Rating: 
Summary: I'm a muslim and i thank Ms. Karen for this book
Review: I have to thank Ms. Karen for this wonderful book. As a true muslim i have read a great deal about our prophet Mohammad. Through those readings i have come to the same conclusion Ms. Karen armstrong emphasizes in her book: Prophet Mohammad is a true prophet, yet he was an ordinary man of emotions like the rest of us. Prophet Mohammad never denied that but on the contrary always emphasized it. It's our duty as muslims to understand that. It's our duty also to explain it to those who don't understand it in the west. Thank you again Ms. Karen.
Rating:
Summary: A good start to learn about a man who changed the world.
Review: My first understanding of prophet Muhammed's (PBUH) life came from this book. As a western-born muslim, I learned about Muhammad's (PBUH) life from Karen Armstrong and owe her a great deal. By no means should anyone stop their study of this topic on this book (try reading the biography by Martin Lings). It may be controversial in some aspects (ex: the chapter on the so-called "Satanic Verses") but she makes a genuine attempt to explain to the reader the incredible life of a man who changed the world.
Rating:
Summary: Human all too human
Review: Despite Bangladeshi's comments that Ms Armstrong's work is based on imagination the book provides a fair and insightful view of Muhammad. Perhaps Muslim readers wishes to see Muhammad potrayed as a superior being beyond human fallibility. However history shows he is as human as anybody else but he refused to bow or adapt to the environment surrounding him. He transcended them and made it a better place. To me that is why Muhammad is special. And Ms Armstrong showed he was special by being human all too human.
Rating: 
Summary: This is disgusting! ......Another Salman Rushdie
Review: What are you trying to prove here? It is always better to write a book from experience and knowledge rather than from imagination... You are doing exactly what Salman Rushdie has done which is a worldwide acceptance of a false biography of The great prophet whom has earned a great many followers in just 1,400 years...and the fastest growing religion!.....Please know who Muhammad is before you judge and talk about him from your imagination...
Rating: 
Summary: Fair minded Catholic writes biography of Muhammad
Review: Despite the "reprehensible" reviewer from somewhere in the US one can clearly see a non Muslim but sincere author treating a life in its time and place with some fairness. An excellent biography for the westerner or other "people of the book" (Chrisian or Jew) to start with. A little historical context here goes further than pseudo social science or psychology, and certainly much further than the ravings of the enemies of understanding in their own "glass houses". I used to teach Iskamic History at Christian Colleges (Moravian and Muhlenberg) and wish I had books like this at the time.
Rating:
Summary: Reprehensible
Review: I can hardly call the viewpoint of this book "neutral." Ms. Armstrong wrote this biography of the Prophet in the wake of the Salman Rushdie/Satanic Verses affair to inspire admiration of the Prophet and tolerance of Islam on the part of westerners.Ms. Armstrong covers distasteful aspects of Mohammed's career such as approving the murder of a Jewish poet and critic and condoning the massacre of the Jewish tribe of Bani Qarayza, but tries to justify them as being part of the time and place. She does not reflect on how Mohammad conveniently received revelations to wiggle out of some dilemma involving his relations with his wives (which makes one wonder about the source of those revelations) and on why these revelations should be considered the Final Revelation of God. To me, that's insulting.
Rating:
Summary: Enlightening
Review: Karen has been very careful by writing from a very neutral standpoint. Even that, her biography on Muhammad reveals the nature of the truth that does not need any scientific explanation to be understood by ordinary human. Through this book, she really raised a crucial question to myself, how could this man be wrong in what he was bringing to the whole world?
Rating: 
Summary: Good intentions, but ...
Review: I am a history buff so I have attempted to read many of original texts that Karen Armstrong refers to once in a while but I have a feeling that she hasn't really read them directly but probably quotes passages from other western authors. It is also clear that she doesn't have some the basic knowledge of Islam and Arabic. It becomes obvious when she is referring to mahr(dowry) as mahl and so forth. I nevertheless found the book to be sympathetic in trying to understand and explain about Muhammad in the context of history, religion and our modern secular approach to everything. But here again her sources seem to be mostly western, materialistic, secularists or missionary types. These types of scholars haven't always done a good job of keeping their biases in check. The plus for this book is that it is not meant for the converted who would prefer Martin Lings. It is also not too polemical like Haykal and it is much easier to read than the original sources like Ibn Ishaq. So I would recommend it for someone who wants an easy introduction to Muhammad's life. The serious student of history should go read the original sources. I appreciate Karen Armstrong for trying but some serious scholar needs to do a better job of presenting Muhammad to an English speaking Westrerner who is truly open to learning with an open mind.
Rating:
Summary: This book is better called ¿Western perception of Muhammad¿.
