May be a helpful introduction but be prepared to study more, 06 Aug 2008
It would be too much to expect that the founder of any of the world's major religions could be understood from one book, even at the introductory level (not counting sacred scripture, direct exposure to which may be essential). Consider Christianity, consider Buddhism. In the U.S., especialy after 9/11, it may be especially difficult to understand the life of Muhammad. Even before 9/11, even from the early times of Islam, Christian sources were critical of Islam and Muhammad. It is difficult to get a balanced read from any single source: if such a source exists, how to know which it is?

I had read the Qu'ran years ago but recently have read criticisms of Muhammad from conservative Christians. I had been impressed from my own reading of the Qu'ran and by my Muslim friends so was more than skeptical of the criticisms I read of both Islam and Muhammad. Not expecting to get to an answer easily but not wanting to spend too much time to get some perspective, I opted for this portrait which, by intent, set out to present Muhammad in a "balanced way". I had not read Karen Armstrong before. I knew she did not have a scholarly background in Islam ( excepting self-made), but that she seemed respected in the area of comparative religions, although not without critics. So I chose this book expecting it to have introductory value and to offset or put into perspective some criticisms of Muhammad I had heard from conservative Christians.

This is an exceptionally well-written book and it does not seem to dodge some of those aspects of Muhammad's life that others were critical of. It does, as Armstrong intended, appear to attest well to his contributions. I expect it will serve me well as I learn more about Muhammad and the formative history of Islam, which I mean to do.

Armstrong does bring alive the conditions under which Muhammad responded to challenges and made key decisions. The success of early Islam was far from a "done deal". On the other hand, it by no means seems that Islam was nearing any final form when Muhammad died [of course, think how far from any final form that was of Christianity or Buddhism when Jesus and the Buddha died].

Any impressions of Muhammad I have at this point are tentative but having read this book I feel better equipped to consider the impact of Muhammad on how women were treated in Islam, of the expectations on Muslims to care for one another, of how Muslims should treat others (Armstrong emphasizes the pluralism of early Islam), of how the fight for survival was mingled in to the efforts to reveal the sacred. Armstrong presents a complex and dynamic Muhammad, who changed and developed, leading his people while at the same time experience the revelations of the Qu'ran]. There is a lot to take in here and, for me, re-reading the Qu'ran seems on inevitable step.

It does seem most remarkable, as Armstrong makes quite clear, that Muhammad so strongly discouraged that he himself be regarded as divine. Armstrong writes, echoing Abu Bakr, who was close to Muhammad about a warning from Muhammad: "He was a mere mortal, no different from anybody else." Armstrong quotes Abu Bakr: "O people, if anyone worships Muhammad, Muhammad is dead. If anyone worships God, God is alive, immortal." [ Ibn Ishaaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, 1012 in Guillaume, Life of Muhammad]. How different Christianity would have been with such an understanding: the nearest Christian teaching have been as that of Arius and rejected by 4th century Christian orthodoxy.

There is plenty of information about historical events, revelations from the Qu'ran as they occurred, historical context that helped give me at the least a side of the picture of Muhammad's life. Is Armstrong's depiction too sympathetic? I can't decide yet. It will undoubtedly take time. There seems to be a struggle to control how we view Muhammad and early Islam: it would be surprising if I were otherwise but makes it difficult to expose biases and factor them out to the extent they can be.

As for the current situation, I plan to read Carl Ernst's Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World (Islamic Civilization and Muslim Networks) soon. I recently read Alaa Al Aswany's Chicago: A Novel, an outstanding novel about Egyptian Muslims adjusting to life in the post 9/11 U.S. It provided me at least some sense of how Muhammad and Islam guide the day to day life of U.S. Muslims, fictional characters but perhaps seeming all too real.

Highly recommended; suitable for all... but you do need to read it all., 16 Jun 2008
This book may not be the easiest to read, and needs a certain degree of perseverance to get through it all... but I found it most enlightening.

It is one of those books that needs to be read from beginning to end, and then when the contents have had time to sink in... to read it again. It is certainly not a book that you can dive into, and just look at the "interesting bits" (using the index). Each part needs to be read in context.

There is much that we can all learn from each other... if we are prepared to think about what we have just read... and consider how it might affect us in our lives today.

Vague and without depth, 30 Apr 2008
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, 25 Apr 2008
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, 23 Feb 2008
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. "For Our Time"?? I certainly cannot see how, or why.
But I can now see why Karen Armstrong in some circles is regarded as a leading apologist for Islam.

May be a helpful introduction but be prepared to study more, 06 Aug 2008
It would be too much to expect that the founder of any of the world's major religions could be understood from one book, even at the introductory level (not counting sacred scripture, direct exposure to which may be essential). Consider Christianity, consider Buddhism. In the U.S., especialy after 9/11, it may be especially difficult to understand the life of Muhammad. Even before 9/11, even from the early times of Islam, Christian sources were critical of Islam and Muhammad. It is difficult to get a balanced read from any single source: if such a source exists, how to know which it is?

I had read the Qu'ran years ago but recently have read criticisms of Muhammad from conservative Christians. I had been impressed from my own reading of the Qu'ran and by my Muslim friends so was more than skeptical of the criticisms I read of both Islam and Muhammad. Not expecting to get to an answer easily but not wanting to spend too much time to get some perspective, I opted for this portrait which, by intent, set out to present Muhammad in a "balanced way". I had not read Karen Armstrong before. I knew she did not have a scholarly background in Islam ( excepting self-made), but that she seemed respected in the area of comparative religions, although not without critics. So I chose this book expecting it to have introductory value and to offset or put into perspective some criticisms of Muhammad I had heard from conservative Christians.

This is an exceptionally well-written book and it does not seem to dodge some of those aspects of Muhammad's life that others were critical of. It does, as Armstrong intended, appear to attest well to his contributions. I expect it will serve me well as I learn more about Muhammad and the formative history of Islam, which I mean to do.

Armstrong does bring alive the conditions under which Muhammad responded to challenges and made key decisions. The success of early Islam was far from a "done deal". On the other hand, it by no means seems that Islam was nearing any final form when Muhammad died [of course, think how far from any final form that was of Christianity or Buddhism when Jesus and the Buddha died].

Any impressions of Muhammad I have at this point are tentative but having read this book I feel better equipped to consider the impact of Muhammad on how women were treated in Islam, of the expectations on Muslims to care for one another, of how Muslims should treat others (Armstrong emphasizes the pluralism of early Islam), of how the fight for survival was mingled in to the efforts to reveal the sacred. Armstrong presents a complex and dynamic Muhammad, who changed and developed, leading his people while at the same time experience the revelations of the Qu'ran]. There is a lot to take in here and, for me, re-reading the Qu'ran seems on inevitable step.

