The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion
by Robert Spencer
3.85 · Rating details · 1,254 ratings · 126 reviews
Muhammad: a frank look at his influential (and violent) life and teachings
In The Truth about Muhammad, New York Times bestselling author and Islam expert Robert Spencer offers an honest and telling portrait of the founder of Islam-perhaps the first such portrait in half a century-unbounded by fear and political correctness, unflinching, and willing to face the hard facts a ...more
GET A COPY
KoboOnline Stores ▾Book Links ▾
Hardcover, 1st Edition, 224 pages
Published October 1st 2006 by Regnery Publishing (first published January 1st 2006)
More Details...Edit Details
FRIEND REVIEWS
Recommend This Book None of your friends have reviewed this book yet.
READER Q&A
Ask the Goodreads community a question about The Truth About Muhammad
54355902. uy100 cr1,0,100,100
Ask anything about the book
Popular Answered Questions
Could one of the people who scorn this book in their reviews amplify their claim by providing at least one example where the author misinterprets history, provides incorrect facts, misrepresents the context etc.? I read many negative reviews and couldn't find anything but unjustified and vague criticism.
8 Likes · Like 7 Years Ago See All 2 Answers
George Hong here is the issue. Islam is like early Catholicism with its equivalent of "papal infallibilty". the prophet can do no wrong. the text cannot be wrong.…more
flag
See 2 questions about The Truth About Muhammad…
LISTS WITH THIS BOOK
Muhammad, the World-Changer by Mohamad Jebaraالقرآن الكريم by AnonymousNo God but God by Reza AslanDoes My Head Look Big in This? by Randa Abdel-FattahEnjoy Your Life by محمد عبدالرحمن العريفي
Best Books About Islam & Muslims
675 books — 720 voters
San Anto by Mike DuronThe 40-Minute War by Janet E. MorrisBullets and Train by Adeerus GhayanMissions by Marc McGuireKhost by Vincent Hobbes
Islamic Terrorism
37 books — 62 voters
More lists with this book...
COMMUNITY REVIEWS
Showing 1-30
Average rating3.85 · Rating details · 1,253 ratings · 126 reviews
Search review text
English (122)
More filters | Sort order
Sejin,
Sejin, start your review of The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion
Write a review
Alok Mishra
Jul 15, 2019Alok Mishra rated it it was amazing
Can you counter Robert's account with facts and figures and truth? The answer is absolutely no!
Can you slander him with your rants? The answer is yes!
Now you can understand why he is hated and why is loved less. I am becoming a fan of him as much as I read him. Robert has peeled the truth naked. Anyone who wants to understand the truth objectively has to go through Robert Spencer's books. (less)
flag68 likes · Like · 3 comments · see review
Kenny
Oct 13, 2007Kenny rated it it was amazing
Recommends it for: those wondering about Islam
Shelves: religion, history
Though often called a "religion of peace," the truth about Islam is quite the opposite, as is the truth about its founder, Muhammad. This book is no anti-Muslim screed, however; it takes its facts and ideas directly from Islamists themselves, from the Koran and the authoritative commentaries that have grown up around the holy book for over a milennia. Cut through the hype and the PR and go directly to the source: Muhammad was a robber, an unsuccessful proselytizer (couldn't convert the Jews, which is why he hated them), and married a nine-year-old girl! As if that weren't enough, the most disturbing fact about the Koran is the "satanic verses" episode in which Muhammad believes he has received a revelation from God, only to discover later (upon introspection) that he had been deceived by Satan. (Which is why Rushdie's book of the same title resulted in such outrage from Muslims: he was rubbing their faces in the fallibility of their "prophet" (blessings be upon him). Read this book and make up your own mind. (less)
flag38 likes · Like · 1 comment · see review
Joselito Honestly and Brilliantly
Sep 21, 2012Joselito Honestly and Brilliantly rated it liked it
So after thousands of years we have Judaism with Abraham and Moses; Christianity with Jesus Christ; and Islam with Muhammad (may peace be upon him). The Jews, the Christians and the Muslims. They all believe that there is only one God. And it is the same God they believe in.
Each group, however, considers its religion as the one true faith. The Jews do not consider Jesus as the Messiah they've been waiting for and consider Muhammad as a false prophet. The Christians look down upon the Jews as their old, clueless brothers and the Muslim faith as an aberration of history. The Muslims call the other two as infidels. They all have had this sordid past of killing each other in the name of the same God which they happen to worship differently.
This book was the very first one I've read about the life and times of Muhammad whereas I knew already, more or less, the life stories of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. But I noticed one striking similarity among these four great religious figures: they all claimed to had had direct communications with God, either conversing with the latter or his angels or receiving so-called revelations. From what God supposedly declared via their privileged status sprang the do's and don't's, the practices and theology of their respective systems of belief.
