Said Aburish

Aburish garnered both praise and criticism for his style, with critics accusing him of "hyperbole". Aburish considered his work "revisionist history"; according to Douglas Martin of The New York Times, however, Aburish "reported facts and interpretations that were essentially truisms in the Arab world"—but "novel to Western readers." In The Guardian, Andrew Lycett wrote that Aburish "did much to illuminate the relationship between the Middle East and the west." Reviewing Aburish's A Brutal Friendship for Commentary, Daniel Pipes remarked that Aburish's analysis of Arab society was "brief and superficial," arguing that Aburish's primary goal was to attribute the problems of the Arab world "to a vast British and American conspiracy." Despite this, Pipes concluded "outlandish as it may be, the book represents a main line of Arab thinking" and therefore "cannot be so easily dismissed." By contrast, Kathy Evans praised A Brutal Friendship in The Observer: "For several decades now, [Aburish] has been making Arab governments wince with pain and embarrassment. Why? Because among Arab authors, he is almost alone in speaking the truth." In a favorable review, Publishers Weekly opined that while some of the material in Aburish's Saddam Hussein was "controversial," Aburish's account was "detailed, balanced," and "credible" given "Aburish's extensive contacts in the Arab world." Publishers Weekly called Aburish's prose "appropriately dramatic but not sensational." Elie Podeh, reviewing Aburish's Nasser for the International Journal of Middle East Studies, criticized Aburish for "factual mistakes" and "misuse of sources," stating that "Aburish has ignored new sources... based on declassified archival material" in favor of "outdated studies as well as several biased interviews, which he accepts at face value." While acknowledging that Nasser "may be a good introduction to readers unfamiliar with the subject," Podeh commented "serious students... will have to wait for another biography."