It does seem most remarkable, as Armstrong makes quite clear, that Muhammad so strongly discouraged that he himself be regarded as divine. Armstrong writes, echoing Abu Bakr, who was close to Muhammad about a warning from Muhammad: "He was a mere mortal, no different from anybody else." Armstrong quotes Abu Bakr: "O people, if anyone worships Muhammad, Muhammad is dead. If anyone worships God, God is alive, immortal." [ Ibn Ishaaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, 1012 in Guillaume, Life of Muhammad]. How different Christianity would have been with such an understanding: the nearest Christian teaching have been as that of Arius and rejected by 4th century Christian orthodoxy.

There is plenty of information about historical events, revelations from the Qu'ran as they occurred, historical context that helped give me at the least a side of the picture of Muhammad's life. Is Armstrong's depiction too sympathetic? I can't decide yet. It will undoubtedly take time. There seems to be a struggle to control how we view Muhammad and early Islam: it would be surprising if I were otherwise but makes it difficult to expose biases and factor them out to the extent they can be.

As for the current situation, I plan to read Carl Ernst's Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World (Islamic Civilization and Muslim Networks) soon. I recently read Alaa Al Aswany's Chicago: A Novel, an outstanding novel about Egyptian Muslims adjusting to life in the post 9/11 U.S. It provided me at least some sense of how Muhammad and Islam guide the day to day life of U.S. Muslims, fictional characters but perhaps seeming all too real.

Highly recommended; suitable for all... but you do need to read it all., 16 Jun 2008
This book may not be the easiest to read, and needs a certain degree of perseverance to get through it all... but I found it most enlightening.

It is one of those books that needs to be read from beginning to end, and then when the contents have had time to sink in... to read it again. It is certainly not a book that you can dive into, and just look at the "interesting bits" (using the index). Each part needs to be read in context.

There is much that we can all learn from each other... if we are prepared to think about what we have just read... and consider how it might affect us in our lives today.

Vague and without depth, 30 Apr 2008
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, 25 Apr 2008
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, 23 Feb 2008
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. "For Our Time"?? I certainly cannot see how, or why.
But I can now see why Karen Armstrong in some circles is regarded as a leading apologist for Islam.

Rebalancing the account, 21 Dec 2006
The life of the Prophet Muhammad has always polarized opinion in the West. After 9/11 and 7/7 it has become increasingly difficult to find balanced accounts of Islam and its founder. Having read Robert Spencer's "The Truth About Muhammad", which was relentlessly hostile, I was looking for something rather more sympathetic about Muhammad's life. I found it in Barnaby Rogerson's book.

Rogerson is an excellent storyteller, a professional, in fact. In the preface, Rogerson tells how, when taking Western tourists around Roman sites in a Muslim country, he heard groups of men sitting around in cafes telling tales from the days of the Prophet as if they were fresh and new. "I was on the side of a good story," says Rogerson. "The life of the Prophet Muhammad is a story of overpowering pathos and beauty. It is history, tragedy and enlightenment compressed into one tale." And that's how Rogerson tells it.

He has the knack of taking the reader into the picture, of conjuring up the sights and sounds and smells of Arabia in the days of Muhammad. And he gives us a sense of the struggles that Muhammad and his early followers went through, of the Prophet's family, and of the harsh life of the Arabs in the desert. He tells it in the end as a tale of triumph over challenge, but never implies that victory was a foregone conclusion.

But - and it is a big but - I was conscious throughout that Rogerson had omitted much of the very difficult episodes of Muhammad's apparent cruelty that Spencer includes in his book. In fact, my first reaction to Rogerson's book was that he was a Romantic, that he had to some extent sentimentalized Muhammad's story and had evaded these difficult episodes. The problem with writing a biography of Muhammad that is accessible and readable for the non-scholarly Western, non-Muslim reader (which is what I am) is that the writer must inevitably abbreviate the story and cannot really acknowledge the difficulties that a historian would have with the very limited primary sources for the life of Muhammad.

This is not to say that Rogerson avoids reference to sources. In fact, he has included a useful note on sources, as well as a timeline, maps, profiles of the main characters in the story, and a glossary of the 99 Names of God. But the main issue, as with all historical material, is one of interpretation. What do the various episodes mean? What frame of reference do we wish to put on the story of Muhammad? Spencer starts with harshly negative assumptions and sets out to prove what he already believes about Muhammad. Rogerson, on the other hand, starts with positive assumptions and sets out to show the beauty and majesty of Muhammad's life.

I have to admit I was repelled by Spencer and beguiled by Rogerson. Beguiled, but always a tad suspicious that he was carried away with the story and not conscious enough of where there could be difficulties and different views of what he was asserting about Muhammad. Somehow, I heard the echoes of Fitzgerald's translations of the Rubaiyyat of Omar Khayyam in Rogerson's voice.

Never mind, I shall now read Rogerson's "The Heirs of the Prophet Muhammad" and move on to the next part of the story of Islam. It is essential that we understand Islam's history and try to avoid the hatred and prejudice that so many in the West accept as the "proper" reaction to Islam. However, we must also acknowledge that extremist voices have captured the attention of the media and, indeed, of the Muslim community. It is my belief that any form of religious extremism is, as Baha'u'llah, Founder of the Baha'i Faith says, "a world-devouring fire".

What a disappointment, 20 Aug 2005
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 without attribution and are treated as if they are provable fact, as well. Time after time, the author simply doesn't differentiate between fact and speculation. In a purported biography, that is terrible scholarship and completely unacceptable.

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. Please, give me a break. But that's how Rogerson writes. I do think such a style is called "mindless apologetics". If these events in fact occurred, then tell me how and why they were acceptable in that culture at that time.

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?

Highly recommended but with a word of caution..., 12 Feb 2004
I found this book by chance and wasn't planning to read it. Being a Muslim, I have had a reasonable exposure to literature regarding the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and I didn't think I needed another lecture on history. However, having read the first few pages, I couldn't put the book down!

Rogerson's style is candid, lively and sometimes cheeky, yet for most part so full of affection that I didn't feel I was reading a book written by a non-Muslim.

And now a word of caution. I must admire Rogerson's attempt to cover almost every aspect of the Prophet's life. However, this comes at a cost. Some events described in the book require detailed background and context. I don't question author's sincerity but on a few occasions, he has stopped short of a fair account. The author's description of Prophet's marriage to Zaynab is unfortunately inaccurate and would leave learned Muslim readers quite concerned and non-Muslims readers misled.

great on content meagre on quality, 02 Sep 2003
As a muslim i found rodgersons portrayal of the prophet muhammed (peace be upon him hence abbreviated to pbuh) enlightening as well as concerning.
I was astounded at his elegant style of writing and forthright commitment to sounding out the facts whilst sifting through all the romantics - as is found in most biographies of the prophet pbuh.

However i was aghast at the lack of references given for some of his dubious claims. Albeit an ample and lengthy bibliogrphy was given at the nof his book.

