Lughz al-Mushīr

The reviews suggest that the book serves as a documentation of a significant historical phase. Despite its perceived shortcomings, it offers a record of events that some readers might find useful for understanding the period from a particular perspective. The author's direct accounts and included information could potentially be a source for those willing to critically engage with the material.

However, the book is widely criticized for its heavily biased and one-sided narrative. Reviewers found the author's persistent efforts to assign blame to specific groups without supporting evidence to be off-putting and serving an authoritative agenda. The text is noted for interspersing historical accounts with the author's personal opinions and unsubstantiated predictions, rather than presenting an objective analysis. Critics also highlight the book's propagandistic nature, its reliance on political slogans, and its tendency to marginalize the role of popular will and the general public, portraying them as passive instruments rather than active participants in historical events. Furthermore, the book is seen as exaggerating the virtues of a central figure and failing to offer genuine clarification or demystification of the subject matter.

In conclusion, the book is primarily viewed as a product of its time, deeply infused with a specific political viewpoint rather than a balanced historical account. It is not recommended for readers seeking an objective, evidence-based analysis or a comprehensive understanding of the period. Instead, it might appeal to researchers or readers interested in studying primary sources that reflect a particular political narrative or official stance during that historical era. Such readers would need to approach the text with a highly critical eye, prepared to sift through overt propaganda to extract any potentially useful historical documentation.