Rating: 
Summary: Economis and realpolitik mattered as much as religion...
Review: British theologian Karen Armstrong entered a convent at seventeen to become a Catholic nun. She defrocked in 1969 (this caused a great scandal among British Catholics, many of which have not forgiven her to this day). She has since become a student of the three great monotheistic religions, writing one bestseller on the subject, A History of GodIn this book, she recounts the history of the Crusades and how it still shapes the modern-day Middle East. Interestingly, she tries to take a tripartite Christian/Jewish/Muslim view (more accurately, a quadripartite Catholic/Greek Orthodox/Jewish/Muslim view, but she herself writes about a "triple vision"). Most other accounts give short shrift to the Jewish point of view. Even now, the subject is still fraught with passion and having an entirely unbiased view, but she does a good job of it in my opinion. Certainly, her assessment is quite critical of the Crusaders, but the only actors to which she is wholly sympathetic are the humanistic Byzantines, who were poorly repaid for their forbearance towards the Crusaders by the sack of Constantinople. Her central thesis is that the Crusades were the crucible where the modern European identity was forged, and that unfortunately in the process it was alloyed with anti-semitism and a visceral hostility towards Islam. Her second thesis, somewhat less convincing, is that in the current Israeli-Arab conflict, both parties are consciously replaying the Crusades. The convoluted politics of the Middle East, over seven millennia in the making, have a habit of tripping up overly simplistic analyses. The Lebanese master story-teller Amin Maalouf, in his excellent (but clearly not unbiased) The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, notes that shortly after the first crusade, an army of Christian and Muslim allies fought another such army in Syria. The Crusades were clearly seen at first as a colonial or purely military venture by Arabs of all faiths, it is only later with the sultans Nasr-ud-din and Salah-ud-din (Saladin) that the war took on a religious significance. While Karen Armstrong does a good job of showing how the conflict progressively acquired the traits of a holy war, she is not as good at identifying the purely secular realpolitik that was pursued then as it is today. All in all, for all its flaws, specially in the political analysis of the current situation, this is an excellent and thought-provoking book. Highly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: I've read several of Armstrong's books, and I've
Review: come to think of her as an apologist for the Muslims. She downplays, or doesn't mention, the Muslim slaughter of unarmed pilgrims, the Muslim slaves, the capturing of Christian boys whom they turned into involuntary soldiers-the Jannisaries- and, as has been mentioned, the invasion of Europe with full intentions of conquering all of Europe and converting it to Islam. In most of her books she also glosses over the murder of fellow Muslims for the sake of power, and the wars between the different Muslim states. It has become fashionable for some Western "intellectuals" to engage in self-flagellation, decrying the actions of Christians while totally, or mostly, "looking the other way", so to speak, when the same, or worse, atrocities are committed by Muslims. Rarely mentioned is the fact that even today Muslims are engaged in slave trading, often capturing the young from their "enemies" and enslaving them as they did the Jannisaries. I have no particular dislike for Islam. I have Muslim friends whom I like and respect very much, HOWEVER, if you're going to tell a tale, tell the truth about both sides. While I do not condone the behavior of many Crusaders I do think we can lay a lot of blame on all sides. Some of these "Muslim apologists" seem to want us to forget that the Muslims invaded Europe centuries before the crusades, and the truth is that they did try to spread Islam by the sword. At least many of the Crusaders had some good intentions. Many of them just wanted to protect and have access to their holy sites. Why is it that very few authors forget to mention that the Muslims took that land by the sword? The Muslims had no more right to it than the Christians. That land was inhabited by many people long before Muhammed and Islam. The Crusaders attempt to preserve their holy sites has a lot more merit than the Muslims invading Europe for the express intention of killing off any Christian who resisted conversion or acceptance of their rule. And why is it that some Western Muslim revisionist "historians" try to paint a beautiful picture of that "Ornament of the World", Spain? A slave or conquered people in their own land are still slaves no matter how pretty of a picture the revisionist paint.