In conclusion an excellent little starter for muslim and non muslim alike about one of the greatest personalities of all time

An excellent read, especially now, 22 Apr 2003
This is a very interesting book indeed. Rogerson tells the story of Muhammad with respect, but does not leave out 'difficult' topics. He is brilliant on the background of the prophet's life in sixth century arabia and also on the surrounding empires which held sway over the region. At the start of the book, one wonders whether Rogerson is a convert to Islam. By the end, one doesn't care. In an age where it is difficult to lift most biographies, this slim, but very learned volume has a lot going for it.

May be a helpful introduction but be prepared to study more, 06 Aug 2008
It would be too much to expect that the founder of any of the world's major religions could be understood from one book, even at the introductory level (not counting sacred scripture, direct exposure to which may be essential). Consider Christianity, consider Buddhism. In the U.S., especialy after 9/11, it may be especially difficult to understand the life of Muhammad. Even before 9/11, even from the early times of Islam, Christian sources were critical of Islam and Muhammad. It is difficult to get a balanced read from any single source: if such a source exists, how to know which it is?

I had read the Qu'ran years ago but recently have read criticisms of Muhammad from conservative Christians. I had been impressed from my own reading of the Qu'ran and by my Muslim friends so was more than skeptical of the criticisms I read of both Islam and Muhammad. Not expecting to get to an answer easily but not wanting to spend too much time to get some perspective, I opted for this portrait which, by intent, set out to present Muhammad in a "balanced way". I had not read Karen Armstrong before. I knew she did not have a scholarly background in Islam ( excepting self-made), but that she seemed respected in the area of comparative religions, although not without critics. So I chose this book expecting it to have introductory value and to offset or put into perspective some criticisms of Muhammad I had heard from conservative Christians.

This is an exceptionally well-written book and it does not seem to dodge some of those aspects of Muhammad's life that others were critical of. It does, as Armstrong intended, appear to attest well to his contributions. I expect it will serve me well as I learn more about Muhammad and the formative history of Islam, which I mean to do.

Armstrong does bring alive the conditions under which Muhammad responded to challenges and made key decisions. The success of early Islam was far from a "done deal". On the other hand, it by no means seems that Islam was nearing any final form when Muhammad died [of course, think how far from any final form that was of Christianity or Buddhism when Jesus and the Buddha died].

Any impressions of Muhammad I have at this point are tentative but having read this book I feel better equipped to consider the impact of Muhammad on how women were treated in Islam, of the expectations on Muslims to care for one another, of how Muslims should treat others (Armstrong emphasizes the pluralism of early Islam), of how the fight for survival was mingled in to the efforts to reveal the sacred. Armstrong presents a complex and dynamic Muhammad, who changed and developed, leading his people while at the same time experience the revelations of the Qu'ran]. There is a lot to take in here and, for me, re-reading the Qu'ran seems on inevitable step.

It does seem most remarkable, as Armstrong makes quite clear, that Muhammad so strongly discouraged that he himself be regarded as divine. Armstrong writes, echoing Abu Bakr, who was close to Muhammad about a warning from Muhammad: "He was a mere mortal, no different from anybody else." Armstrong quotes Abu Bakr: "O people, if anyone worships Muhammad, Muhammad is dead. If anyone worships God, God is alive, immortal." [ Ibn Ishaaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, 1012 in Guillaume, Life of Muhammad]. How different Christianity would have been with such an understanding: the nearest Christian teaching have been as that of Arius and rejected by 4th century Christian orthodoxy.

There is plenty of information about historical events, revelations from the Qu'ran as they occurred, historical context that helped give me at the least a side of the picture of Muhammad's life. Is Armstrong's depiction too sympathetic? I can't decide yet. It will undoubtedly take time. There seems to be a struggle to control how we view Muhammad and early Islam: it would be surprising if I were otherwise but makes it difficult to expose biases and factor them out to the extent they can be.

As for the current situation, I plan to read Carl Ernst's Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World (Islamic Civilization and Muslim Networks) soon. I recently read Alaa Al Aswany's Chicago: A Novel, an outstanding novel about Egyptian Muslims adjusting to life in the post 9/11 U.S. It provided me at least some sense of how Muhammad and Islam guide the day to day life of U.S. Muslims, fictional characters but perhaps seeming all too real.

Highly recommended; suitable for all... but you do need to read it all., 16 Jun 2008
This book may not be the easiest to read, and needs a certain degree of perseverance to get through it all... but I found it most enlightening.

It is one of those books that needs to be read from beginning to end, and then when the contents have had time to sink in... to read it again. It is certainly not a book that you can dive into, and just look at the "interesting bits" (using the index). Each part needs to be read in context.

There is much that we can all learn from each other... if we are prepared to think about what we have just read... and consider how it might affect us in our lives today.

Vague and without depth, 30 Apr 2008
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, 25 Apr 2008
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, 23 Feb 2008
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. "For Our Time"?? I certainly cannot see how, or why.
But I can now see why Karen Armstrong in some circles is regarded as a leading apologist for Islam.

Rebalancing the account, 21 Dec 2006
The life of the Prophet Muhammad has always polarized opinion in the West. After 9/11 and 7/7 it has become increasingly difficult to find balanced accounts of Islam and its founder. Having read Robert Spencer's "The Truth About Muhammad", which was relentlessly hostile, I was looking for something rather more sympathetic about Muhammad's life. I found it in Barnaby Rogerson's book.

Rogerson is an excellent storyteller, a professional, in fact. In the preface, Rogerson tells how, when taking Western tourists around Roman sites in a Muslim country, he heard groups of men sitting around in cafes telling tales from the days of the Prophet as if they were fresh and new. "I was on the side of a good story," says Rogerson. "The life of the Prophet Muhammad is a story of overpowering pathos and beauty. It is history, tragedy and enlightenment compressed into one tale." And that's how Rogerson tells it.

He has the knack of taking the reader into the picture, of conjuring up the sights and sounds and smells of Arabia in the days of Muhammad. And he gives us a sense of the struggles that Muhammad and his early followers went through, of the Prophet's family, and of the harsh life of the Arabs in the desert. He tells it in the end as a tale of triumph over challenge, but never implies that victory was a foregone conclusion.

But - and it is a big but - I was conscious throughout that Rogerson had omitted much of the very difficult episodes of Muhammad's apparent cruelty that Spencer includes in his book. In fact, my first reaction to Rogerson's book was that he was a Romantic, that he had to some extent sentimentalized Muhammad's story and had evaded these difficult episodes. The problem with writing a biography of Muhammad that is accessible and readable for the non-scholarly Western, non-Muslim reader (which is what I am) is that the writer must inevitably abbreviate the story and cannot really acknowledge the difficulties that a historian would have with the very limited primary sources for the life of Muhammad.

