Rating: 
Summary: A reasonable study of fundamentalism!
Review: Karen Armstrong has shows that Islamic, Jewish and Christian fundamentalism has much in common in history. She feels that they are modern ideologies that have developed in response to the secular modern society by believers. What I think she has done is studied Christian fundamentalism and attempted to show that Jewish and Islam are the similar.
Christian fundamentalist certainly did derive as a response to a secular world. But this is less true of Muslim fundamentalist. The major Moslem fundamentalist would be the Wahhabi religious movement, a movement that she does not even mention! It certainly did not start in response to a secular society but in an Arabia under the Turks. What gave it power is that it was adopted by a family that eventually controlled Saudi Arabia! It then became a state religion. Most people were forced into it. And it would be even less true of the Jews. Jewish fundamentalist started, she claims in Eastern Europe about 200 years ago. Even if we accept this to being true then it was certainly not a secular society. The area was ruled by deeply religious people hostile to them but certainly not secular. Neither was the Jewish culture of the time secular. Yet the slight changes, she quotes hardly seem to justify the argument that it is a new force. She further argues that many fundamentalist misinterpreted their religion, by using it to justify murder which she states is a total distortion of religion. This is just wishful thinking.
Rating: 
Summary: You've gotta read this one.
Review: Actually, I think everyone should read this book right now. I've heard people say such crazy things about "them" (take your choice of who "them" might be...Jews? Muslims? Christians?). Why are they like that? Well, if you've ever wondered this question, you should read Armstrong's book. Armstrong is widely cited as a very balanced author, which in our culture means that she tries to portray a balanced view of the Arab/Muslim world. My sense is that she does that, although I'm not a Muslim scholar by any means. I think sometimes she fails to be completely balanced though, tipping a little more towards the Muslim world--but given the polemics that exist against the Muslim world (especially now), her perspective provides another viewpoint. However, don't misunderstand my comments to indicate that she is rabidly pro-Muslim and anti-everyone else. She's NOT. And that's not the point of this book. If you wonder about how the major religions have come to where they are today, this book carefully lays it out for you. Armstrong lucidly repeats her thesis enough times and supports it with an amazing grasp of history so that you walk away having truly gained more understanding. I hear the news differently now. I understand the world differently now. I first read her small book ISLAM: A SHORT HISTORY because I wasn't satisfied with the view of Islam that I heard about in the press--especially when I tried to compare it with my Muslim friends. I found that book to be a great introduction, and chose this as my next book to read on this topic. My 14-year old son and I spend every Sunday morning together reading philosophy of religion, and we decided to work our way through this book as an introduction to the major world religions. It was a bit tough going for him, so I suggest that you be slightly older if you really want to grasp the concepts of this book. The writing is clear and straightforward, the history is thorough, and you'll be glad you read the book. I am.
Rating: 
Summary: Armstrong is a politically motivated apologist for Islam
Review: Armstrong is a politically motivated apologist for Islam, who does not respect facts if they get in the way of her personal crusade to insist that Islamic fundamentalists are neither fanatical nor dangerous. She and her publishers and promoters - the politically correct -- have done us all a great disservice by pushing her books to a prominence they do not merit.
