The Islamic Conquest was therefore in the name of Islam, but its purpose was simply domination. Later, the show mentioned that the Crusades were elicited by an appeal from the Roman/Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus, and that this had something to do with the Turks. Exactly what the Turks had been doing, however, was glossed over nearly as completely as the history of the Omayyads, and one might have derived the impression that Turkey had always been in Anatolia (they are not shown coming from anywhere else). That the advent of the Turks represented a major surge in Islamic Conquest was not made obvious; and the viewer of the show might notice a hiatus between fending off the Crusaders and the Ottoman Turks arriving at the gates of Vienna. In between, of course, there were rather serious events like the Fall of Constantinople, which gets ignored. Obviously, if the ideology of Jihad only exists because of the aggression of the Crusaders, and war in Islam is only supposed to be used for defense, things like the Arab Conquest of the Middle East or the Turkish Conquest of the Roman/Byzantine Empire and Hungary are going to be somewhat awkward to explain. Hence the dishonesty. It is as though Egyptians, Syrians, etc., on hearing the Word, spontaneously converted to Islam, with Christian counter-attacks constituting, in modern leftist terminology, "Imperialist Aggression." No, the only thing about any Imperium that is really resented is that the wrong people possessed it. "Secrets of the Koran," thus, unfortunately, constituted a dishonest apologetic, not truly informative history.Islamic rulers engaged in Jihad were not secular rulers in the modern sense, but neither were Mediaeval Christian rulers. In some ways Islamic rulers seem more secular than Christian ones, since their military origin was usually recent and conspicuous (the Mamluks are the most obvious), while Christian rulers (like the Kings of France) might claim authority directly from God. More important were other differences. European states had a legal tradition from Roman Law that was originally independent of Christianity, while Islam had developed its own system of law. European judges were thus secular officials, while Islamic judges were religious jurists. Europe even had parallel secular and eccelesiastical judicial systems, which is why King Henry II of England could be angry with Thomas a Becket, not for protecting the poor Saxons from oppression by the Norman King, but for protecting priests guilty of rape and murder from the full force of secular justice. Islamic jurists were the principal institutional existence of Islam, which otherwise had no priests or religious hierarchy. The Imam in Orthdox Islam might be learned (an 'Alim, , "Knower," pl. 'Ulama', ), might even be a judge (a Qad.i, ), but essentially is just the leader of the Prayer, with no particular religious authority. ('Ulama' or "Ulema" is frequently used for jurists and learned religious opinion in general; and, strickly speaking, the indefinite citation form for Qad.i is Qad.in, .) The institutional distinction in the West between Church and State made it relatively easy to separate these institutions. This separation was not