This is not to say that Rogerson avoids reference to sources. In fact, he has included a useful note on sources, as well as a timeline, maps, profiles of the main characters in the story, and a glossary of the 99 Names of God. But the main issue, as with all historical material, is one of interpretation. What do the various episodes mean? What frame of reference do we wish to put on the story of Muhammad? Spencer starts with harshly negative assumptions and sets out to prove what he already believes about Muhammad. Rogerson, on the other hand, starts with positive assumptions and sets out to show the beauty and majesty of Muhammad's life.

I have to admit I was repelled by Spencer and beguiled by Rogerson. Beguiled, but always a tad suspicious that he was carried away with the story and not conscious enough of where there could be difficulties and different views of what he was asserting about Muhammad. Somehow, I heard the echoes of Fitzgerald's translations of the Rubaiyyat of Omar Khayyam in Rogerson's voice.

Never mind, I shall now read Rogerson's "The Heirs of the Prophet Muhammad" and move on to the next part of the story of Islam. It is essential that we understand Islam's history and try to avoid the hatred and prejudice that so many in the West accept as the "proper" reaction to Islam. However, we must also acknowledge that extremist voices have captured the attention of the media and, indeed, of the Muslim community. It is my belief that any form of religious extremism is, as Baha'u'llah, Founder of the Baha'i Faith says, "a world-devouring fire".

What a disappointment, 20 Aug 2005
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 without attribution and are treated as if they are provable fact, as well. Time after time, the author simply doesn't differentiate between fact and speculation. In a purported biography, that is terrible scholarship and completely unacceptable.

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. Please, give me a break. But that's how Rogerson writes. I do think such a style is called "mindless apologetics". If these events in fact occurred, then tell me how and why they were acceptable in that culture at that time.

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?

Highly recommended but with a word of caution..., 12 Feb 2004
I found this book by chance and wasn't planning to read it. Being a Muslim, I have had a reasonable exposure to literature regarding the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and I didn't think I needed another lecture on history. However, having read the first few pages, I couldn't put the book down!

Rogerson's style is candid, lively and sometimes cheeky, yet for most part so full of affection that I didn't feel I was reading a book written by a non-Muslim.

And now a word of caution. I must admire Rogerson's attempt to cover almost every aspect of the Prophet's life. However, this comes at a cost. Some events described in the book require detailed background and context. I don't question author's sincerity but on a few occasions, he has stopped short of a fair account. The author's description of Prophet's marriage to Zaynab is unfortunately inaccurate and would leave learned Muslim readers quite concerned and non-Muslims readers misled.

great on content meagre on quality, 02 Sep 2003
As a muslim i found rodgersons portrayal of the prophet muhammed (peace be upon him hence abbreviated to pbuh) enlightening as well as concerning.
I was astounded at his elegant style of writing and forthright commitment to sounding out the facts whilst sifting through all the romantics - as is found in most biographies of the prophet pbuh.

However i was aghast at the lack of references given for some of his dubious claims. Albeit an ample and lengthy bibliogrphy was given at the nof his book.

In conclusion an excellent little starter for muslim and non muslim alike about one of the greatest personalities of all time

An excellent read, especially now, 22 Apr 2003
This is a very interesting book indeed. Rogerson tells the story of Muhammad with respect, but does not leave out 'difficult' topics. He is brilliant on the background of the prophet's life in sixth century arabia and also on the surrounding empires which held sway over the region. At the start of the book, one wonders whether Rogerson is a convert to Islam. By the end, one doesn't care. In an age where it is difficult to lift most biographies, this slim, but very learned volume has a lot going for it.

a convincing book - essential reading not only for casual, 11 Sep 2004
A short account of the life and achievements of one of the great figures in history, this volume also serves as an excellent introduction to one of the world's major religions. Written with objectivity, the book opens with a background chapter on the birth and early life of the Prophet in Mecca. Dr. Watt tells of Muhammad's struggle to make his way as an untrained orphan in the city's commercial world, and his call to prophethood as a result of visions. He recounts the writing down of the Prophet's revelations in teh Qua'an (with an explanation of its passages); Muhammad's betrayal, expulsion from Mecca, and migration to Medina; and his rise to politcal power in Arabia. Throughout Dr. Watt makes clear the social and political background out of which Islam was born, expecially the influence of Judaism and Christianity.

May be a helpful introduction but be prepared to study more, 06 Aug 2008
It would be too much to expect that the founder of any of the world's major religions could be understood from one book, even at the introductory level (not counting sacred scripture, direct exposure to which may be essential). Consider Christianity, consider Buddhism. In the U.S., especialy after 9/11, it may be especially difficult to understand the life of Muhammad. Even before 9/11, even from the early times of Islam, Christian sources were critical of Islam and Muhammad. It is difficult to get a balanced read from any single source: if such a source exists, how to know which it is?

I had read the Qu'ran years ago but recently have read criticisms of Muhammad from conservative Christians. I had been impressed from my own reading of the Qu'ran and by my Muslim friends so was more than skeptical of the criticisms I read of both Islam and Muhammad. Not expecting to get to an answer easily but not wanting to spend too much time to get some perspective, I opted for this portrait which, by intent, set out to present Muhammad in a "balanced way". I had not read Karen Armstrong before. I knew she did not have a scholarly background in Islam ( excepting self-made), but that she seemed respected in the area of comparative religions, although not without critics. So I chose this book expecting it to have introductory value and to offset or put into perspective some criticisms of Muhammad I had heard from conservative Christians.

This is an exceptionally well-written book and it does not seem to dodge some of those aspects of Muhammad's life that others were critical of. It does, as Armstrong intended, appear to attest well to his contributions. I expect it will serve me well as I learn more about Muhammad and the formative history of Islam, which I mean to do.

Armstrong does bring alive the conditions under which Muhammad responded to challenges and made key decisions. The success of early Islam was far from a "done deal". On the other hand, it by no means seems that Islam was nearing any final form when Muhammad died [of course, think how far from any final form that was of Christianity or Buddhism when Jesus and the Buddha died].

Any impressions of Muhammad I have at this point are tentative but having read this book I feel better equipped to consider the impact of Muhammad on how women were treated in Islam, of the expectations on Muslims to care for one another, of how Muslims should treat others (Armstrong emphasizes the pluralism of early Islam), of how the fight for survival was mingled in to the efforts to reveal the sacred. Armstrong presents a complex and dynamic Muhammad, who changed and developed, leading his people while at the same time experience the revelations of the Qu'ran]. There is a lot to take in here and, for me, re-reading the Qu'ran seems on inevitable step.

