Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, by Karen Armstrong. Book reviews.

This is a very popular book out that claims to be a biography of Mohammad, but is actually an apoligist agruement defending Islam. What is surprising is the number of good reviews this book has gotten from people, as posted on Amazon web site. Below are the accurate reviews, one of which is mine.

A hagiography, December 4, 2000
Reviewer: Govind Rajesh from Yonkers, NY USA
There is no balance in this book. The overriding message here is that the west, Christians, Jews and non-Muslims in general have all misunderstood Muhammad owing to their prejudices and misperception.

Throughout the book the author heaps criticism on Muhammad's critics, specifically those who are Christians, even the ones who have studied Muhammad not from the point of view of Christianity but of modern, enlightened, rational, scientific inquiry. One gets the impression that the book, which is evidently targeted primarily at a Christian reading audience (I am not a Christian myself), tries to stop Christians from raising valid questoins about Muhammad and Islam by trying to make them feel guilty about themselves. To paraphrase: Judge not lest ye be judged yourselves. Indeed the book begins with the author drawing a parallel between the present-day assassination threats agains Salman Rushdie for offending Muslim sensibilities in his book 'The Satanic Verses' with a thirteenth century Talmud-burning campaign by King Louise of France.

On the other hand, as far as Muhammad is concerned, the author tries to justify everything including the earliest known genocide of Jews in Arabia. Here is an example from page 208 of the book: "The massacre of [the large Jewish tribe] of Qurayzah is a reminder of the desperate conditions of Arabia during Muhammad's lifetime. Of couse we are right to condemn it without reservre, but it was not as great a crimes as it would be today."

Well-researched, but biased, January 22, 2000
Reviewer: David Q. Ziegler from Springfield, VA United States
Ms. Armstrong trys too hard to explain away everything Muhammad is alleged to have done. From the villianization of Jewish tribes (Muhammad just had to slaughter them because they were devious), to women wearing veils (Muhammad had to prevent embarassment and possible scandal from the constant wave of visitors). I only wish she were as kind and forgiving toward orthodox Christianity as she is of Islam. Overall a well-researched and written book.

Biased, biased..., April 18, 2000
Reviewer: Audrey from Richmond, Indiana
Sadly, I found it difficult to like this book as her blatent lack of objectivity concerning both Islam and Christianity brought into question many of the most interesting and meaningful aspects. Having researched Muhammad to a small extent, I found that many of her "facts" are based on tentative evidence and unverified accounts. If you're looking for an objective and true account of Muhammad, look elseware.

More Western self-loathing and political correctness, October 27, 2001
Reviewer: Helen from GA United States
Armstrong is candid about her objective: to make Muhammad and Islam palatable to us Westerners whose "prejudice" has prevented us from honestly assessing one of the world's great religions. I'm afraid her objective is likely to be realized, and that lazy American readers will accept her version of Islam as an accurate and "enlightened" view, thereby relieving themselves of the need to actually READ the Quran and other, more objective commentary on the life of Muhammad.

I take it that Armstrong, as a "former" Christian, has adopted the current politically correct position that all religious expression is equally valid and springs from the same <human> impulses -- so let's all just try to get along. The more I read about Islam the more I realize how dangerous that view really is. Yes, we should be tolerant, and yes we should be careful not to dismiss Islam with unfair historical labels. But having read the Quran recently in three different translations (lest my non-Arabic background be a stumbling block) I am totally mystified by Armstrong's "creative" interpretations of the remarkably pedestrian and uninspired text of that book.

Knowing what the Quran REALLY says, and having lately learned quite a bit about the history of Islam, I kept thinking that Muslims must be terribly offended by this Western former Catholic woman applying such a blatantly Western gloss to their uniquely Middle Eastern religion. But not so. Her sugar-coating of Islam won her an award from the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which in itself speaks volumes about the book.

Unfortunately (and tragically for the future of humanity), the Quran is far from the humanist masterpiece of peace and brotherhood that Armstrong seeks to portray. If you do read this book, be sure to read something else, too, such as Rodinson's classic work with the same title. And especially read the Quran.

Not a Bibliography, June 11, 2002
Reviewer: {name withheld} from Rolla, MO USA
I found much inconsistent, irrelevant and substantial information in this book. To give examples: In chapter 3 the habits of Muhammad (PBUH) are expressed as common habits of Jahiliyah (e.g. praying in Hira). The section about the Satanic Verses is completely irrelevant and shows commercial concerns of Armstrong. In many passages Armstrong talks about the feelings of Muhammad (PBUH), Khadija and the companions very subjectively (e.g. pg 79,80), I would like to ask the following question did you look at their hearts? Although not scientific and mostly irrelevant I found the book easy to read and rich in content.I also would like to recommend the books by muslim scholars; Prophet Muhammad: Aspects of His Life by M. Fethullah Gulen and Miracles of Muhammad by Bediuzzaman S. Nursi

A gross misrepresentation of the truth of history, October 14, 2003
Reviewer: Michael Fortner from Lawtn, OK USA
Her writing is clearly slanted in favor of Islam and Mohammad and against the West. She states that she is no longer a believing Christian, I will not be surprised to hear of her conversion to Islam.

She had to intentionally ignore the facts of history to make the false statements she made, such as "There was no law against propaganda efforts by Christians in the Islamic empire, provided that they did not attack the beloved figure of the Prophet Muhammad." This is a lie, it was then and is today a crime in all Muslim nations for a Christian to try to convert anyone from Islam to Christianity, and anyone that does convert is under a death sentence.

I have a minor in history, have researched Islam and Mohammad, am currently reading "The Arab Invasion of Egypt" and have just finished "Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests;" and this book by Karen Armstrong is worthless! I could not even get through it, it is a waste of time to read it.

To say she is "sympathetic" is putting is mildly. Only Mohammad himself could write a more "sympathetic" book. This book is PATHETIC.

From the Barnes and Noble web site:

reviewer, Former History Professor, May 29, 2002,
Not Good History.
'Nuff said. Anyone seeking an objective, analytical approach to the life of the Prophet of Islam has come to the wrong place. Ancient histories of dubious credibility are distilled and presented as simple fact. The more controversial questions concerning the evolution of Islamic practice during Muhammad's life are mostly ignored and when not, are glossed over with a rosy wash. Finally, if the author had controlled her desire to enter into irrelevant hostile commentary on Western civilization, she could have saved us half the length of the book.

Also recommended: Albert Hourani, A History of the Arab Peoples. Bernard Lewis, What Happened? 'Ibn Warraq,' Why I Am Not a Muslim. F.E. Peters, Muhammad and the Origins of Islam. The Qu'ran.