The Islam apologist Karen Armstrong continually dispenses dishonest information

 by Edward Ulrich, updated February 1, 2020


Karen Armstrong is a British author and commentator who is widely known for advocating that Islam is a “misunderstood religion of peace,” and she is embraced and promoted by the leftist political Establishment as supposedly being an authoritative source of information about the religion; however, an examination of her works shows her to be entirely dishonest with her claims about Islam.

This article is an accumulation of information which debunks the fraudulent claims that Armstrong makes.


This article is a part of A Summary of Islam Related Issues.












A criticism of a 2015 article entitled “Karen Armstrong: ‘There is nothing in the Islam that is more violent than Christianity’”


A leftist Dutch website published an interview of Karen Armstrong where she made a seemingly endless amount of outrageously dishonest claims about Islam after the Paris nightclub attacks in 2015.  This section is a list of many of her claims along with rebuttals to them.

































A Summary of a Jihad Watch article by Robert Spencer entitled “Karen Armstrong: Islam came to spread compassion among the nations of the world”


An article on JihadWatch.org by Robert Spencer details an example of how cruel and ruthless of a warlord Muhammad the prophet of Islam was, in order to debunk the claim which Karen Armstrong made that “Islam came to spread compassion among the nations of the world.”

Following is a summary of points in the first part of the article:

— “Let’s have a look at one example of how Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, spread compassion among the nations.  As I explain in my book The Truth About Muhammad, Muhammad led a Muslim force against the Khaybar oasis, which was inhabited by Jews — many of whom he had previously exiled from Medina.  When he did so, he was not responding to any provocation; he encountered the men of Khaybar going out to work their farms, with no idea that they were about to be attacked.”

— A muslim later reported that Muhammad would wait until the morning to attack, first listening for a call to prayer, and advancing on the people if he didn’t hear one.  Muhammad’s earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, said he “seized the property piece by piece and conquered the forts one by one as he came to them.”  Another biographer of Muhammad, Ibn Sa’d, reports that the battle was fierce: the “polytheists...killed a large number of [Muhammad’s] Companions and he also put to death a very large number of them....He killed ninety-three men of the Jews...”

— The Muslims set out to locate and plunder the wealth of the people they attacked:

A Jewish leader of Khaybar, Kinana bin al-Rabi, was brought before Muhammad; Kinana was supposed to have been entrusted with the treasure of the Jewish tribes of Arabia, the Banu Nadir.  Kinana denied knowing where this treasure was, but Muhammad pressed him: “Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?”  Kinana said yes, that he did know that.

Some of the treasure was found.  To find the rest, Muhammad gave orders concerning Kinana: “Torture him until you extract what he has.”  One of the Muslims built a fire on Kinana’s chest, but Kinana would not give up his secret.  When he was at the point of death, one of the Muslims beheaded him.  Kinana’s wife was taken as a war prize; Muhammad claimed her for himself and hastily arranged a wedding ceremony that night.  He halted the Muslims’ caravan out of Khaybar later that night in order to consummate the marriage.

Muhammad agreed to let the people of Khaybar to go into exile, allowing them to keep as much of their property as they could carry.  The Prophet of Islam, however, commanded them to leave behind all their gold and silver. He had intended to expel all of them, but some, who were farmers, begged him to allow them to let them stay if they gave him half their yield annually.  Muhammad agreed: “I will allow you to continue here, so long as we would desire.”  He warned them: “If we wish to expel you we will expel you.”  They no longer had any rights that did not depend upon the good will and sufferance of Muhammad and the Muslims.  And indeed, when the Muslims discovered some treasure that some of the Khaybar Jews had hidden, he ordered the women of the tribe enslaved and seized the perpetrators’ land.  A hadith notes that “the Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives.”

Compassion!








Karen Armstrong’s comments about the media personality and anti-Islamization activist Bill Maher


From Wikipedia:

Armstrong commented on comedian Bill Maher’s criticism of Islam by telling Salon “this is the sort of talk that led to the concentration camps in Europe.  This is the kind of thing people were saying about Jews in the 1930s and ‘40s in Europe.”

Maher responded to Armstrong’s comments by telling Vanity Fair, “It’s beyond stupid.  Jews weren’t oppressing anybody. There weren’t 5,000 militant Jewish groups.  They didn’t do a study of treatment of women around the world and find that the Jews were at the bottom of it.  There weren’t 10 Jewish countries in the world that were putting gay people to death just for being gay.  It’s idiotic.”

After that Armstrong reiterated her criticism of Maher by telling the New York Times, “My problem with some current critics of Islam is that their criticism is neither accurate, fair, nor well-informed.  I am sure they do not intend this, but in the 1930s and ‘40s in Europe, we learned how dangerous and ultimately destructive this kind of discourse could be.”








