I have a lot of respect for Karen Armstrong, having been a fan of her books, most notably "The History of God". Her work on Islam is respectful, comprehensive (in spite of the subtitle--"a short history)and sophisticated.

Not surprisingly, Armstrong's view on Pope Benedict's comments reflect deep disappointment and worry.

But the old myth of Islam as a chronically violent faith persists, and surfaces at the most inappropriate moments. As one of the received ideas of the west, it seems well-nigh impossible to eradicate. Indeed, we may even be strengthening it by falling back into our old habits of projection. As we see the violence - in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon - for which we bear a measure of responsibility, there is a temptation, perhaps, to blame it all on "Islam". But if we are feeding our prejudice in this way, we do so at our peril.

Earlier in the article, Armstrong correctly points out that Christianity was the violent and "fascist" faith in spite of the scripture exhortations towards peace and equality. Good point, but perhaps irrelevant. Just as Christianity had been judged by its deeds over its faith-claims, why should not Islam be judged on similar terms?

That is the implied point of Mary Laney's piece in the Chicago Sun-Times.

We are at war. Our soldiers are following the rules of war -- but their opposition is not.

CIA counterterrorism officers are buying private insurance to cover legal costs in case they are charged with a crime, as is being hinted at by some members of Congress who feel their interrogation techniques might be too "tough."

In Iraq, Americans have been kidnapped, tortured, beheaded, burned, hanged from bridges, dragged through streets. But the CIA's method of questioning a terrorist in a cold room while playing loud music is too "tough"?

We're fighting a war for civilization against an enemy bent on destroying it and creating an Islamic world based on a warped view of what true Islam is -- yet where are the voices of American Muslims condemning this enemy?

Something's wrong.

I am somewhat surprised at what appears to be a streak of disingenuousness in Karen Armstrong's argument. As anyone who has studied religion in any depth knows, religions evolve and morph into new and peculiar versions. The Mormon church is less than 200 years old, but there are considerable differences between the Mormons of the 1830s and 40s, Mormons of the 1880s and 90s and modern Mormons. Pointing to the prevalent attitudes of seventh century Islam as justification for calling Islam a religion of peace in the modern age is simply ridiculous--just as ridiculous as judging the militaristic character of the modern Roman Catholic church by the Popes that called for the Crusades.

Religions are not immune from cultural and political developments and Islam is no different. It might surprise some people to learn that Mormons, who vote overwhelming Republican, used to be Democrats to a man (before suffrage obviously).

If Muslims want to have a reputation for peaceable behavior, then they have to start demonstrating that character.