This book is a wonderful compilation of documents and writings of Muslim leaders throughout history. It covers a wide spectrum of how Muslims regard so-called infidels.
This book falls into the category of those neoconservative "recommended" booklists, those who endorsed the book speak for neoconservative think tanks, and these "experts", few of whom speak Arabic, opine as absolute truth on the barbarity, belligerence, and destructiveness of Muslims, Islam, and Arabs.
Lets be frank, just like anti-Semitism, this book is nothing more than an anti-Islamica polemic; an outright contempt, if not hatred, for all things associated with Islam (whether theology, culture, civilization, etc.) merely for the fact that the res is Islamic.
Those who endorsed the book (on the book jacket)have known anti-Islamica positions. This polemic ignores historical context and similarity of behavior by other cultures (yet for some reason, these other cultures are typically lauded for their military brilliance, economic vigor, or their democratic tendencies while they subjugated others). One might inquire whether all those who voted four starts for the book have the same agenda as the David Pryce-Jones and Bat Ye'or's of the world.
It is easy to find intolerance in all societies (even among some of those considered to be great thinkers of their time), but it is sloppy to infer that the gestalt of a particular religion and civilization through time, across cultures, and across geographies coincides with that intolerance.
If a Muslim general or sultan conquers a territory, then he is characterized as a jihadist. In contrast, Alexander the Great conquered his way through Persia and India-presumably for "democratic" ideals of Hellenism- slaughtered countless thousands and he is hailed a military genius. This completely ignores the political and economic context for these conquests
Europeans, from the pre-Crusades through the Enlightenment period, have warred on each other- killing millions of innocents (and when so much blood had been shed that it became economically unsustainable, Europeans turned to Asia Minor and the Middle East)- yet, it is the Muslims who are bloodthirsty. By Bostom's logic, what does this say of Christianity?
Much hay is made over the issue of dhimmis (non-Muslims living in Muslim territories having to pay a poll tax), yet the same attitude towards Jews and non-Christians existed all through Europe and colonized lands. In Christian Europe, Jews (and later Muslims in Andalusia) were ostracized, forcibly converted on pain of death (and even then were killed because they were not Christian enough) for no other reason but their religion. Yet, Christianity is exculpated from scrutiny.
Under the auspices of European Enlightenment- the philosophical cornerstone for the fraternity of man entitled to liberty and the pursuit of happiness- European politicians, statesmen, generals and clergy saw no inconsistencies in subjugating the brown skinned people of other regions. Thus, Napoleon invaded Egypt, France and Britain cruelly colonized the Maghreb and Indian subcontinent, respectively, Churchill destroyed the Ottoman Empire for the glory of the defunct British Empire and Hitler killed over six million Jews and Gypsies- and this is viewed as civilization!
I am not purporting that Islam, Muslims or Arabs demonstrated perfect behavior throughout various phases of history, but lets not pretend they are less than any other culture and civilization. There is intellectual dishonesty here, and readers should be cognizant.
