Rating: 
Summary: Facts and Bias
Review: I only made it through about half the book before I gave up. It is remarkably unpalatable and stunningly biased. After giving up, I wanted to see some of the amazon reviews, many of which I found echo my conclusion that Ms. Armstrong is an apologist of Islam. Nothing wrong with that, but she should be very clear about it and not present the book as a balanced history.
Rating: 
Summary: Timely
Review: I was 2/3 through this book when the Sept 11 attacks occurred. I have been surprised at how little attention this earlier work has received, especially in view of bin-Laden's Holy War and Bush's response to invade Afghanistan as a "Crusade" to defend freedom.
I think some personal reviews of this book miss the mark. This book was written long before Sept 11, 2001. The point Ms. Armstrong tries to make is that there are ingrained ideas that cultures carry through generations and we should look carefully at how our views have been molded by centuries of passing on tenets, perspectives, and biases. One of these in our Western culture is that related to the Crusades. She asks us to re-examine how we in the West have interpreted that era and even how we continue to use the term "crusade" as a positive, good will endeavor. This is particularly useful when trying to understand the present "Clashes of East and West" or the various Middle East conflicts.
My main difficulty lies with accepting an idea suggested in this book that Muslim forces over the centuries learned the concept of holy war from the Crusades. Although there might be some truth to this, every religious-cloaked military endeavor of many cultures even before the Crusades has heard the rallying cry of Holy War. And the Islamic Empire itself was originally forged with the fervor of Holy War.
Rating: 
Summary: Very interesting read
Review: I would have given it a 5 star rating if it had been a bit better organized. Nonetheless, this is a very important and informative book. Armstrong has a unique ability to take complex subjects into understandable themes. It was definitely a learning experience! It certainly made me rethink some of the issues in the current Middle East crisis.
Rating:
Summary: Ambitious Effort
Review: In HOLY WAR Karen Armstrong presents a sweeping history of religious conflicts in the Middle East from the time of Pope Urban II in the eleventh century to the current age. The central theme of the book can be briefly summarized as follows: The Crusades in the Holy Land during the Middle Ages have a direct influence on the troubles in the Middle East today. Holy Wars are a response to trauma. A close look at the First Crusade in 1096 shows that the Jihad had fallen into disuse until it was revived to counter the invasion by European Christians. America and Israel share a strong feeling of identification partly due to the fact that they were both settled by European refugees. America and Israel are now allied in a new Holy War against Muslims.
Karen Armstrong is not a professional historian. Her primary academic field is English Literature and she is also an ex-nun with several years in a Roman Catholic convent in her background. My only criticism of her book is that it may be too ambitious in terms of its scope. There is simply too much material to cover in one volume. The author, however, almost pulls off the impossible because of her formidable skills as both a writer and storyteller.
Rating:
Summary: Holy War is a must read for students of the Mideast
Review: In Holy War Karen Armstrong sheds a great deal of light on a subject that many of us consider critical to our times: Mideast Tensions. This book gives a great history of the current conflict by looking from all three sides (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) and tracing the tensions back to their beginnings when the first Crusade was called. The book shows the complicated and secular roots of this "religious" conflict and adds a great deal to our understanding of the current situation. If you really intend to understand what's going on this book will complement the knowledge you already have in a profound way.
Rating: 
Summary: Well-intentioned but muddled
Review: In the beginning was peaceful co-existence (sort of) between Christians, Muslims and Jews. Then came the Crusades, and Europe made the fateful choice of intolerance and hegemonism, and the world has never been the same since. The conflict in the Middle East today is both the consequence and a repetition of the original drama of a thousand years ago. To understand it and to find a way forward we must therefore study its history and learn the lessons it teaches - of tolerance and "triple vision", so that we can begin the painful and difficult process of casting off the rigid mentalities we have inherited and learning peace.
This is the message of "Holy War" in a nutshell, presented via a mix of potted history and potted political analysis. What is wrong with it? Plenty.
* To begin with, there is the history. Author Karen Armstrong asserts (p xiv): "I now believe that the Crusades were one of the direct causes of the conflict in the Middle East today." But this is never supported by the rest of the text. Armstrong's main idea appears to be that the Crusades resulted in an aggressive and intolerant cast of mind in Europeans, which is at the root of the current conflict. But no effort is made to elucidate a specific causal chain. Undoubtedly history would have been different had the Crusades never taken place, but it is also clearly possible that conflict would have arisen in any event. Are we to imagine that if the Crusades had not happened, Europe and the Arab world would have necessarily lived in harmonious coexistence for another millennium? This hardly seems plausible.
