Summaries and Customer Reviews are supplied by Amazon.com

Average Customer Rating:

May be a helpful introduction but be prepared to study more

Customer Rating:

It would be too much to expect that the founder of any of the world's major religions could be understood from one book, even at the introductory level (not counting sacred scripture, direct exposure to which may be essential). Consider Christianity, consider Buddhism. In the U.S., especialy after 9/11, it may be especially difficult to understand the life of Muhammad. Even before 9/11, even from the early times of Islam, Christian sources were critical of Islam and Muhammad. It is difficult to get a balanced read from any single source: if such a source exists, how to know which it is? I had read the Qu'ran years ago but recently have read criticisms of Muhammad from conservative Christians. I had been impressed from my own reading of the Qu'ran and by my Muslim friends so was more than skeptical of the criticisms I read of both Islam and Muhammad. Not expecting to get to an answer easily but not wanting to spend too much time to get some perspective, I opted for this portrait which, by intent, set out to present Muhammad in a "balanced way". I had not read Karen Armstrong before. I knew she did not have a scholarly background in Islam ( excepting self-made), but that she seemed respected in the area of comparative religions, although not without critics. So I chose this book expecting it to have introductory value and to offset or put into perspective some criticisms of Muhammad I had heard from conservative Christians. This is an exceptionally well-written book and it does not seem to dodge some of those aspects of Muhammad's life that others were critical of. It does, as Armstrong intended, appear to attest well to his contributions. I expect it will serve me well as I learn more about Muhammad and the formative history of Islam, which I mean to do. Armstrong does bring alive the conditions under which Muhammad responded to challenges and made key decisions. The success of early Islam was far from a "done deal". On the other hand, it by no means seems that Islam was nearing any final form when Muhammad died [of course, think how far from any final form that was of Christianity or Buddhism when Jesus and the Buddha died]. Any impressions of Muhammad I have at this point are tentative but having read this book I feel better equipped to consider the impact of Muhammad on how women were treated in Islam, of the expectations on Muslims to care for one another, of how Muslims should treat others (Armstrong emphasizes the pluralism of early Islam), of how the fight for survival was mingled in to the efforts to reveal the sacred. Armstrong presents a complex and dynamic Muhammad, who changed and developed, leading his people while at the same time experience the revelations of the Qu'ran]. There is a lot to take in here and, for me, re-reading the Qu'ran seems on inevitable step. It does seem most remarkable, as Armstrong makes quite clear, that Muhammad so strongly discouraged that he himself be regarded as divine. Armstrong writes, echoing Abu Bakr, who was close to Muhammad about a warning from Muhammad: "He was a mere mortal, no different from anybody else." Armstrong quotes Abu Bakr: "O people, if anyone worships Muhammad, Muhammad is dead. If anyone worships God, God is alive, immortal." [ Ibn Ishaaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, 1012 in Guillaume, Life of Muhammad]. How different Christianity would have been with such an understanding: the nearest Christian teaching have been as that of Arius and rejected by 4th century Christian orthodoxy. There is plenty of information about historical events, revelations from the Qu'ran as they occurred, historical context that helped give me at the least a side of the picture of Muhammad's life. Is Armstrong's depiction too sympathetic? I can't decide yet. It will undoubtedly take time. There seems to be a struggle to control how we view Muhammad and early Islam: it would be surprising if I were otherwise but makes it difficult to expose biases and factor them out to the extent they can be. As for the current situation, I plan to read Carl Ernst's Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World (Islamic Civilization and Muslim Networks) soon. I recently read Alaa Al Aswany's Chicago: A Novel, an outstanding novel about Egyptian Muslims adjusting to life in the post 9/11 U.S. It provided me at least some sense of how Muhammad and Islam guide the day to day life of U.S. Muslims, fictional characters but perhaps seeming all too real.

Highly recommended; suitable for all... but you do need to read it all.

Customer Rating:

This book may not be the easiest to read, and needs a certain degree of perseverance to get through it all... but I found it most enlightening. It is one of those books that needs to be read from beginning to end, and then when the contents have had time to sink in... to read it again. It is certainly not a book that you can dive into, and just look at the "interesting bits" (using the index). Each part needs to be read in context. There is much that we can all learn from each other... if we are prepared to think about what we have just read... and consider how it might affect us in our lives today.

