Customer Reviews

The Prophet Muhammad

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

In the current political climate, with extremists in Muslim and non-Muslim camps, there ought to be intense interest in understanding Islamic culture. There seems to be a general ignorance in the US of what Islam stands for, unless it stands for rejection of Jesus as the son of God, of feminism, of pacifism. But if we are to come to some understanding of the religion and the culture, it only makes sense to try to understand its founder. Thus it is timely that _The Prophet Muhammad: A Biography_ (HiddenSpring / Paulist Press) by Barnaby Rogerson is now available. A vivid, living portrait, it will do excellent service for anyone who is interested in initial instruction in the life of the prophet. Rogerson does not make his own religious beliefs plain in the book, but he is clearly enthusiastic about the Islamic world and the ideas the Prophet gave to us. When he started asking questions about Muhammad, his fellow travelers might reply "Are you a Muslim" or "Do you intend to become a Muslim?" It was clear they wanted to know what side he was on. "I was on the side of a good story," he says, and a good story he has told here.

Muhammad was born in 570 in Mecca to a noble family. He was a shepherd as a boy, graduating to the lucrative and essential camel trades. He grew to love the incense which was the most lucrative item of trade, and his other great physical delight was women. He strongly disapproved of celibacy and he liked women for their chatter, wit, advice, and wisdom. When he started, at age 40, to have religious visions, his wife was his first convert. After his death, he took ten other wives. Rogerson does not neglect to tell about Muhammad's possible moral deficiencies. Perhaps the greatest moral quandary for us is that Muhammad went to war against the rest of Arabia for purely religious reasons. His visions also included eternal torture for whoever Allah condemned, a morally corrupt scheme. But his teachings included disclaimers of racism that would have been good for other scriptures to include, and exhortations toward scholarly knowledge.

What is best about Rogerson's biography is that it reminds us that there is a wealth of available detail about the life of its subject. Besides his enjoyment of physical pleasures of scent and sex, the Prophet liked cats. He retained humility, refusing to associate himself with miracles except for his revelations. He liked other people and enjoyed humor. He disdained possessions, always giving things away and refusing to accumulate wealth, but he liked shopping for household needs. An experienced camel-trader, he would cheerfully ride on the humble mount of a donkey or mule. He deliberately lived as a poor man, an example of saintliness that must embarrass the rest of us. He loved simplicity, and would have been appalled at mosques ancient and modern, whose architectural magnificence others find inspiring. There are contradictions, some of them distressing, in his actions, but it is remarkable that we have such a full record of his words and acts and enthusiasms. This humane portrait comes in a time when we sorely need better understanding of its subject.

Firstly it should be appreciated that this is a book about Muhammad (being a biography) and not about Islam, so do not expect to get any great insights into what Islam is about (though you will get a much better understanding of its origins and original concepts) or why the religion is at the centre of so much global turmoil in the 21st century, since the book effectively finishes with the death of this prophet in 632 AD.

The book is written by an Englishman who while he admits his lack of ability to speak Arabic has clearly been submerged for a long time in Arab culture and the omnipresence of Islam in those countries, being the writer of a number of well received travel books on the region.

The biography is ideal for someone like myself, with no great knowledge of what Muhammad was all about and the times in which he lived, compared with say one's knowledge of Jesus. It paints vividly the society of Arabia into which the individual was born in 570 AD and his upbringing with all its family hardships and personal tragedy. Through involvement with merchant trading caravans he had early exposure to many parts of the Arabian area which he was later to convert to his new religion, based on an appreciation of the skills needed to weave the path of conversion among the different religious beliefs and entrenched tribal interests. What comes over very well is the story of a man who after receiving the revelations that converted him into a prophet (starting in 610 AD) and the regular delivering of the verses that came to comprise the Qar'an (or Koran), then faced very real early ostracisation from his home in Mecca. He had to struggle to survive with his few devoted followers at the outset but by a mixture of spirituality, resoluteness, guile and brutality when needed, either won over or destroyed unbelievers in a societal framework that ultimately could not fail to respond to his messages and approach given the themes it played to.

One word of caution - the style of writing is very much that of a fireside story-teller (as explained in the opening chapter) and takes a bit of getting usd to compared with more standard style biographies by Western writers. At times the endless coverage of tribal matters and a "warts and all" depiction of what the individual was really like (especially on his numerous wives) leaves one adrift from the main story and events but you finish the book with a much better appreciation of what a spiritual revolutionary he was for his times.

