Customer Reviews

Infidels: A History of the Conflict Between Christendom and Islam

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Andrew Wheatcroft's Infidels examines the bloody faultline between Islam and the West. The scope of his book is ambitious: he starts with a tremendous account of the battle of Lepanto in 1571, but then he forgoes the chronology. There are different sections on Andalucia, the Middle East, the Balkans and the Otto-man Empire.You get a bit about the romance of Moorish Spain and some exotic tales from the Crusades.

Andrew Wheatcroft is especially good on the key question of mutual perceptions. His knowledge of the Western representations of Islam in art and literature is impressive. Atrocities were mutual, and Wheatcroft wants to tell us why certain events were remembered better than others; he wishes to find out how we know what we know about the past. The tale is just that: one of difference and enmity and is clearly intended as the final word on the cultural history of the clash of civilizations. His attempt to short-circuit the 'maledicta', the words of pure hate at the heart of the relationship between Islam and the West, through a greater understanding of the history of mutual repulsion should be applauded.

All that said I had the impression that he wanted to cover too broad an issue in a new way. Certainly, he warns that his aim is not to explain why things happened that way, but how they happen, but in my opinion the very choice of some facts supposedly to be relevant implicitly asks for some kind of explanation that in this work is never openly developped.The final result is somehow confusing.

(Given that nowadays it is so difficult to get an objective, nuanced opinion on Islam, neither flattering nor biased against it, as a way to try and achieve that, I would suggest to read several good books on the matter, among them, the following: "The Venture of Islam", by Marshall G. S. Hodgson -nowadays a classic included in any bibliography on Islam-; "The Turks in World History" by Carter Vaughn Findley; "Muslims in the West: Redefining the Separation of Church & State" by Sami Awad Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh; God's Rule : Government and Islam by Patricia Crone and "Understanding Jihad", by David Cook).

This is a book I wanted to like, and so I'm frankly very disappointed with it, and therefore very negative about it. The idea appealed to me: the author proposed to study the conflict between the worlds of Christianity and Islam, and the circumstances, causes, and consequences of that conflict. The idea, while interesting in concept, has been hopefully mangled in execution.

Wheatcroft very transparently has an agenda, and it's apparent from the word go what it is. After an introductory chapter describing the Battle of Lepanto. The famous question "Why do they hate us?" has for Wheatcroft only one answer: "Because we've been horribly unfair to them." This becomes immediately apparent when he jumps across the first four centuries or so of Islamic conquest of much of the Middle East for a favorite subject for Muslim apologists: the Muslim kingdoms in Spain. He spends most of this part of the book describing the Kingdom of Granada, contrasting what he refers to as Christian "perfidy" with Muslim "convivencia", the term used to describe the Kingdom's tolerance of Christians and Jews.

From there, the author turns to the Balkans. He spends considerable time discussing the various collisions between Muslims and Christians in the region, without of course discussing the fact that the Muslims were invading Christian territory. Other parts of the book deal with more modern subjects, the study finally concluding with a discussion of President Bush and his advisors fighting the War on Terror.

One of the more annoying things the author does in this book is what a friend of mine once referred to as putting sand on the scales. Every time he tells you something bad or negative about the Muslim world, he immediately tells you something equivalent that the Christian world did at the same time. It gets a bit tiring, and of course if the book was complete, it wouldn't always work. One damning aspect of this is a specific subject: that of the Janissaries. The Janissaries appear in the book in several places (you can't really write about the Balkans during the Muslim incursions there without mentioning them) but beyond telling you that they're soldiers, the author says nothing. This is probably because of how they were recruited: Christian boys were kidnapped from their parents, raised as Muslims, drafted into the army, and sent to conquer Christians and oppress those in occupied territory. They were very effective at this, and Christians hated the whole practice, but since Wheatcroft can't tell you this and then follow the story with something equivalent that the Christians did to Muslims, he leaves the whole thing out.

By two thirds of the way through the book, the author shifts the focus of the book to a discussion of the words used in the conflict. The author is able, therefore, to avoid the circumstances of the War on Terror (he only very briefly discusses 9/11) and go right to criticising Bush. Strangely, he avoids the usual "Bush is an idiot" criticisms, and instead goes for a more nuanced complaint about the ideas he expresses and the people who surround him. It's still off the mark, I'm afraid: much of the criticism involves a discussion of the fact that the president is a religious man, and apparently religion shouldn't play a part in government decisions. I'm not a religious man myself, much, but this is to my mind a bit of a stretch.

I wanted, as I said, to enjoy this book. I am afraid I found it very tedious, long, and difficult to follow, and I really didn't enjoy much of it, or feel I was informed by it.

