Dhim·wit (dïm-wît): A non-Muslim member of a free society, who unwittingly abets the stated cause of Islamic domination. A dhimwit is always quick to extend sympathy to the very enemy that would take away his or her own freedom (or life) if given the opportunity. And Karen Amstrong fit this bill perfectly. Find out why?

karen amstrong
Karem Amstrong, the dhimwit par excellence.

In her book on Muhammad, Karen Armstrong is quick to explain and justify all and every action that Muhammad did. I will take the reader of this article on a journey to see how Ms Armstrong does that through her discussion of the Nakhla Raid. Readers may consult my previous essay to understand the background of the Nakhla raid. For a summary of the incident, Allah’s prophet ordered a group of Muslims to go to a place called Nakhla. There, they ambushed a small Meccan commercial caravan, killing one person and imprisoning two others. In addition, all the spoils became the ownership of the Muslims.

Now, for any decent human being, this was an act of desert piracy, but not to Karen Armstrong. To add insult to injury, this piracy took place on the last day of a sacred month. You see, Arabs before Islam respected the sacredness of time. They never attacked others during their holy months. This was the case for centuries, until Muhammad and his bandits came to the scene.

After this successful raid, the Muslim bandits returned to Medina with prisoners and booty. When the news spread to Medina, everyone, justifiably, was upset. Those sacred months were ‘safety zones’ for all Arabs. Muhammad, seeing this negative reaction, distanced himself from the incident. Then, to justify his greed and his willingness to tramp over anything considered holy by others, he comes down with ‘Allah’s’ revelation:

YUSUFALI: They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: ‘Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.’ Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

Please note that Muhammad chose to leave Mecca. He was not under much oppression there. Readers are encouraged to read M. A. Khan’s book on this matter. However, Muhammad needed excuse to justify his greed for booty. So, he came down with a lame excuse (that is uglier than admission of guilt as some Arab proverb says) represented by the verse from above. How can preventing access to a place be worse than slaughter? Only a brainwashed person can believe this nonsense.

Our Dimwhit Karen Armstrong defends the attack itself, then, defends his holiness ‘prophet Muhammad’ from any criticism. She even goes farther to show the ‘genius’ of Muhammad. As for the attack itself, Karen Armstrong in her book on Muhammad writes:

What should they do? It was the last day of Rajab, but if they waited until the next day, when fighting was permitted, the caravan would have reached the safety of the Meccan sanctuary. (p. 170)

Any decent human being can tell Armstrong what they should have done. They should have left that caravan alone. It’s not the right time. It was a holy time where all Arabs from east to west and north to south respected as safe time-zones for all to conduct their affairs without fear. This is what they should have done Miss Armstrong. According to Armstrong, Muhammad wanted to abandon those sacred months, because they belonged to the pagan religion. This is actually false as all Arabs whether monotheists or polytheists followed this tradition of sacred months.

Moving along, those bandits take their booty and prisoners and go to Medina. When the people of Medina heard the news of the attack during a sacred time, everyone became saddened, if not shocked, as this was completely against the moral standards followed by all Arabs. Muhammad got worried about this reaction and distanced himself initially from the bandits that he sent out to start with. But, he really wanted the booty and the prisoners’ ransom money. So, the above verse comes down to him telling him that it is okay to attack, unprovoked, a commercial caravan during a time sacred to Arabs. As usual, Karen Armstrong is quick to defend Muhammad:

This incident is a good example of Muhammad’s way of working. He was ready to die for his faith, but was also ready to compromise on inessentials. In the absence of a long-established ethical system, he would listen carefully to events and see them as a revelation of God’s will? (p. 172)

Well, respecting the holy months is not ‘inessential’ Miss Armstrong. Arabs lived thousands of years before Muhammad. So, they had a ‘long-established ethical system’ Miss Armstrong.

It is evident that Karen Armstrong was quick to extend her sympathy to what Muhammad and his murderous robbers did. She fits the definition of a Dhimwhit par excellence. In fact, her views on Islam constitute an ideal example Dhimwhitness.

Comments powered by CComment

Joomla templates by a4joomla