The Original Sin

For a short while; but if you read this quote in context, you will realize that Armstrong intended the exact opposite of what the shortened version implies:

Islam is a great success, Alhamdolillah. Name the standard by which, you feel it is not a success. Followers amounting to almost 25 % of the human race, according to me rate it a success.

And her interview certainly does not lead to believe that Islam was a success only initially.

In short, Armstrong's real message is not that Islam is a success, but rather that it has failed; and that failure is the cause of Muslim extremism.

No. Most certainly not.

Mohammed was not an apparent failure. He was a dazzling success, politically as well as spiritually, and Islam went from strength to strength to strength.

But against the West, it's been able to make no headway, and this is as disturbing for Muslims as the discoveries of Darwin have been to some Christians.

I do not agree that against the west Islam has been able to make no headway. Available data on conversions to Islam itself belies that statement. And she herself did not mean that.

Since our subject is Muhammad PBUH we must heed what she has said here about him "He was a dazzling success, politically as well as spiritually, and Islam went from strength to strength to strength."

and this has led some, and only a minority , it must be said, to desperate conclusions.

ARMSTRONG: Ironically, the first thing that appealed to me about Islam was its pluralism. The fact that the Koran praises all the great prophets of the past. That Mohammed didn't believe he had come to found a new religion to which everybody had to convert, but he was just the prophet sent to the Arabs,

Besides that interview she has written two biographies of Prophet Muhammad PBUH:

Here are a few extracts from Youssef Laaraj's review of her book:

In her book Muhammad : A Prophet for our time, British author Karen Armstrong explains western shallow understanding of Muslims� prophet Muhammed and presents a solid account of His biography. She clears up a huge amount of western fallacies about the Prophet presenting credible justifications and rich referencing. �We must approach his life in a balanced way, in order to appreciate his considerable achievements�, comparative religion specialist says in her book�s introduction. Armstrong�s book swaps between oblique and plain invitation to westerners to rectify their conception about The Prophet. �Muhammad was not a man of violence� she says.

�As a paradigmatic personality, Muhammad has important lessons, not only for Muslims, but also for Western people�. Prophet�s lessons, which are meant for humanity at large, were based on Allah�s order to adopt affectionate and reasonable dialogue with non-believers who have strongly opposed the New Religion and tried by all the weapons at their disposal to harm The Prophet in person and ruin His plans. Today, many people in the west, Armstrong states, claim that the biography of The Prophet and Islam was stained by bloodshed and violent invasions. Opposite to this view, the author makes proof that �His life was a jihad (�) this word does not mean holy war, it means struggle� and gives the proper sense of the word Jihad not as misinterpreted by the western public opinion.

Concerning His marital life which has been subject to much criticism by orintalists and feminist movements, Armstrong maintains that Muhammad�s first love Khadija is a proof of his faithfulness. �Muhammad loved Khadijah dearly, and even though polygamy was the norm in Arabia, he never took another, younger wife while she was alive�. The Prophet�s humble abode was filled with true love of affection and respect. His life with Khadija and their sons and daughters have been very happy even though they have lost their two sons Al Qasim and Abdullah who died in their infancy. Their happiness was backed by the deep-rooted faith whose lofty principles were beyond the earthly material concerns. Despite the simple life, Muhammad had been distinguished in His selfless treatment of the people around Him. For instance, He insisted on giving a large amount of his assets to the poor. He even brought needy boys into the family and �treated them as his own sons�, the British scholar reports.

