Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I think the reason Crusades and, more than Crusades, colonialism is repeatedly mentioned is because there is a lack of appreciation of the devastating effects it had on the heartlands of Islam in the Middle East. People tend to believe that colonialism is over and it's just a matter for the Middle Easterners to move forward. This is far from the truth. More than half the ruling families that are in power today in Arab countries were put there by the British daddy, and to date they serve the interests of their masters. From what I recollect Armstrong doesn't make loud political statements but makes sure to give repeated mention to ignored history to balance out the popular bias.

Secondly, from what's going on the world, it is becoming common to see Islam as a fascistic religion with very little room for dissent and dialogue, among other things. Armstrong again mentions remarkable pluralism of Islam throughout the pre-modern history to counter contemporary myopic views. She claims Islamic peoples caught, like a disease, religious literalism in modern times from Christendom itself. It's a fascinating argument she advances in her book The Battle For God: Fundamentalism In Judaism, Christianity And Islam.

But yes, I'd say it is very hard to arrive at any legitimate conclusions about the state of affairs of the Abrahamic faiths today without taking a long-term, global perspective of history.

No way to like a comment!

Jibran wrote: "I think the reason Crusades and, more than Crusades, colonialism is repeatedly mentioned is because there is a lack of appreciation of the devastating effects it had on the heartlands of Islam in t..."

With me, the book was preaching to the choir. :) I agree with the objective of the book and the need for it. As i said, as a corrective it is a valuable book, but the way Armstrong shifts all the blame to Christianity is too familiar a mechanism to be not suspicious of... :)

Riku wrote: "With me, the book was preaching to the choir. :) I agree with the objective of the book and the need for it. As i said, as a corrective it is a valuable book, but the way Armstrong shifts all the blame to Christianity is too familiar a mechanism to be not suspicious of... :) "

You're right its written for Western audience who need to move on from the oriental portrayals of Eastern religions in general. Perhaps my memory fails me but I don't remember if she laid the blame on Christianity any more than she lays any blame on any religion at all. But, yes, how believers relate to or interpret the texts of their respective religions is criticised in her works.

I'm with Jibran here. Mr. Sayuj, as a member of "the choir" I think you give us too much credit.

Also it's not mainly Christianity she blames but the colonialism and capitalism of the West: the way the British Empire extracted all the rewards of industrialism and allowed none of the benefits to its colonial outposts. She's making a sophisticated, many pronged argument that I don't think you're giving her credit for.

Also, I think it's worth noting that the book was first published before 9/11, and yet it accounts for the fundamentalist rage without apologizing for it. Prescient.
The one area that I did feel she scrimped on was the faith itself: its tenets. She's so intent on describing the configuration of the political to the religious that we learn too little about what the fundamental ideas are. That is, yes, it is very much intended for a Western audience, to correct false ideas of Islam's inherent violence, antipathy to democracy, misogyny, anti-Semitism, etc., without turning it into a version of Christianity or Judaism.

Also,when she mentions Islam in India , she very comfortably moves the blame to Hindus without realising that India faces 5 terror attacks on an avg. despite the fact that they are free to practise their religion .To look at hindu-muslim issue in India by a very myopic prism of 1992 is unacceptable, else India had the choice of being a Hindu state . And it's true that Islam came to India esp. north India by sword ... from muhammad bin Qasim , mhd. Ghori, mhd. gazani to Aurangzeb and nadirshah , no other nation in the world has bore the brunt of Islam from 7th century till date. no wonder some Hindus wish to rewrite Indian history. Muslims in majority make basket states like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan... so for how long can we excuse the attacks in name of Islam all over the world? never heard of Jews attacking European nations when they were persecuted. why don't Hindus retaliate despite being attacked since 4th century b.c. ? why don't majority of us feel persecuted? why Hindus have not bombed London or Manchester? so pls don't give excuses only for Islamic fundamentalism .

I was hoping for an objective assessment of Islam. Getting to pages 15-20 though shows otherwise. Sad to say, she's coming across as an apologist for the same old same old, excusing misdemeanours as 'national sports' and pogroms and enslavement as par for the time, which is at odds with the previous preamble. I'll finish the book to get an insight into Islam but it seems to confirm what I already thought. For me, it all seems to have gone wrong after the Stoics and the Animist religions like Shinto and other nature based ones seem to be the only ones worth a nod from humanity.

One wonders if her opinion of Islam would now be different, in light of the recent events in Gaza?