It does seem most remarkable, as Armstrong makes quite clear, that Muhammad so strongly discouraged that he himself be regarded as divine. Armstrong writes, echoing Abu Bakr, who was close to Muhammad about a warning from Muhammad: "He was a mere mortal, no different from anybody else." Armstrong quotes Abu Bakr: "O people, if anyone worships Muhammad, Muhammad is dead. If anyone worships God, God is alive, immortal." [ Ibn Ishaaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, 1012 in Guillaume, Life of Muhammad]. How different Christianity would have been with such an understanding: the nearest Christian teaching have been as that of Arius and rejected by 4th century Christian orthodoxy.

There is plenty of information about historical events, revelations from the Qu'ran as they occurred, historical context that helped give me at the least a side of the picture of Muhammad's life. Is Armstrong's depiction too sympathetic? I can't decide yet. It will undoubtedly take time. There seems to be a struggle to control how we view Muhammad and early Islam: it would be surprising if I were otherwise but makes it difficult to expose biases and factor them out to the extent they can be.

As for the current situation, I plan to read Carl Ernst's Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World (Islamic Civilization and Muslim Networks) soon. I recently read Alaa Al Aswany's Chicago: A Novel, an outstanding novel about Egyptian Muslims adjusting to life in the post 9/11 U.S. It provided me at least some sense of how Muhammad and Islam guide the day to day life of U.S. Muslims, fictional characters but perhaps seeming all too real.

Highly recommended; suitable for all... but you do need to read it all., 16 Jun 2008
This book may not be the easiest to read, and needs a certain degree of perseverance to get through it all... but I found it most enlightening.

It is one of those books that needs to be read from beginning to end, and then when the contents have had time to sink in... to read it again. It is certainly not a book that you can dive into, and just look at the "interesting bits" (using the index). Each part needs to be read in context.

There is much that we can all learn from each other... if we are prepared to think about what we have just read... and consider how it might affect us in our lives today.

Vague and without depth, 30 Apr 2008
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, 25 Apr 2008
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, 23 Feb 2008
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. "For Our Time"?? I certainly cannot see how, or why.
But I can now see why Karen Armstrong in some circles is regarded as a leading apologist for Islam.

Rebalancing the account, 21 Dec 2006
The life of the Prophet Muhammad has always polarized opinion in the West. After 9/11 and 7/7 it has become increasingly difficult to find balanced accounts of Islam and its founder. Having read Robert Spencer's "The Truth About Muhammad", which was relentlessly hostile, I was looking for something rather more sympathetic about Muhammad's life. I found it in Barnaby Rogerson's book.

Rogerson is an excellent storyteller, a professional, in fact. In the preface, Rogerson tells how, when taking Western tourists around Roman sites in a Muslim country, he heard groups of men sitting around in cafes telling tales from the days of the Prophet as if they were fresh and new. "I was on the side of a good story," says Rogerson. "The life of the Prophet Muhammad is a story of overpowering pathos and beauty. It is history, tragedy and enlightenment compressed into one tale." And that's how Rogerson tells it.

He has the knack of taking the reader into the picture, of conjuring up the sights and sounds and smells of Arabia in the days of Muhammad. And he gives us a sense of the struggles that Muhammad and his early followers went through, of the Prophet's family, and of the harsh life of the Arabs in the desert. He tells it in the end as a tale of triumph over challenge, but never implies that victory was a foregone conclusion.

But - and it is a big but - I was conscious throughout that Rogerson had omitted much of the very difficult episodes of Muhammad's apparent cruelty that Spencer includes in his book. In fact, my first reaction to Rogerson's book was that he was a Romantic, that he had to some extent sentimentalized Muhammad's story and had evaded these difficult episodes. The problem with writing a biography of Muhammad that is accessible and readable for the non-scholarly Western, non-Muslim reader (which is what I am) is that the writer must inevitably abbreviate the story and cannot really acknowledge the difficulties that a historian would have with the very limited primary sources for the life of Muhammad.

This is not to say that Rogerson avoids reference to sources. In fact, he has included a useful note on sources, as well as a timeline, maps, profiles of the main characters in the story, and a glossary of the 99 Names of God. But the main issue, as with all historical material, is one of interpretation. What do the various episodes mean? What frame of reference do we wish to put on the story of Muhammad? Spencer starts with harshly negative assumptions and sets out to prove what he already believes about Muhammad. Rogerson, on the other hand, starts with positive assumptions and sets out to show the beauty and majesty of Muhammad's life.

I have to admit I was repelled by Spencer and beguiled by Rogerson. Beguiled, but always a tad suspicious that he was carried away with the story and not conscious enough of where there could be difficulties and different views of what he was asserting about Muhammad. Somehow, I heard the echoes of Fitzgerald's translations of the Rubaiyyat of Omar Khayyam in Rogerson's voice.

Never mind, I shall now read Rogerson's "The Heirs of the Prophet Muhammad" and move on to the next part of the story of Islam. It is essential that we understand Islam's history and try to avoid the hatred and prejudice that so many in the West accept as the "proper" reaction to Islam. However, we must also acknowledge that extremist voices have captured the attention of the media and, indeed, of the Muslim community. It is my belief that any form of religious extremism is, as Baha'u'llah, Founder of the Baha'i Faith says, "a world-devouring fire".

What a disappointment, 20 Aug 2005
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 without attribution and are treated as if they are provable fact, as well. Time after time, the author simply doesn't differentiate between fact and speculation. In a purported biography, that is terrible scholarship and completely unacceptable.

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. Please, give me a break. But that's how Rogerson writes. I do think such a style is called "mindless apologetics". If these events in fact occurred, then tell me how and why they were acceptable in that culture at that time.

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?

Highly recommended but with a word of caution..., 12 Feb 2004
I found this book by chance and wasn't planning to read it. Being a Muslim, I have had a reasonable exposure to literature regarding the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and I didn't think I needed another lecture on history. However, having read the first few pages, I couldn't put the book down!

Rogerson's style is candid, lively and sometimes cheeky, yet for most part so full of affection that I didn't feel I was reading a book written by a non-Muslim.

And now a word of caution. I must admire Rogerson's attempt to cover almost every aspect of the Prophet's life. However, this comes at a cost. Some events described in the book require detailed background and context. I don't question author's sincerity but on a few occasions, he has stopped short of a fair account. The author's description of Prophet's marriage to Zaynab is unfortunately inaccurate and would leave learned Muslim readers quite concerned and non-Muslims readers misled.

great on content meagre on quality, 02 Sep 2003
As a muslim i found rodgersons portrayal of the prophet muhammed (peace be upon him hence abbreviated to pbuh) enlightening as well as concerning.
I was astounded at his elegant style of writing and forthright commitment to sounding out the facts whilst sifting through all the romantics - as is found in most biographies of the prophet pbuh.

However i was aghast at the lack of references given for some of his dubious claims. Albeit an ample and lengthy bibliogrphy was given at the nof his book.

