So before Muhammad they worshipped a bunch of differing deities? And then they were conquered and forced them to spread islam? You don't say.

It's good, but there are some problems. For example, in a few places, reference is made to Jerusalem's status as a "holy site" for Muslims; around 60:00, the statement that "Jerusalem is the third holiest city in Islam" is repeated without commentary or qualification. But the issue is actually a good deal more complex and nuanced than this documentary lets on, and, in the context in which the statement is made (in reference to the First and Second Crusades), it's actually somewhat misleading. The exact status of Jerusalem in the Muslim faith has been a very fluid thing, sometimes holy, most times not, shifting it's importance based upon the practical needs of temporal politics. At the time of the initial Christian conquest, it was not considered to be a particularly important site; it was only just prior to Saladin's reconquest that Jerusalem became an important symbol of faith in the minds of neighbouring Muslims, and historical evidence indicates that this shifting viewpoint was largely the result of a early-middle-12th century propaganda push, a successful attempt to drum up support for Saladin's own counter-Crusade that in some ways mirrored Pope Urban's better known agitprop campaigns in Europe.

More serious problems arise during their treatment of the Siege of Jerusalem (1:30:00). A number of statements regarding Saladin's victory over the city are made in close succession which simply don't hold up. First, I have never encountered the claim that *Saladin himself* paid the ransom for his own prisoners. The Christian commanders, including Balian, paid others ransoms out of their own pockets, yes. That much is well established. But Saladin? (EH note - is it possible Mr Ahmed is is referring to the other Muslim commanders, and suggesting that Saladin paid for *their* prisoners? I know that Saladin prevailed upon his fellow Muslims to follow his example and free their own prisoners, but I do not know in what manner he did this) Nor did Saladin release ALL of his prisoners; this statement is blatantly false! While Saladin's mercy was indeed quite famous at the time, and I do not wish to diminish what he did, the fact remains that a substantial number of prisoners (accounts suggest at least a few thousand) were kept after the battle. Saladin took money for most of his prisoners, freed a few, and then threw the rest into slavery. (EH note- this ties in to another of the documentary's problematic claims, which I will probably not get into: that Islam is anti-slavery) Finally, the statement that "(mercy) is only possible if you're inspired by the Quran" is, of course, impossible to substantiate.

There are a few more things I had a problem with, in particular the comments on Jihad and Bin Laden, but I'll have to get to those later. I will say that I'm glad the documentary took pains to present a balanced view, even if that introduced some glaring errors into the narrative.