Research Armstrong's doctrine before banning
Reader comment on item: John Esposito and Karen Armstrong – Banned in Malaysia

Submitted by Tommy Peters (Malaysia), Jun 28, 2007 at 21:28

Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (Abim), an Islamic NGO in Malaysia has a point in asking for the ban on Karen Armstrong's books to be lifted (The Sun – June 18^th 2007).

A year ago I was handed ‘History of God' by a friendly preacher of the local mosque near my home in Kuala Lumpur. Having read it and her other writings, I realized Armstrong was of the Bucaille genre. Maurice Bucaille was, in the 70s, a physician to the Saudi king and in his writings, he softened the hard edges of the Islamic doctrine. His detractors say he was commissioned and amply rewarded to write ‘favourably' about Islam, but that is another issue.

Bucaille and those of his ilk such as Armstrong, offered the ‘infidel's view' of Islam and their views are well received in ‘Wahabbi' and ‘Sufi' institutions of Islamic learning, except curiously, in Malaysia. In particular, they are received well by non-muslims in Malaysia who know very little about the doctrine.

Armstrong's genre shows up with her piece ‘Balancing the Prophet" (April 27^th 2007 - Financial Times) in which she reviews Robert Spencer's ‘The Truth About Muhammad' and where she is clearly seen defending the indefensible.

Therefore, having her books banned in Malaysia, while Aaayan Hirsi Ali's ‘The Caged Virgin' and ‘Infidel' are found on the Malaysian bookstore shelves must be quite frustrating for Abim, not to mention the adherents in Malaysia, who now realize that they have a true blue Catholic on their side.

Apparently, to the chagrin of Abim and the adherents, the reviewers in Malaysia are clearly remiss in researching the doctrine of the authors before taking action.

Banning Armstrong was clearly an oversight, as opposed to a thought out action by the Malaysian government. With Armstrong's recent visit to Malaysia, we are expecting the ban on her to be lifted and Aaayan clamped down instead.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.