Let me point out the good and the bad, in the book, and be fair and honest about the content⦠The Author has created a wonderful window that should be read as the basic strip down- no nonsense information book in the subject. He is essentially correct in most of his basic facts and gives a summary of background info on each person of interest he mentions, or word of significance he uses. He even highlighted, albeit briefly, the connection between ISIS and the 18th century Wahhabi cult (the state religion of Saudi Arabia...) something most people will shy from, for obvious reasons.
The author also has some minor points, a few differences between Islamic fractions wrong. I believe that it is because he got one version of Islam, and it's interpretation and pretty much stuck to it. He doesn't seem to realize that there as many interpretations as there are versions of Islam (73!) Sunni and Shia being the major branches, on opposite ends. Though these are minor errors, they do create confusion in the larger picture, and the author should have researched this in more detail.
For example on page 63 he states most sunni groups believe a Caliph must come from Prophet Mohameds family. Its what Shia believe not Sunni. And its the basis of the very first split in islam. The Sunnis follow what the Prophet had said: that anyone can be Caliph, and to avoid family lines. The Shia don't believe this, they believe that only Prophet Mohameds family can succeed him.
Another example of such error is when the book fails to provide a clear explanation, when it quotes the Qur'an/ISIS statements. The quotes do come from the holly book, but he doesn't name which factions version. Sunni - Shia� As I stated earlier, there are 73 sects of Islam in total! Which one is the author quoting? For example: Temporary marriages are not allowed in the SUNNI version of the Qur'an and again a SHIA version allows them. Which is something the Sunni abhor.
There are some other problems in the book, bigger ones, related to political views of the author. I think, it becomes obvious that he is a liberal Democrat for whom Obama was not leaning left enough for his liking. He states this in the forward quite openly. What I found dangerous about this is the -quiet- way he inserted his views into the text. They blend seamlessly with the well written text, and his opinions are presented as part of the facts. This makes the opinions dangerous, since they can imprint on unsuspecting, inexperienced reader. The reader could do without that. It would make the book more balanced, had he left the insightful remarks out.
For example, The ISIS (Daish - as the author beautifully explain is a degrading word for ISIS as it means Islamic State but in a twist it's second meaning it also means dirt beneath your feet) first emerged during the destabilization of Syrias secular regime by outside forces (Turkey, USA, and Qatar), yet Hall insists that Assad - protector of Syrias Christians and other minorities - needs to be taken down at all costs as a the most evil monster that ever walked the earth. Another political single point view, meant to subtly nudge the reader in correct direction. However the reader should ask questions. Why is Assad still fighting when he could have gone to retired there long before the conflict escalated? Why are the Chechens fighting in Syria? What did usa gain in instigating the removal of Assad? Why did usa NGOs (pseudo CIA agents) meddled in Libia & Syria until the collapse of both countries? Reader should definitely be asking questions⦠all kinds of questions, before being led into another messy meddlingâ¦
The author is also Blaming -and rightly so- the destabilization of Iraq and it's subsequent takeover by Iran on Obama's dangerous -I f don't give doodle- policy of pulling out of Iraq. Though he asserts that ISIS started in Iraq, and that the former Sadam Bathists members were their creators, it is his opinion to which he doesn't give any support in terms of facts. Don't misunderstand me, he states plenty of fact, that the disgruntled Bathists were instrumental in funding, strengthening and providing military and strategic intelligence for their rise to power, there is no evidence showing they were its basic creators in Iraq. Though it should be said that Assad/Syria Chumeiny/Iran and Sadam/Iraq all supported private religious fighting units that were in tens of thousands of men, ideologically worshiping the pure 12century fanatical Islam. We know them today as members of ISIS.
His views on Iran are sadly correct and I have nothing to add to them. Having direct contact to Kurdistan region, I can confirm his statements as factual, only NOT detailed enough. Iran has their own Daish, their own state funded ISIS, they keep -for now on leash- in Iraq, and are threatening the Iraqi government with it.
SUMMARIZEDâ¦â¦ Now despite this most serious criticism, I will add that this book is a very decent read, a specially for someone new to the subject. It gives a good view into the hearts and minds of Muslim fanatics that are not as uncommon as we are told to think. It gives plenty of background information without overwhelming the reader, about everyone of importance. Mind you, there are a few better books out there about this subject, but some are a lot more difficult to read. Others overwhelming with facts or just boring, simply put, you can do much worse then this book. You can judge the subject quality just by reading the negative head-bashing reviews from offended Muslims on Amazon to know that the author has hit SOME points home.
