The Koranic Quotations Trap

Asia Times Online ^ | May 15, 2007 | Spengler

[Dajjal]

Robert Spencer, the publisher of the JihadWatch.com website and the author of a number of volumes attacking Islam, bridled at my comment in last week's essay (Are the Arabs already extinct? May 8):

The available literature on Islam consists mainly of a useless exchange of Koranic citations that show, depending on whether one is Karen Armstrong or Robert Spencer, that Islam is loving or hateful, tolerant or bigoted, peaceful or warlike, or whatever one cares to show. It is all so pointless and sophomoric; anyone can quote the Koran, or for that matter the Bible, to show whatever one wants.

Spencer protests that I misrepresent his view; his considered
response can be found on his webpage.[1] I was referring to a review of his most recent book[2] by the odious Karen Armstrong, a renegade nun who attempts to reduce all religions to an indistinguishable and insipid spiritual gruel. Armstrong opined in the April 27 Financial Times:

The traditions of any religion are multifarious. It is easy, therefore, to quote so selectively that the main thrust of the faith is distorted. But Spencer is not interested in balance. He picks out only those aspects of Islamic tradition that support his thesis. For example, he cites only passages from the Koran that are hostile to Jews and Christians and does not mention the numerous verses that insist on the continuity of Islam with the People of the Book: "Say to them: We believe what you believe; your God and our God is one."

It irks me no end when people with whom I would like to agree, such as Spencer, are wrong, and people whom I despise unconditionally, such as the odious Ms Armstrong, are right. Fiat justitia, ruat coelum: judge fairly even if the heavens fall in consequence.

[sageb1]

It sounds to me like Spengler is unnecessarily disgruntled. Perhaps he could do more good by attempting to collaborate with Spencer. Spengler complains that Pope Benedict threw fat on the fire, then “backed off.” I don’t consider what the Pope did to be a “backing off.” He said what he said, then ventured to Turkey even though there were assassination threats. What did Spengler want him to do? Carry a sword with him? As my good-natured adversary here at FR says in his tagline - “history takes time.”

[null and void]

Good post. Good point.

[ViLaLuz]

By their fruits you shall know them.

[quadrant]

It really doesn't matter which quotations either Armstrong or Spencer chose. The only thing that matters is the propensity of far too many many Muslims to use quotations from the Koran to justify murder.

[Dajjal]

Thanks for the background on their spat. I read a smattering of the debate at Jihad Watch, like this thread. Interesting. I think I agree with the poster who says that Spencer is focusing on what the jihadists say, while Spengler focuses on why they say it.

My own interest in the above essay was mostly Spengler's (again) suggesting the theory that textual criticism might reveal that the Qur'an is an 8th or 9th cent. concoction, spliced together from various works to justify a pre-existing Arab rule. Plus his insight, via Rosenzweig, that jihad is a Muslim sacrament.

I have my own gripe against Spencer (and Spengler, and dozens of others, too, for that matter) for ignoring the role of Muslim End-Time beliefs in the jihad. But I wasn't intending to "take a side" in this feud.

[Blind Eye Jones]

"Armstrong's biases are so blatant they detract from any valid point she may have."

Have you read her book "The Bible - an autobiography?" I'm reading it and it seems that she believes that the Bible should be read as poetry or myth, that there is no literal truth in it. I think she is play good cop/bad cop with the atheists. It's that or she's attempting to create a meta world religion based on the golden rule. I have read other accounts that say she is playing with history like putty, shaping and twisting it to her own ends. And I do agree with you that she has a strong bias: politically left of center for all her snipping at Bush, at Christian fundamentalists and apologizing to Islam. I'm curious to know what you think of her.

[reaganaut]

I have not read “the Bible - an autobiography”. Frankly, I now try to avoid her and her work. I do agree with you that she “plays” with history. I find her use of sources more selective than is reasonable (all history has some use of selective sources, due to topic/page constraints if nothing else) and she only chooses sources she can manipulate.

The biggest problem with modern historiography is those who write inflammatory or appeasing politically correct popular history are often considered “great scholars” even when their work is sub-par.

I am not saying all widely respected scholars are bad historians (I love Carolyn Walker Bynum, for example), but there are many poor historians who are considered “great” just because of their biases, not their work. I put Armstrong into this category.