"Stealing from the Saracens" is a valuable book on an under-studied topic, but it takes a contemporary geopolitical approach to its subject matter that will impress some readers while frustrating others. Diana Darke is in the tradition of Oxbridge British Arabists who both love, and support Western meddling in, the Arab world. (Think Lawrence of Arabia.) She frames her book's narrative, therefore, as a riposte to the wave of "Islamophobia" provoked by the Syrian refugee crisis of 2016. She appears to have supported the bloody overthrow of the Assad regime and its eventual replacement by the new regime under the (supposedly) reformed terrorist al-Jolani.
Hence, she appears to be interested in supplying a cultural rationale why Europe and the US ought to hold the Middle East in a tender quasi-imperialist embrace. The Arab world is in some sense not foreign to Western culture, nor the Other; the region is just going through a few problems, ones we, the West, have a duty to intervene and correct - problems probably caused by those troublesome (and non-Arab) Iranians.
It is in this context that the destruction of Chartres Cathedral a decade ago, which was blamed reactively on Muslim immigrants, piqued Darke into writing this polemical apology for Islamic architecture and its influence on Europe. Gothic had become once again -- as it had been in the nineteenth century -- nostalgically identified with "Christendom". An ideological flashback to the Gothic Revival, a product of the theories of another member of the British elite, the wretched and misguided John Ruskin.
To be fair, the final product is a great and highly erudite survey history. It throws light on the links between Islamic, Romanesque and Gothic architecture, but does not live up to billing as objective analysis of the nature and scope of Islam's influence on European architectural tradition. As Pope Benedict XIII infamously said: "show me what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find only violent conquest." Darke provides valid counterpoints to such "Islamophobic" sentiments, but fails to reach a reasonable synthesis between the extremes of "Islam stole everything from the Byzantines" and "Christendom (qua Gothic) stole everything from Islam."
Islamic architecture's achievement really seems to have been to fuse Byzantine and Persian influences: two simultaneous "thefts." Given the geographical scope of the Islamic conquests, their Blitzkrieg speed, and the backwardness of the Arabian peninsula relative to the rest of the region, this is hardly surprising. Darke doesn't go into enough detail about Persian architecture, and she seems to elide Orthodox Christianity into Islamic culture through a sort of racial categorization. Since most Syrian Christians became Muslims in the 7th century, then, by a tautological identification of Arab-ness with Islam, Arab Christian architecture too is somehow by extension "Islamic." Just as in the Syrian civil war, we see Arab Christian identity being submerged between two larger political and cultural blocs. But as a fusion itself, Islamic architecture's subsequent influence on Gothic is obvious, and thoroughly proven by Darke.
So, Gothic is definitely a mongrel; not a pristine architecture handed down by God in the Christian Middle Ages. But this has been proved before, with less publisher-driven, back-of-the-jacket friendly polemic. As an example of what I mean, take Darke's use of the Wren quote that "the Gothic style should properly be called the Saracenic" as a narrative frame, in a way that is frankly a bit tendentious. Wren was of course the leading English classicist of his age. As Darke acknowledges, he was locked in a cultural revolutionary struggle with the Church of England to rebuild St. Paul's Cathedral after the Great Fire of 1666 in the classical rather than in the Gothic style. Obviously, this little bon mot of his was intended as a dig at Gothic architecture, rather than as a complement to Islamic architecture. Darke's apparent obliviousness to Wren as classicist hints at a deeper, Ruskinian flaw in the book. Gothic is not the central current of the European architectural tradition which Darke seemingly takes it to be. Rather, as Vasari understood, that role belongs to Greco-Roman classicism, in its transmission through Byzantine and Romanesque, and later, in its Renaissance revival. While the cultural interplay between Gothic, Islamic, Byzantine and Persian architecture is clearly a real phenomenon, it is of a secondary importance.