In conclusion an excellent little starter for muslim and non muslim alike about one of the greatest personalities of all time

An excellent read, especially now, 22 Apr 2003
This is a very interesting book indeed. Rogerson tells the story of Muhammad with respect, but does not leave out 'difficult' topics. He is brilliant on the background of the prophet's life in sixth century arabia and also on the surrounding empires which held sway over the region. At the start of the book, one wonders whether Rogerson is a convert to Islam. By the end, one doesn't care. In an age where it is difficult to lift most biographies, this slim, but very learned volume has a lot going for it.

a convincing book - essential reading not only for casual, 11 Sep 2004
A short account of the life and achievements of one of the great figures in history, this volume also serves as an excellent introduction to one of the world's major religions. Written with objectivity, the book opens with a background chapter on the birth and early life of the Prophet in Mecca. Dr. Watt tells of Muhammad's struggle to make his way as an untrained orphan in the city's commercial world, and his call to prophethood as a result of visions. He recounts the writing down of the Prophet's revelations in teh Qua'an (with an explanation of its passages); Muhammad's betrayal, expulsion from Mecca, and migration to Medina; and his rise to politcal power in Arabia. Throughout Dr. Watt makes clear the social and political background out of which Islam was born, expecially the influence of Judaism and Christianity.

Rebalancing the account, 21 Dec 2006
The life of the Prophet Muhammad has always polarized opinion in the West. After 9/11 and 7/7 it has become increasingly difficult to find balanced accounts of Islam and its founder. Having read Robert Spencer's "The Truth About Muhammad", which was relentlessly hostile, I was looking for something rather more sympathetic about Muhammad's life. I found it in Barnaby Rogerson's book.

Rogerson is an excellent storyteller, a professional, in fact. In the preface, Rogerson tells how, when taking Western tourists around Roman sites in a Muslim country, he heard groups of men sitting around in cafes telling tales from the days of the Prophet as if they were fresh and new. "I was on the side of a good story," says Rogerson. "The life of the Prophet Muhammad is a story of overpowering pathos and beauty. It is history, tragedy and enlightenment compressed into one tale." And that's how Rogerson tells it.

He has the knack of taking the reader into the picture, of conjuring up the sights and sounds and smells of Arabia in the days of Muhammad. And he gives us a sense of the struggles that Muhammad and his early followers went through, of the Prophet's family, and of the harsh life of the Arabs in the desert. He tells it in the end as a tale of triumph over challenge, but never implies that victory was a foregone conclusion.

But - and it is a big but - I was conscious throughout that Rogerson had omitted much of the very difficult episodes of Muhammad's apparent cruelty that Spencer includes in his book. In fact, my first reaction to Rogerson's book was that he was a Romantic, that he had to some extent sentimentalized Muhammad's story and had evaded these difficult episodes. The problem with writing a biography of Muhammad that is accessible and readable for the non-scholarly Western, non-Muslim reader (which is what I am) is that the writer must inevitably abbreviate the story and cannot really acknowledge the difficulties that a historian would have with the very limited primary sources for the life of Muhammad.

This is not to say that Rogerson avoids reference to sources. In fact, he has included a useful note on sources, as well as a timeline, maps, profiles of the main characters in the story, and a glossary of the 99 Names of God. But the main issue, as with all historical material, is one of interpretation. What do the various episodes mean? What frame of reference do we wish to put on the story of Muhammad? Spencer starts with harshly negative assumptions and sets out to prove what he already believes about Muhammad. Rogerson, on the other hand, starts with positive assumptions and sets out to show the beauty and majesty of Muhammad's life.

I have to admit I was repelled by Spencer and beguiled by Rogerson. Beguiled, but always a tad suspicious that he was carried away with the story and not conscious enough of where there could be difficulties and different views of what he was asserting about Muhammad. Somehow, I heard the echoes of Fitzgerald's translations of the Rubaiyyat of Omar Khayyam in Rogerson's voice.

Never mind, I shall now read Rogerson's "The Heirs of the Prophet Muhammad" and move on to the next part of the story of Islam. It is essential that we understand Islam's history and try to avoid the hatred and prejudice that so many in the West accept as the "proper" reaction to Islam. However, we must also acknowledge that extremist voices have captured the attention of the media and, indeed, of the Muslim community. It is my belief that any form of religious extremism is, as Baha'u'llah, Founder of the Baha'i Faith says, "a world-devouring fire".

What a disappointment, 20 Aug 2005
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 without attribution and are treated as if they are provable fact, as well. Time after time, the author simply doesn't differentiate between fact and speculation. In a purported biography, that is terrible scholarship and completely unacceptable.

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. Please, give me a break. But that's how Rogerson writes. I do think such a style is called "mindless apologetics". If these events in fact occurred, then tell me how and why they were acceptable in that culture at that time.

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?

Highly recommended but with a word of caution..., 12 Feb 2004
I found this book by chance and wasn't planning to read it. Being a Muslim, I have had a reasonable exposure to literature regarding the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and I didn't think I needed another lecture on history. However, having read the first few pages, I couldn't put the book down!

Rogerson's style is candid, lively and sometimes cheeky, yet for most part so full of affection that I didn't feel I was reading a book written by a non-Muslim.

And now a word of caution. I must admire Rogerson's attempt to cover almost every aspect of the Prophet's life. However, this comes at a cost. Some events described in the book require detailed background and context. I don't question author's sincerity but on a few occasions, he has stopped short of a fair account. The author's description of Prophet's marriage to Zaynab is unfortunately inaccurate and would leave learned Muslim readers quite concerned and non-Muslims readers misled.

great on content meagre on quality, 02 Sep 2003
As a muslim i found rodgersons portrayal of the prophet muhammed (peace be upon him hence abbreviated to pbuh) enlightening as well as concerning.
I was astounded at his elegant style of writing and forthright commitment to sounding out the facts whilst sifting through all the romantics - as is found in most biographies of the prophet pbuh.

However i was aghast at the lack of references given for some of his dubious claims. Albeit an ample and lengthy bibliogrphy was given at the nof his book.

In conclusion an excellent little starter for muslim and non muslim alike about one of the greatest personalities of all time

An excellent read, especially now, 22 Apr 2003
This is a very interesting book indeed. Rogerson tells the story of Muhammad with respect, but does not leave out 'difficult' topics. He is brilliant on the background of the prophet's life in sixth century arabia and also on the surrounding empires which held sway over the region. At the start of the book, one wonders whether Rogerson is a convert to Islam. By the end, one doesn't care. In an age where it is difficult to lift most biographies, this slim, but very learned volume has a lot going for it.

May be a helpful introduction but be prepared to study more, 06 Aug 2008
It would be too much to expect that the founder of any of the world's major religions could be understood from one book, even at the introductory level (not counting sacred scripture, direct exposure to which may be essential). Consider Christianity, consider Buddhism. In the U.S., especialy after 9/11, it may be especially difficult to understand the life of Muhammad. Even before 9/11, even from the early times of Islam, Christian sources were critical of Islam and Muhammad. It is difficult to get a balanced read from any single source: if such a source exists, how to know which it is?

