Scan barcode
davehershey's review against another edition
3.0
Wheatcroft covers a lot of ground in this book. He starts with a retelling of the Battle of Lepanto in 1571 (chapter one). This leads into chapter two where he sets forth the purpose of the book: "this book is about enmity, how it was created and how it is sustained" (p. 37). The next three parts of the book each discuss one zone of conflict between Christianity and Islam: Spain (part two), the Holy Land (part three) and the Balkans (part four). Especially strong was the section on Spain, for here alone does Wheatcroft tell a nearly linear story of history. When we move into the chapters on the Middle East we get the story of the First Crusade and an overview of how the crusading idea developed over the centuries from that of a war to more of a passionate, worthy cause. Good, but it left me wanting more, especially specific stories from subsequent crusades and more on Muslim reconquest of the Holy Land. In part four a linear story of history is mostly left behind in favor of relating how Christians and Muslims learned to hate each other in the Balkans. Finally, part five is a look at Muslim-Christian relations today, especially in terms of the United States' war on terror. The language of hate learned through the centuries is still use today.
Overall, I enjoyed this book, although the pace did slow down halfway through. It is not so much a linear history of what happened as it is a history of how Christians and Muslims ideas and stereotypes of each other have developed to what they are today. Wheatcroft seems to be harder on the Christians then on the Muslims; more faults of the Christians are pointed out and when the Muslims are faulted he is quick to say the Christians were bad too, though usually without specifics or footnotes. (Of course, I recognize I am a Christian reading this with my own bias, though other reviewers have noticed the same thing.) He concludes by urging people to be wary of resorting to the rhetoric of hate, for though it may help win a war or battle its long-term affect on nations is devastating.
Overall, I enjoyed this book, although the pace did slow down halfway through. It is not so much a linear history of what happened as it is a history of how Christians and Muslims ideas and stereotypes of each other have developed to what they are today. Wheatcroft seems to be harder on the Christians then on the Muslims; more faults of the Christians are pointed out and when the Muslims are faulted he is quick to say the Christians were bad too, though usually without specifics or footnotes. (Of course, I recognize I am a Christian reading this with my own bias, though other reviewers have noticed the same thing.) He concludes by urging people to be wary of resorting to the rhetoric of hate, for though it may help win a war or battle its long-term affect on nations is devastating.
maitrey_d's review against another edition
3.0
Don't be taken by the title. It's not as comprehensive as it sounds. I think Wheatcroft commits the same mistake he accuses many others of committing in this book, namely, trying to cash in on the vast need now for books on "conflict" and the "clash" of religions/civilizations.
Infidels lacks a cohesive narrative structure from the beginning. Not that there is any problem tackling the Battle of Lepanto (1571 CE) first, and then moving to other time periods and areas of the globe. But I thought the book was going nowhere. The individual parts were quite good, some of them brilliant. But I still can't fathom why they were cobbled together and published as a book.
Wheatcroft presents a nice, linear history of the "Moors" of al-Andalus but then talks about the persistence of stereotyping and perils there of in another section dealing with the Balkans. The Crusades section is a confused mess, part history, part historiography and will leave no one happy.
But some of the ideas where really nice such as the continuous persistence of hatred and conflict between these two religions due to the stereotypes and other un-necessaries being raked up by vested parties. And he leaves a nice message of how it can be combated by using reason. Pick it up only if you are really interested.
Infidels lacks a cohesive narrative structure from the beginning. Not that there is any problem tackling the Battle of Lepanto (1571 CE) first, and then moving to other time periods and areas of the globe. But I thought the book was going nowhere. The individual parts were quite good, some of them brilliant. But I still can't fathom why they were cobbled together and published as a book.
Wheatcroft presents a nice, linear history of the "Moors" of al-Andalus but then talks about the persistence of stereotyping and perils there of in another section dealing with the Balkans. The Crusades section is a confused mess, part history, part historiography and will leave no one happy.
But some of the ideas where really nice such as the continuous persistence of hatred and conflict between these two religions due to the stereotypes and other un-necessaries being raked up by vested parties. And he leaves a nice message of how it can be combated by using reason. Pick it up only if you are really interested.
tajeip's review against another edition
3.0
A bit of a stretch. I would have appreciated more substantiation to the author's claim that the modern conflict between the West and radical Islam is connected to the medieval conflict between Islam and Christendom. It seems like the author is trying to find an association where one doesn't truly exist (a common problem with non-fiction writing).
But if the author had stopped before the modern era, this would have been a good book — very comprehensive and, more crucially, rigorously balanced in the examination of both the Christian and Muslim perspectives. A timely reminder that the Muslim world surpassed the West for a long time before the Renaissance, Reconcquista, etc. Truly a book of two parts.
But if the author had stopped before the modern era, this would have been a good book — very comprehensive and, more crucially, rigorously balanced in the examination of both the Christian and Muslim perspectives. A timely reminder that the Muslim world surpassed the West for a long time before the Renaissance, Reconcquista, etc. Truly a book of two parts.
More...