The only thing "essential" about FQA is that someone absolutely has to drop a link to it whenever there's "C++" and "FAQ" in the same sentence. It's known for being known. The actual content is utter junk - just try reading through it once.
I thought I learned a lot about C++ from it when I first read it, but I have gradually come to realize that the things I learned were mostly a mix of incorrect and irrelevant.
I read through it once - some years ago - and agreed with its spirit. Unfortunately, until they've been enlightened, C++ acolytes are unlikely to understand it.
C++ is an ugly, flawed language. Despite this, it can also genuinely be the best choice for certain applications, and so there is a need for a FAQ such as this one.
But it's not "essential" that any such reference be accompanied by a recitation of the reasons the language sucks (some of them legitimate, even). The FAQ is for people using a tool to make things; the FQA seems primarily used to score points in discussions such as this one.* I think working programmers generally have more use for the former.
* There is also a need for constructive criticism of language design choices, of course, but the FQA predominantly rejects C++'s design premises (such as static compile-time polymorphism and lack of a memory-managed runtime) rather than recognize their utility and suggest better ways to accomplish them (as Mozilla is trying to do with Rust).
For those who don't know, the FQA, unlike the FAQ is well known to be extremely biased and exaggerated. It is not a neutral resource - it was expressly written as a takedown, with exaggeration used to great effect.