its heroic chivalry, and . . . you get the picture. Literally everyrnone of the crudest stereotypes ahout medieval Chrishanity sHllrnflourishes, but it has been transferred en masse to Islam in thernsame period.rnBeyond question, medieval Islam did possess a glorious civilization.rnMuslim scholars did a superb job of preserving classicalrnwritings, and they made significant progress in science andrnphilosophy. I have no wish to denigrate Muslim achievements,rnpast or present. Even now, entering a mosque can be a movingrnexperience—all the more so when the building stands as an islandrnof dignity and decency amidst a sea of extreme poverty. Islamrnitself is not the problem. Shll, current Western views of thernhistory of Islam are so over the top in their obsequious desire tornpraise Muslim achievements over Christian ones that they havernsimply become ludicrous. Just look at the bestselling religiousrnbooks of Karen Armstrong and try to find a respectful wordrnabout Western or Christian thinkers in the Middle Ages, in contrastrnto the lavish praise heaped upon their Muslim counterparts.rnThis past May, PBS stations nationwide devoted three hoursrnof prime time to a major documentary called Empire ofrnFaith, which presented the current myth of Islam at its most extreme.rnThis production, with actor Ben Kingsley as narrator,rnwas trumpeted as one of PBS’s leading events of the season.rnAt every point, the portrait of Islam offered by this programrnwas staggeringly uncritical, although it featured commentar)’ byrna dozen or so leading academic historians —or perhaps I shouldrnsay, because it feahired so many eminent historians. Even the tidernis indicative of the slanted approach. Islam, we are told, wasrna “worldwide power founded simply on faith.” Not surprisingly,rnthe account of the religion’s spread conveniently overlooksrnthe fact that faith received a significant assist from a massive andrnconsistent exercise of armed force. The whole “empire of faith”rnnotion subtly, and improbably, suggests that millions of ChristianrnSyrians, Egyptians, and others suddenly volunteered to becomerna despised underclass under Muslim rule. In fact, Christianity’rnsurvived only because the Byzantines were sufficicndyrnpowerfid and inventive to outfight the Muslims for several centuries,rnand because they possessed a potent secret weaponrncalled “Greek fire” (we call it “napalm”).rnOnce Muslim power was established, Empire of Faith tells usrnthat, in effect, Islam created the modern world. Muslimrnwomen, we are told, had many more rights than the primitivernChristians. But the greatest accomplishments were in the sciences.rn”Algebra, astronomy, trigonometry, and engineering” allrntrace their roots to Islamic scientists. “The Renaissance had itsrnbeginnings in Baghdad,” and eventually, Muslims camern”bringing the precious gift of knowledge to Europe.” Of course,rnthe 13th was the Greatest of Centuries—not that the scrofulousrnChristians had anything to do with it. Bv the way, it is amusingrnto see these paeans to science and scientific discovery, becausernthey contrast so sharply with conventional academic discussionsrnof Western advances, including scientism and the taintedrndesire to subdue the material wodd. Science and technologyarernbad if they are developed b’ Europeans or Americans; theyrnare goocf if cultivated by anybody else.rnThe documentary depicted everything Christian or Europeanrnwith the greatest hostility. Much of the supposed Europeanrnbackwardness was connected with the people’s primitivernreligion —namely, Christianity. Muslims were developing anrnadmittedly sophisticated medical technolog}’ “at a time whenrnEuropeans were praying to the bones of saints to cure their illnesses.”rnWhile Muslims were publishing learned works on paperrn(a Chinese invention), “the monks of the West were hoardingrntiieir knowledge on scraps of expensive parchment.” Thernonly true glories of Europe were to be found in Spain, in placesrnlike Cordova, “a city of light—a Muslim city!” Sometimes, visitorsrntraveled from the “cold stone of tiieir northern castics intornthe glorious Muslim cities of southern Spain.” Wliile Muslimsrnwere portrayed as living in urban sophistication, “in contrast,rnpeople in Paris lived in shacks by the river.” (Rumor has it tiiatrnthe Islamic world was not entirely populated by wealthy lordsrnand merchants living in the splendors of Club Muslim, but thernprogram obviously did not have time to discuss the lower ordersrnof that glorious society). One of the few media critiques of thisrnparticular piece of pro-Muslim fluff came from Claudia Rosett,rnwriting in the Wall Street Journal (May 7). She wrote —accuratelyrn— that “This show bears a propaganda stamp akin to thosernold Soviet brochures once sent out by Intmirist—the kind fliatrnwere packed with pictures of colorfidly costumed ethnic minoritiesrnand wide-angle photos of verdant fields but somehowrnwent light on the grittier aspects of the situation.”rnEmpire of Faith merits careful viewing, but one point thatrnemerges repeatedly is the double standard. For the filmmakers,rnflie ultimate evil of the Middle Ages was the Crusades, dubbedrnwifli terms like “a campaign of bloodshed,” “a surge of religiousrnfenor and fanaticism coming from Western Europe,” “incomprehensiblernhorror,” where the warriors were “fired up wifli fanaticismrnand zeal.” After we have shaken our head sufficientivrnover these atrocities, described to music that is alternately terrihingrnand dolorous, we are relieved to hear of the liberation ofrnthe Holy Land by Muslim warriors, fearless and brave, motivatedrnby religious zeal (but definitely not by fanaticism or fervor).rnModern historians love to illustrate the bigotry of medievalrnChristendom by quoting the line from Chanson de Roland:rn”l£s Chrestiens ont droit let les paiens out tort,” (“Christians arernright, and pagans are wrong.”) How simplistic and stupid, wernsc(jff, when everyone knows that, in Ee Chanson de PBS, it is lesrnpaiens who are infallibly correct. Or to paraphrase Orwell oncernmore: Cross bad, crescent good.rnWhat Empire of Faith has done—like connfless texts over thernlast few years —is to take an image of the Middle Ages thatrnwould have been familiar in the age of Sir Walter Scott and preciselyrninvert it. Knowledge and culture come from Islam to Europe,rnnot the other way around, and the fanatical barbarians onrnthe frontier are not the stereotyped Saracens, but the mindlesslyrnsavage Catholics. Twenty years ago, Edward Said popularizedrnthe term “Orientalism” to describe a familiar package ofrnprejudices about the savage and mysterious East. Wliat contemporaryrnacademics are doing is applving the same notions tornChristendom and the West: They are, in fact, inventing “Occidentalism.”rnAnd they are doing it wifliout any significant criticismrnfrom the media. Since the West is self-evidenfly evil andrnre])ressive, its enemies must be laudable. To adapt the dialoguernin my original story: Which side is PBS on? Anyone else’s,rnprobably.rnThis documentary could be dismissed as an isolated event,rnexcept fliat it epitomizes many contemporary ideas about boflirnCliristianity and Islam, particularly in the Middle Ages. In thernconventional image, the two faiths differ above all in their attitudesrntoward religious tolerance. “Islam” implies Muslim-ruledrnSpain, a society iq which Christians and Jews lived and interactedrnvith some freedom; “medieval Christendom” suggestsrn18/CHRONICLESrnrnrn