The analysis of current politics (no longer so current, as Armstrong wrote this about 10 years ago and it already has a dated flavour) is also flawed. A critical part of the dynamic of Arab relations with Israel and the West is the Arab failure to modernize. Arabs are at a historical crossroads, and the choice of the way ahead, be it theocracy, copying the West, or perhaps some "third way" is clearly the fundamental question of Arab socio-politics, which colours every other issue. Surely this is the context, not the events of the 12th century, which must be understood.
Furthermore, whatever the similarities between the current conflict and the Crusades there are clearly a number of important differences. Israel's origins lie in the Holocaust; the Crusades' in an upsurge of religious belief. Israel is a nation; the Crusader kingdoms were European colonies. Arabs were relatively indifferent to a minor European intrusion during the Crusades, whose importance to Europeans was much greater. Today, Israel is a minor matter to the West, but its symbolic significance to Arabs is immense. In a bizarre reversal, it is now Hamas which resembles the Crusaders, willing to die to occupy Jerusalem, while the Arab masses, like medieval European peasantry, wait ready to welcome such a conquest with overwhelming rapture even though it would do nothing to improve their wretched living conditions. In the Crusades religion played an important and analogous role on both sides. Today the West, including Israel, is predominantly secular.
Armstrong's prescription for the way forward centres on "triple vision," which, although it sounds like something a heavyweight boxer might give you, is meant to denote the ability to see from the viewpoints of all three religious traditions simultaneously. This notion is not well explained and it is hard to see exactly what it means. Each tradition is fragmented, often into incompatible streams. Armstrong seems to sympathize with a modern, tolerant and ecumenical Christianity, for instance; but this is not easy to reconcile with the passionate, literal faith of the 12th century. Which is the true Christian perspective? Is there only one? To incorporate the views of moderates and fundamentalists in each of the three religions, plus secular humanism, would require "heptuple vision," enough to make anyone dizzy.
Furthermore, it is not clear how "triple vision" helps us answer the specific hard questions of politics. Should there be an independent Palestinian state? Does Israel have the right to exist? Armstrong does not explain what beliefs those who see with "triple vision" would hold about these matters, or, indeed, about anything. It is unclear whether she regards herself as having attained "triple vision" or whether she is still working towards it. Nor is it clear whether all who attain "triple vision" must hold the same beliefs, or whether it is possible for there to be different viewpoints among the triply-sighted (in which case we would seem to be back to square one as the various schools started to squabble amongst themselves).
That is not to say, however, that Armstrong herself holds no beliefs. To the contrary she holds a recognizably liberal view, displaying what, in a Maoist turn of phrase, might be characterized as the Five Hallmarks of Liberal Attitude regarding the Middle East, namely anti-Israeli bias, anti-Western bias, linguistic bowdlerism, treating both sides symmetrically and faith in goodwill as the key to peace.
Armstrong's central beliefs are that the responsibility for the crisis in the Middle East ultimately lies with the West, and that if we were more sympathetic to the Arab cause the prospects of peace would be materially advanced. These are both highly doubtful. It is difficult to see a way forward unless Muslims accept modernity. As regards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Palestinians must truly want peace, rather than the destruction of Israel, and must give up terror. Without this negotiation cannot even begin.
Karen Armstrong has done a lot of work, and is basically tolerant and well-meaning, but her central thesis is unsubstantiated, and for all the research her analysis of "the mechanics of prejudice" is a rehash of shallow liberal dogma. For readers with a limited amount of time, a better bet would be an academic history of the Crusades, plus "The Clash of Civilizations" by Samuel Huntington.
Rating:
Summary: The Truth about Islamic Invasions
Review: It is most interesting to me that people ignorant of history, or full of prejudice, hatred, bigotry, and intolerance toward Christianity, can "climb in bed" with Osama bin Laden and blame today's terrorism on the Christian Crusades. The Crusades are just about blamed for everything wrong between Muslims and Christians. Of course, not only does this fuel the flames, it completely overlooks the Muslim invasion of Europe long before the Crusades. This is a fact almost never mentioned in the anti-Christian diatribe. If it had not been for Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours, all of Europe might be Muslim today, and the diatribe may well be anti-Muslim. The truth is, Islam was spread by the sword. Why is it that this is rarely mentioned? Even in the public school history books it may only be given a paragraph. Islamic history is often "revisionist" and full of lies, as is all history. Muslims not only took slaves, but they deny slavery, even though they used slaves to fight for them. It seems that in today's "Political Correctness" anything can be said about Christians, no matter how ugly the statement, but if one little statement is misconstrued about Muslim, or other religions, then that person is labled a "Bigot"?
Rating:
Summary: Christopher Columbus' Crusade against the Muslims????