A summary of a Washington Post article by David Bernstein: “Islamists murdering French Jews ‘had nothing to do with anti-Semitism’”


— Karen Armstrong is widely recognized as one of the Western world’s most popular writers on religion, however she recently said the following in an interview on a Dutch blog: “The supermarket attack in Paris [in which four Jews were murdered] was about Palestine, about ISIS.  It had nothing to do with antisemitism; many of them are Semites themselves.  But they attempt to conquer Palestine and we’re not talking about that.  We’re too implicated and we don’t know what to do with it.”

— Bernstein bemoans Armstrong’s anti-Semitic stance that the attack was due to grievances about “Palestine” and not actually anti-Semitism, with her suggesting that it is rational to hold all Jews around the world culpable of real or imagined misdeeds of Israel, and even implying that murdering Jews in France is a “logical battlefront in the war on the Israeli government.”  He also comments about Armstrong employing a “They can’t be anti-Semites because they are Semites themselves” stance, with the reality being that anti-semitites specifically hate Jewish people and don’t simply hate “all semitic people.”

— Bernstein explains that Armstrong seems to comprehend what Anti-Semitism means, but she seems to fall into a camp which is disingenuous about the issue in order to deny the obvious fact of widespread Arab anti-Semtism.

— Bernstein says, “As near as I can tell, what seems to motivate this sort of nonsense [at least in Armstrong’s case] is fear that acknowledging widespread Muslim/Arab anti-Semitism will stoke ‘Islamaphobia.’  Why Jews, who face far more day-to-day danger from anti-Semitic violence in Europe than Muslims do from hostility to Islam, should be considered expendable in the service of this ‘anti-Islamaphobia’ is beyond my comprehension.  But it’s precisely the attitudes of folks like Armstrong that have most European Jews contemplating whether there is any future for them in their home countries-the problem is not simply violence by Islamists against Jews, but the sense that society at large has no intention of taking it seriously or trying to do anything about it.”








A Summary of a HumanEvents.com article by Robert Spencer: “An Apologist for Muslim Rage, The Islamic world is in deep denial”


Pope Benedict XVI made remarks about Islam which caused violent attacks by Islamists including the murders of a Nun in Somalia and a Christian in Iraq, however Karen Armstrong published articles condemning the Pope’s statements as “dangerous” rather than condemning the violent Islamic response to his statements.  Following is a summary of an article by Robert Spencer which explains the situation:


Pope Benedict XVI made remarks about Islam which have caused hostile Islamic threats against him and the West, and “notable among the spokesmen for appeasement and accommodation of violent Islamic intimidation was Karen Armstrong, author of the popular books ‘Islam: A Short History’ and ‘Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet’.

Armstrong published an article in The Guardian entitled “We cannot afford to maintain these ancient prejudices against Islam: The Pope’s remarks were dangerous, and will convince many more Muslims that the west is incurably Islamophobic”, but it is ironic that she would term the Pope’s remarks rather than the violent Muslim reaction to them as “dangerous,” particularly after a nun in Somalia and a Christian in Iraq were murdered in expressions of anger against the Pope.  In Armstrong’s opinion, all such violent Islamic rage against the West is the fault of the West.

“... Armstrong, like Bill Clinton, who explained 9/11 as part of the debt ‘we are still paying’ to the Islamic world for the Crusades, never mentions that centuries of jihad aggression and imperialism that preceded and provoked the Crusades.  The Crusades were not perfect, but they were in no sense a gratuitous proto-colonial attack by the Christian West against a hitherto peaceful and benign Islamic world.”

“Muhammad tells his followers to call people to Islam, and if they refuse, to offer them second-class status or war: ‘When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action.... Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them.... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [the tax on non-Muslims specified in Qur’an 9:29].  If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands.  If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them (Sahih Muslim 4294).’”

“Armstrong has never had an overly strong attachment to accuracy. ...”

Another example of Armstrong’s dishonesty about Islam is her treatment of the issue of Muhammad and his child bride Aisha, who was six years old when he married her while he was in his fifties.  Islamic apologists try to claim Aisha was older, as Armstrong does, claiming the “Tabari” states that she stayed at her parent’s home until she reached puberty, however the Tabari actually quotes Aisha as saying “The Messenger of God married me when I was seven; my marriage was consummated when I was nine.”

“The time for such disingenuousness is over, as is the time for the unseemly self-recrimination to which Armstrong is calling the West.  The Muslim rage against the Pope’s call to eschew religious violence reveals an Islamic world in deep denial, as irrational as it is unable to take responsibility for its own actions.  And in this it has Karen Armstrong and other Leftist haters of Western civilization and culture as willing accomplices.”








