Order from a Major Online Bookstore
Ultimate Book Price Comparison Engine
Save Your Time And Money
| AnyBook4Less.com | Order from a Major Online Bookstore |
|
| Home | Store List | FAQ | Contact Us | | ||
| Ultimate Book Price Comparison Engine Save Your Time And Money |
||
 |
Title: Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today's World by Karen Armstrong ISBN: 0-385-72140-4 Publisher: Anchor Books/Doubleday Pub. Date: 27 November, 2001 Format: Paperback Volumes: 1 List Price(USD): $17.00 |
Average Customer Rating: 2.86 (42 reviews)
Rating: 2
Summary: Well-intentioned but muddled
Comment: 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: 4
Summary: Rich with facts, but not even-handed
Comment: 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: 1
Summary: Absolute Drivel
Comment: This must be the single worst book on midieval history I have ever read. I read the book, then started again, taking notes on the mistakes and false assumptions the author made. By the time I was on the ninth page, I already had 3 pages of notes. She does not know who Abraham was, makes false assumptions about Moses, completely derides and mocks the Judeo-Christian religions, and praises and raves the merits of Jihadist Islam. I can't stand historians, even poor ones, who attempt to re-interpete history to fit a personal bias. This would have been an excellent book, if it had been written by someone else.
 |
Title: A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by Karen Armstrong ISBN: 0345384563 Publisher: Ballantine Books Pub. Date: 01 September, 1994 List Price(USD): $15.95 |
 |
Title: Islam: A Short History (Modern Library Chronicles) by Karen Armstrong ISBN: 081296618X Publisher: Modern Library Pub. Date: 06 August, 2002 List Price(USD): $12.95 |
 |
Title: The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong ISBN: 0345391691 Publisher: Ballantine Books Pub. Date: 30 January, 2001 List Price(USD): $15.95 |
 |
Title: Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet by Karen Armstrong ISBN: 0062508865 Publisher: HarperSanFrancisco Pub. Date: 10 September, 1993 List Price(USD): $15.00 |
 |
Title: In the Beginning: A New Interpretation of Genesis by Karen Armstrong ISBN: 0345406044 Publisher: Ballantine Books Pub. Date: 01 October, 1997 List Price(USD): $14.00 |
Thank you for visiting www.AnyBook4Less.com and enjoy your savings!
Copyright� 2001-2021 Send your comments
