Before that book they used other sources.
Like I said, I have difficulty differentiating between one authoritarian third-worlder and another. All same thing, and they use the same arguments, and they all have the same ultimate objective.
We probably shouldn't have sent any missionaries anywhere you know!
One of the reasons that Islam has been resurgent in the 20th-and continues to grow unabated-is because the Western powers decided to colonize-rather than proselytize-the reconquered Middle East.
You'll notice that the decrease in Christians and Jews, mostly through expulsion, in that region of the world has coincided with an explosion in the Muslim population-through immigration and conversion-in the West.
The Western powers missed a golden opportunity to reclaim the lands that had once belonged to Christianity-had in fact been the foundation stone of the Church-after breaking the back of the Caliphate during WWI.
They had decades in which they could have finally purged the stain of the betrayal of Christianity left behind by the failure of The Crusades, the petty support of the Turkish Moslem empire during the Crimean War, and other notorious betrayals, but chose to engage in petty turf wars involving adherence to Sykes-Picot, or other territorial agreements.
Britain should have expanded upon the ambiguity of the Balfour Declaration and created a permanent Jewish homeland out of Trans-Jordan and the Palestine mandate.
France should have entrenched Roman Catholicism-in spite of its secular constitution-among their colonies.
If these countries had been returned back to fold, then Kemalism might have endured, and the only Islamist threat we would face today might only be the obscurantist, severe Wahhabis in the Arabian peninsula.