Rating: 
Summary: Abandoning hatred and lies
Review: Congratulations to Miss Armstrong: not many authors have such writing tallent, expert knowledge, objectivity and such absence of narrow-mindeness and hatred. Karen Armstrong's brilliance shines throughout the book.The brilliance of the book lies in its potential to liberate its readers from a legacy of centuries of lies and hatred. Miss Armstrong's objective analysis of all three major religions is impressive. Thanks to miss Armstrong for unveiling all the Western world's misconceptions about Islam, it gives hope for better future in the world generally.
Rating: 
Summary: ISLAM GOOD ! CHRISTIANITY BAD !
Review: Congratulations to Ms Armstrong. The Muslim Apologists and Missionary community is greatly indebted to the Author for her work since a book by a Westerner achieves far greater credibility. This book is also excellently written in that its style and message is easily received by the politically correct minded Westerners who blame everything on Western imperialism and Christian bigotry. Since "it appears" that the Middle East has always been Arab and Anatolia always Turkish (or in the alternative, the indigenous peoples enthusiastically embraced Islam) by initiating military action such as the Crusades, the West has greatly wronged the Muslims. It provides justification to retaliate against the West for 9/11 and other terrorist acts. The success of Karen Armstrong's work is self-evident. The Christian victims of the Middle East have now become the perpetrators. For this the Author deserves 10 STARS ! I respect the Author's honesty in describing the barbaric acts of the Crusaders as "Unchristian" as they are against the teachings of Christ. She was also equally correct in not calling the Islamic conquests "UnIslamic". In abrogating the earlier verse that "There is no compulsion in religion", the Quran says:
"When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives."
"If you do not fight, Allah will punish you severely, and put others in your place." "Those who die fighting for the only true religion, Islam, will be amply rewarded in the life to come"
"Fight the unbelievers in your surroundings, and let them find harshness in you."
"Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, capture and besiege them and prepare for them every kind of ambush."
"Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them"
"It is a grave sin for a Muslim to shirk the battle against the unbelievers, those who do will roast in hell" But thanks to Armstrong's "enlightenment" on the Crusades, the West like a battered wife might just think that maybe "I PROVOKED HIM AND I DESERVED IT". As the author of the book entitled "Muhammad", Ms Armstrong has a sound knowledge of Islam and I am grateful that she has proved that ISLAM IS INDEED A TOLERANT RELIGION (at least more so than Christianity).
Muslim 71 The Prophet said: ". . . The Jew or Christian who hears about me but does not affirm his belief... shall be one of the denizens of Hell-fire.
"Wage war on the people of the Book, who ... do not accept the religion of Islam."
"Fight against them (the Jews and Christians)! Allah shall punish them, at your hands."
"The Jews and Christians and the Pagans will burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures." (98:6) It is by no means easy (by this we must give credit) for Muslims to TOLERATE conquered Christians and Jews when they are the vilest of all creatures and have stubbornly rejected Muhammad as the prophet of God. I am also grateful that the author never discussed about the Armenian Genocide, as I am quite sure that she would have said that it never happened. In fact, Armenian rebels (in league with the Russians) rose up against the peace-loving Ottoman regime. However, I feel that since it was said in her book that the Crusaders dealt so harshly with the Jews, the Author should have given a balanced view by mentioning Muhammad's "crusade" against the Jews when he exterminated or expelled them from Arabia, and the numerous occasions when the Jews were massacred by Muslims. Bukhari 5:59:362 "The Prophet killed the men of the Jewish tribe Bani Quraiza (some 600 to 800 of them) and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims All the other Jews of Medina were exiled."