I RECOMMEND THIS ONE... despite the little inaccuracies, and despite the singleminded political views being subtly pushed at the reader.
The author also has some minor points, a few differences between Islamic fractions wrong. I believe that it is because he got one version of Islam, and it's interpretation and pretty much stuck to it. He doesn't seem to realize that there as many interpretations as there are versions of Islam (73!) Sunni and Shia being the major branches, on opposite ends. Though these are minor errors, they do create confusion in the larger picture, and the author should have researched this in more detail.
For example on page 63 he states most sunni groups believe a Caliph must come from Prophet Mohameds family. Its what Shia believe not Sunni. And its the basis of the very first split in islam. The Sunnis follow what the Prophet had said: that anyone can be Caliph, and to avoid family lines. The Shia don't believe this, they believe that only Prophet Mohameds family can succeed him.
Another example of such error is when the book fails to provide a clear explanation, when it quotes the Qur'an/ISIS statements. The quotes do come from the holly book, but he doesn't name which factions version. Sunni - Shia� As I stated earlier, there are 73 sects of Islam in total! Which one is the author quoting? For example: Temporary marriages are not allowed in the SUNNI version of the Qur'an and again a SHIA version allows them. Which is something the Sunni abhor.
There are some other problems in the book, bigger ones, related to political views of the author. I think, it becomes obvious that he is a liberal Democrat for whom Obama was not leaning left enough for his liking. He states this in the forward quite openly. What I found dangerous about this is the -quiet- way he inserted his views into the text. They blend seamlessly with the well written text, and his opinions are presented as part of the facts. This makes the opinions dangerous, since they can imprint on unsuspecting, inexperienced reader. The reader could do without that. It would make the book more balanced, had he left the insightful remarks out.
For example, The ISIS (Daish - as the author beautifully explain is a degrading word for ISIS as it means Islamic State but in a twist it's second meaning it also means dirt beneath your feet) first emerged during the destabilization of Syrias secular regime by outside forces (Turkey, USA, and Qatar), yet Hall insists that Assad - protector of Syrias Christians and other minorities - needs to be taken down at all costs as a the most evil monster that ever walked the earth. Another political single point view, meant to subtly nudge the reader in correct direction. However the reader should ask questions. Why is Assad still fighting when he could have gone to retired there long before the conflict escalated? Why are the Chechens fighting in Syria? What did usa gain in instigating the removal of Assad? Why did usa NGOs (pseudo CIA agents) meddled in Libia & Syria until the collapse of both countries? Reader should definitely be asking questions⦠all kinds of questions, before being led into another messy meddlingâ¦
The author is also Blaming -and rightly so- the destabilization of Iraq and it's subsequent takeover by Iran on Obama's dangerous -I f don't give doodle- policy of pulling out of Iraq. Though he asserts that ISIS started in Iraq, and that the former Sadam Bathists members were their creators, it is his opinion to which he doesn't give any support in terms of facts. Don't misunderstand me, he states plenty of fact, that the disgruntled Bathists were instrumental in funding, strengthening and providing military and strategic intelligence for their rise to power, there is no evidence showing they were its basic creators in Iraq. Though it should be said that Assad/Syria Chumeiny/Iran and Sadam/Iraq all supported private religious fighting units that were in tens of thousands of men, ideologically worshiping the pure 12century fanatical Islam. We know them today as members of ISIS.
His views on Iran are sadly correct and I have nothing to add to them. Having direct contact to Kurdistan region, I can confirm his statements as factual, only NOT detailed enough. Iran has their own Daish, their own state funded ISIS, they keep -for now on leash- in Iraq, and are threatening the Iraqi government with it.
SUMMARIZEDâ¦â¦ Now despite this most serious criticism, I will add that this book is a very decent read, a specially for someone new to the subject. It gives a good view into the hearts and minds of Muslim fanatics that are not as uncommon as we are told to think. It gives plenty of background information without overwhelming the reader, about everyone of importance. Mind you, there are a few better books out there about this subject, but some are a lot more difficult to read. Others overwhelming with facts or just boring, simply put, you can do much worse then this book. You can judge the subject quality just by reading the negative head-bashing reviews from offended Muslims on Amazon to know that the author has hit SOME points home.
I RECOMMEND THIS ONE... despite the little inaccuracies, and despite the singleminded political views being subtly pushed at the reader.