Rating: 
Summary: Rose-colored spectacular: naive, woolly, unreliable
Review: The most influential form of religious fundamentalism today is Islamic: Wahhabism. Wahhabism is named for Muhammed ibn al-Wahhab (1703-1792), who advocated killing those who did not follow strict Islam, including the Turkish sultans but also the unfortunates who came under his rule. Wahhabism is fiercely anti-intellectual, intolerant and violent. Today Wahhabism is preached in mosques, taught in Islamic schools, and funded by governments and "figures close to government" in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in particular (both dictatorships remain US clients, even after September 2001). It has been increasingly active in the past three decades in the Caucasus, Somalia, Yemen, the former Yugoslavia (where it should be remembered that the worst atrocities were committed by Christians, not Muslims), and in atrocities in Kashmir, the Philippines, Indonesia, Egypt and elsewhere. And of course in New York. Karen Armstrong's book covers Judaic, Christian and Muslim fundamentalism, but in _Battle for God_'s 442 pages, Wahhab himself is mentioned once and Wahhabism four times, in passing. That the book was written before September 2001 is no excuse: the rise and danger of Wahhabism had been obvious for decades. To practically omit it from her account of fundamentalism seems more than ordinary carelessness. So why this omission (and there are many others)? First, Karen Armstrong seems a nice person but not an outstandingly clear thinker. She exhibits a tendency to think reality is what one hopes it will be. Thus, she would like to think that Islamic fundamentalists aren't so bad really, that "jihad" is really a sort of internal struggle to become a better person: so she says it's so. (It's disingenuous to claim that the more warlike connotation of 'jihad' is only a Western misunderstanding. Armstrong on jihad is like someone who stresses the 'purity' symbolised by the Ku Klux Klan's white robes, hoping people will focus on the spiritual rhetoric and overlook the ropes and guns.) Second, while Armstrong does acknowledge the murderousness of much religious fundamentalism, my impression is that the unreasoning, utterly committed, faith of the various fundamentalisms appeals to her. She argues for a rapprochement between the secular world and the world of the fundamentalists. She sees the spiritual passion of fundamentalists as something that can add meaning to what she thinks is the aridity or "meaninglessness" of secular thought. Perhaps. In the same way that giving moral authority to Nazis could be said to add fervour and passion to political life. It seems more credible to think of giving moral authority to religious fundamentalists (including some though not most strands of Christian fundamentalism) in terms of death: the death of freedom, most art, and many other good human things, obviously, but also the deaths of many, many, many people. Armstrong clearly cannot think outside her own religious background. For example she assumes that monotheism is the "highest" form of religious belief, a product of advanced cultures to which all other kinds of religion led. But by any reasonable standards the cultures that produced the Greek and Roman polytheisms (and their literature, art, politics and jurisprudence) was more advanced than the tribes who eventually killed off the other gods in their pantheon and worshipped YHWH alone. And her YHWH/Allah/Adonai-centric view is insulting to Hindus, the voters in the world's most populous democracy, and to other polytheists, and animists. Her inability to think outside monotheism means that it never occurs to her to consider one of the most crucial questions in this context. Religion does not drive animists or polytheists to kill, not on the vast scale of the monotheist religions. Instead of congratulating monotheists for their "culture", Armstrong should have asked: Why is it that the monotheist religions are so peculiarly murderous? Nor does she consider the logic of fundamentalism. Armstrong rejects fundamentalist beliefs because they do not lead to a particularly 'nice' worldview. Indeed. But from the neutrality of atheism, it does not seem obvious to me that fundamentalism is 'bad religion'. Fundamentalists follow their religion's sacred text. If decent people don't like the conclusions that 'literal interpretation' of a sacred text leads to, that is surely the fault of the texts, not of fundamentalists. And if religion is a submission of one's will and mind to a supposed higher power, fundamentalists are logical in advocating complete rather than partial submission. After all, anyone who decides for themself which bits of the Bible, Koran etc to take literally is placing their own judgement over the words of the text. And once a person has acknowledged that their own judgement is a better guide to truth and decency than their religion's sacred book, why bother with the book at all? Fundamentalists can argue that their worldview is not only better 'faith' than less literal belief, but also more intellectually coherent. But Armstrong merely assumes that fundamentalists offer a perversion of religion. As well as woolly thinking and the hiding of inconvenient facts (that won't stay under the rug, post September 11), Armstrong's book offers unreliability on detail. One reviewer noted, credibly, that her account of Bahai is inaccurate. With some interest in science, I was first jolted by a serious reference to Carl Jung's nonsense about mandalas and archetypes, then by an uncritical assertion that Freud had 'discovered' the 'death instinct'. No wonder Armstrong thinks so little of science that she views fundamentalism with rose-coloured spectacles; she hasn't a clue where science has been in the last 50 years, or what scientific thinking is. Not to know that Freud's 'thanatos', or 'death instinct', went the way of 'phlogiston' decades ago is truly extraordinary. By page 300 I'd stopped trusting Armstrong's selection of facts, and I won't quote facts she presents without independent confirmation. That makes this book nearly useless to me. I wanted a good overview of the historical origins of fundamentalism, its intellectual background, and a survey of where the fundamentalisms are at now, including the dangers they pose. I'm still looking. Cheers! Laon
Rating:
Summary: Interesting and annoying
Review: A very interesting, but a bit repetitive book. Sometimes the lack of depth in her theories are irritating. Like her theory that monotheism was a creation of the urbanized civilizations. Where does she get that from? Rome, ancient India and China were all very urbanized (much more than Palestine) and very polytheistic. There must be another reason for the development of monotheism. I think it's a typical ignorant western christian view to look at monotheism as the crown of a religious evolution. Besides that and some other things the book is well worth reading.
