Review of Karen Armstrong Islam (First published 2000)
Review by Rerevisionist 25 May 2017Shameful Rubbish. Its only value is in helping understand sinister Jew & Muslim collaborative lies, and the media
Harold Hillman [biology researcher] once told me that a paperback by Steven Rose [Jewish fake researcher] was a "very good book". In response to my bafflement, he explained that it gave a good account of then-current beliefs about cell biology, but they were largely wrong.
Something similar applies to Armstrong's book. To understand the book, it's necessary to understand Jewish information controllers' attitude to Islam. In 2000 a process was well under way: A Financial Times review is quoted, on the paperback cover in the UK, as 'A thoroughly good guide ... as well as being an excellent antidote to prejudice'. This was before the second round of 'American' attacks in the Middle East and Africa, notably of course Iraq. In the UK, the so-called Independent newspaper, established 1986, virtually unread, probably set up to work for an (((American))) war against the middle east, to be quoted on (((BBC))) news, was preparing part 2.
Karen Armstrong's History of God. A short history' (1993) came after her alleged life as a Catholic convert and deconvert. Plenty of scope for abuse allegations—but only against Catholics, part of the Jew agenda. She's described as 'a teacher at the Leo Baeck College for the Study of Judaism'. She received some award from a governmentally-approved Muslim set-up, and a TED award! Incidentally, the BBC promoted Robert Winston's similar Story of God about ten years later (book and TV link 2005), just before Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion. As far as I can tell, she has no qualifications except an Oxford degree—no information on that—but is FRSL and OBE.
She was a talking head on TV, now and then. On one occasion, she referred to a well-known case, or meme, of a sea captain who marooned Jews, without mentioning the captain was hanged. At any rate, she said what Jews wanted. The most convincing idea I've heard is that so-called Jews entered into a secret agreement with Muslims—in exchange for not reclaiming Palestine, their control of US/UK/EU governments would enable them to move Muslims into these countries, giving them food, housing, water, and such education as they could manage.
Anyway; Karen Armstrong's Islam. The first thing to mention is that the target readership has little feel for true history: the sort of people who think 100 years is a long time, and that what they see is what causes events. Armstrong gives a dated list of Islamic events, right down to the year, with no qualification and no apparent doubt. Nobody would guess that even the existence of Muhammad was uncertain. And many events of course are described, for example the Crusades ('aggressive Western intrusion' ... 'still lagged behind the Islamic world'). But not massacres in what's known as the 'Hindu Kush', though there's a sentence. In each case, as in a girl's dream, a male leader is named.
Armstrong's attitude is that Jews, Christians, and Muslims are more or less uniquely based on 'God', and independent. She doesn't seem to know that Christianity was imposed entirely by Jewish scribblers making up stories about 'Yeshua'; and she doesn't have any purchase on the idea that what's now called propaganda played a part. Nor that exchanges of money had any influence. Similarly, she has no idea that Islam is believed by Jews to have been an outcome of Jewish efforts too—to gain an army of gullibles who could be used for plunder. She has no idea that alliances are possible; the siege of Constantinople, for example, which needed new expensive weaponry. Jews holding the gates open for the invasion of Spain are not part of her sparse mental furniture. Jews in Saudi Arabia, ditto. From an Arab point of view, the centre of the world is south-east of Europe, and struggles over Turkey, central Asia, the north-west frontier, and India itself, have dutiful but incomprehending accounts, with lists of Caliphs and the rest of it.
In girlish mode, Armstrong has no interest in actual achievements of Islam, if there were any: destruction and desertification, takeovers of others' constructive work, kidnapping of children and women, and progressive invasions for example east into Indonesia and south-west into Africa, being a considerable proportion. As far as I recall, the capture and castration of black slaves by Moslems goes undiscussed. There must have been an analogous process to Jewish secret alliances with traders, Freemasons, some aristocrat branches, political parties and 'communists' and the modern Common Purpose.
The Armenian genocide and genocide of Assyrian Christians aren't (I think) mentioned. The Anatolian peninsula had one end in the relatively safe Mediterranean, but the other more exposed to invasion. There must have been traitors who encouraged invasion; at any rate Turkey is almost all Islamic by now, and people who hate Europe have been doing their best to include Turkey in the EU, so that its backward hordes might scavenge in Europe.
Armstrong's book should be read as an entirely partisan view of Islam, any unpleasant material being omitted, including from modern times. It's clearly aimed at innocent and rather ignorant people, and was of course published and promoted by Jews exploiting their domination of the media.
No value in any sort of assessment of Islam. Incidentally, 9/11 was added in to a 2001 edition, falsely attributed of course to Moslems.
I wonder if in fact Armstrong is Jewish, as reticences in her biographies suggest. As with Theresa May and Milo Yiannopoulos and the present Pope, it's a long-established pretence of many Jews to be Catholics.