Harun al-Rashid

Firstly, this source could be reliable on occasion, but has many flaws. The Wikipedia setup allows for the access of many different minds across the world, meaning a larger amount of knowledge. However, this format allows people to post incorrect information, as well has having conflicting opinions or interpretations of the article. Also, the collective mind writing style gives little organization or flow to the passage. Other than those flaws with the system itself, the article had several sources listed and could be trusted for the most part, other than the fact that Mike Ackerman clearly did not influence Harun.

Questions that come up because of the article include, but are not limited to:
1) What was Harun's 'foreign policy' like with the Byzantines and Charlemagne?
2) How was Harun regarded among the people of his society? (good/bad)

For the most part, the Wikipedia article answered most of my questions, and for those that it didn't answer, I'm sure that those could easily be found through a simple Google search. Simply by refining the search to include more details or a keyword that encompasses the area that I was looking for would help me narrow down to a source  that would benefit me.

The Wikipedia article both tempers and adds to Harun's legacy. Because the people who wrote the article were not able to see or experience Harun and/or his deeds, they would mostly go with the opinions of the people of the time period. If they thought that he was awesome, the writers of the Wiki page would stress that. This would also serve to temper his legacy, because the writers of the article do not truely know him or his deeds, so they cannot fully describe them to the detail that they were.

The spread of Islam

Benjamin of Tudela

In general, Benjamin of Tudela is a reliable source for an objective viewpoint during the time period. He is from Spain, which gives him some background with the Islamic faith, as Islam was prevalent there. He is also a rabbi, giving him general knowledge of a monotheistic religion similar to Islam. He traveled frequently, thus was aware of many different opinions and viewpoints. He visited both the places and talked about them from his experiences rather than  other people's opinions. However, he only speaks of the good points of the both Constantinople and Baghdad, like the Hippodrome and the Dar-al-Maristan, and does not address any of their faults, which gives him a small bias.

The Koran on Allah and his Expectations of Humankind

The Koran's teachings are similar to those of Zoroastrianism in the belief of a judgement at the end of one's lifetime. However, they differ in their beliefs in sexual abstinence, as Zoroastrianism allowed its followers to enjoy the material goods of the world, including sexual pleasure. All three of the beliefs, of Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians believed in a single god, as well as Muslims. All three believed in a judgement day, as well as a figure that would connect to the God. Zarathustra for Zoroastrians, Jesus for Christians, Moses for Jewish people, and Mohammed for Muslims. All three put significance into having high moral standards. Muslim people had to give a percent of their income to the needy, Zoroastrians had a motto for their good deeds, and the other religions did as well.

The Islamization of the Silk Road

Foltz's argument matches with Bentley's, with both articles having the major points of 1) voluntary association, 2) assimilation, and 3) pressure. The people of the Silk Road welcomed the Islamic peoples because the peoples were pressured by the Sanasid Empire and the Byzantine Empire, as demonstrated in the quote "many locations townspeople threw open the gates to the Arabs and welcomed them as liberators"(228). The assimilation occurred when the Islamic peoples intermarried between religions, and thus Islam was passed down to the children, but non-Islamic traditions were passed down as well, and "pre-Islamic religion survived through transmission by non-Muslim wives of Muslims"(231). The pressure of the caravan  raids also influenced people to change religion, with the Muslims "inflicting damage on their former persecutors".(227)

Views of Constantinople

Ibn Battuta
I think that Ibn Battuta is neutral about the city. He says many good things about the city, like how the bazaars were "spacious and paved with flagstones". He also goes on to say that the churches of the city were too filthy. I think that this article is not the most trustable because he says that he did not get to see the interior of the Hagia Sophia. But otherwise, the author tries to take an objective view.

Benjamin of Tudela
The author keeps on praising the city in this article. He says that people from everywhere come to the city to see its glory. He keeps attesting to The amount of gold and wealth in the city, but nothing of
the problems of the city. This article cannot be believed because the author is entirely one-sided, and
thus being biased.

Liudprand of Cremona
The author is very negative of the city. He makes everything that the other side seem like an insult. The author tries to prove that Constantinople was trying to disrespect them. The author is clearly not
believable because of the same reason as the previous.

The most trustworthy was the author of the first because he was objective.