Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Amazon Prime includes:
Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.
Amazon Prime members enjoy:- Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
- Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
- Streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows with limited ads on Prime Video.
- A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
- Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
- Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access
Important: Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.
$15.61$15.61
Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com
$14.05$14.05
Ships from: Amazon Sold by: Jenson Books Inc
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
OK
Infidels: A History of the Conflict Between Christendom and Islam Paperback – May 3, 2005
Purchase options and add-ons
In this dazzlingly written, acutely nuanced account, Andrew Wheatcroft tracks a deep fault line of animosity between civilizations. He begins with a stunning account of the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, then turns to the main zones of conflict: Spain, from which the descendants of the Moors were eventually expelled; the Middle East, where Crusaders and Muslims clashed for years; and the Balkans, where distant memories spurred atrocities even into the twentieth century. Throughout, Wheatcroft delves beneath stereotypes, looking incisively at how images, ideas, language, and technology (from the printing press to the Internet), as well as politics, religion, and conquest, have allowed each side to demonize the other, revive old grievances, and fuel across centuries a seemingly unquenchable enmity. Finally, Wheatcroft tells how this fraught history led to our present maelstrom. We cannot, he argues, come to terms with today’s perplexing animosities without confronting this dark past.
- Print length496 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherRandom House Trade Paperbacks
- Publication dateMay 3, 2005
- Dimensions5.29 x 1.08 x 7.98 inches
- ISBN-100812972392
- ISBN-13978-0812972399
Popular titles by this author
Editorial Reviews
Review
“Islam is a power that rose, fell, and rose again. All who wish to know the story will need to read Andrew Wheatcroft’s compelling work.”
—JOHN KEEGAN
“Wheatcroft has written an excellent and truly remarkable book. He reminds us of something vital, and too often forgotten: Most of those who were 100 percent sure that the infidels—call them Saracens, Agarenes, Ishmaelites, or Turks—were completely savage and barbarous had never met or seen a Saracen or a Turk in their lives. Somehow they just knew that these aliens should be hated and feared. As a promoter of dialogue between East and West, I agree with Wheatcroft—that unfortunately, now just as much as in the past, it is media outlets and the spreading of false knowledge that promote hostility.”
—HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE EL HASSAN BIN TALAL OF JORDAN
“Rattling good reading . . . [Wheatcroft’s] humane conclusion is admirable.”
—FELIPE FERNÁNDEZ-ARMESTO, The Sunday Times (London)
“Gripping, often blood-curdling, history. . . recounted with tremendous literary flair.”
—JOHN ADAMSON, The Sunday Telegraph (London)
From the Back Cover
In this dazzlingly written, acutely nuanced account, Andrew Wheatcroft tracks a deep fault line of animosity between civilizations. He begins with a stunning account of the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, then turns to the main zones of conflict: Spain, from which the descendants of the Moors were eventually expelled; the Middle East, where Crusaders and Muslims clashed for years; and the Balkans, where distant memories spurred atrocities even into the twentieth century. Throughout, Wheatcroft delves beneath stereotypes, looking incisively at how images, ideas, language, and technology (from the printing press to the Internet), as well as politics, religion, and conquest, have allowed each side to demonize the other, revive old grievances, and fuel across centuries a seemingly unquenchable enmity. Finally, Wheatcroft tells how this fraught history led to our present maelstrom. We cannot, he argues, come to terms with today's perplexing animosities without confronting this dark past.
"From the Hardcover edition.
About the Author
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
"We Praise Thee, O God"
lepanto, 1571
on august 14, 1571, a gigantic ship's pennant of silk damask passed through the congested streets of Naples. Embroidered to the pope's commission, it was the standard of Christendom, to fly from the tallest mast in the fleet of the Holy League as it sailed into battle. The pope's banner with a huge golden figure of Christ nailed to the cross loomed over the stocky Spanish soldiers who carried it in procession from the steps of the Church of Santa Clara. As the blue flag moved through the Neapolitan crowds, an unnatural stillness gripped all who watched it go by. An hour before, inside the church, the assembled nobles, officers, monks, and priests had stood silent and unmoving, all their eyes on the admiral of the Holy League, Don John of Austria. Arrayed in cloth of gold, scarlet satin, and white velvet, the young admiral knelt before the altar as the pope's representative, Cardinal Granvelle, handed him his staff of office and pointed to the great banner behind him. "Take these emblems," the cardinal exhorted, "of the Word made flesh, these symbols of the true faith, and may they give thee a glorious victory over our impious enemy and by thy hand may his pride be laid low."
