It was fascinating to read this book and "Mohammed: Founder of the world's most intolerant religion" together, as they are written from two completely different perspectives. Spencer portrays a Mohammed that has inspired generations of hate, intolerance, and violence, while Armstrong portrays somebody with the attributes of Jesus. I found them both biased, and I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two opinions, but it was refreshing to hear somebody who wasn't scared to death to be politically correct. At times it didn't seem possible that the two authors were talking about the same person. I think most of the difference was in what stories they told and what stories they didn't tell. Armstrong's book is filled with tales of Mohammed's compassion and how he treated his followers, while Spencer's book is concerned with stories of his battles, his punishments, and his vengeance. At times I thought Spencer was inflammatory and unfair, but there were many times that Armstrong glossed over or dismissed truly worrying episodes in Mohammed's life. Reading either one of these books individually I would give two stars, but reading them together makes the overall experience worthy of three.

3.5

armstrong really is a wonderful writer, you can tell that she's coming at this from a non-muslim perspective but for the most part it jives quite well with what i've learned of seerah. i actually learned quite a bit, i wasn't quite as familiar with the details of the tribes and politics of the quraysh and i found the context useful. i would've liked a little more commentary on her sources -- as i said, it was mostly good but there were some choices i questioned (most reputable islamic scholars reject the satanic verses story, even if you don't believe as we do that muhammad was protected from such religious error the chain of narration is weak) and i would've been interested to see why she chose to accept what she did

4 stars

In the era of rising Islamophobia, Karen Armstrong has tried to lit a candle of peace by putting aside any bias and trying to explain the life of a man whom billions of humans hold dearer to them than their lives. The author has consulted some of the earliest sources on the life of Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H) including Muhammad ibn Ishaq (d. 767); Muhammad ibn ‘Umar al-Waqidi (d. c.820); Muhammad ibn Sa‘d (d. 845); and Abu Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923). Moreover, references from Quran and Hadits are added in a way that even a person who doesn't know much about Islam can read it easily. The author narrates not only historical events which shaped the life of Muhammad(P.B.U.H) but also the moral values the most influential man in human history stood for, key among them women's rights, tolerance, peaceful coexistence and social welfare. The violent crimes committed by Muslims are not advocated by Islam or Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H). In fact, they are the continuity of Jahiliyyah, the very era of ignorance Muhammad(P.B.U.H) stood against the whole of his life. It is a must read book for both Muslims and non-Muslims.

Pushes the "sympathetic biography" envelope way too far

That begins with the subtitle "A Prophet for our Time." That's certainly not an unbiased opinion.

In short, Armstrong goes beyond throwing out the bath water of some Western total besmirching of Muhammad, to throwing out the baby of a critically-based biography of him at all.

While I disagree with people who say this is a whitewash of Muhammad's life, it is selective. Beyond that, when Armstrong does talk about some of the less noble actions of Muhammad, she always tries to put the best spin possible on his actions.

A prime example is of his retreat from his original position of full equality for women in society. The only end view one can take away from Muhammad here is either henpecked husband leading to his first advocating women's equality, or male herd-follower after changing his mind.

Neither view is that of "a prophet for our time."

Armstrong's biography is also strongly biased in its lack of criticality. There's no sense of scholarship in the way of historical-critical wrestling with either the Quran itself or the later hadith about Muhammad.

In short, Armstrong's rehabilitation of Muhammad falls short precisely because it uncritically goes overboard.

I have read or skimmed other of Armstrong's books, and do find a different attitude here, in all the ways mentioned above and more.

It's different enough to have left me wondering if has converted, or is considering it.

My professor was so excited to have us all read this book because it would open our eyes to how misunderstood Islam was in the public view. My view had always been that there was the bad group who interpreted things violently opposed to the peaceful way they should be, and there was the majority who were peaceful and nonviolent.

Reading this book and learning the history of Muhammad, its no wonder that people misunderstand what he was trying to advocate... I felt like he kept preaching peace and nonviolence and then he went and started robbing a caravan and starting a war.

Who knows, maybe I focused on the wrong parts, but after this book I have a more negative view on Muhammad then I did prior to it.

If he had stuck to what he was preaching- if his actions truly reflected on equality and nonviolence, then I would definitely see how he was misunderstood.