Hmmm...where to start? This book was recommended to me when I requested a very fact-based, objective look at Islam. In some ways, this is a good overview of Islam--historical information, basic tenets of the faith, etc. However, the book is bogged down with generalizations, some misinformation and a lot of very disturbing apologies for some of the very disturbing things done in the name of Islam.
I don't necessarily think Islam is worse than other religions (some aspects yes, others no) but Emerick's attempts at Islamic apologetics are worse than a lot of others'. He asserts that crime is nearly non existent in societies that have implemented Islamic law. This is somewhat undermined by the fact that Saudi Arabia keeps executing people. He explains how he totally doesn't agree with the Taliban but here's how the Taliban has been misunderstood and those statues they blew up were totally not even important because there haven't been any Buddhists in Afghanistan for like EVER so it's still totally in keeping with the great respect that Islam has for other religions to get rid of them because no one was really using them.
Using that logic, we should all be cool with it if someone blows up the Acropolis--it's not like anyone still worships Athena!
I was frequently annoyed with the author for putting in "facts" that are more like opinion--sometimes he actually put these under the "Just the Facts" sidebars so that's extra baffling. He'll assert something as fact with no citation (or with a sly "some scholars say..." Who?!) or insert a quote under "just the facts" when it is simply a quote that expresses an opinion. He will list false facts like "Mohammed sent letters to all the heads of state of his day and museums retain those copies" (not actually something historical scholars believe) or that evolution can't account for human traits like compassion (actually, it can and does. There are actual articles about this using science!)
Other times he takes what I assume is his own experience and declares it to be universal. I was very confused when he explained how western history classes depict the heroic capture of Palestine by medieval crusaders. Really? Because I went to Catholic school and was taught that the crusades were misguided and a complete failure.
It's not just on controversial issues he assumes an incorrect universal experience. He tells us that the two feasts/holidays in Islam are fast breaking post-Ramadan and the feast following he annual pilgrimage, with the post-Ramadan feast being the much bigger deal. I assume this is the case where he lives and practices. But guess what? In Morocco, the post Ramadan feast is called "small feast" and the post pilgrimage one is called "big feast." Guess which is a bigger deal? It's not a huge mistake but I wonder how many others there were that I didn't catch. Makes me distrust the author and assume he's been sloppy with his research.
But it's his comments about women that really made me wince.
Did you know that "most Muslim women live oppression free lives"? Our author asserts nothing less. Where can I sign up to live this oppression free life?
But perhaps I can't expect too much from a man whose knowledge of women's issues doesn't extend to knowing that it's Elizabeth Cady Stanton, not "Cady Stanton" (did this book have an editor? I decided "no" when I then read about something "hearkening back" to earlier times).
While I'm nitpicking with "Cady Stanton," the author's dismal view of women's issues within Islam is a larger problem. This is perhaps best expressed when he kindly explains that while it didn't turn out great and most everyone Muslim condemned them, the Taliban's policies around women were just an honest attempt to deal with a high unemployment rate!
Sexist practices are mansplained away with explanations avoiding any real reflection. Women HAVE to stand behind men in the mosque. Otherwise their lovely lady lumps could distract men from prayer (but women are incapable of being distracted by looking at men's bootyliciousness). Banning women when they are menstruating isn't because they are unclean--they are just ritually unclean! See? Totally different!
And Islamic women cover their hair because it is required by Islam to protect them from men's lustful gaze. It's for their protection, DUH! Yet I know there are lots of Muslims and even Islamic scholars who will argue that covering one's hair is NOT required. But the author presents it as a completely non-controversial fact. IT's just "What Islam Says." Same with abortion--it's against Islam. End of story, right? Well, it's a bit more complicated than that. In fact (an actual fact, not a "fact" like those presented this book), the King of Morocco recently tasked religious scholars with finding some ways for Morocco to liberalize their abortion laws while staying within the confines of Islam. So Islam and women--maybe not the author's strong suit.
Finally, I find it completely bizarre that though the edition I read was published in 2002, the only mention of Osama bin Laden is as the mastermind of attacks on some U.S. embassies. Why would you publish an American book, for American audiences, in 2002 that failed to acknowledge the 2001 occurrence of the most significant crime ever committed against Americans in the name of Islam?
Most of the problems I've listed above aren't a problem for those reading this book with a critical eye. But the book is, by its own admission, targeted towards complete idiots. So for an objective, fact based overview of Islam, keep looking.