Mr. Rogerson has written an excellent portrait of the Prophet, woven into the lives and times of Arabia in the 7th Century. While extremely readable, unfortunately it contains certain glaring inaccuracies. To name but a few:
* He misquotes the first revealtion to the Prophet as being from Surah Ignaa (page 89). It should be Surah Alaq.
* On page 91 he refers to Kadir, when it should be Layl-atul -Qadr.
* On page 114 he refers to the Prophet's "daughter" Aisha. Hazrat Aisha was his wife.
-Sami T. Ahmad.

Rogerson has a talent for stories, and among all the other biographies of Muhammad, this is the one I would recommend to the absolute (and not-so absolute) beginner. It is a pleasure to read, almost like a novel. Other biographies are either hagiographies written by enthousiastic and well intended authors with a lack of critical thinking, or thoroughly scolarly volumes, unfit for a good read.

Rogerson is not just a storyteller, he also doesn't uncritically adhere to every muslim dogma on the Prophet, but uses the results of recent historical en archaeological research to put everything in a perspective that is both credible and positive. Besides that he puts forward more than one alternative explanation on issues that seem critical to Islam. His view on the Quran for example clearly sees Muhammad himself as the author, but still leaves his status as Prophet perfectly unblemished. It is views like these that make the Muhammad in this book quite acceptable as a 'real person' to both muslims and non-muslims, although some orthodox muslims might still take offence.

As a good biographer should, Rogerson has a positive attitude towards his subject. Most of the time this works and he manages to explain the uneasy and difficult in well enough positive terms to make it at least understandable, if not acceptable to the non-muslim reader.

On the downside there are two points to be made. In some chapters Rogerson makes extensive use of quotes from the scources instead of trusting his own undeniable writing skills. This happens more often in the later chapters where he also increasingly leans towards hagiography and the use of unnecessary adjectives of the laudatory kind. The combination of these three can sometimes be a bit irritating.

The second point is more serious. Everyone knows that at one point a Jewish tribe in Medina was massacred at the instigation (if not order) of Muhammad. Both critics and followers of Muhammad have very good and well documented points to make in support of their respective viewpoints, and the discussions on this historical event will not be finished soon. Rogerson acknowledges the savagery of the event, even more so than some more critically minded biographers. But when push comes to shove he concludes that this act of mercilessness was necessary in order for Muhammad to show leniency later on and to really show the value of leniency. That is the kind of propaganda that would not be misplaced in the Third Reich. There are better and more subtle points to be made in support of Muhammad.

These lapses however are not many and can easily be disregarded. Rogersons book is still one of the best popular biographies on Muhammad and certainly the best that I know.

(this review refers to the Dutch translation)

Rogerson has a talent for stories, and among all the other biographies of Muhammad, this is the one I would recommend to the absolute (and not-so absolute) beginner. It is a pleasure to read, almost like a novel. Other biographies are either hagiographies written by enthousiastic and well intended authors with a lack of critical thinking, or thoroughly scolarly volumes, unfit for a good read.

Rogerson is not just a storyteller, he also doesn't uncritically adhere to every muslim dogma on the Prophet, but uses the results of recent historical en archaeological research to put everything in a perspective that is both credible and positive. Besides that he puts forward more than one alternative explanation on issues that seem critical to Islam. His view on the Quran for example clearly sees Muhammad himself as the author, but still leaves his status as Prophet perfectly unblemished. It is views like these that make the Muhammad in this book quite acceptable as a 'real person' to both muslims and non-muslims, although some orthodox muslims might still take offence.

As a good biographer should, Rogerson has a positive attitude towards his subject. Most of the time this works and he manages to explain the uneasy and difficult in well enough positive terms to make it at least understandable, if not acceptable to the non-muslim reader.

On the downside there are two points to be made. In some chapters Rogerson makes extensive use of quotes from the scources instead of trusting his own undeniable writing skills. This happens more often in the later chapters where he also increasingly leans towards hagiography and the use of unnecessary adjectives of the laudatory kind. The combination of these three can sometimes be a bit irritating.

