Link back to comment

Let's have a look at Ephraim Karsh. He's an Israeli-British historian with a partisan axe to grind. Here's what some distinguished historians have to say about his work:

Anthony B. Toth wrote in a review: "This is a polemical book whose authors have extended the intemperate and unbalanced rhetoric customarily employed by dogmatic partisans of the Arab Israeli conflict to the normally sedate and measured arena of nineteenth - and early twentieth-century Ottoman history. The book relies mainly on Western published sources and official British documents. But their use of even these sources is limited, since they actually ignore most of nineteenth-century history. Instead, the authors emphasize those episodes they feel support their interpretations".

Richard Bulliet, professor of history at the Middle East Institute of Columbia University wrote that Empires of the Sand is "a tendentious and unreliable piece of scholarship that should have been vetted more thoroughly by the publisher" and asserts that the authors failed to "contribute a dimension of sense and scholarship that raises the debate[s in question] to a higher level."

Charles D. Smith, professor emeritus of Middle East history, states that the book is "essentially a work of propaganda, but still of use to students who wished to see how scholars could misrepresent sources". In his 2010 review of the book, Smith says that "In order to sustain their arguments, the Karshes, as judged by their citations, ignore nearly all scholarship of the past thirty years or more on British policy generally or as it pertained to the Middle East during World War I.".

In a review of the book Peter refers to professor of history Richard Bulliet stated:

Pursuing the myriad problems called up by the evidence Karsh presents to support his case would be pointless. The book is selling ideology, not historical acumen. [...] As a history of Islam, Islamic Imperialism is a travesty, but as ideological preaching, it should please the choir to which it is directed.

Ideological preaching and propaganda, perhaps we can see why this book might have a particular appeal for Peter. Despite Peter's claim there are many reputable and scholarly histories of the Islamic world, the trouble is they don't suit his agenda so he ignores them.

Even if we accept that Islam has "imperial ambitions" what practical effect does that have? How many divisions does Islam command? Are, as some malignant dolts on the far right like to assert, Syrian Muslim refugees some kind of Muslim advance force for the Muslim takeover of Europe? The Islamaphobia Peter is promoting is full of cruel, inhumane idiocy of this kind.