I am eager for your other sources, but for now I will go off the ones I have and from what you said. As for your claim to “fairy-talish” I do not know what that specifically means to you. I assume you go by the definition that a fairy-tale is a made-up story to mislead.

The academic papers I have read, come with a great amount of references, so they did not make it up themselves. They have no strongly expressed opinions trying to persuade people into becoming, supporting, or admiring Islam. They only reiterate what the majority of historical scholars see as fact.

Along with that, there is no proven reason to validate suspicion of ulterior motives for each specific scholar. I do not see how the (likely) thousands of historical and scientific scholars gain anything for making up mis-leading stories. Also, many of the academic references they use are European scholar’s work.

The Gatestone Institute source, that opposes other scholars, was mostly using Spain’s Jewish and Muslim history to argue their support. I hold them with a large amount of credibility as there are highly educated scholars within the Institute’s make-up.

The only major chip in their credibility is a heavy presence of opinionated perspectives and linguistics. This gives great validity for suspicion of political motivated bias. This is not the best source for the entirety of the topic to be presented which is needed for obtaining wholesome objective facts.

Also, there is reference to Emmet Scott who I can not find any proof of credentials for being a professional historian. Emmett has references that are repetitive and uses three sources for a majority of his information which is not providing a convincing amount of evidence or credibility.

Well researched academic papers use varying sources to avoid bias. Also, it is far more credible of being factual the more scholarly works that support papers of academia. That is not to discredit or dismiss his or Gatestone’s claims or writings.

I am doubtful they are blantantly lying, but I worry they might be leaving out facts, turning facts into specific perspectives, or putting facts into a different context. Not to mention, their argument doesn’t seem to really discredit Islam entirely, but only certain people and parts of Islam in history.

All of this is just from what I have read, as I still need to read more from this source. Must make sure to read over again because they may cover something I overlooked. There was another source I also had, but I fear it is merely just an article based on opinion which is nothing more than propaganda.