Had to put this book down 5 chapters in. Starr fails to provide any critical and significant primary source analysis to support the substantial claims he makes about the nature of the intellectual history of the period. It is a blatant overture to western readers looking for a way to divest the Islamic tradition of its intellectual achievements. At every turn Starr seems to try his best to downplay Arab involvement in any "positive" development in what quickly becomes an obvious bias. He tends to spend little time engaging with what occasionally actually compelling points he brings up, and instead goes on discursive tangents about broad personal claims.

Ultimately, the book just feels so anti-historical, like Starr has a personal disdain for any complex analysis. He relies heavily on secondary work, which he generally uses uncritically. Perplexingly, he will at times mention the questionable credibility of a source/claim, only to then base an interpretation off of it anyway.