I had read the Qu'ran years ago but recently have read criticisms of Muhammad from conservative Christians. I had been impressed from my own reading of the Qu'ran and by my Muslim friends so was more than skeptical of the criticisms I read of both Islam and Muhammad. Not expecting to get to an answer easily but not wanting to spend too much time to get some perspective, I opted for this portrait which, by intent, set out to present Muhammad in a "balanced way". I had not read Karen Armstrong before. I knew she did not have a scholarly background in Islam ( excepting self-made), but that she seemed respected in the area of comparative religions, although not without critics. So I chose this book expecting it to have introductory value and to offset or put into perspective some criticisms of Muhammad I had heard from conservative Christians.

This is an exceptionally well-written book and it does not seem to dodge some of those aspects of Muhammad's life that others were critical of. It does, as Armstrong intended, appear to attest well to his contributions. I expect it will serve me well as I learn more about Muhammad and the formative history of Islam, which I mean to do.

Armstrong does bring alive the conditions under which Muhammad responded to challenges and made key decisions. The success of early Islam was far from a "done deal". On the other hand, it by no means seems that Islam was nearing any final form when Muhammad died [of course, think how far from any final form that was of Christianity or Buddhism when Jesus and the Buddha died].

Any impressions of Muhammad I have at this point are tentative but having read this book I feel better equipped to consider the impact of Muhammad on how women were treated in Islam, of the expectations on Muslims to care for one another, of how Muslims should treat others (Armstrong emphasizes the pluralism of early Islam), of how the fight for survival was mingled in to the efforts to reveal the sacred. Armstrong presents a complex and dynamic Muhammad, who changed and developed, leading his people while at the same time experience the revelations of the Qu'ran]. There is a lot to take in here and, for me, re-reading the Qu'ran seems on inevitable step.

It does seem most remarkable, as Armstrong makes quite clear, that Muhammad so strongly discouraged that he himself be regarded as divine. Armstrong writes, echoing Abu Bakr, who was close to Muhammad about a warning from Muhammad: "He was a mere mortal, no different from anybody else." Armstrong quotes Abu Bakr: "O people, if anyone worships Muhammad, Muhammad is dead. If anyone worships God, God is alive, immortal." [ Ibn Ishaaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, 1012 in Guillaume, Life of Muhammad]. How different Christianity would have been with such an understanding: the nearest Christian teaching have been as that of Arius and rejected by 4th century Christian orthodoxy.

There is plenty of information about historical events, revelations from the Qu'ran as they occurred, historical context that helped give me at the least a side of the picture of Muhammad's life. Is Armstrong's depiction too sympathetic? I can't decide yet. It will undoubtedly take time. There seems to be a struggle to control how we view Muhammad and early Islam: it would be surprising if I were otherwise but makes it difficult to expose biases and factor them out to the extent they can be.

As for the current situation, I plan to read Carl Ernst's Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World (Islamic Civilization and Muslim Networks) soon. I recently read Alaa Al Aswany's Chicago: A Novel, an outstanding novel about Egyptian Muslims adjusting to life in the post 9/11 U.S. It provided me at least some sense of how Muhammad and Islam guide the day to day life of U.S. Muslims, fictional characters but perhaps seeming all too real.

Highly recommended; suitable for all... but you do need to read it all., 16 Jun 2008
This book may not be the easiest to read, and needs a certain degree of perseverance to get through it all... but I found it most enlightening.

It is one of those books that needs to be read from beginning to end, and then when the contents have had time to sink in... to read it again. It is certainly not a book that you can dive into, and just look at the "interesting bits" (using the index). Each part needs to be read in context.

There is much that we can all learn from each other... if we are prepared to think about what we have just read... and consider how it might affect us in our lives today.

Vague and without depth, 30 Apr 2008
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, 25 Apr 2008
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, 23 Feb 2008
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. "For Our Time"?? I certainly cannot see how, or why.
But I can now see why Karen Armstrong in some circles is regarded as a leading apologist for Islam.

Rebalancing the account, 21 Dec 2006
The life of the Prophet Muhammad has always polarized opinion in the West. After 9/11 and 7/7 it has become increasingly difficult to find balanced accounts of Islam and its founder. Having read Robert Spencer's "The Truth About Muhammad", which was relentlessly hostile, I was looking for something rather more sympathetic about Muhammad's life. I found it in Barnaby Rogerson's book.

Rogerson is an excellent storyteller, a professional, in fact. In the preface, Rogerson tells how, when taking Western tourists around Roman sites in a Muslim country, he heard groups of men sitting around in cafes telling tales from the days of the Prophet as if they were fresh and new. "I was on the side of a good story," says Rogerson. "The life of the Prophet Muhammad is a story of overpowering pathos and beauty. It is history, tragedy and enlightenment compressed into one tale." And that's how Rogerson tells it.

He has the knack of taking the reader into the picture, of conjuring up the sights and sounds and smells of Arabia in the days of Muhammad. And he gives us a sense of the struggles that Muhammad and his early followers went through, of the Prophet's family, and of the harsh life of the Arabs in the desert. He tells it in the end as a tale of triumph over challenge, but never implies that victory was a foregone conclusion.

But - and it is a big but - I was conscious throughout that Rogerson had omitted much of the very difficult episodes of Muhammad's apparent cruelty that Spencer includes in his book. In fact, my first reaction to Rogerson's book was that he was a Romantic, that he had to some extent sentimentalized Muhammad's story and had evaded these difficult episodes. The problem with writing a biography of Muhammad that is accessible and readable for the non-scholarly Western, non-Muslim reader (which is what I am) is that the writer must inevitably abbreviate the story and cannot really acknowledge the difficulties that a historian would have with the very limited primary sources for the life of Muhammad.

This is not to say that Rogerson avoids reference to sources. In fact, he has included a useful note on sources, as well as a timeline, maps, profiles of the main characters in the story, and a glossary of the 99 Names of God. But the main issue, as with all historical material, is one of interpretation. What do the various episodes mean? What frame of reference do we wish to put on the story of Muhammad? Spencer starts with harshly negative assumptions and sets out to prove what he already believes about Muhammad. Rogerson, on the other hand, starts with positive assumptions and sets out to show the beauty and majesty of Muhammad's life.

I have to admit I was repelled by Spencer and beguiled by Rogerson. Beguiled, but always a tad suspicious that he was carried away with the story and not conscious enough of where there could be difficulties and different views of what he was asserting about Muhammad. Somehow, I heard the echoes of Fitzgerald's translations of the Rubaiyyat of Omar Khayyam in Rogerson's voice.

