I don't know any serious historian of the region who'd recommend it. While it received praise in general interest publications at first (and maybe a few academic publications), it was soon just savaged by a wide range of writers in subsequent years.

The Wikipedia actually has a large and thorough catalogue of criticisms levied against the book, as well as quoting from several reviews in intellectual and scholarly journals.

One of the big problems is that she mainly relies on sources available in English, which obviously limits what evidence she has in front of her. But a bigger problem is just how she uses that evidence. Even her defenders will admit that a lot of the work is "sloppy", but insist that there are a few interesting and correct ideas there (that there was some growth in the Arab population because of migration from outside of the region, especially in areas where Jewish migration helped the economy, but that this growth certainly isn't "most" Arabs in the region). Most academics argue that the book is so bad as to be "worthless", however, and many argue that the book isn't really history but instead is "pseudo-scholarship".