Helpful Score: 1
First, I love to read Hourly History books because they are usually concise, interesting, and accurate. It is shocking that such a fine brand as Hourly History would support this bilge. Comparing today's ISIS with the religious wars of the Middle Ages isn't fair. Stating that Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Iraq were forced to convert to Islam is ignoring the fact that Christians forced some people of the Balkan nations to become Christian at the end of a sword point.
The author displays such bias that the whole book is suspect. I wonder who proofread this copy? On page 4, Martin Luther "made a complete 360 in his stance..." Actually, I believe he just made an about-face (that's a 180-degree turn). I think the entire introduction is incendiary. On page 11, the author used the word 'crap' in a text purporting to be of a scholarly nature. In my opinion, that is a poor choice. In fact, I took exception to many of the emotionally-laden words by this author; the reader can easily tell which side the author is on (and it certainly isn't on the side of clear, nonjudgmental story-telling).
But the thing that really shocked me was the idea that ISIS could be compared to Muslims today. Having lived amongst them for more than two years, I can attest that Muslims are less likely to commit crimes than the population at large. Although our family is-and-was not Muslim, we were never in danger while living in their country. Painting all Muslims with the ISIS label is just plain wrong.
I cannot recommend this awful mess. The people who participated in the Crusades were not the God-loving angels this book suggests. Some Crusaders promised to spare people if they surrendered and then killed every man, woman, and child they could find. Many of the Crusaders stayed in the countries because they became massive landowners and wealthy beyond their dreams. The real story of the Crusades has little honor for either side involved.
The author displays such bias that the whole book is suspect. I wonder who proofread this copy? On page 4, Martin Luther "made a complete 360 in his stance..." Actually, I believe he just made an about-face (that's a 180-degree turn). I think the entire introduction is incendiary. On page 11, the author used the word 'crap' in a text purporting to be of a scholarly nature. In my opinion, that is a poor choice. In fact, I took exception to many of the emotionally-laden words by this author; the reader can easily tell which side the author is on (and it certainly isn't on the side of clear, nonjudgmental story-telling).
But the thing that really shocked me was the idea that ISIS could be compared to Muslims today. Having lived amongst them for more than two years, I can attest that Muslims are less likely to commit crimes than the population at large. Although our family is-and-was not Muslim, we were never in danger while living in their country. Painting all Muslims with the ISIS label is just plain wrong.
I cannot recommend this awful mess. The people who participated in the Crusades were not the God-loving angels this book suggests. Some Crusaders promised to spare people if they surrendered and then killed every man, woman, and child they could find. Many of the Crusaders stayed in the countries because they became massive landowners and wealthy beyond their dreams. The real story of the Crusades has little honor for either side involved.