Karen Armstrong had used abundant literature to support an impartial account of the Prophet�s life as an individual and a leader. He is reported to be a man who embraced all the distinguished human qualities that every human must follow and learn from. She affirmed that Muhammad�s struggle was not driven by a hope to impose religious orthodoxy but to �change people�s hearts and minds�. He was entrusted to convey and disseminate Allah�s final religion and extricate people from the darkness of ignorance and despotism. However, it seems that this academic work would not be of significant value in the west as it has not markedly changed people�s rooted fallacies about Islam and Muslim�s Prophet. The history of misunderstanding and fear of Islam is so long in time and deep in people�s affect that it makes the task of overcoming it quite arduous. �We have a long history of Islamophobia in Western culture that dates back to the time of the Crusades�, Armstrong declares before she asserts that �Muhammad was not a man of violence�. She calls on people to �approach his life in a balanced way, in order to appreciate his considerable achievements�. According to Armstrong, misconception about Muhammed and His religion cultivates inaccurate prejudice, which harms human values of tolerance, liberality, and compassion.

To end, I would like to say that your choice to quote that rather dated interview was odd. Or was it?

Well, I searched too. And I could not find confirmation regarding the source of that quote. However, I found two new ones at http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/how_the_islamic_faith_encourages_worldly_advancement__by_sheikh_muhammad_saalih_al_munajjid

In the field of medicine and surgery, the Muslims played an undeniable role.

The British writer H. G. Wells says in his book Milestones in Human History:

"They advanced in medicine far beyond the Greeks, they studied science and the functions of various parts of the body, and preventative medicine. Many of the treatment methods that they used are still used by us until today. They used anaesthetics for their operations and they used to perform some of the most difficult surgeries that are known. At a time when the church used to forbid the practice of medicine in the expectation that a full recovery could be achieved through religious rituals performed by the bishops, the Arabs had a true knowledge of medicine. "
He also said:

"Every religion that is not suited to civilization should be rejected. I have not found any religion that is suited to civilization except Islam. "

The Saint wrote: Islam is a great success, Alhamdolillah. Name the standard by which, you feel it is not a success. Followers amounting to almost 25 % of the human race, according to me rate it a success.

Armstrong's quote says that Muhammad, not Islam, was a great success.  It may also be true that Islam was a great success initially; but its insistence on the Quran as the final revelation and its resistance to any kind of innovation renders it incapable of adapting to the modern world.

Name a standard?  Well, with 25% of the world's population, one would expect at least one modern Muslim nation that could be described as successful.  Which one would you pick?  Iran?  Iraq?  Saudi Arabia?  Egypt?

To end, I would like to say that your choice to quote that rather dated interview was odd. Or was it?

You were the one who first quoted it.  I simply tracked down the source for you.

Well, I searched too. And I could not find confirmation regarding the source of that quote. However, I found two new ones at http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/how_the_islamic_faith_encourages_worldly_advancement__by_sheikh_muhammad_saalih_al_munajjid In the field of medicine and surgery, the Muslims played an undeniable role. The British writer H. G. Wells says in his book Milestones in Human History:

There is no such book; or if there is, H.G. Wells never wrote it.

Please understand: I have no doubt that Sheikh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid is a good man, and so are you.  I'm sure you are both sincere in your beliefs and in your desire to discover and promote the truth.  But both of you are just repeating stuff you found on the Internet without checking the source.  That is not the way to truth.

hijabsforher wrote: The doctrine of original sin is false because: 1. It excuses the sinner. 2. It makes God responsible for sin. 3. It is a stumbling-block to the unsaved. 4. It contradicts the Bible. 5. It begets false doctrines and false interpretations of the Scriptures.

Greetings hijabsforher,

I would just like to share;
the doctrine of original sin doesn't excuse the sinner.... we still are given free will to turn from sinful ways.... but the truth is that we all will sin.... we are all sinners.... none of us will ever be good enough on our own to not sin in this life, and that is because of the fallen nature(i.e., original sin) that was taken on when Adam and Eve first turned from the Lord.  Every child born to Adam and Eve was a child born outside of the perfect design of the Creator.
God is not responsible... the deceiver is the one responsible.

If you would, please explain, how it is 'a stumbling block to the unsaved', and how you feel that it 'contradicts the Bible'.

Shukran and salaam,
Caringheart