This book has some good things and also some bad things.The first chapter of this book, talking about the battle of Lepanto is amazing.

And after a great begining, the book becames more and more biased, supporting islam.

The base from the believes from Mr. Wheatcroft, is that Islam and Christendom are basically the same.Two religions looking for domination over all the world.Both are rooted in same basic believes, uses and results.

If fact, the treatment of red indians from bible's americans in XIX Century wasn't better than the treatment for christians and jews, under islamic control, at the same time.

But there's another problem.Christendom changed with the time. The bible supports the witch-hunting?Yes, but there's any christian country hunting witches?NO!

The Kuran supports that every muslin who changes his religions, should be killed?Yes.And there's more than 45 islamic countries who exterminate every muslin who changes his religion or to everyone who preaches anyother religion to muslins?YES AGAIN!

Today there's mosques even in Rome.Since VII Century, there's no a single christian church or sinagogue in Arabia.Muhammad itself ordered the demolition of all of then.And is a capital crime (death penalty)to open any church, sinagogue,etc. in more than 50 muslin countries in the world.

Bible and Kuran are supporters of slavery, ignorance, bigotry,etc. The diference is that bible isn't law in the USA, Brazil, Europe,etc.And Kuran is the law, in more then 50 muslins countries.All of then third world countries.

In one of the last chapters of this book ("Maledicta"), Mr. Wheatcroft compares one islamic first-minister Mahathir and an american general.The comparasion is again, a fake.The american general was behind military obedience.And Mahathir was the leader of an important asian country.

Mr. Andrew Wheatcroft loves Islam and Morroco's tea.This book isn't the best answer to someone looking for to see, the real things about the war between Islam and Christendom.The best option is "Jihad in the west", from Paul Fregosi, available here, in Amazon.It's more expensive and bigger, than this book.

But if you read "Jihad in the west", you will see the true.

I enjoyed reading this book. It told me plenty about some of the religious wars between Islam and Christendom. And it emphasized some of the misconceptions each side had about the other. Wheatcroft is especially good at showing some of the incitement used. And he warns us all to be careful about getting carried away with our suspicions and risking unnecessary and counterproductive wars! He wisely urges us to take our language seriously. I agree. We need to stick with truth. And we ought to be careful about provoking others by using strong and misleading language.

Unfortunately, this book does have a problem. It is all well and good to warn folks not to fight. But once one of them breaks the law, and commits assault, robbery, or murder, it is not sufficient to tell that person to be more reasonable. We have to focus on enforcing the law. That is true when nations step out of line as well. We need to concentrate on truth and reality and decide what to do about it. The author cites Lincoln, who appealed to "the better angels of our nature." He would do well to remind us that Lincoln also led us in civil war that was extremely destructive. Wheatcroft also has praise for Teddy Roosevelt, who said it was good to "speak softly and carry a big stick." With all this praise for these two Presidents, I would expect a little more sympathy with those who say we may need to fight some real enemies in the future.

In my opinion, the author has gone overboard to come up with equivalences between anti-Semitic speeches by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir and a few wild comments by American General William Boykin. I think Boykin has been pretty far out of line. And he is indeed in a position of some responsibility. But Mahathir was in a position of much greater responsibility in his country. And while I think there is a real threat of the United States getting into a war that the majority of us would reject if we knew all the facts and were unaffected by all the propaganda, at least our potential targets are nations that are way out of line. The only questions are the severity of the threat each poses, the practical risks, and the overall morality.

Mahathir, however, represents a genuine problem: he's part of a Muslim world and he's encouraging it to take us on, right or wrong. And he wants to start by having 1300 million Muslims (in his words) defeat a "few million Jews." This is not merely a poor choice of words or unfortunate misunderstanding. In my opinion, Mahathir is sounding like an Axis leader from the late 1930s, and Boykin is sounding like an American General from the same time period. There is a big difference between these two positions.

An example of the author's corresponding lack of sympathy for those who warn us that we may need to fight is his discussion of the book "An End to Evil" by David Frum and Richard Perle. It is no surprise that Wheatcroft finds fault with this book. You may want to read my own review of it. And yes, Frum and Perle do not speak all that softly. They do indeed use plenty of "political" words. And they are trying to make a case. But are they really more a part of the problem than of the solution? Does their book truly deserve to be compared with a fifteenth-century tract by Kramer and Sprenger against "witchcraft?" Don't forget that as a Pagan, I may be biased against this awful Kramer and Sprenger book, but I still say that Wheatcroft has gone overboard again with this. After all, in this age of disinformation, Frum and Perle do make some points that I think we all ought to consider:

* Neither the Ku Klux Klan nor Jesse James were a "national resistance." Describing their political heirs as such is incorrect.