Rating: 
Summary: Timely, Sweeping and Powerful!
Review: I admit...I'm an Armstrong fan. Her grasp of the monotheistic traditions is comprehensive, sensitive, insightful and most importantly, useful. I was skeptical however when I picked up this book, wondering how she could really bring much more light to the subjects she has covered so thoroughly in other books. I wondered needlessly! The "Battle for God" is literally overflowing with new insights and historical perspective that makes sense out of the world we watch unfolding around us today. This is not light reading. It can't be. To help us understand the depth of the fundamentalist movements, she begins in the year 1492 with a discussion of the distinction between mythos and logos. As the chapters unfold, we witness the modernization of the west and the tension that builds between mythos and logos. The context is so deftly laid out that her conclusions almost spill out on their own, and the reader feels as if scales have fallen off their eyes! It's important to appreciate that what makes this book powerful is Karen Armstrong's interpretation of the historical account she discusses. Others may well interpret the same events in very different ways. I, however, find her analysis brilliant, and because it increases my understanding, it contributes to a sense of compassion, and is therefore a useful spiritual endeavor. You will not read this book and be unaffected. Some, as evidenced by reviews before this one, hated it. Sometimes I think that we are unable to see that which is most close to us, including our religious orientation. Ardent religious followers can almost NEVER view themselves or their belief system in an objective, unbiased manner. Armstrong is often criticized because she is no longer a "card-carrying Christian," and some assume she has either become atheist, or Muslim. It is my contention that her ability to see through all the monotheistic traditions is precisely BECAUSE she has taken three giant steps out of those traditions. Without the emotional baggage, or the need for allegience, she can see what so many might never see...she can indeed see the forest AND the trees! This book helps the rest of us see it, too!
Rating:
Summary: Logos and Mythos
Review: Armstrong's basic premise is that fundamentalism is a response to religion under pressure. She breaks things down into logos and mythos and makes the clear point that "Rational thought has achieved astonishing success in the practical sphere, but it cannot assuage our sorrow." She successfully challenges the notion of fundamentalists as wild-eyed radicals even as she makes the clear point that there needs to be a separation between religion and violence. In two parts, she introduces the issue of religious fundamentalism as seen in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. The first part of the book introduces the history per religious group while the second part of the book traces the struggles and successes of fundamentalism in modern times. _The Battle for God_ is lucid and richly annotated. I complain only that the book zooms past an amazing amount of historical detail and assumes that you either know or are going to remember it all-- not something you can read with half a brain. The glossary of terms is an invaluable aid-- invoke it when you read! I only wished that the extensive bibliography had been annotated or organized by major area-- would have made it easier to add to my already endless list of books to read.