This book is also highly recommended for Muslim proselyters. The Muslims in the West are often asked by potential converts whether the atrocities and the harsh treatment of unbelievers associated with Islam are true. If the Muslims reply 'yes', then the next question would be whether they are condoned by the Quran. By negating the truth (ie. saying 'no' to the first question) prevents further questions on what the Quran really says. Furthermore, this goes hand in hand with "Islam means Peace" and "Islam is an Abrahamaic Faith like Judaism and Christianity". Since the 1600s, Muslim proselyters have been successful in winning converts among Christians in the Balkans and Anatolia by using the approach "We believe in the same God" and "We revere Jesus too". Western Christians are therefore misled to think that Allah is the same as the Judeo-Christian God of love when in fact, Allah is a non-triune moon god of Muhammad's tribe (So, successful is the process of Islamization that even Middle Eastern and Indonesian Christians refer to God as Allah. But you do not have Muslims using "Jehovah" and Yahweh" interchangeably with Allah). Only once these Liberal Americans like John Walker Lindh (who was described by his mother as kind and gentle) become part of the Ummah, would they be initiated into the sympathies and plight of their brethren. I highly recommend that in the wake of 9/11, this book be read with the press statements by Al-Qaeda spokespersons on the reasons for Osama's jihad against America. The two primary reasons can be summarized as follows: 1) America's support for Israel
The Quran prophetically says "Believers, do not take Jews or Christians as friends They are but ONE ANOTHER'S FRIENDS. If anyone of you takes them for his friends, then he is surely one of them. God will not guide evil-doers." 2) America's presence in Arabia
Hadith Malik 511:1588 The last statement that Muhammad made was: "O Lord, perish the Jews and Christians. They made churches of the graves of their prophets. There shall be NO TWO FAITHS IN ARABIA." (During the caliphates of the first four Caliphs this edict was fully carried out and all non-believers were removed from Arabia.) Incidentally, the Crusades were never mentioned. Thank you Ms. Armstrong.
Rating:
Summary: A Good Foundation to Build Understanding
Review: Drivel it is not. Derisive of Judaism/Christianity it is not. Praising of jihadist Islam? Hardly. If you didn't read the entire book, how could you know? You will learn much about all 3 faiths and how at one time there was a greater tolerance of different beliefs. You will also read about darker periods in their history. This book points out the pitfalls that many of us fall into unwittingly because we have simply not been educated otherwise. You will re-think your old assumptions after reading this book.
Rating:
Summary: Rich with facts, but not even-handed
Review: Even those of us who have studied the Crusades will learn much from this book. Armstrong digs deep into the events of the crusading era, providing freshly perceived context for those military and religious ventures. Her learning is impressive. Her objectivity is less so. While Armstrong condemns religiously motivated aggression by Western European Christians, she passes much more lightly over the earlier behavior of Islamic conquerors who also were driven by religious zeal. At one point, she writes that "It is obvious that the Muslim ideal of holy war is very different from the Crusade: it is essentially defensive whereas the Crusaders, like the Jewish holy warriors, had made a holy initiative when they attacked the enemies of God and his chosen people." Yet earlier in the same book she had written "It was the duty of the Muslim state (the house of Islam) to conquer the rest of the non-Muslim world (the House of War) so that the world could reflect the divine unity." How is this morally preferable to crusading theory? Those who were crushed by Islamic expansionists in the seventh and eighth centuries seem to have been forgotten. Ask the Iranians how they feel about the Muslim conquest of Persia. The memory is hardly golden.
Rating:
Summary: Rich with facts, but not even-handed
Review: Even those of us who have studied the Crusades will learn much from this book. Armstrong digs deep into the events of the crusading era, providing freshly perceived context for those military and religious ventures. Her learning is impressive. Her objectivity is less so. While Armstrong condemns religiously motivated aggression by Western European Christians, she passes much more lightly over the earlier behavior of Islamic conquerors who also were driven by religious zeal. At one point, she writes that "It is obvious that the Muslim ideal of holy war is very different from the Crusade: it is essentially defensive whereas the Crusaders, like the Jewish holy warriors, had made a holy initiative when they attacked the enemies of God and his chosen people." Yet earlier in the same book she had written "It was the duty of the Muslim state (the house of Islam) to conquer the rest of the non-Muslim world (the House of War) so that the world could reflect the divine unity." How is this morally preferable to crusading theory? Those who were crushed by Islamic expansionists in the seventh and eighth centuries seem to have been forgotten. Ask the Iranians how they feel about the Muslim conquest of Persia. The memory is hardly golden.