Never mind, I shall now read Rogerson's "The Heirs of the Prophet Muhammad" and move on to the next part of the story of Islam. It is essential that we understand Islam's history and try to avoid the hatred and prejudice that so many in the West accept as the "proper" reaction to Islam. However, we must also acknowledge that extremist voices have captured the attention of the media and, indeed, of the Muslim community. It is my belief that any form of religious extremism is, as Baha'u'llah, Founder of the Baha'i Faith says, "a world-devouring fire".

What a disappointment, 20 Aug 2005
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 without attribution and are treated as if they are provable fact, as well. Time after time, the author simply doesn't differentiate between fact and speculation. In a purported biography, that is terrible scholarship and completely unacceptable.

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. Please, give me a break. But that's how Rogerson writes. I do think such a style is called "mindless apologetics". If these events in fact occurred, then tell me how and why they were acceptable in that culture at that time.

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?

Highly recommended but with a word of caution..., 12 Feb 2004
I found this book by chance and wasn't planning to read it. Being a Muslim, I have had a reasonable exposure to literature regarding the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and I didn't think I needed another lecture on history. However, having read the first few pages, I couldn't put the book down!

Rogerson's style is candid, lively and sometimes cheeky, yet for most part so full of affection that I didn't feel I was reading a book written by a non-Muslim.

And now a word of caution. I must admire Rogerson's attempt to cover almost every aspect of the Prophet's life. However, this comes at a cost. Some events described in the book require detailed background and context. I don't question author's sincerity but on a few occasions, he has stopped short of a fair account. The author's description of Prophet's marriage to Zaynab is unfortunately inaccurate and would leave learned Muslim readers quite concerned and non-Muslims readers misled.

great on content meagre on quality, 02 Sep 2003
As a muslim i found rodgersons portrayal of the prophet muhammed (peace be upon him hence abbreviated to pbuh) enlightening as well as concerning.
I was astounded at his elegant style of writing and forthright commitment to sounding out the facts whilst sifting through all the romantics - as is found in most biographies of the prophet pbuh.

However i was aghast at the lack of references given for some of his dubious claims. Albeit an ample and lengthy bibliogrphy was given at the nof his book.

In conclusion an excellent little starter for muslim and non muslim alike about one of the greatest personalities of all time

An excellent read, especially now, 22 Apr 2003
This is a very interesting book indeed. Rogerson tells the story of Muhammad with respect, but does not leave out 'difficult' topics. He is brilliant on the background of the prophet's life in sixth century arabia and also on the surrounding empires which held sway over the region. At the start of the book, one wonders whether Rogerson is a convert to Islam. By the end, one doesn't care. In an age where it is difficult to lift most biographies, this slim, but very learned volume has a lot going for it.

a convincing book - essential reading not only for casual, 11 Sep 2004
A short account of the life and achievements of one of the great figures in history, this volume also serves as an excellent introduction to one of the world's major religions. Written with objectivity, the book opens with a background chapter on the birth and early life of the Prophet in Mecca. Dr. Watt tells of Muhammad's struggle to make his way as an untrained orphan in the city's commercial world, and his call to prophethood as a result of visions. He recounts the writing down of the Prophet's revelations in teh Qua'an (with an explanation of its passages); Muhammad's betrayal, expulsion from Mecca, and migration to Medina; and his rise to politcal power in Arabia. Throughout Dr. Watt makes clear the social and political background out of which Islam was born, expecially the influence of Judaism and Christianity.

Rebalancing the account, 21 Dec 2006
The life of the Prophet Muhammad has always polarized opinion in the West. After 9/11 and 7/7 it has become increasingly difficult to find balanced accounts of Islam and its founder. Having read Robert Spencer's "The Truth About Muhammad", which was relentlessly hostile, I was looking for something rather more sympathetic about Muhammad's life. I found it in Barnaby Rogerson's book.

Rogerson is an excellent storyteller, a professional, in fact. In the preface, Rogerson tells how, when taking Western tourists around Roman sites in a Muslim country, he heard groups of men sitting around in cafes telling tales from the days of the Prophet as if they were fresh and new. "I was on the side of a good story," says Rogerson. "The life of the Prophet Muhammad is a story of overpowering pathos and beauty. It is history, tragedy and enlightenment compressed into one tale." And that's how Rogerson tells it.

He has the knack of taking the reader into the picture, of conjuring up the sights and sounds and smells of Arabia in the days of Muhammad. And he gives us a sense of the struggles that Muhammad and his early followers went through, of the Prophet's family, and of the harsh life of the Arabs in the desert. He tells it in the end as a tale of triumph over challenge, but never implies that victory was a foregone conclusion.

But - and it is a big but - I was conscious throughout that Rogerson had omitted much of the very difficult episodes of Muhammad's apparent cruelty that Spencer includes in his book. In fact, my first reaction to Rogerson's book was that he was a Romantic, that he had to some extent sentimentalized Muhammad's story and had evaded these difficult episodes. The problem with writing a biography of Muhammad that is accessible and readable for the non-scholarly Western, non-Muslim reader (which is what I am) is that the writer must inevitably abbreviate the story and cannot really acknowledge the difficulties that a historian would have with the very limited primary sources for the life of Muhammad.

This is not to say that Rogerson avoids reference to sources. In fact, he has included a useful note on sources, as well as a timeline, maps, profiles of the main characters in the story, and a glossary of the 99 Names of God. But the main issue, as with all historical material, is one of interpretation. What do the various episodes mean? What frame of reference do we wish to put on the story of Muhammad? Spencer starts with harshly negative assumptions and sets out to prove what he already believes about Muhammad. Rogerson, on the other hand, starts with positive assumptions and sets out to show the beauty and majesty of Muhammad's life.

I have to admit I was repelled by Spencer and beguiled by Rogerson. Beguiled, but always a tad suspicious that he was carried away with the story and not conscious enough of where there could be difficulties and different views of what he was asserting about Muhammad. Somehow, I heard the echoes of Fitzgerald's translations of the Rubaiyyat of Omar Khayyam in Rogerson's voice.

Never mind, I shall now read Rogerson's "The Heirs of the Prophet Muhammad" and move on to the next part of the story of Islam. It is essential that we understand Islam's history and try to avoid the hatred and prejudice that so many in the West accept as the "proper" reaction to Islam. However, we must also acknowledge that extremist voices have captured the attention of the media and, indeed, of the Muslim community. It is my belief that any form of religious extremism is, as Baha'u'llah, Founder of the Baha'i Faith says, "a world-devouring fire".

What a disappointment, 20 Aug 2005
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 without attribution and are treated as if they are provable fact, as well. Time after time, the author simply doesn't differentiate between fact and speculation. In a purported biography, that is terrible scholarship and completely unacceptable.

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. Please, give me a break. But that's how Rogerson writes. I do think such a style is called "mindless apologetics". If these events in fact occurred, then tell me how and why they were acceptable in that culture at that time.

Islam, and Muhammad's role in establishing Islam, are simply too importan