Interesting read! - Rated 
Just a few notes rather than a review:
It's an interesting read with plus points and minus points. Firstly i read this book as a confirmed athiest. I do think Islam is particularly dangerous but i also believe there is a Christian backlash forming that will be just as dangerous and zealous and this book will add fuel to their fire. I was hoping for an even handed write up of Islam but the problem i had with the book were the little info boxes, things like the 'Jesus Vs Muhammad' boxes that cherry picked quotes from the Bible to paint it as a non violent religion when there are equally violent passages to be found in the Bible. And also anyone who disagreed with the author's viewpoint were labelled 'apologists' or 'PC allies on the American Left'.
A good read, easy to follow but somewhat unsatisfying.
Deeply flawed and deeply biased. - Rated 
I have a deep understanding of the crusades, much more than author, Robert Spencer can claim to have. I am currently studying medieval history at an advanced level so have learnt quite a bit about the crusades.
His argument for the crusades being justified is deeply ignorant and seem to appeal to the armchair critic. The crusades were NOT "in line with the times" and certainly not in line with the laws of conduct in battle at the time. This book has got me so angry because Spencer speaks of topics he clearly doesn't understand and I have spent years studying about. It amazes me how many people are blinded by hate and bias and swallow this rubbish.
I could write a dissertation critiqing the entire book and its contents, but I shall point out two particularly jarring false claims as this is meant to be short and the crusades are my specialty. I hope by pointing out these flaws you start critiquing the rest of the book as well instead of taking it all as fact.
Firstly, the claim the crusades were neccessary to protect christian lands. False. The crusades were started due to a plea for help from the orthodox byzantine church to help them against the seljuk turks. The only direct action taken against the turks was the siege of antioch. After that crusader eyes turned to jerusalem which was in the hands of the the Egyptian empire who were not a direct threat to christian land. The seljuks remained neighbours of constantinople and would eventually capture it under the name of the ottomans. All the time the seljuk turks remained north of antioch biding their time and helping their egyptian comrades in a common cause. The crusaders attacks on both antioch AND Jerusalem in the first crusade showed greed and stupidity. It made the alliance between the seljuks and the mamluks impenetrable. One of the chief reasons for the crusades failing in my eyes was the fact the crusaders had made bitter enemies of both the seljuks and the mamluks right from the first crusade.
Secondly, the claim that the crusaders were in line with military policy at the time. They murdered, raped and pillaged their way to jerusalem. None of these were policies of muslim armies. I read a previous review that muslims preferred to live under the crusaders than muslim rulers. This is again, in my opinion, untrue. In fact, the jews living in muslim cities pledged to support muslim defenders against the crusaders such was their reputation as occupiers. In fact at one siege(siege of Maarat)the victorious crusaders resorted to cannibalism, feeding upon the dead bodies of enemy soldiers and children. In fact one of their own chroniclers at the event wrote of the scene before him with joy, "In Ma'arra our troops boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled." They sacked THE greatest city (constantinople) in christianity above probably even Rome. They destroyed great Greek, Roman and Christian art, slaughtered fellow christians and reduced the city to rubble. Deeply ironic considering that the same city sent out a plea for help against the turks starting the crusades. Little did they know that just over a century later it would be the crusaders who would bring their city to its knees and not the seljuks. A quote I learnt spoken by a byzantine chronicler after the sack of constantinople indicates his wish that it was the seljuks who conquered constantinople as they would have let its people live.
I can come up with many more reasons why Spencers arguments are baseless but this is meant to be a review. So I end it by saying this. If you truly want to learn about Islam you wouldn't make the same mistake I did in picking up this book. I went into the book with caution and neutrality and found myself helped by my slant. After reading this book I can't help feeling that the author recognised a certain formula.
Politically incorrect + Islam = $$$$$$$$
That has to be the answer because there was certainly not a lot of educated thought and judgement that went into writing this book.
As far as I'm concerned this belongs in the fiction section!
Now I understand - Rated 
In this politically charged world that we live in, it is hard to find out the truth about or speak out about certain subjects without being branded certain words. This book bravely and intelligently spells out what Islam is all about and why we should be weary of it. It is non-biased in that it shows and translates the relevant passages and gives you the equivalent christian meaning and the differences are quite major. If you are unsure what Islam is all about, buy this book.
A Highly Informative Read - Rated
I was not a total beginner in the study of Islam's less endearing features but this book explained some matters that previously confused me such as the contradictions within the Koran and how Muslims could accept them, the book explained this and much more. The Crusades,are one example,being regarded as a violent aberration even by the most extreme Christian commentators, whereas the writer proves to my satisfaction that they were, by the standards of the time, a reasonable response to enormous and long-standing provocation. I cannot recommend this too highly.
The Great Islamic Culture - Rated
I purchased this book to learn more about the Islamic civilisation and culture at the time of the crusaders. But on opening this book I was immediately disappointed. Instead of describing what is good and great about the Islamic culture Robert Spencer seems only to want to point out what is bad.
|
