Prejudices about Islam will be shaken by this show
The hajj, subject of a new exhibition at the British Museum, shows that a respect for other faiths is central to Muslim tradition
(...)
Like Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, Sikhs and secularists, some Muslims have undoubtedly been violent and intolerant, but the new exhibition at the British Museum – Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam – is a timely reminder that this is not the whole story. The hajj is one of the five essential practices of Islam; when they make the pilgrimage to Mecca, Muslims ritually act out the central principles of their faith. Equating religion with "belief" is a modern western aberration. Like swimming or driving, religious knowledge is practically acquired. You learn only by doing. The ancient rituals of the hajj, which Arabs performed for centuries before Islam, have helped pilgrims to form habits of heart and mind that – pace the western stereotype – are non-violent and inclusive.

The Arabs had no conception of an exclusive religious tradition, so they were deeply shocked when they discovered that most Jews and Christians refused to consider them as part of the Abrahamic family.

"Karen Armstrong is the author of Islam: A Short History" -------------------
I think the reason it's so short is because she left out a lot of facts.

Oeditor wrote:I didn't bother to look at the Grauniad's header. Checking later, I see that it's written by the apologist of apologists Karen Armstrong. 'Nuff said. It's getting comments at over a hundred an hour, btw - mostly negative at first sight.

Emmeline wrote:

Oeditor wrote:I didn't bother to look at the Grauniad's header. Checking later, I see that it's written by the apologist of apologists Karen Armstrong. 'Nuff said. It's getting comments at over a hundred an hour, btw - mostly negative at first sight.

Many of the comments are brilliant and well informed - let's hope she reads them and learns something!

Onyx8 wrote:Well, Armstrong got thoroughly panned in the comments. Is it common for the Guardian to get a response from the author?

Even just as far as correcting falsehoods?

Onyx8 wrote:Well, Armstrong got thoroughly panned in the comments. Is it common for the Guardian to get a response from the author?

Even just as far as correcting falsehoods?

Emmeline wrote:

Prejudices about Islam will be shaken by this show
The hajj, subject of a new exhibition at the British Museum, shows that a respect for other faiths is central to Muslim tradition
(...)
Like Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, Sikhs and secularists, some Muslims have undoubtedly been violent and intolerant, but the new exhibition at the British Museum – Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam – is a timely reminder that this is not the whole story. The hajj is one of the five essential practices of Islam; when they make the pilgrimage to Mecca, Muslims ritually act out the central principles of their faith. Equating religion with "belief" is a modern western aberration. Like swimming or driving, religious knowledge is practically acquired. You learn only by doing. The ancient rituals of the hajj, which Arabs performed for centuries before Islam, have helped pilgrims to form habits of heart and mind that – pace the western stereotype – are non-violent and inclusive.

more here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ish-museum

Turning from international and regional to domestic politics, the difference between Islam and the rest of the world, though less striking, is still substantial. In some of the countries that practice multiparty democracy, there are political parties with religious designations—Christian in the West, Hindu in India, Buddhist in the Orient. But there are relatively few of these parties, and still fewer that play a major role. Even with these, religious themes are usually of minor importance in their programs and their appeals to the electorate. Yet in many, indeed in most Islamic countries, religion remains a major political factor—far more indeed in domestic than in international or even in regional affairs. Why this difference?
One answer is obvious; most Muslim countries are still profoundly Muslim, in a way and in a sense that most Christian countries are no longer Christian. Admittedly, in many of these countries, Christian beliefs and the clergy who uphold them are still a powerful force, and although their role is not what it was in past centuries, it is by no means insignificant. But in no Christian country at the present time can religious leaders count on the degree of belief and participation that remains normal in the Muslim lands. In few, if any, Christian countries do Christian sanctities enjoy the immunity from critical comment or discussion that is accepted as normal even in ostensibly secular and democratic Muslim societies. Indeed, this privileged immunity has been extended, de facto, to Western countries where Muslim communities are now established and where Muslim beliefs and practices are accorded a level of immunity from criticism that the Christian majorities have lost and the Jewish minorities never had. Most important, with very few exceptions, the Christian clergy do not exercise or even claim the kind of public authority that is still normal and accepted in most Muslim countries.

metacristi wrote:The truth is, obviously, that muslims and islam are not exactly like the other believers and faiths. As Bernard Lewis puts it well (even if he never goes till the logical end of his theses):

Turning from international and regional to domestic politics, the difference between Islam and the rest of the world, though less striking, is still substantial. In some of the countries that practice multiparty democracy, there are political parties with religious designations—Christian in the West, Hindu in India, Buddhist in the Orient. But there are relatively few of these parties, and still fewer that play a major role. Even with these, religious themes are usually of minor importance in their programs and their appeals to the electorate. Yet in many, indeed in most Islamic countries, religion remains a major political factor—far more indeed in domestic than in international or even in regional affairs. Why this difference?
One answer is obvious; most Muslim countries are still profoundly Muslim, in a way and in a sense that most Christian countries are no longer Christian. Admittedly, in many of these countries, Christian beliefs and the clergy who uphold them are still a powerful force, and although their role is not what it was in past centuries, it is by no means insignificant. But in no Christian country at the present time can religious leaders count on the degree of belief and participation that remains normal in the Muslim lands. In few, if any, Christian countries do Christian sanctities enjoy the immunity from critical comment or discussion that is accepted as normal even in ostensibly secular and democratic Muslim societies. Indeed, this privileged immunity has been extended, de facto, to Western countries where Muslim communities are now established and where Muslim beliefs and practices are accorded a level of immunity from criticism that the Christian majorities have lost and the Jewish minorities never had. Most important, with very few exceptions, the Christian clergy do not exercise or even claim the kind of public authority that is still normal and accepted in most Muslim countries.

What some ulama once claimed (every muslim is the equivalent, in what the strength of faith is concerned, of a Christian monk) is not so far from the truth (be it also due to the fact that those who do not really believe have to hide). The only correct conclusion which non muslims can draw is that advocated by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, namely that we should not try to preserve islam as it is today (in all its present [mainstream] forms, some less dogmatic indeed but still too close to the islam of the past).