Below the cross of Christ were the emblems of the king of Spain and of the Holy Father, Pope Pius V, with the badge of the Republic of Venice, all linked by a great golden chain, symbolizing the power of faith that bound them together. From that chain, in slightly smaller scale, hung the pendant crest of Don John.The emblems marked a brief moment of unity. For the first time in more than a century, Christendom had combined in force to do battle with the power of "Islam." The war was sanctified, waged under the protection of the golden figure of Christ. The pope had declared that those who fought in this struggle were to be granted the same plenary indulgences as earlier Crusaders fighting to secure the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. All who died in the shadow of this battle flag would be spared the worst rigors of purgatory.
Eight hundred miles to the east a similar, if less public, ceremony had already taken place. From the treasury of the imperial palace in Constantinople, a bulky bundle wrapped in silk had been brought from Sultan Selim II to Ali Pasha, admiral of the Ottoman fleet. It also contained a flag, but one colored a vivid green instead of the lambent Christian blue. Even larger than the banner that Pope Pius V had entrusted to his commander, this was one of the most potent emblems of Islam. Upon its surface the ninety-nine names and attributes of God had been embroidered in gold. It was reputed that these were repeated no less than 28,900 times. The giant Kufic characters were surrounded and interlaced with endless reiteration of those same names, in a smaller script, so that from a distance the whole surface of the pennant appeared a shimmering network of golden filigree.
The two commanders were opposites-in rank, status, and experience of life. Don John was the acknowledged natural brother of the king of Spain, Philip II, and the by-blow from a few months Emperor Charles V had spent with a young widow called Barbara Blomberg in the imperial city of Regensburg. Don John had come to Naples from fighting a savage war in the mountains of southern Spain, to command the largest fleet ever assembled by Christian Europe. He had never fought at sea before. By contrast, Ali, the Kapudan Pasha of the Ottoman fleet, was a veteran of galley warfare, feared throughout the Aegean and into the far west of the Mediterranean. His origins were more humble, as the son of a muezzin, a mosque servant who called the faithful to prayer. But the two leaders, for all their differences, had much in common. They were like twin paladins from an epic poem: yearning for battle, chivalrous, and honorable. Fate decreed divergent destinies for them. One would die with a musket ball through the skull, his head then hacked off and stuck on the point of a pike. The other would return in triumph, honored and feted, his victory celebrated with paintings, engravings, poems, coins and medals, essays and learned disquisitions through more than four centuries.
Stories of their encounter abound, some closely following facts, others embellished to make a better tale. Quite where history ends and legends begin is still unsure. The battle they fought in the Gulf of Lepanto has a double character: the event itself and its burgeoning afterlife. This afterlife, the mythic Lepanto, came to stand as a synecdoche for the contest between the Islamic and the Christian worlds. In deciphering the meaning of Lepanto, we may find a point of entry into those deeper mysteries. The greater struggle had deep roots. For almost a thousand years the Christian world had felt threatened by the power in the East. Sometimes, with the Crusades in the Levant, for example, in Sicily and in Spain, Christian Europe had taken war to the enemy. Over the centuries a brooding sense of Muslim threat came to mesmerize Christendom. By the sixteenth century conflict was accepted as the natural and inevitable relationship between East and West. Like a child's seesaw, the rise of the East required the fall of the West. In 1571, the two adversaries sat roughly in balance.
Scholars reinforced a common belief in the danger and evil of "Islam." The Muslims, according to the Venerable Bede, who wrote in the eighth century, were descended from Hagar, the prophet Abraham's concubine. Many Muslims believed that she and her son, Ishmael, lay buried under the Kaaba, the great black stone in Mecca, which was the focal point of the Islamic faith. Christians, however, were descended from Abraham's lawful offspring, Isaac. Worse still than the stain of bastardy, an even darker curse hung over the people of the East. Christians inferred that while all men traced their line back to Adam and Eve, the Muslims were the lineal descendants of Cain, thrust from the presence of God for murdering his brother Abel. For his crime, Cain bemoaned that he would "be a fugitive and a wanderer upon earth . . . and everyone who finds me will slay me." They had been forced to dwell "east of Eden." Between the children of Cain and the other descendants of Adam, there could be only mutual slaughter and revenge for the primordial crime of fratricide. So this struggle grew from a long tradition of atavistic hatred between the peoples of the West and East.