A Christian Post article by Mike Dobbins: “The Critics of Islam Were Right: An Apology to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Bill Maher and Other So-Called Islamophobes”


In this Christian Post article by Mike Dobbins, he explains that he was an apologist for Islam for years, but he has since become better informed after reading an interview of Ayaan Hirsi Ali where she clarified many disturbing issues associated with the ideology.


For years I was an apologist for Islam, as regrettably, many still remain.  I only read books and believed those who painted Islam in a peaceful, glowing light.  I made excuses for radical Muslims and lived in a flood of denial that religious teachings could still, in this modern age of drones and clones, motivate a person to commit evil.  I criticized the numerous atheists including Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, and Bill Maher warning of the dangers inherent in Islamic doctrines, recklessly labeling them Islamophobes.

Today I’m writing to say I’m sorry, I apologize, and I ask for your forgiveness.  We who have blindly defended Islam and called you Islamophobes are tragically wrong.

My mind first began to change last May when I read an interview by Sam Harris with Ayaan Hirsi Ali in which she addresses the misapplication of the term Islamophobia.  This article, along with the seeds atheists planted over the years urging me to do more research, motivated me to delve into the religion.  I read the Quran, many Hadith, the biography of Muhammad, the history of Jihad, and Islamic law.  This is what I learned:

The critics of Islam are right.  Islam is intrinsically, alarmingly violent, hateful and oppressive on a scale greater than all other major religions combined.  To say that radical Islamists are motivated to commit atrocities and embrace oppression based on religious doctrine is the understatement of the century.

I, like most defenders of Islam, was ignorant, naïve, and in denial.  I wrongly assumed all holy books have enough good messages to offset the bad.  I wrongly assumed that, like Jesus, Muhammad promoted peace, love, and non-violence.  I wrongly assumed criticism of Islam equates to criticism of all Muslims.

While I apologize to those wrongly labeled Islamophobes, my biggest apology is owed to Muslims.  Muslims have needlessly suffered under oppressive Islamic religious and political doctrines as thousands of uninformed smearests like myself rushed to judge and silence critics of Islam.  By not acknowledging the Islamic link to radical violence and hate, smearests have unwittingly allowed it to spread.  The smearests, denialists, and the naïve have, unknowingly, turned their back on moderate Muslims and a reformed, peaceful Islam.

We who have carelessly thrown around the Islamophobe label including Glen Greenwald, Reza Aslan, and Karen Armstrong should lower our heads in shame and guilt.  Few things are as morally depraved as attacking someone who criticizes Islam (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) rather than attacking the Islamic apostasy and blasphemy laws teaching Muslims they should kill her.  We must now live with the knowledge that we’ve abandoned and betrayed our principles.  Though we claim the mantle of human rights, free speech and equality, we lack the courage of our convictions when it offends someone.  We make the cowardly lion look like Churchill.

In reality, those who criticize Islam, especially reform minded Muslims, are the bravest of the brave.  They are literally putting their lives at risk by the simple act of criticizing the Quran, Muhammad, and Sharia.

It is the critics of Islam who are working steadfastly for equality and human rights for Muslims as apologists wallow in denial.

While we smearests have obsessed over shielding Islam from criticism, so-called Islamophobes were courageously standing up to oppressive Islamic doctrines and practices.  While we smearests were unwittingly misinforming the public and deluding ourselves by not making the connection between Islamic religious teachings and Islamic hate and violence, so-called Islamophobes were connecting the dots and looking for solutions.  While we smearests were busy tarnishing critics as bigots and racists, so called Islamophobes were busy defending equality of women, gays, and minorities, protecting free speech and religion, and advocating an end to cruel and unusual punishments.

Labeling every critic of Islam an Islamophobe has seriously diminished the smearests credibility.  By grouping valid critics of Islam with bigots we water downed the meaning of Islamophobe and appear cruel and repressive of free speech.

Criticizing the Quran and Muhammad is not criticizing or stereotyping the Muslim minority just as criticizing The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith is not criticizing or stereotyping the Mormon minority.  When people criticize the Mormon holy book or prophet, rightfully, there is no attempt to shield Mormonism from criticism or smear the critics as Mormonophobes.

No religion, book, prophet, law, or God, no matter how sacredly held by the follower, is exempt from criticism.  No religious belief or doctrine receives preferential treatment in a free society.  Either all religions, books, and prophets are open to criticism or none are.  We either live in a free society or tyrannical one.

Islam is a manmade religion (emphasis on the man part) and like all manmade religions, has serious moral shortcomings and requires rigorous criticism.  Rather than self-censoring and abiding by Islamic blasphemy laws, we should be defending the importance of free speech, encouraging Islam to purge itself of blasphemy laws, and demonstrating the benefits free speech can bring to Islam.

