For context, on pages 214-217 Rodney Stark says this in a section of his book titled Dhimmi Culture.
To the extent that Arab elites acquired a sophisticated culture, they learned it from their subject peoples. As Bernard Lewis put it, without seeming to fully appreciate the implications, Arabs inherited "the knowledge and skills of the ancient Middle East, of Greece, of Persia and of India." That is, the sophisticated culture so offten attributed to Muslims (more often referred to as "Arabic" culture) was actually the culture of the conquered people- the Judeo-Christian-Greek culture of Byzantium, the remarkable learning of heretical Christian groups such as the Copts and the Nestorians, extensive knowledge from Zoroastrianism (Mazdean) Persia, and the great mathematical achievements of the Hindus (keep in mind the early and extensive Muslim conquests of India.) This legacy of learning, including much that had originated with the ancient Greeks, was translated into Arabic, and portions of it were somewhat assimilated into Arab Culture, but even after having been translated, this "learning" continued to be sustained primarily by the dhimmi populations living under Arab regimes. For example, the "earliest scientific book in the language of Islam" was a "treatise on medicine by a Syrian Christian priest in Alexandria, translated into Arabic by a Persian Jewish Physician" As in thus example, not only did most "Arab" science and learning originate with dhimmis they even did most of the translating into Arabic.
I know this passage is very long and the answers don't have to go point by point but I just want to know if the overall concept is accurate and to what degree?
Oddly, I was just reading some book reviews of this work the other day (looking for some provocative readings for my students). I will quote the review I thought laid out its problems most succicently; Evelyn Bush 'Saintly Mission or Sins of Commission? Reviewed Work: God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades by Rodney Stark' Contexts, 9:3, (2010), pp. 72-73
Quoting from that review:
This latter argument is drawn out most clearly in the third chapter, Western "Ignorance" Versus Eastern "Culture" (quotes in original), which lays out evidence that most, if not all, of the civilizational achievements that historians have credited to "Arab culture" would more accurately be attributed to subjugated (often Christian) peoples within predominantly Muslim territories. On both counts, however, Stark's evidence could just as easily support an alternative conclusion that is more consistent with the theme that frames the book in the first and last chapters. That is, his evidence leads us to question the very categories of "eastern" vs. "western" culture or "Muslim" vs. "Christian" civilization and whether it makes sense to impose modern definitions of these categories on such a distant era. For example, with regard to the question of who struck first, Stark's text is replete with examples of intra-group, inter-group, trans-group, and every other kind of group conflict that one can imagine. For instance, during the 9th century, "Spain was a patchwork of constantly feuding Muslim regimes that often allied themselves with Christians against one another. Recall that it was the Muslim governor of Barcelona who invited Charlemagne to enter Spain, and El Cid spent part of his career as a brilliant mercenary leader on behalf of the Muslim 'king' of Saragossa, warring against other Muslims" (p. 47). And, to add to the confusion, warriors (often mercenaries) are shown throughout the book to have switched sides frequently. Yet, despite an abundance of such examples, Stark does not seriously entertain the "null hypothesis" that religion is only tangential to these territorial disputes.
With regard to the superiority of one or the other civilization, we run into a similar difficulty. The evidence the author presents suggests that civilizational achievements are so much the product of cultural mixing that one wonders whether we can meaningfully speak of individual, bounded civilizations without risking reification, and if it is possible to attribute technological, artistic, or intellectual achievements uniquely to any distinct race, creed, religion, or "cul- ture. " What is more, even if we take for granted that there are clearly identifiable civilizational differences, Stark does not convincingly make the case that those differences can be traced specifically to cultural variation. We are not presented with concrete descriptions of the precise features of Christianity or Islam that would link them to different modes of production, including the production of technology, weaponry, etc. We are not shown the linkages between ideas and material culture similar to, for instance, medieval historian Lynn White Jr.'s discussion of the relationship between Christian transcendence and technological advance beyond the scratch plow or political theorist Michael Walzer's discussion of how the Protestant Reformation led to standardization within western militaries."
Basically; the categories he works with are flawed, in that Stark assumes that religion and culture between "east" and "west" are clearly delinted, are understood the same as what we assume we have today, and that their workings produce fundamentally different results. He also assumes those categories were important to the people at the time. The counter-argument is that actually there was a lot of flow - economically, socially, and politically "across" those divides, to the point where it might be better to understand it as a system. It might also be argued that religion and culture were not the primary driver of behaviour inside that system.