* Toppling Saddam Hussein denied a huge victory to our enemies and may make future potential aggressors think twice about taking us on.

* American Muslims ought to be expected, as citizens, to stop the flow of their funds to terror, end incitement in their schools and mosques, stop promoting anti-Semitism, and avoid denials and excuses for failing to do this.

* Whenever militant Islam approaches power, it turns its wrath on women.

* The Arab-Israeli conflict is not a cause but a manifestation of Islamic extremism.

* Respect for America on the world stage rests not merely on our power and wealth but also on our moral authority. If we go back on our principles, we give credence to charges that we're a "rogue nation, an imperial state, and a threat to world order."

* At the UN, "the heroes are in fact thieves, thugs, liars, and killers. The UN regularly broadcasts a spectacle as dishonest and morally deadening as a Stalinist show trial."

* The defeat of Muslim extremism will come, maybe sooner than most of us expect.

I think Wheatcroft ought to have considered these points more seriously before appearing to dismiss this entire work as inciteful witch-hunting propaganda.

This book purports to present "THE History of THE Conflict Between Christendom and Islam" but in reality focuses primarily on "The Conflict Waged by Christendom Against Islam." As I began reading the book, I felt the one sided approach was likely unintentional. Howeveer, once I got to the last three chapters, which turn more attention to modern history, what appears to me as a clear bias surfaced. The very unfortunate appeals to the moral equivelance of decapitating muslim extremists to Abu Ghraib abuses was very hard to slog through, as were all of the other contents of these three chapters. I'm glad I read this book in its entirity. There was some good history there and I did learn many things that I'd previously not known, but also I got to see an excellent example of history being distorted and selectively presented to argue a conclusion that an author has clearly already arrived at before a full examination of the facts. I was very disappointed in this book and find myself still searching for works that can and do present "The History" of this most important conflict.

This disjointed account of the long history of antagonism between the West and Islam attempts to support the politically correct but counterintuitive thesis that the West is less tolerant than the Muslim world. At the end the book disintegrates into a bitter denunciation of President Bush and others who support the use of force to combat Islamic terrorism, even comparing "An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror" by David Frum and Richard Perle to "Malleus Malleficarum," a book credited with inspiring Medieval witch hunts that "remains one of the most malign texts ever produced." While not coherent or objective enough to stand up as history, "Infidels" might have propaganda value to some on the left.

I have just finished reading this book. While the author's scholarship does not seem to be in doubt, there is no logical flow or structure to the narrative. The first section dealing with the conflict between christianity and islam in Spain is well written and informative. The subsequent sections are patchy in quality, sometimes out of sequence and often seem irrelevant.

For instance, the section on the first crusades follows the description of the battle of Lepanto, even though the first crusade was a few centuries earlier. The topic is also summarised in a few short pages, which, unless one has read about it in detail elsewhere, fails utterly in giving the reader even a fair idea of that misadventure.

Coverage of the horrible state sponsored genocide by the Turks against Armenian christians is virtually non existent, even though the barbarity arose from Turkish hostility to the "infidel Armenians", who were a subject people.

Perhaps some other writer will give us a book that is scholarly, more sequential and more readable than this book.

Over the last five years, like many Americans, I resolved to learn more about Islam and the History of Islam. The title and sub-title of this book caught my eye. Surely, it would offer insight.

The book starts off very well with an excellent summary and description of the naval battle near Lepanto, 1571.

The second chapter "First Contact" starts off well and provides excellent summaries, but then changes both its tone and topic---foretelling what will be covered in the rest of the book and the author's tone. The final sentence of the chapter is "The dominant Western paradigms of 'Islam'---oppression, savagery, and threat---determined how events, structures, and images were to be understood."

In other words, he will write not about events---because according to Wheatcroft events don't make up history. Interpretation of words make up history, so we can't totally trust history. In other words, it's all a misunderstanding over words.

The rest of the book covers selected time periods (events), describes structures (government and buildings), and discusses the importance of images (icons, and mass media), then devolves into a wandering essay on "maledicta" ('bad words') with mild attacks against Bernard Lewis, Zekaria of Newsweek, George Bush, and others.

The author finally writes about "words" and their power, and attempts to compare the present situation with the one faced by the US President Lincoln, and like Lincoln, calls on "the better angels of our nature".

At the end of the book Wheatcroft writes, "If history teaches us anything, it is that monolithic certainty shrinks, blurs, or fades as the centuries pass. Or it should, unless bitter memories are deliberately revived".

