Vague and without depth - Rated 
Knowing little about Islam except the difficulty of finding a balanced viewpoint, ,I bought this book and `The Truth about Mohammed' by Robert Spencer in the hope of extracting the evidence for the prosecution and defence (see Spencer review). I am afraid Armstrong would be no match for Spencer in court, although she offers rather more hope for the future.
The book was written after 911, with the express purpose of enlightening Western readers whose only access to Islam came through our sensationalist and often trashy media. Armstrong had already written a biography of Mohammed (1991), but this new book was intended to "focus on other aspects of Mohammed's life. So this is a completely new and entirely different book....". This is puzzling. Did Mohammed's life change retrospectively after 911? With characteristic vagueness she does not specify these `other aspects', or why her earlier work had suddenly become unsatisfactory.
Most of the book is a rather rambling biography in which she curiously confirms some of Spencer's accusations, but without drawing conclusions and seemingly unaware of the implications. For instance, she tells the story of Mohammed's revelation justifying the attack on the Qureysh caravan at Naklah apparently without realizing the difficult precedent which this set (p. 130). Also the reaction of Mohammed's favourite wife Aisha to the revelation justifying the marriage to Zaynab (p. 168) "How convenient! Truly thy Lord makes haste to do thy bidding!"
A prophet for our time? Armstrong's contention, in contrast to Spencer, is that Mohammed was a man of peace who was forced into warfare and banditry by the violent times in which he lived. His message for our time is peace, harmony, equality, tolerance - hang on a bit, haven't we heard this before? A certain Jesus of Nazareth saying something similar? In what way does Mohammed add to the message of Jesus? Armstrong does not enlighten us.
I find this a rather lightweight book which still manages to be confusing. But for those like me who know nothing about the matter it does form an introduction, if read with a critical eye, and shows some of the contradictions in the life of Mohammed.
Strange read - Rated
I always respected her point of a view as someone looking into Islam as oppossed to someone looking out. I found parts of the book excellent and other parts poor. What did I find poor the fact she narrates from weak sources and then forms a narrative based upon this. She also attacks the companions with slander which is something that deeply disappointed me.
Judging by the reaction of the non-muslims who have reacted positively to the book, it may be for them.
as if quoting from a Quran with half the pages missing - Rated 
Everything is carefully picked and sanitised, every action sweetly and convincingly interpreted and explained.
Accepting the muslim assertions and traditions at face value, hardly a hint of any doubt whatever as to veracity and impact. From the muslim/Arab viewpoint entirely, and quite abjectly admiring at that .....or too accepting would be more accurate perhaps.
But on reflexion and closer inspection that is not quite true: Karen Armstrong does not hide all that is uncomfortable. Such as the politically or socially expedient causing a revelation, and this or that revelation being a short-time solution to calm things down. The problem for me is there's a deep, heartfelt and sincere explanation to justify everything, even the most horrendous. And Karen Armstrong's renderings of Muhammad's thought patterns and motives really cannot be anything but guesswork.
I see that those who resist Islam are "corpulent", "playing disgusting tricks", "strutting around haughtily and adressing others in a offensive, braying manner", "irascible and ambitious", "virulently hostile", "elderly" AND "corpulent", "hostile and insulting". They obviously MUST be the bad ones. What today also automatially is called "islamophobic", it being a crime to be afraid.
In contrast to the Muslim's inner peace, serenity and tranquility. Quran 9:40 is quoted .....which strikes me as rather daring, considering it is in the middle of virulent and insulting attacks on idolators and unbelievers and what will happen to them and their property now and hereafter.
It IS a book written to make things look good. And a few gems can only make me shake my head in wonder. Islam suddenly has a world empire, sprung out of nowhere it seems: on the very next page arrive the nasty crusaders, and they are very very bad indeed.
"... (the) sister faiths, which were so powerfully endorsed by the Quran": Well, as far as I can find often it doesn't, not a lot; in fact rather the opposite in many places.
"The rest of the year was spent in routine raiding" ....I like that one. Remember though, the muslim is always the victim.
"The hijab was not devised to devide the sexes". Ah, it seems Umar is to blame for this "external barrier", whereas Muhammad really preferred internal barriers in order to change peoples' attitudes, and anyway it primarily was to prevent unbelievers heckling his wifes. I personally find that a holy book filled with imperatives is pretty far removed from spiritual attitudes, but I admit everything has to begin somewhere. Whether Karen Armstrong accepts that the hijab since then is the great divider of the sexes I can't quite fathom.
If you want to believe that "Islam signified peace and reconciliation", you'll do just fine and feel nicely safe and comfortable. If you take a look at the half of the Quran that is not mentioned, the answer will be more complex.
I can now see why Karen Armstrong in some circles is regarded as a leading apologist for Islam.
Good introduction - Rated 
This books is a good introduction to a person and subject that I knew little about beforehand. With Islam being in the news on an almost daily basis it is important to be able to go behind the headlines and learn something more about the subject than merely what is set out in newspapers. It is also worth noting that the entire book is not devoted to Muhammad but rather describes the context in which he came to pass on the revelations and so anyone not wishing to read a pure biography should probably look elsewhere.
Interestingly, with the exception of the beginning introductory chapter, the book was written pre-9/11 and so does not interpret the subject in the light of that event.
The book is written by an ex-nun and so some might question the neutrality of the book's contents due to this fact. However, Ms Armstrong does not interpret the story in a partisan way but is fairly good at sticking to facts rather than her opinions which makes the book better in my opinion.
I enjoyed the book and would recommend it.
best possible book by non believer - Rated 
The average score for this book is high so I wont talk to much about it's good points as many others have done that. I will only say that Armstrongs great strength is her ability to see humanity in 'the other'. That is where her approach comes from.
Many of the negative reviews are from people convinced that Islam is the bogeyman/naziism of our time (becaus there always has to be one right?). Armstrong doesn't fall into that trap.
I, as a believer did find some of her insights frustrating as I found others very impressive.
She has a habit of saying in the book that Muhammad (saw) was 'reaching into himself for answers to his societies problems, and this is her explanations for the revelations. She also, (it seems to me) has the typical western 'weakness' for using the person of Jesus(as) as a barometer for all of Muhammad's actions (and I say that as a virtual westerner born and raised as a Christian in the west). A cursory study of various religious personages shows that they all deserve to be judged on their own terms.
Thus the mass execution after the treachery of the Banu Quraiza at 'The Trench', can be explained simply by stating that if the the Muslims had lost, this is what would have been done to them by that Jewish tribe, because that is the ways that things were done. No one would have batted an eyelid at that time. It was the equity of the time, anything less would have been mercy, and Muhammad (saw) was often merciful. However such practices would not be valid now).
Armstrong's explanation doesn't make this clear
Islam is unique in stressing (during the lifetime of it's founder) the need to excercise justice and mercy on their proper occastions. It's wise to show a thief who has stolen bread because his family is hungry mercy. It is wise to meet out justice to a serial killer.
Overall, this is one of the best books on Islam that I have read, and it is the best book that I could expect of a non believer which is why I give it 4 stars.
I've reserved 5 stars for another book of her's.
|