Vague and without depth

Customer Rating:

Knowing little about Islam except the difficulty of finding a balanced viewpoint, ,I bought this book and `The Truth about Mohammed' by Robert Spencer in the hope of extracting the evidence for the prosecution and defence (see Spencer review). I am afraid Armstrong would be no match for Spencer in court, although she offers rather more hope for the future. The book was written after 911, with the express purpose of enlightening Western readers whose only access to Islam came through our sensationalist and often trashy media. Armstrong had already written a biography of Mohammed (1991), but this new book was intended to "focus on other aspects of Mohammed's life. So this is a completely new and entirely different book....". This is puzzling. Did Mohammed's life change retrospectively after 911? With characteristic vagueness she does not specify these `other aspects', or why her earlier work had suddenly become unsatisfactory. Most of the book is a rather rambling biography in which she curiously confirms some of Spencer's accusations, but without drawing conclusions and seemingly unaware of the implications. For instance, she tells the story of Mohammed's revelation justifying the attack on the Qureysh caravan at Naklah apparently without realizing the difficult precedent which this set (p. 130). Also the reaction of Mohammed's favourite wife Aisha to the revelation justifying the marriage to Zaynab (p. 168) "How convenient! Truly thy Lord makes haste to do thy bidding!" A prophet for our time? Armstrong's contention, in contrast to Spencer, is that Mohammed was a man of peace who was forced into warfare and banditry by the violent times in which he lived. His message for our time is peace, harmony, equality, tolerance - hang on a bit, haven't we heard this before? A certain Jesus of Nazareth saying something similar? In what way does Mohammed add to the message of Jesus? Armstrong does not enlighten us. I find this a rather lightweight book which still manages to be confusing. But for those like me who know nothing about the matter it does form an introduction, if read with a critical eye, and shows some of the contradictions in the life of Mohammed.

Strange read

Customer Rating:

I always respected her point of a view as someone looking into Islam as oppossed to someone looking out. I found parts of the book excellent and other parts poor. What did I find poor the fact she narrates from weak sources and then forms a narrative based upon this. She also attacks the companions with slander which is something that deeply disappointed me. Judging by the reaction of the non-muslims who have reacted positively to the book, it may be for them.

as if quoting from a Quran with half the pages missing

Customer Rating:

Everything is carefully picked and sanitised, every action sweetly and convincingly interpreted and explained. Accepting the muslim assertions and traditions at face value, hardly a hint of any doubt whatever as to veracity and impact. From the muslim/Arab viewpoint entirely, and quite abjectly admiring at that .....or too accepting would be more accurate perhaps. But on reflexion and closer inspection that is not quite true: Karen Armstrong does not hide all that is uncomfortable. Such as the politically or socially expedient causing a revelation, and this or that revelation being a short-time solution to calm things down. The problem for me is there's a deep, heartfelt and sincere explanation to justify everything, even the most horrendous. And Karen Armstrong's renderings of Muhammad's thought patterns and motives really cannot be anything but guesswork. I see that those who resist Islam are "corpulent", "playing disgusting tricks", "strutting around haughtily and adressing others in a offensive, braying manner", "irascible and ambitious", "virulently hostile", "elderly" AND "corpulent", "hostile and insulting". They obviously MUST be the bad ones. What today also automatially is called "islamophobic", it being a crime to be afraid. In contrast to the Muslim's inner peace, serenity and tranquility. Quran 9:40 is quoted .....which strikes me as rather daring, considering it is in the middle of virulent and insulting attacks on idolators and unbelievers and what will happen to them and their property now and hereafter. It IS a book written to make things look good. And a few gems can only make me shake my head in wonder. Islam suddenly has a world empire, sprung out of nowhere it seems: on the very next page arrive the nasty crusaders, and they are very very bad indeed. "... (the) sister faiths, which were so powerfully endorsed by the Quran": Well, as far as I can find often it doesn't, not a lot; in fact rather the opposite in many places. "The rest of the year was spent in routine raiding" ....I like that one. Remember though, the muslim is always the victim. "The hijab was not devised to devide the sexes". Ah, it seems Umar is to blame for this "external barrier", whereas Muhammad really preferred internal barriers in order to change peoples' attitudes, and anyway it primarily was to prevent unbelievers heckling his wifes. I personally find that a holy book filled with imperatives is pretty far removed from spiritual attitudes, but I admit everything has to begin somewhere. Whether Karen Armstrong accepts that the hijab since then is the great divider of the sexes I can't quite fathom. If you want to believe that "Islam signified peace and reconciliation", you'll do just fine and feel nicely safe and comfortable. If you take a look at the half of the Quran that is not mentioned, the answer will be more complex. "For Our Time"?? I certainly cannot see how, or why. But I can now see why Karen Armstrong in some circles is regarded as a leading apologist for Islam.