What this meant in practice it is hard to say. Naturally, Christians in battle routinely insulted their enemies as the "sons of Cain," as "misbegotten," or "Antichrist." Muslims decried their enemies with equal vehemence. Conflict between East and West seemed permanent, inevitable, preordained, as much for the Christians as for the Muslims. Yet it did not destroy the skein of mutual economic and political interests that dominated the Mediterranean and the Balkans, the border and boundary between the two worlds. Trade and commercial interests were constantly in play, especially in the case of Venice and the other city-states of the Adriatic, which preferred to negotiate with Muslim power rather than fight it.
The Christian powers in the Mediterranean had much to fear from an Ottoman Empire intent on expansion. The desire for a great victory went beyond political calculations, and not only for the pope, the architect of the grand alliance. After the capture of Constantinople in 1453, many Christians were convinced that the triumphant advance of Islam could only be part of God's plan. The Islamic scourge was a means to chasten mankind to a better sense of its faults and flaws. Were Christians being punished for the sins of declining faith and, latterly, schism? For more than a century Christian Europe had resisted the Islamic onslaught, but had won few decisive victories. What better sign of renewed divine favor could there be than a great and annihilating victory over the forces of darkness?
Victory was also much in the minds of Sultan Selim II and his advisers in Constantinople. Although the armies of "Islam" had continued to press forward against the infidel, the pace of advance had slowed. Selim's grandfather and namesake had brought vast territories in Egypt, Arabia, and the Levant into the Ottoman domain. His father, Suleiman the Lawgiver, had captured the fortress island of Rhodes, Belgrade, and Budapest, and held the Hungarian plain almost to the walls of Vienna. Suleiman had destroyed the Kingdom of Hungary in a single day on the battlefield of Mohacs in 1526. Yet Suleiman too had his setbacks. He twice failed to capture Vienna-in 1529 and 1566-and the island of Malta had withstood all the Turkish efforts at storm and siege. In the Mediterranean, the great naval battle in 1538 at Prevesa, just off the Greek mainland north of the Gulf of Lepanto, produced no decisive result.
The Ottoman state was built upon a theory of infinite expansion, and annual war to advance its frontiers. Without conquest it would decay. Moreover, all good Muslims were duty bound to extend the Domain of Peace, and that burden weighed heaviest upon the sultan. Selim II had committed himself to advance the boundaries of righteousness by seizing the island of Cyprus, which was under the rule of Venice. He used the pretext that privateers had sailed from the island to harry his shipping and the coastal towns of Anatolia. By late 1570, it seemed likely that the island would fall to his armies. Even so, he desired much more than the capture of an island. The sultan demanded a dramatic victory from his commanders, another Mohacs. Thus, his admiral, Ali Pasha, knew that he had to achieve the complete destruction of the Christian fleet, and return laden with trophies, slaves, and booty.
The two adversaries gathered their forces from far distant points in the Mediterranean. Throughout the summer of 1571, little clusters of ships moved toward the designated meeting points: Messina for the Christians commanded by Don John, the Aegean for the sultan's war fleet under Ali Pasha. They were galleys, a type of ship built for the specific conditions of the Mediterranean. Galley warfare occupied its own universe, utterly different from battles fought between the sailing ships of the Atlantic. Long, sitting low on the water, frail by comparison with their solid northern counterparts, war galleys appeared to be able to move regardless of the force or direction of the wind. Although these slender craft carried two or three large triangular sails, their main motive power was banks of oars that extended out forty feet or more from either side of the ship, both banks pulling in unison so that the boat moved forward swiftly in what seemed a series of rhythmic spasms. In their element, with a calm sea and a following wind, they resembled gigantic water beetles skittering on their long legs over the surface of the water. Although the galleys were faster under sail than when they depended on their oars alone, their power of maneuver came from the rowers. It meant that a galley never risked being blown ashore onto a rocky coast, which was a constant danger for the clumsy deep-hulled merchant sailing ships. A galley could move almost as fast backward as it did forward and, with its shallow draft, could negotiate shoals that would strand other sailing vessels.
