I am no expert on Insurgencies. I don't know much about Terrorism. I have very little understanding of military history. So, when I say that Richard A. Gabriel's Muhammad: The Warrior Prophet. The Ingenious Military Mind of the First Insurgent has, on average, a mistake per sentence, I speak only as someone with some familiarity with early Islamic history and the biography of the Prophet.
ps. The errors are not only factual, but also descriptive, analytical and, well, logical.
pps. I will also ignore the incongruously presentist reading of Islamic history.
ppps. I despair.
pppps. Wait, I do have a question that needs answered: Where did the Muslims offer Mormons the option of conversion to Islam or death?
ppppps. No. This is not Neo-Orientalism. This is Old Skool.
I'm sure this is a terrible book. But it would be nice to give a few examples of factual and logical errors.
Sure Anthony, if you insist. Muhammad was not a general. He did not lead in the battles. There is no support in the literature for his ingenious military mind. He definitely cannot be the FIRST INSURGENT since there was no goverment or State or Occupying Authority or Colonial Presence in Arabia in the 7th century. That covers the sub-title and I have no desire to go further into the text.
MOHAMMED PBUH WAS A WARRIOR, HE LED HIS ARMIES AND KILLED MANY AND MOST THAT OPPOSED HIM AND OUR WONDERFUL RELIGION. MOST MUSLIMS ARE SHY OF THIS BUT IT IS TRUE AND WE SHOULD BE PROUD. WHY ELSE SO MANY MUSLIMS GO TO SO MUCH EXTREME AND WE ARE TAUGHT TO BE GOOD MUSLIMS WE MUST BE LIKE MOHAMMED,IS THIS NOT OBVIOUS FROM OUR ACTIONS THE NATURE OF OUR PROPHET. RAPE AND WAR ARE O.K NOT ALWAYS RIGHT BUT SOMETIMES...HEY....