This book is a revision of the past that ignores established history and replaces rational analysis with the fervor of religious fanaticism. It’s not history or sociology, but a statement of faith from a radical Christian dominionist.
Rating: 1 / 5

The claims here – at least in review – that Stark ‘debunks’ claims about all the positives of “Arabic” culture as some call it here is disturbing.

First of all – these ‘claims’ were very often made – if one takes the TIME to read primary sources – by EUROPEANS who traveled throughout the Islamic realm. Second, there is little claimed for actual “Arabic culture” if were talking about the actual tribes that came out of present day Saudi Arabia. These “Arabs” only remained in power for a short time. They were NOT the dominate force in Islamic politics and culture at the height of Islamic culture.

Second, I have yet to read a PRIMARY source – Islamic – that claimed, e. g. , that “Arabs” invented our modern numerical system. In every source I ever read it was WELL DOCUMENTED that Islam PASSED ON the Hindu numerical system, with some revision, TO EUROPE. Again, I’ve yet to read a PRIMARY source that claimed that ALL scientific or cultural advances in the Islamic realm were made ONLY by Muslims, i. e. , ‘believers’. Many of the best advances in philosophy, e. g. , certainly gave HIGH PRAISE to the Greek philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle. It is true there were incorrect attributions of some concepts BY Islamic scholars TO Aristotle instead of, i. e. , Plato, but that was due to the scholars having to rely on secondary and tertiary sources.

Another example where at least these commentators are wrong – and I have to wonder if Stark said this in his book – is in the field of medicine. Islamic scientists CONSTANTLY praised Galen, the towering Greek ‘force’ in all things medical for over a thousand years. If one reads PRIMARY Islamic sources – available in ALL MAJOR University libraries throughout Europe and America one would know this.

As for the assertion that somehow there is a liberal conspiracy to shine the light on Islamic culture to the detriment of Western. BS. There are no doubt highly liberal scholars that want to do this. They are as foolish and absurd as right wing revisionists. The record of the Turks at the time of the Crusades is as well known as is those of the Western Powers that called for and participated in those Crusades. Everyone who actually STUDIES history – AS OPPOSED to those who search high and low to find “works’ of history that FIT THEIR NARROW POLITICAL AGENDA know both the good and the bad of the Turks at this time. They were certainly no saints. There were good leaders and bad. No doubt there were earnest, spiritual Christian souls that truly believed they were doing their God given duty by marching off to Crusade also.

There were JUST as many men who went for gain. If one STUDIES history they would KNOW that in feudal Europe very often the second and esp. , the third SON of a noble family was, to put it bluntly, SOL as far as inheritance went. Thus, any opportunity that arose to go off and make one’s fortune was jumped at. THIS motivated many a thousand knight.

As for the Church. There have been bad Popes and good. I would recommend that instead of blindly believing that ALL actions taken by ALL people who claim to be Christian MUST BE GOOD, one LOOK, open-eyed at these people’s ACTIONS. That will tell you – quite often – just how ‘in tune’ they were with the Message of Jesus Christ.

I detest revisionist history of any sort. Here’s a thought – JUST DO THE HISTORY. Toss your damn theory and REPORT THE FACTS as they’re discovered. If you don’t have written record of a certain historical player’s inner thoughts than detail their ACTIONS and keep your deductions of the WHY to your carefully labeled ‘opinion’ section.

As to the readers: how about searching for the FACTS instead of a desperate attempt to find ‘works’ that fit your PREJUDICES?
Rating: 2 / 5

Here we have a highly credentialed, well-educated author and professor, justifying the crusades. Militarily, on the authority of man, a war of any nature is easily justified. However, the crusades were not just any war. They were the wars between the followers of the crescent and the cross, both of which invoke not just holy figures but God himself.

Christians had a special role here. Believing that Jesus is not just another prophet, but the son of God himself, one would think a heavy consideration would be placed before chanting his name and raising the sword of symbols of the cross. Here is where not only did the men of a millennia fail, but where Stark and all others who justify the crusades fail.

Jesus, a divine man who did not even protect himself or save his own life, but turned the other cheek, maintained humility in the most desperate of times, under torture and imminent death, did not raise a sword, nor hand, nor cite God as retribution.

And yet his followers did, and do – with many others, displaced from battles, writing nonsense glorifying an act that had nothing to do with neither God nor Christ.

However, I will agree with Stark in that neither should Christians apologize for what their forefathers before them did, an act as ridiculous as anyone alive today apologizing for actions that occurred before their time here and their ability to act on them.

For the full review, visit [. . . ]
Rating: 2 / 5