Having heard a few good things about this film I was looking forward to viewing it. While very pleased with the cinematography qualities of the production I was disappointed with the poor writing. It's important to realize that this is not an objective view but rather a very professional production burdened with a bias in favor of Islam. Below are a few examples of that bias.<br /><br />In the first half of the film, while the narrator is explaining how Islam moved through the Middle East and across North Africa, scenes of men mounted on horses or camels are shown riding through desert. And when mention of force is made it is downplayed by noting how most of those conquered saw little change in their daily routine and were happy to have new rulers. Contrast this with later discussion of the first crusade where vivid scenes of fighting and death are shown along with narration explaining how horrible it was for the unsuspecting Muslims who were attacked in their peaceful towns and villages by the evil Christian soldiers from a Europe just emerging from the dark ages.<br /><br />In the Ottoman Empire section they discuss the military expansion of Islam. But unlike the first half of the film where they've downplayed the military aspects and refer to it as the Islamic expansion, now the military aspects cannot be ignored and it is referred to as the "Ottoman expansion." Again contrast this with the treatment of the Crusades where it is referred to as the Christian army (not European/French/Italian) even though the majority were mercenaries and Christian only because they were born in Europe.<br /><br />Discussions of the advancements and additions made by Muslim are numerous. The narrator waxes admiringly about how the Muslims were using paper when Europe was still using parchment. And how there were book stores with hundreds of books in Baghdad while a Christian church in Europe would have been fortunate to have had five parchment books. The fact that the Muslims captured the technology of making paper in their imperialistic conquests is mentioned only in passing. This would be exactly like discussing the Soviet and American space programs of the 50's and 60's while dismissing the contribution of German scientists to both programs.<br /><br />The narrator explains how the Muslims assembled the world's greatest library in Baghdad. No mention made of the great library of Royal Library of Alexandria in Egypt, which pre-dates Islam by some 800 years, and was plundered and ransacked by conquering Muslims. The fact is, much of what is claimed to be of Muslim discovery or creation was merely acquisition or assimilation.<br /><br />The film makes a glowing description of the Muslim Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.. No mention is made of the fact that Temple Rock, the site of the Dome, is THE most important Jewish religious site. This would be the same as building a synagogue over the Kaaba in Mecca. The point here is that this is a major event in Jewish/Islamic history yet no mention is made of its significance in history or the modern world.<br /><br />There are more but I'll stop here. The preponderance of examples demands concluding that there is a decidedly pro-Islam bias pervading this film. Had the writing taken a more objective position this could have been a documentary worthy of appreciation by generations to come. Watch it for the photography but don't take the "historical facts" too seriously.