Even though the author states how the Muslims attacked Constantinople by the year 670, again in 717, and continually after that until 1453, even though he counts the slaughtered, the decapitated, the forced conversions, even though it is the Muslims who seem to be stuck in the past by keeping past defeats alive---Wheatcroft ultimately seems to blame the West for the current situation.

Other reviewers here have stated how he is biased in favor of Islam. I don't think that is the case. I think the author tried to be so "fair" and even-handed that he ignored facts and fell into the trap of moral equivalancy. Every event has two sides; every slaughter is balanced (or he tries to balance them) by something the other side does. Ultimately, he tries to believe there are not two sides.

If you believe in moral equivalancy and believe there is no truth then this might be the book for you, otherwise skip it.

This book is very disappointing. It starts off with some fantastic details about the Battle of Lepanto, especially the appalling living conditions on the galleys until you feel as if you were there, and paradoxically, happy that you were not.

Then the author tries to develop his thesis, that the West and East (Christians and Muslims) have great misconceptions about each other, by examining the history of different flashpoints in the 1500 years of struggle between these cultures. In general, the author finds that both sides seem to have almost identical viewpoints about each other. Islam finds Christians to be a group of dirty, promiscuous oath breakers who follow a false religion. Christians believe the same about Islam. Both sides can point to examples, which support their view. Some are true; some are distortions based on hatred and bigotry.

The author, however, focuses much of his story on how bad Christians are and then gives a few throwaway lines saying that Islam did the same thing too, but not as bad. By doing this, the general weight of the book falls against Christian Countries. At first I thought this was by design, later I was convinced of it. Wheatcroft is an apologist for Islamic fanaticism and one of the reasons why it still goes on.

The easiest way to make the point is to see how each side reacts to (1) horrors that its own forces commit and (2) horrors coming from the other side. Pope Urban II, it is reported, wept when he heard about the massacres during the first Crusade. He even excommunicated some of the members. He never supported the wholesale slaughter of innocents. Where is the equivalent Muslim reaction to the many, many tragedies reported in this book?

The Crusades, by the way, were started to take back land which Islamic took during its initial expansion period. If Islam had not taken the land, there would be no on going struggle, which continues to this day. Even going back to Rome or Alexander, the dessert area where Islam blossomed was never really directly touched. It was the expansion of Islam, which created the conflict.

Still, after 1500 years of struggle, Christians have done plenty wrong. I just don't believe the scales are equal. Worse, some of the worst massacres, for example the millions of innocent Christian killed in Armenia, are of recent age. That is, if someone from your culture did something a 1000 years ago it would concern me less then the same act committed last year. One is history; the other is a current belief, which is more likely to affect you and to affect me? How many Islamic leaders condemned 911? The silence is deafening.

Recently there were riots in Afghanistan because American soldiers were accused of flushing a Koran. Mind you, having a Bible with you in Saudi Arabia is illegal. Preaching Christianity in Afghanistan was a 10-year criminal offense. Wearing a cross in Iran can be a flogging. Is the Christian West and the Islamic East really the same?

Too bad Wheatcroft decided to ignore how unbalanced the views and attitudes of the two cultures currently are. If he did, and then traced it back through time, the book would have been more interesting and more accurate. Surely, for example, the Crusaders in 1096 were probably more fanatical then the forces of Islam. Islam, during the same period, was arguably a force for culture and enlightenment. Later, for example, in 1453 Islam was again a force for fanaticism. A trend we have witnessed in modern times, probably since 1979.

Instead, in his last chapter, he takes time to berate Bush about the Iraq war, including the fact that 3 years later Iraq is still in revolt. Wheatcroft should have read his own book. Spain, after the Moors were expelled, was in revolt more then 30 years later. The Balkans, after Islam invaded, was in revolt for even longer. Why is it such a shock to Wheatcroft that Iraq isn't yet pacified, that there are still areas in revolt? If you want to support another Bush attack book, by all means you can buy this book. But if you want a good history on Islam and its relationship to the West, buy something else.

This much needed history, misses the mark. The problem here is mostly that the book ignores all the islamic atrocities and anti-european sentiments among islamic scholarship while emphasising every inch of anti-muslim or intolerant writing done by Europeans. A heavily documented history of the anti-muslim manuscipts published in this book pretends to illustrate that it was Europe that was intolerant when in fact it was Islam that was on the offensive occupying Europe from 700AD through the 1800s. So how is it possible that it was all Europe that was intolerant when it was europe that was invaded, enslaved, persecuted and attacked for so long? THis book is simply biased, and loses the reader in hits intolerance.

Seth J. Frantzman