While I agree with some of the reviewers who described Fallaci's work as a rant, this book contains some valid points; however, the gross generalizations Fallaci relies on do not help her cause much, and risk, due to their offensive nature, alienating some readers into dismissing her argument altogether, her valid points notwithstanding.
I disagree with Fallaci on describing so many peoples and nations as, more or less, "scum" without any culture. I am turned off by her using single repulsive incidents as sufficient evidence to draw conclusions about entire races and peoples. I disagree with her in putting everyone in the same basket, including countless poor immigrants who escaped from appalling conditions and are enduring terrible ordeals to seek better lives. The many boat people trying to escape to Europe via Spain and drowning in the process are but one example. Fallaci seems to forget that behind most immigrants there are stories of dire misery, instead she assumes they are all part of some army-in-disguise aiming at annihilating western civilization.
In her book, every immigrant is either a terrorist, an aspiring terrorist, or a criminal. Fallaci generalizes too much, and demonizes just about everyone coming from a Muslim country. While Fallaci is right about the dangers of the militant version of a religion that does not wish to live and let live, but has, as part of its mission statement, the aim of conquering and preferably converting everyone on earth, nevertheless, this does not mean that everyone who comes out of a Muslim country is but a soldier-in-disguise. The truth is more about there being a specific group of fanatics who seek to transform as many immigrants (or children of immigrants) as possible to their own causes, and USE THEM for their own agenda.
Fallaci could have done better identifying the policies (of the Italian government, as well as western governments in general) that were ultimately responsible for this dangerous situation, such as the legal loopholes whereby fascist and like-minded groups could quote their democratic rights to push forth their agenda, and whereby one of the first items on that agenda is the abolition of that very democracy. Identifying specific practises would have been more productive than just spitting fire on everybody, which is the only thing Fallaci did.
The book takes the form of an offensive rant that vilifies entire peoples many of whom have committed no fault but having had the unfortunate destiny of being born under the banner of a religion which is not ready to undergoe any kind of revision of the types that other religions have undergone, and that persecutes anyone who calls for its reform, and punishes anyone who wishes to leave it by execution. Some writer ( I don't remember the name) once said, "Muslims are themselves the first hostages of their religion". Many people from Muslim countries emigrate to the West simply to seek better lives and better education for their children. Assuming that all of them are militia to the "inverse crusade" as she described it, is a gross injustice. However, calling for tougher measures to identify the foul elements among them, those who carry out a systematic plan of recruitment to violent causes inside their host countries and drafting tough laws to send those elements packing, would have been a more helpful way of going about it.
An interesting fact is that, throughout her text, Fallaci repeatedly describes the composition of italians using the word "humus" (otherwise spellt as "hummus", or "hummous" ), saying things like "we are a humus of...", not realizing (?) that the word "humus" describes an ARAB dish (and the word itself is neither Italian, nor English, but Arabic!), the very people (along with other non-arab-muslims) that she dedicated most of her pages to denigrating! It is, of course, a superb irony, revealing the fact that cultures have always intermingled and it is impossible to separate what comes from where or whom, that even a staunch opposer of "immigrant invasion" as Fallaci, goes on to use words from "their" language to describe her very different heritage, apparently without being conscious of it!
While Fallaci has plenty of words of admiration for the US, she doesn't seem to realize another irony: what made the US a world superpower is precisely its immigrants, the incalculabe richness of all those races coming together and bringing their individual strengths to enhance the whole. Fallaci, in her anger against the abusive practises of violent elements among immigrants cannot discriminate between what needs to be isolated and dealt with, and, what has always been a feature of humanity: that of moving to better, more promising pastures. Islamic militants do not represent entire races and peoples, assuming that is playing into their hands and buying into their propaganda.
Had she been also interested in real solutions, rather than just a format for ditching her anger, she'd have suggested some new laws that call for integration of immigrants in Europe, similar to those in the US, policies with specific deadlines, whereby immigrants are given the chance to learn the language and prime themselves for integration, otherwise, they'd not get the right to citizenship/permits and would have to leave. Under such conditions, immigrants would have to make the effort to integrate if they want to stay. When no such measures exist, and society is indifferent as to what is going on, naturally, they could wake up one day with a big problem at hand.
While Fallaci is right about the current serious problem in the West (as well as the rest of the world, for that matter) as a result of the rise of militant Islam, with Khomeini at its source as she correctly remarks, her identification of who's part of it is not very accurate, and, as far as any helpful suggestions are concerned, she offered none except an implied "throw-them-all-out" message.
While I do not wish at all to belittle the danger, and do agree that some of the "anti-racism" campaigners have, in their defense of some of the practises of immigrants, contributed to emboldening the extreme elements among them into believing they can turn the countries they sought refuge in into copies of the countries they ran away from, nevertheless, responding by claiming that all immigrants are "the enemy" and coining the problem as allowing immigration in the first place, is an approach that, while serving as a perfect format for venting, does not offer real solutions.
Let's hope someone would heed the danger she pointed to BUT would have a REASONABLE, PRACTICAL AND FIRM PLAN for ways to avert the danger, without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.