Review: The book looks at the development of Western knowledge of the Prophet and how this relates to the image of Islam as a religion. It is predominantly based on secondary production of material written in English and therefore suffers from the inherent bias it has tried hard to correct. This has led to some obvious errors, such as the number of daily Muslem prayers, which is five rather than three. Likewise the prophet was the final messenger from God delivering the final revelations to all mankind, rather than to the Arabs alone. Similarly, Pilgrimage is not an Arab ritual, but a requirement by God (Allaah) started by Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) and his son Prophet Ismail (Ishmael) before the Arabs even existed. Prophet Muhammad was ordered to restore this act of worship back to being pure to Allaah (God) alone, after pagans filled the Kabaa with idols. More seriously, the author tried to explain the Prophet actions as thoughtful and planned sequence, which fails to relate to him being a Prophet. Rather than a successful leader or social reformer, the Prophet was simply Allaah's (God's) final messenger who passed the final guidance to mankind, upholding and correcting previous messages. What is great about this Prophet is that he went through the hurdles he faced to fulfil his duty, which is passing the message completely and accurately. The beauty of the message and the wisdom of the sequence are credit to Allaah (God) alone. There is no point therefore in implying that the Prophet wanted to imitate the Jews by instructing Muslems to pray. He had no intention of his own and the lessons learnt in various parts of his life are those from God (Allaah). Every thing he said or did was the direct order from God (Allaah), from fighting to making peace. Daily prayer is a requirement by God (Allaah) rather than an imitation of Jews. This pattern, of implied intentions, is repeated throughout the book and is totally untrue. The book is close to a university dissertation, which makes it a complicated reading for an average reader who may not know much about the Prophet.
Rating: 
Summary: Accessible Bias
Review: My title says it all, although 'prejudice' might be a better term.... Like Mrs. Armstrong, I am a voracious bookworm with regards to the three Momotheistic Abrahamic Faiths, and although I am a strong Christian, I thoroughly enjoy and find my faith enrichened and strengthened by reading about the 'other' monotheistic faiths. I agree with those who take the position that there are some deep seated misunderstandings regarding Islam in the West, and I agree with those who make all efforts to take (and live) a more Christ-like attitude toward those of other faiths (including those with whom we strongly disagree). I also am one who is not opposed to taking a deep hard look at my own self (and culture) and seeing the abundant ugliness therein... That said, in light of the admitted predjudice and ignorance that exists in the west toward Muhammad and Islam, I think Mrs. Armstrong tried way too hard to swing the pendulum in the other direction to the point of coming off as so entirely biased as to render the book (and any of her books) unworthy of recommendation. After reading her book (especially the new introduction and the first chapter: 'Muhammad the Enemy', I was amazed at the complete lack of objectivity to the point that it seemed to be deliberate... might I even venture so far as to say 'propaganda'... I am afraid that the type of people who Mrs. Armstrong is trying to reach who read this book will be no less ignorant and prejudiced than before, except in the other direction... Her anti-Christian, anti-western bias jump out of every paragraph. Her whitewashing of Muhammad (an admittedly versatile character; at times wise, kind and emulable, and at times cruel, treacherous and entirely inhumane) is also taken to a length that many Muslim apologists will not even go. The problem with Mrs. Armstrong is the problem with the western (and Eastern, read: Al-Jazeera) media at large. Claiming (and acting to be) objective while clearly being a fervent partisan. No, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but for the well-read and informed reader, this book has a stronger bias than most. One example might be the same old tired and mindless comparisons between some 'Christians' somewhere in the world who committed acts of violence with the daily bombardment of news stories that we all get of Islamic violence in (name that country), thus attempting to effectively nuetralize anyone who might dare make a moral judgement regarding such acts (carried out, might I add, in the name of Islam as opposed to in the name of say... Barry or Tom). Another example is the highly innaccurate claim that any verses in the Qur'an (or Haddith or genuine Sirat literture, or statements made by credible scholars and representatives of Islam) which we westerners read as promoting violence or bigotry or sexism, or you name it, are all misinterpreted based on our all-pervasive western ignorance. We are not that dumb Mrs. Armstrong. In presenting historical facts, she is consistantly biased to the point of distortion, but only in one direction. For example, in just the introduction, I was struck by the zinger (there are dozens in just the introduction) toward Christianity with reference to the distingishing mark on clothing that Muslims and Jews were forced to wear while under Christian rule in the Dark Ages of Europe. Shamefully, the claim is true. (Intolerant Westerners! - Poor persecuted Muslims.) But what Mrs. Armstrong fails to mention is that the practice of wearing a distinguishing mark on the clothing clearly originated hundreds of years earlier with Islam, prior to any such utilization by the intolerant and bigoted Western European Christians. In 807, the Abbassid caliph Haroun al- Rashid legislated that Jews were required to wear a tall, conical yellow cap and a yellow belt. In eleventh century Baghadad, Jewish women had to wear one black shoe and one red shoe as well as a small brass bell around their necks. (Clearly, a fashion 'no no' even in eleveth century Baghdad!) This practice was all part of the deliberate humiliation of the dhimminis (unbelievers) under Muslim rule. Men were forced to kneal in the town square as Muslims would whack them on the back of the head in a symbolic gesture of domination prior to collecting from the humiliated the 'Jizya' tax for all non-Muslims. Up until their departure in 1948 in Yemen all Jews were forced to dress like beggars in keeping with their lowly status as dhimminis. In any case, I'm sure this book will continue to be used by Universities because of it's 'accessibility' but all I can say is, if you want a fully rounded perpective, read Ibn Warraq's (a former Muslim intellectual) book about Muhammad as well. Or Ali Dashti's Twenty three years. It wil take at least two books like this to help swing the pendulum to a more balanced position regarding Muhammad. And regarding the transparent disdain for Christianity and the West, prejudice and bigotry are not excusable in any quarter. Readers looking for an objective read will not find one here.
| 