Over the centuries galleys had developed many forms, some designed to carry cargo, but by the mid-sixteenth century they were evolving for a single purpose: war. The Mediterranean war galley had been adapted over many generations, from the Greek triremes that destroyed the Persian fleet at the battle of Salamis, almost two thousand years before. After 1500, some galleys acquired superstructures at bow and stern, to house guns and fighting men. But the essence of the galley remained the same. As in classical times, galleys were merely a floating platform from which men could board and overcome the crews of other ships, an insubstantial shell for carrying the oarsmen and men-at-arms. Originally, as in the rowing skiffs and caïques to be found in every Mediterranean port, each man had pulled his own oar, but this became a costly option since oars had to be made from expensive well-seasoned timber, much of it imported from northern Europe. From the mid-sixteenth century a new style of rowing appeared that reduced the number of oars. Three or four men, sometimes as many as five, would sit side by side on benches, all pulling in unison on a single massive sweep. It was easy thereafter to add more men to increase the force behind the oars.
The power of a war galley lay in its personnel. Aboard each one would be a number of well-equipped professional fighting men, a battle crew. On Muslim and Venetian ships, many among the rowing crew were also armed and would join the melee. Of the Venetian oarsmen, who were volunteers, those on the end of each bench had a sword and short pike close at hand, while the second man had a bow and a quiver of arrows. As the ships closed, they would leave their oars to the third man and gather, ready to swarm across onto the deck of their victim. No merchant vessel loaded with cargo could hope to outrun a galley pursuing at full speed. Most tried, because the alternative was dire. The galley attack resembled that of a hawk swooping to snatch its prey. The sharp beak of the galley would come closer and closer to the fleeing ship, so close that the crew of the doomed vessel could see its nemesis preparing to board. At that point, many ships yielded; any that continued to run would be showered with arrows or musket fire and the crew killed. For reasons of economy the great bow guns of the attacking galley were rarely used.
Galleys were raptors, living off weaker and less well armed vessels.
Like the carnivorous dinosaur the war galley dominated its environment. But like the dinosaur, it grew progressively larger and more powerful to compete with its own kind until, like the dinosaur, it became increasingly immobile. The tactical power of the Mediterranean war galley, with the teeth and jaws of Tyrannosaurus Rex, depended on a continuous supply of flesh and blood.
Unless a galley could keep its rowing benches filled it could not survive. Much of the ceaseless raiding and predation was to seize not cargo but manpower. When a Muslim vessel took a Christian ship, all non-Mus-lims aboard would be immediately enslaved. Often the crew and any passengers would be the most valued prize. Some could be ransomed, and others sold for a good profit in the markets of North Africa or Constantinople.
If a Christian galley intercepted a Muslim ship, exactly the same transactions would take place. All non-Christians would be made prisoner and put to work at the oars. But Spanish, French, and Venetian ships preyed as frequently on the ships of other Christian nations.
Product details
- Publisher : Random House Trade Paperbacks (May 3, 2005)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 496 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0812972392
- ISBN-13 : 978-0812972399
- Item Weight : 12.7 ounces
- Dimensions : 5.29 x 1.08 x 7.98 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #2,566,313 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #1,357 in History of Islam
- #3,626 in Christian Historical Theology (Books)
- #3,664 in Comparative Religion (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
About the author
Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Unfortunately, this book does have a problem. It is all well and good to warn folks not to fight. But once one of them breaks the law, and commits assault, robbery, or murder, it is not sufficient to tell that person to be more reasonable. We have to focus on enforcing the law. That is true when nations step out of line as well. We need to concentrate on truth and reality and decide what to do about it. The author cites Lincoln, who appealed to "the better angels of our nature." He would do well to remind us that Lincoln also led us in civil war that was extremely destructive. Wheatcroft also has praise for Teddy Roosevelt, who said it was good to "speak softly and carry a big stick." With all this praise for these two Presidents, I would expect a little more sympathy with those who say we may need to fight some real enemies in the future.
In my opinion, the author has gone overboard to come up with equivalences between anti-Semitic speeches by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir and a few wild comments by American General William Boykin. I think Boykin has been pretty far out of line. And he is indeed in a position of some responsibility. But Mahathir was in a position of much greater responsibility in his country. And while I think there is a real threat of the United States getting into a war that the majority of us would reject if we knew all the facts and were unaffected by all the propaganda, at least our potential targets are nations that are way out of line. The only questions are the severity of the threat each poses, the practical risks, and the overall morality.
