Islam. Surrender is their holly command. Surrender under our sword or else.
Could you please refrain in the future from writing comments this long (see the Roolz)? Thanks.
Well said Robert. It is only a brief reminder of the evil done. It needs thousands of pages to give full account. Robert gave us a few quotes from the book of the best historian and quotes from the Koran
People are tired to hear of the so many of their crimes. So this turn to their favour because no one is paying any attention. So the impression given is that the World says that they do not care. They are bored. But the evil people are not. They see this as their opportunity created for them by their God.
When they decapitate one of the reporters from Britain or the USA then this IS important. The massacres of millions do not matter.It is boring to think about so many evil crimes.
Result: They will continue with their march and conquests by the sword, because you are bored to read about their crimes.
Where is the leadership to protect our civilisation whose roots are back to the Greeks