Now, we smearests must make up for lost time and lost chances.  We must double our efforts to criticize oppressive Islamic practices, doctrines, and regimes and demand reform.  We must embrace Muslims who truly are moderate, acknowledge the faults in Islam, and are striving for coexistence, peace, equality, human rights, and freedom of expression and worship.  All non-Muslims can support Muslims best by doing the same.

But by no means take my word for it.  You owe it to yourself to do your own research and see if you too find a connection between Islamic teachings and Islamic violence and hate.  I challenge everyone, especially smearests, to read the Quran, biographies of Muhammad, the history of Jihad, and the political ideology of Islam.

Perhaps you too will notice the Quran’s recurring theme of hating non-believers and the desert like absence of loving and inclusive passages to offset the vile and violent ones.

Perhaps you too will notice how Muhammad’s violent life mirrors that of members of the Islamic State and that it would be dangerous for any person to follow in Muhammad’s footsteps.

Perhaps you too will notice how there is no separation of Church and State in Islam and that most Islamic governments place Islamic law above Secular law.

It would be one thing if Islamic doctrines said Muslims should love non-Muslims and love their enemy.  It would be one thing if the prophet Muhammad preached non-violence.  It would be one thing if Islamic Laws supported equality for women, minorities, freedom of expression, and valued human rights.  It would be one thing if the Quran taught the golden rule.

It is because they do the complete opposite that I am now speaking out.








Excerpts from the Wikipedia article about Karen Armstrong


Following are selected excerpts from the Wikipedia article about Karen Armstrong:


Karen Armstrong ... is a British author and commentator known for her books on comparative religion.  A former Roman Catholic religious sister, she went from a conservative to a more liberal and mystical Christian faith.  She attended St Anne’s College, Oxford, while in the convent and majored in English.  She became disillusioned and left the convent in 1969.

She first rose to prominence in 1993 with her book “A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.”  Her work focuses on commonalities of the major religions, such as the importance of compassion and the Golden Rule.

Armstrong’s “The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions (2006)” continues the themes covered in A History of God and examines the emergence and codification of the world’s great religions during the so-called Axial age ...

She has made several appearances on television, including on Rageh Omaar’s programme The Life of Muhammad.

She was an advisor for the award-winning, PBS-broadcast documentary “Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet (2002),” produced by Unity Productions Foundation.

In 2007 the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore invited Armstrong to deliver the MUIS Lecture.

Armstrong is a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, a group of scholars and laypeople which attempts to investigate the historical foundations of Christianity.

She has written numerous articles for The Guardian and for other publications.

She was a key advisor on Bill Moyers’ popular PBS series on religion, has addressed members of the United States Congress, and was one of three scholars to speak at the UN’s first ever session on religion.

Awarded the $100,000 TED Prize in February 2008 ... It was presented in Washington, D.C. in November 2009.  Signatories include Queen Noor of Jordan, the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Paul Simon.

In 1999 Armstrong received the Muslim Public Affairs Council’s Media Award.

Armstrong was honoured by the New York Open Center in 2004 for her “profound understanding of religious traditions and their relation to the divine.”

She received an honorary degree as Doctor of Letters by Aston University in 2006.

In May 2008 she was awarded the Freedom of Worship Award by the Roosevelt Institute. ...  The institute stated that Armstrong had become “a significant voice, seeking mutual understanding in times of turbulence, confrontation and violence among religious groups.”

In 2009 she was awarded the Dr. Leopold Lucas Prize by the University of Tübingen.

Armstrong was honored [Sweden’s] Nationalencyklopedin’s International Knowledge Award 2011 “for her long standing work of bringing knowledge to others about the significance of religion to humankind and, in particular, for pointing out the similarities between religions.  Through a series of books and award-winning lectures she reaches out as a peace-making voice at a time when world events are becoming increasingly linked to religion.”

On 30 November 2011 (St. Andrew’s Day) Armstrong was made honorary Doctor of Letters by the University of Saint Andrews.

On 3 June 2014, she was made honorary Doctor of Divinity by McGill University.

Juan Eduardo Campo, author of the Encyclopedia of Islam (Encyclopedia of World Religions) (2009), included Armstrong among a group of scholars whom he considered as currently conveying a “more or less objective” (as opposed to polemical) view of Islam and its origins to a wide public in Europe and North America.

Atheist activist Sam Harris criticizes Armstrong’s “benign” view of Islam, contending that “Islam, as it is currently understood and practiced by vast numbers of the world’s Muslims, is antithetical to civil society.”  Harris is also strongly critical of Armstrong’s “religious apology” of Islamic fundamentalism, accusing her and like-minded scholars of “political correctness.”

Her popular work on the crusades has not been well received by a number of academic crusade historians.