Rating:
Summary: Well written but flawed by its extreme bias
Review: I am a fan of Karen Armstrong's works in general. In the best of her writing, such as "Battle for God", she aimed her criticism and analysis equally towards the fundamentalist offshoots of the three monotheistic religions. The results were a book that gave great insight into the fundamentalism, its roots and causes.
Unfortunately "Holy War" is marked by an extreme lack of balance on Karen Armstrong's part. Christianity, and especially Catholicism are the targets of an almost pathological attack on her part. Much of "Holy War" smacks of that mea culpa "The West is bad the east is good" variety of history so popular in historical writing of the 1980's and '90's. Christianity is painted in a dark light and, usually, while Armstrong is correct in her criticisms of the stupidity of the military leaders she goes too far in laying the blame for today's problems at the feet of Christianity and the crusades. Armstrong, an ex-nun who left the Catholic Church, has an axe to grind and she grinds it forcefully. Armstrong paints Muslims as generally innocent victims who treated Christians and Jews as "people of the book". The fact that Muslims taxed them for the "right" to maintain their worship (sometimes heavily) and generally were contemptuous of both Christianity and Judaism isn't mentioned even though there is ample historical evidence for this (re: Muslim Discovery of Europe by Bernard Lewis). Nor does the fact that Muslims slaughtered pagans who refused to convert to Islam, showing its own unsavory past, rank any mention by Armstrong. In "Holy War" Islam is a peaceful progressive sect forced into violence and backwardness by the advent of European crusades. Armstrong is a great writer of history and does her research, but some of her sources are suspect- using Paul Johnson as a reliable source in any history is always a gamble. Karen Armstrong's later writings are much more balanced than "Holy War". In all it is still an entertaining, informative and rewarding book but one which the reader should approach with some caution.
Rating:
Summary: Palestine Love: A History of Omission
Review: I am a fan of Karen Armstrong, having several of her works upon my shelf. Much of her work contains a degree of her own brand of philosophy which, at times, can be a bit lengthy and academic. This book is no exception, for she inserts passages of poetic examples in historical narratives to illustrate the passion and dispair of a "people", particularly the Arabs.
This book is a sympathetic portrait of the Arab cause, especially noticeable is Karen's soft spot for Palestine and Yasser Arafat. For example, she states Israel made "retaliatory raids" into Jordan to attack the Fedayeen (Battle of Karameh), but does not mention the attack was a result of the 37th terrorist attack on Israel by the Fedayeen, this time killing school children traveling in a bus.
Karen also states Jordan's King Hussein expelled Arafat, but does not state the catalyst for this event was an assasination attempt on King Hussein by the Feydayeen. His motorcade was machine gunned by PLO terrorist. This is not mentioned in the book. Nor is the fact Jordan called on Israeli fighter jets to repel Syrian tanks as a result of these difficulties. King Hussein actually declared war on the Palastinians to removed them from Jordan. These are historical facts based on interviews with King Hussein of Jordan, often seen as an Arab outcast for calling on the Israel when threatened by a "brother" Arab.
I am not sypathetic to Jewish, Muslim, nor Christian. I appreciate clear thought and unbiased factual history. This book is not a good source for historical reference.
Rating:
Summary: Well-Written. VERY well- researched
Review: I give this book 5 stars because after so many years of studying and teaching religion, Law and ME politics, this is one of the few books that a person can find that presents the situation like it is... no bias...no hatred... and solid facts. I can tell you from years of experience with people, that many people(readers and authors) do not like to step outside of their comfort zone. They would rather dictate their world view from where it feels most comfortable. If you want to read a book that will reinforce your expectations and feed on your fears.... dont bother to read it. However, if you want a book that is very carefully researched and presents history, and War with truth, no matter how harsh... then go ahead and read it. A person can come up with a thousand arguements that is book is hateful and prejudiced, but those feelings really are not supported by te facts.
| 