The second point is more serious. Everyone knows that at one point a Jewish tribe in Medina was massacred at the instigation (if not order) of Muhammad. Both critics and followers of Muhammad have very good and well documented points to make in support of their respective viewpoints, and the discussions on this historical event will not be finished soon. Rogerson acknowledges the savagery of the event, even more so than some more critically minded biographers. But when push comes to shove he concludes that this act of mercilessness was necessary in order for Muhammad to show leniency later on and to really show the value of leniency. That is the kind of propaganda that would not be misplaced in the Third Reich. There are better and more subtle points to be made in support of Muhammad.

These lapses however are not many and can easily be disregarded. Rogersons book is still one of the best popular biographies on Muhammad and certainly the best that I know.

(this review refers to the Dutch translation)

^This book is a scholarly view of one of the three sources of Islam, the Sira. Its information about Muhammad gives the reader a good understanding of the roots of the 'War on Terror'. I highly recommend this book to all who wonder why 9/11 happened to us.

It is well written account of the Prophet's life. However, at many places the author makes observations that makes one wonder! The inferences drawn at multiple locations appear to be in conflict the way Muslims believe. The problem with Western writers (non-Muslim) is they tend to rationalize events and injunctions as if Prophet mohammad recited the Quran on his own accord. It is because they cannot comprehend Divine intervention and revelations. The account must be read with other biographies of the Prophet to get a balanced narration.

If this book is one of the better biographies of Muhammad, as one reviewer says, then we are in sad shape, indeed, in understanding both Muhammad and early Islam.

This is not to argue with accuracy of the facts (to the extent they are known) of Muhammad's life, as offered by Rogerson. But legends, tales and traditions that have little or no grounding in historical fact are offered up as if they are absolutely, provably known. Time after time, the author simply doesn't differentiate between fact and speculation.

Even worse, the author breezily tells us that it was fine that Muhammad's third wife was 9 years old (he was 53) because, after all, they were deeply in love! And when Muhammad was attracted to his step-son's wife, the step-son was more than happy to divorce her so Dad could move in. Gimmee a break. But that's how Rogerson writes. I do think such a style is called "mindless apologetics".

Islam, and Muhammad's role in establishing Islam, are simply too important for us now to have books like this trotted out as helpful. Can't someone give us better?

I very much enjoyed reading this book. It is well written and informative. It has greatly increased my knowledge of the life of the prophet Muhammad. I highly recommend it. I did, however, feel that at times, the author, when describing several events, would make unwarranted excuses for certain acts of excessive violence displayed by the Prophet. For example, rather than simply describing the Muslim siege of the Beni Quraysh fortress and the subsequent beheadings of its 700 male inhabitants under Muhammad's approval, the author conveniently intervenes on behalf of the Prophet, by reasoning that Muhammad essentially was left with no other alternative. In my opinion it was unquestionably a barbaric act and I felt sadness for those men who lost their lives as I read about the executions. The author disguises his Islamic interpretation of the event as a historical fact. He suggests that such a gruesome act of brutality was perhaps necessary in that, presumably, The Beni Qurayzah, had they not been attacked, would have followed the example of the two other exiled Jewish Tribes who apparently participated in the failed siege of Medina in 627 A.D. Clearly, however, the reason why they were involved was because they sought to regain their respective territories, which had been confiscated from them.

The author also makes the spurious assertion that the gospels were written over a century after Jesus' death. Most biblical scholars are in agreement that the four canonical gospel accounts were written in the first century, the time period in which Jesus lived. The oldest extant New Testament manuscript is a fragment of the gospel of John, which was discovered in Egypt. The date of composition most commonly assigned to it is 125 A.D. There is a consensus among Biblical scholars however, that the original manuscript of the gospel of John would have been produced sometime between 90-100 A.D. It is also important to note that of the four canonical gospels, scholars agree that the Gospel of John was the last to have been written, the Gospel of Mark being slightly more ancient (60-70 A.D.)

I highly recommend the book and I do consider certain aspects of Muhammad's character to be admirable (He accorded specific rights to women, forbade female infanticide, pardoned a sorcerer who cast a spell on him, forgave a woman who attempted to poison him, etc). He was not consistent in his uprightness, however. There are other events (including one which involves a poet who becomes a victim of his wrath) that I will not mention. It is a good book, and anyone interested in learning about the man who founded the Islamic faith, should certainly read this book.

I enjoyed this biography very much. I thought it struck a nice balance of respect and context driven history. The book is a nice antidote to the vitriole of "The Truth about Muhammed" by Robert Spencer on the one side, and the overly reverential view of Martin Lings biography of the Prophet (which non-Muslims might find hard to sympathize).