There are books that are badly written. There are books that are factually incorrect. There are books whose intellectual underpinnings are a mess. Then, there are books that are all of the above. The House of Wisdom is supposed to show how the Arabic world saved all the ancient knowledge of the world, expanded upon it, and reintroduced it into the west when the time was right. Instead, House of Wisdom is a poorly written and horribly argued car crash pushed in the reader's face with a maximum of yelling and hand waving. Jim Al-Kahalili is an Iraqi born British theoretical nuclear physicist who decided to write a history book after consulting in some vague manner on a similar television program. I don't think many historians I know would attempt theoretical nuclear physics, and it would have been nice for Al-Kahalili to show the same restraint.
It's actually hard to address what is wrong, because nearly everything is. Al-Kahalili jumps all over the place in this work, and feels it necessary to constantly include long tangents about his personal life, his views of the current situation in Iraq and the Iraq war, and his axe to grind with the Western world, Saddam Hussein, Iran, and just about everyone else who has been at all involved in the large swath of land this book covers in the past 50 years. None of these things are at all relevant to the topic of this work. Al-Kahalili also has an axe to grind with the entire West for every incorrect assumption or error in understanding the Arab world as a place of scientific knowledge, dating back to the middle ages. I'd agree, that the West hasn't always given the Arab world its due. However, it seems before starting that he's decided to fault the West at every turn and present the medieval Arabic world as some paradise of scientific discovery and inter-religious tolerance, while glossing over any inconvenient fact that might go against this.
He spends the bulk of the early half of this work framing his arguments without actually making them (with frequent interruptions for the above rants and tangents). He examines misconceptions, relates legends and disproved accounts at length, and generally bores the reader into a stupor before he even attempts to make his argument. Then, he makes his point in such a convoluted way I'd sometimes read it three or four times, then move on without understanding what he was really trying to say.
Halfway through, he makes an abrupt change, and starts lobbing names and facts at the reader, so the page becomes a wash of proper nouns, and one ends up trying to keep various men straight with no context as to who they actually were.
Often when he reaches an identifiable point, he turns around and defeats his own excuses and explanations. In one case, after a long and elaborate set-up arguing one particular scientist (Jabir) is a Great Figure Worthy of Respect, he then notes that 1. his theories are horribly off base, but we should respect him for simply having theories 2. most works ascribed to him are likely not actually his, and scholars are generally confused because most writings ascribed to him contradict each other and 3. a large portion of his work is actually mystical and should just be excused because he did real science too.
He also faults the West for anything and everything, logic be damned. For example, he complains that only select (read: relevant!) works by certain scholars were carried to Europe, translated, and distributed during the middle ages and that this meant medieval scholars thought certain Arabic scholars were 'only' mathematicians, or chemists, or doctors, rather than all of the above without appreciating the amount of work and luck involved in bringing any work from the Arab world and translating it before sending it throughout Europe. In another case, he faults the West for not having translated a certain work, then turns around and explains that the two portions were only discovered a decade or two ago, separated in two middle eastern libraries.
Finally, there are factual inaccuracies and intellectual inconsistencies throughout. They're minor, certainly, but they add up quickly, and you have to wonder why so many are present. If a date reads 15XX, whatever the final two digits are, it takes place in the 16th century. So, don't refer to it as the 17th century because it bolsters your argument. If you refuse to call Arabic texts by their European names simply because you rail on that it is incorrect, why call European works by later Arabic titles? Items like this litter the work. Small quibbles, perhaps, but to me indicative of intellectual laziness (or perhaps dishonesty) and a lack of editing and fact checking.
Jim Al-Kahalili has problems writing history, so in the end, his history is a angry rant about his childhood experiences, and the grand conspiracy by the West to crush his favorite scientists. It is a shame, because there is a great story to be told about this material, just not the way it is done here.