quote>Because of the possible offence to Muslim sensibilities, Western scholars who specialise in the early history of Islam have to be extremely careful what they say and some of them have developed subtle forms of double-speak when discussing contentious matters.
No doubt – but there are different forms of double-speak. Take Karen Armstrong for example. Her latest book, perhaps rather too aptly titled Muhammad: Prophet for Our Time, is a pick of the week at the Sunday Times:
The confident simplicity of the author’s writing belies the clear choices she has made: her Muhammad is a pluralistic monotheist with an enlightened and attractively modern view (to western eyes) of sexual equality, the problems of capitalism and the value of peace.
Muhammad had an attractively modern view of sexual equality? And of the problems of capitalism and the value of peace? Does this view, perhaps, conflict with the historical record? It’s not a problem:
She downplays the difficult, sometimes horrific events that contradict this — ie massacres, taking more wives than he allowed his followers, exiling opposing tribes…. Most of us are shamefully ignorant of Muslim history, and Armstrong legitimately portrays a version of Muhammad that could be used as an examplar by a “modern”, tolerant Islam.
That’s OK then. No matter that the book isn’t, strictly speaking, accurate. As long as it makes people feel good, and doesn’t cause any offence….
Leave a Reply