Rating:
Summary: Thought-provoking
Review: The fire against this book seems to come from the many Americans who consider themselves "fundamentalists," who resent Armstrong's lumping of Protestant fundamentalism with the Islamic variety that gave birth to the Sept. 11 terrorism. Yet, I think, she proves her point that these two movements (along with Jewish fundamentalism) are reactions in the same way to the same world evolutions. It would be more remarkable if the religious instincts of Christians and Muslims were, somehow, different and unrelated things. She says plainly in her introduction that she is among those "who relish the freedoms and achievements of modernity find it hard to comprehend the distress these cause religious fundamentalists." Yet she conveys again and again the ways in which "modernization has led to a polarization of society," and in which "modernization is often experienced not as a liberation but as an aggressive assault." The experience of some people, past and present, was that the culture that began in Europe in the Enlightenment was "coercive, invasive, and destructive." Especially as it spread out from the West to other areas of the world, it has been "aggressive," and "during the twentieth century, the imposition of a secularist ethos in the name of progress has been an important factor in the rise of a militant fundamentalism, which has sometimes been fatal to the government concerned." The breadth and depth of what she knows is breathtaking. She can write authoritatively on at least four major religions. Not since Huston Smith has there been anyone who so effectively communicates the diversity of human devotions. The condensation necessary to fit the modern history of three great faiths and one secular movement into 371 pages can make for ugly prose, however. Armstrong explains "colonialism" in a single paragraph, half of which is a quote from Hegel. So many facts stacked on top of one another begin to read like a newspaper obituary.
Rating:
Summary: Readable and informative
Review: The title itself suggests the tension inherent in two polarities that permeate our lives as human beings: that between the logos and the mythos and the polarity between authentic religious experience as opposed to religious activity in the context of social and political life. The logos cannot address questions of ultimate meaning often leaving the mythos at the mercy of aggression and fear fueled by politics disguised as religion. Armstrong shows how the fundamentalists have managed to turn the mythos of their religion into logos by insisting their dogmas are scientifically true or by transforming a complex mythology into a simplified, consumer-ready ideology. The notion that "my God is different from yours" which is seen as patently false and absurd by the mystic is nurtured by the fundamentalist in order to justify the defense of their community against real or perceived threats. Armstrong shows us how the fundamentalist mindset found in all 3 major monotheistic religions has developed through time. She discusses the sunni and shiite Moslems facing pressure by the colonial and ideological pressures from the British, Russians and (later) Americans and the Gush Emunim settlers trying to secure the land for settlements by importing hundreds of thousands of Jews into the West Bank with the aim to colonize all the strategic mountaintops. For them, a settlement was rationalized as "tikkun", an act of restoration that would one day transform the world and thus "God's command to conquer the land was more important than the human and moral considerations of the national rights of the gentiles to our land"; this in turn fueled a major radicalization of the Arab population. This also includes Protestants seeking to "compel other men to walk in the right way" (what kind of society did the Puritans try to establish in New England? A democracy? Not on your life!) not to mention the Catholics who have used religion for centuries as an excuse to establish empires and suppress internal political dissensions and whose actions were going against explicit teachings laid out in the gospels. This book will be invaluable to anyone looking for an unbiased sourcebook on development of fundamentalism. In addition, it provides a lot of food for thought for anyone uncomfortable with societal pressures to conform one's inner life to an established "creed" , i.e., to subjugate one's logos to the communal mythos ... .
Rating:
Summary: Up to the Author's usual high standard
Review: The book looks at the growth of fundamentalism in three religions. It examines the experience of Judaism in Israel, Christianity in the United States and Islam in Egypt and Iran. The reasons for the growth of fundamentalism seem to be different in each case. In Iran the regime set up by the Shah removed rights limited the rewards of economic development to the few and was based on a ferocious terror apparatus. Western values to the bulk of people in Iran seemed to be identified with corruption emptiness and an oppressive regime. The main opposition to this was not a secular movement but a number of religious leaders who advocated an idea of returning to a state system based on fairness and justice. This justice was to be guaranteed by having a state based on religious principles. (...) Armstrong's book is readable and explains in detail how religious fundamentalism has developed and ties it in to the history of each region in which the religion is placed. She has written a number of books on religious subjects and the depth of her knowledge is impressive. The only weak point in her argument is a suggestion that there is a generalised cause or similarity between the various fundamentalism's that have grown up. She suggests that there is a common pattern of retreating into a simple ideological system which is filled with hate and it then reacts against modern secular western ideals. This idea does not seen entirely born out by the fact that she puts forward and the difference in the cause and nature of fundamentalism seems more apparent than the similarities. Never the less a readable challenging and interesting book.
| 