Review: It should be explained that I am a lay person simply wanting to learn more about the Crusades of the Middle Ages. I am not a historian, qualified to pass judgment on the facts presented by the author. I am qualified to recognize bias when I read it. The author has a clear bias against Christianity and Western civilization with which I am neither interested in or agree with. The book contains a small amount of historical fact about the Crusades which I found interesting. Thus my score of one star. The problem is the history I was looking to read about is dwarfed in a plethora of opinionated criticism toward Christians and the Western World. The author goes to great lengths to lay blame on Western Civilization and the Crusades for today's as justification for the actions of today's Muslim world. I was somewhat startled to learn from the author that Christopher Columbus' voyage to the new world was not a journey in search a new route to India but rather yet another Crusade against the Muslims. Such statements indicate clearly the author's agenda and bias. If you are looking for a history of the Crusades, look elsewhere. If you are looking for rationalization for the extreme actions of the Muslim world, you will find a wealth of opinion to agree with.
Rating:
Summary: Scholarship in name only
Review: It truly is a shame that an opportunity to treat thoughtfully such a complex event as the Crusades is utterly wasted by Ms. Armstrong. Regardless of one's opinion of her conclusions, what is most unsatisfying is her route towards them. Where the serious historian would produce facts, and the literary critic sound analysis, Ms. Arsmtrong produces only base conclusions and empty, value-laden statements. "Misconceptions" and "prejudices" of the past are replaced with new ones even more dangerous and hasty. Her attempt at "triple-vision" of the three faiths falls flat on its face, resembling instead a secular, relativist myopeia. Her characterizations of Judaism and Islam appear, at best, simplistic and misleading. Statements about Roman Catholicism, meanwhile, descend to downright mockery, distortion, and insult. Making matters worse, her "sourcing" generally relies only on other second-hand sources, heavy with their own interpretations and arguments, none of which are actually explored as arguments still very much in dispute. Generally only one source will be relied on for pages at a time, casting serious doubts on the legitimacy and objectivity of Ms. Armstrong's research. Holy War is representative of the greatest dangers facing anyone attempting to understand today's world - a simple-minded statment of opinions and subjective conclusions as if they were self-evident, objective facts. The result is that truths seen as fundamental to life itself, in a very real way, by billions of believers are marginalized as silly and pointless. This book is useful only for those wishing to investigate the dangers inherent in a willing, determined effort not to assert certain views as merely correct - as believers in all faiths will do - but as self-evident, objective statements without a need for backing. Ironically, Ms. Armstrong's "arguments," if one can call them such, pose as able to rise above other "partisan" views on the matter. The opposite is sadly the case - at least true partisans have the humility and self-awareness to know that their views must be backed by something other than blanket, condescending statements.
Rating: 
Summary: A Good Learning Experience But Clearly Biast....
Review: Karen Armstrong certainly explored the complexities of the crusades and identifying the similarities between the Outremer (crusader states) of the medieval era and modern day Israel. Both of which were/are seen as a foreign pestilence to the surrounding Arab population. She documents the brutality of radical crusaders such as the right-wing "Tafurs", who scoured the countryside around Antioch duriing the siege of 1096, and were said to have eaten Muslim flesh. Armstrong also presents a intrinsically spiritual connection in the first two crusades. She points to the "righteousness" of the Cluniacs and Cistercians in wanting to achieve dominance over the Near East. Though she does not justify the acts of the crusaders she certainly provides an insight into why Western Christians felt threatened. Ms. Armstrong certainly expanded my preceptions about Islam without question. She explored in depth the anti-semetic views of both Jews and Muslims upheld by Christians, which she states to be a result of the crusades (she illustrates this heavily in the end). Islamic rulers for the most part upheld their teachings during this time, and were a moral opposite to the "moralist crusaders". The book gave me a fresh perspective from an Arab viewpoint, something certainly lacking in the modern era. While the book had some good aspects some were certainly looked in a blatantly painful way. The author seemed to take an almost propagandist view of the Christian/Islamic relations from a Muslim perspective. The author wholeheartedly avoided the subject of the Arab conquest of the Middle East beginning in the 630's. She also forgot to mention the same ruthlessness projected by the Turks in dealing with the Byzantines and later the Slavs of Eastern Europe (i.e. policy of Islamization) in latter centuries. A description of the Armenian holocaust would have also been worth mentioning. The author had mentioned in the introduction that she was not writing an "exact history" of the tragic events that unfolded almost a millenia ago. However, on the back cover (paperback version) the book is listed as a historical publication. I have learned a great deal about Islam, Judaism and Christianity. However, a clearly anti-western perspective was constantly reinforced without looking at the entirety of the subject (mentioned above) gave a sad one sided view of an already tragic situation in our modern world. Please Excuse any spelling errors!
|
