13 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Wishful Thinking, December 4, 2009
This review is from: Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet (Paperback)
This is one of three Karen Armstrong books I've read; better than the execrable "The Case For God" (in so far as she actually wrote about the subject in the title) but worse than her study of Buddha. Armstrong the writer is quite skilled, Armstrong the thinker has her moments, but Armstrong the scholar (ironically, the thing she's most feted for) is a disgrace. She constantly makes assertions with absolutely no evidence, contradicts herself, and abuses the commonly understood meaning of words in everything I've read by her thus far.
I don't think there has been a really good popular biography of Muhammad Ibn Abdallah yet. Martin Lings' is a hagiography, Robert Spencer's is based transparently on his own modern socio-political agenda, and Reza Aslan's (as well as this volume) are based on rampant speculation and rereading in an attempt to rehabilitate Muhammad's image in the west. I think that a book that looked critically at Muhammad's life, in a historical context, but was unafraid to step on the toes of Muslims and haters of Muhammad alike, would be an invaluable asset. This book is not it though. As a former convert to Islam, I've considered writing such a book, but I think it would be best left to someone with less personal stake than I have, and perhaps more writing talent.
The book gets off to a bad, bad start. Armstrong wags her finger at 'us' (us being 'the West', which is monolithic in being White and Christian apparently)for not understanding why Muslims had their feelings hurt by Salman Rushdie. Then she mentions that Christians used to burn books, too, well what do we think of that? Tell you what, Karen, next time there's a massive book burning with public calls for the author's assassination in Sweden, you be sure and let me know. Later in the book, she makes the point that the part of "The Satanic Verses" that got Muslims howling (I mean, those that actually bothered reading it) were a dream sequence, so they should have cut Rushdie some slack. Not really the point; the point is that in a modern, pluralistic society we don't (or at least, shouldn't) allow religious thugs to murder people for writing something said thugs didn't like.
The book's actual examination of Muhammad is confused and not entirely self-consistent. Any potential biographer runs into a problem here; was Muhammad lying, crazy, or telling the truth? Those are the three basic options. If the author believe that he was telling the truth, then the author not being a Muslim becomes inexplicable; if you believe Muhammad was right, you become a Muslim. There's really no other coherent idea here. If he was lying, that colors his career a bit, as does the option that he was insane. Armstrong curiously seems to suggest that he was both lying AND telling the truth. Her version of Muhammad was a mystic, a pre-Sufi Sufi who got his wisdom from a deep and ineffable source. He had a dream to unite the Arabs and exposure to monotheism, which seemed a worthy vehicle; Armstrong all but suggests fraud here. However, she then spins her own spin, and tries to argue that Muhammad's spiritual connections were real. Here's a problem; Muhammad didn't claim that he was connected to some deep source of gnosis that made such feats possible, he claimed that an angel was going back and forth between him and Allah, dictating the Qu'ran word for word. Armstrong often imputes her own mystical ideals to Muhammad insisting that he believed X or Y but never telling us what her source is or even quoting directly. Muhammad is turned from the man worshiped (no, not a mistake)by Muslims today into an enlightenment desert zen-master who could have sat and had a beer with Meister Eckhardt. If he drank.
Similarly, regarding Muhammad's terrestrial career, Armstrong makes sure only the most flattering interpretation of events can be put on his activities. She handwaves Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, a small child, as a purely political move with no sexual component, to bind her father to him more closely. Abu Bakr had already given up most everything to follow Muhammad, I don't think Muhammad really needed to bind him much tighter! I could be persuaded otherwise, but Armstrong again offers no source or evidence, just says it and that's that. She then mentions that the marriage ceremony was when Aisha was nine, but that Aisha didn't enter the prophet's house or consummate the marriage until after puberty, according to Tabari. Finally, a source! Except that the version most commonly accepted, in Abu Dawwud and Bukhari, is that she married Muhammad at age six, and consummated the marriage at age nine. Armstrong doesn't even bring this up, though it's obvious she was aware of it. Similarly, Muhammad only assassinated people who propagandized against him because he HAD to. He only killed all the men of the Banu Quaryz because he HAD to, and only married the widow of one of the men killed for....Some reason of importance. To her credit, Armstrong does break from the Muslim party line on some issues. She does not pretend that the sahaba, prophetic companions, all loved each other, surely the most ridiculous historical claim of mainstream Sunni Islam. She also notes some of Muhammad's failings, though she does downplay them.
Writing a good biography of an figure whose primary sources were mainly his followers is a daunting task, and one that I'm afraid is out of Armstrong's league. Her own desire to make comparisons between Islam (as religion) and "the West" (an increasingly secular and always multi-confessional collection of societies) creates a lot of confusion, especially because Armstrong wants to ignore that "the west" has stopped doing most of the things that she's trying to defend in the Islamic world. A for effort, F for execution, we'll call it a C-. Not recommended.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
73 of 91 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
The most accessible bio on the Prohpet available today., August 30, 1999
By A Customer
This review is from: Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet (Paperback)
Armstrong has written what is likely the most accessible biography of Muhammad available today. It gives an intriguing account of not only Mohammed's life, but also the historical context under which Islam emerged. The book provides a sound introduction to how and why the Muslim world came to be, as well as glimpse into why it has evolved into its current state.
One negative aspect of the novel is that Armstrong often painstakingly tries to justify many of the Prophet's actions, likely out of fear that Western readers will simply write these actions of as barbaric and primitive. There is no need to do this, and the downside is that Armstrong often comes off sounding biased. Armstrong already gives us a clear understanding of the harsh and violent society which plagued 6th century Arabia. Based on this, why the Prophet took many of the actions he did should be understandable to the reader.
This however is only a minor criticism and it by no means mars this fascinating book. One only wishes Muslim writers could offer such enriching accounts of their Prophet rather than blindly praising him to no end and offering little valuable insight into the complexities of the man.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
94 of 120 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A Good Starting Point, June 23, 2000
This review is from: Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet (Paperback)
This book may be a good starting point for a Westerner who knows little or nothing about Islam and its prophet. The book is fairly easy to read, as it is not saturated with excessive details or citations, but the tone does get monotonous quickly. Armstrong may have been very interested in the subject, but if that's the case, her passion and interest do not really come through and fail to make a deep impression on the reader. At times, I felt bored. The title is a bit misleading, too. This is not really a biography of Muhammad, but a kind of interpretation of Islam, its origins, and the character of the prophet--all intertwined in a single book.
The sources for the book are English-language secondary sources, and the author was relatively new to Islam at the time of writing. I give it a generous four stars, but strictly speaking this is not really a biography of the prophet, nor a particularly gripping account of the rise of Islam. For a secular interpretation of Muhammad, you may want to see Rodinson's book, and for the faithful, perhaps Martin Lings'. Armstrong's book is best for those who are curious about Islam but afraid to wade in with both feet. Also, the book has an absolutely beautiful cover.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