Mahathir, however, represents a genuine problem: he's part of a Muslim world and he's encouraging it to take us on, right or wrong. And he wants to start by having 1300 million Muslims (in his words) defeat a "few million Jews." This is not merely a poor choice of words or unfortunate misunderstanding. In my opinion, Mahathir is sounding like an Axis leader from the late 1930s, and Boykin is sounding like an American General from the same time period. There is a big difference between these two positions.
An example of the author's corresponding lack of sympathy for those who warn us that we may need to fight is his discussion of the book "An End to Evil" by David Frum and Richard Perle. It is no surprise that Wheatcroft finds fault with this book. You may want to read my own review of it. And yes, Frum and Perle do not speak all that softly. They do indeed use plenty of "political" words. And they are trying to make a case. But are they really more a part of the problem than of the solution? Does their book truly deserve to be compared with a fifteenth-century tract by Kramer and Sprenger against "witchcraft?" Don't forget that as a Pagan, I may be biased against this awful Kramer and Sprenger book, but I still say that Wheatcroft has gone overboard again with this. After all, in this age of disinformation, Frum and Perle do make some points that I think we all ought to consider:
* Neither the Ku Klux Klan nor Jesse James were a "national resistance." Describing their political heirs as such is incorrect.
* Toppling Saddam Hussein denied a huge victory to our enemies and may make future potential aggressors think twice about taking us on.
* American Muslims ought to be expected, as citizens, to stop the flow of their funds to terror, end incitement in their schools and mosques, stop promoting anti-Semitism, and avoid denials and excuses for failing to do this.
* Whenever militant Islam approaches power, it turns its wrath on women.
* The Arab-Israeli conflict is not a cause but a manifestation of Islamic extremism.
* Respect for America on the world stage rests not merely on our power and wealth but also on our moral authority. If we go back on our principles, we give credence to charges that we're a "rogue nation, an imperial state, and a threat to world order."
* At the UN, "the heroes are in fact thieves, thugs, liars, and killers. The UN regularly broadcasts a spectacle as dishonest and morally deadening as a Stalinist show trial."
* The defeat of Muslim extremism will come, maybe sooner than most of us expect.
I think Wheatcroft ought to have considered these points more seriously before appearing to dismiss this entire work as inciteful witch-hunting propaganda.
The images of each other, shared human weaknesses, violent conflicts, failure to empathize and understand are all here. How history has been abused time and again to encourage hate as a tool for politicians and `true believers' is a repeated, sad, but interesting tale. The mirror images of polluting and demonic "other" are drawn with quotations and local `color' as are battle scenes and key characters on both sides. Changing understandings and emotional impact of terms like 'Crusade' and 'Jihad' are noted. At least until very recent history the author provides a well balanced story with focus on `hot spots' like Andalusia; the Levant; the Balkans, while including some of North Africa and other conflicts. This book is 100 times better than the likes of "Jihad" by Fergosi and may be well complemented by books like Fletcher's recent book, "Cross and Crescent".
One of the most common and often serious fallacies writing about Islam is to generalize from the less than 20% who are Arabs or the perhaps 40% who are in the greater Middle East. (The author has also written on the Ottomans.) This book holds up well because it provides a "why?" for the relationships that enlightens whether reading about centuries ago in Spain or recently in Serbia. One might disagree with some of the conclusions about current events, but the book remains valuable for readers.
Top reviews from other countries
The book would also have been more enjoyable if amazon paid taxes properly in the UK.
Not only does he gloss over the sieges of Malta and Vienna,he omits the 904 sack of Thessalonika,with 20,000 enslaved by the Arabs or the over 1,000,000 Europeans enslaved by Moslem raiders between 700 and 1800 A.D.
The conclusion of the book should have been that the West has been more sinned against than sinning and its fears of Islam are,and continue to be,shaped by bitter experience rather than stereotyping.
His chronolgy is not only flawed but highly selective. For any historian to view Lepanto without reference to the defence of Malta in 1565 is indicative on a flawed comprehension of the Christian/Muslim dynamic in the 15-18th centuries.
From there it went downhill, the Cordoba martyrs are zealots, self-sacrificing fanatics, the complete antithesis of their tolerant and benevolent Islamic masters. I really began to think that I was reading promo material for the "Magnificent 19" because the author's reasoning was as skewed as that used by the supporters of Al-Quaeda & terrorism.
I bought this book, expecting an objective review as indicated by the title. What I received, does not warrant shelfspace & has been consigned to the recycling bin!
Stick to teaching English, Mr. Wheatcroft!