Thus, in this book, I learned that from what Muhammad, obeying God all the time, supposedly did or said emanated the Muslims' practices of praying five times daily facing the direction of Mecca, their concept of martyrdom as involving killing and getting killed in the name of God (unlike in Christianity where martyrdom involves just getting killed for one's faith), the lack of gender equality in their society, their penchant for beheading their captives, their draconian punishments for crimes, the lack of separation between church and state (for Muhammad never uttered anything similar to Jesus's "render unto Ceasar which is Ceasar's..."), the need for their women to cover themselves almost completely in public and to kill (fatwa) people like Salman Rushdie who ridicules their prophet Muhammad, and the right of husbands to have several wives to beat them if they so much as flirt with other men:
"You have rights over your wives and they have rights over you. You have the right that they should not defile your bed and that they should not behave with open unseemliness. If they do, God allows you to put them in separate rooms and to beat them but not with severity...."
Did these men of faith really exist thousands of years ago? Apart from the belief or faith of the respective adherents of these religious systems, who really can tell one way or the other? They are not historical figures whose past existence cannot possibly be disputed like, say, Ayatollah Khomeini or Abraham Lincoln. Or, at least for Jesus, not yet. The search for the historical Jesus is apparently continuing, every now and then one hears about things like the discovery of Jesus's possible tomb, the latest results of the study of the Shroud of Turin, or some newly discovered ancient texts saying that Jesus was married. As to Abraham and Moses, they are far too removed from the present time that finding evidence of their flesh and blood existence seemed remote; while the Muslims find no interest whatsoever in proving the very much real Muhammad who gets offended if he is drawn as cartoon figures, or made into film, and would like cartoonists and film makers fatwa'd.
But from what we read about them (Old Testament, New Testament, the Koran), can we say that they are improbable, most likely fictive characters? Certainly not. After their times, and even up to now, there were still people who claimed to be prophets with messages coming from God. However, nowadays, these self-proclaimed messengers from heaven are either given medication or treated in mental asylums. Some managed to form their sects and perish in a blaze of glory (see, for example, Mario Vargas Llosa's The War of the End of the World).
"Aisha once asked Muhammad what the experience of receiving revelations was like, and he responded: 'Sometimes it is like the ringing of a bell...Sometimes the Angel comes in the form of a man and talks to me...' On another occasion he explained: 'The revelation dawns upon me in two ways--(the angel) Gabriel brings it and conveys to me as a man conveys to another man and that makes me restless. And it dawns upon me like the sound of a bell till it enters my heart and this does not make me restless.' Aisha noted: 'When revelation descended upon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) even during the cold days, his forehead perspired....' (A)nother asked Muhammad a question. Muhammad 'waited for a while, and then the Divine Inspiration descended upon him...The Prophet's face was red and he kept on breathing heavily for a while and then he was relieved.' Then he gave an answer to the questioner."
So let's say you're a Jew, or a Christian or a Muslim and you are scared to even consider the possibility that your prophets were as much as a mythical figure as those Greek gods in Mount Olympus, you then make their existence as a given. After all, it is less likely that they never existed at all or that they were just works of fiction created in a conspiracy among their earliest proponents. The next question, however, is this: did your prophets' teachings really came from God? Again, I say, setting aside faith, who really can tell?
But think: would a Merciful God, creator or all that exist, really prefer one people over the others, or one system of belief over the others, that he--through revelation or the lips of one prophet--would give an order to his favorite people to annihilate the others? Especially if the latter also worships him, but only in a different manner?
Indeed, what if Jesus et al. were but wonderful storytellers? The dogmas, traditions, practices, apologetics, theology and philosophy we now have for each of the religions that sprouted from their brief lives here on earth, mere layers of stories upon stories that has passed on and evolved throughout the thousands of years of history? All our hopes and anger, the killings and crimes we've done and are still doing to each other in the name of God, based simply on the differences of these tales we grew up with? Can goodreads, then, become the religion of the future? Do we here create fleeting or more permanent gods, depending on how long the stories we read move us and stay with us, or those we tell move and stay with our readers? Do we worship when we read, and act like gods when we tell our stories? Are we all prophets to some degree? When we say how we feel, do we say "And God said..." like Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad did? Can literacy and the love of the printed and spoken word save us? (less)
flag23 likes · Like · 26 comments · see review
Dwain
Mar 17, 2010Dwain rated it it was ok · review of another edition
It was fascinating to read this book and "Mohammed: A Prophet for our time" together, as they are written from two completely different perspectives on Mohammed. Spencer portrays a Mohammed that has inspired generations of hate, intolerance, and violence, while Armstrong portrays somebody with the attributes of Jesus. I found them both biased, and I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two opinions, but it was refreshing to hear somebody who wasn't scared to death to be politically correct. At times it didn't seem possible that the two authors were talking about the same person. I think most of the difference was in what stories they told and what stories they didn't tell. Armstrong's book is filled with tales of Mohammed's compassion and how he treated his followers, while Spencer's book is concerned with stories of his battles, his punishments, and his vengeance. At times I thought Spencer was inflammatory and unfair, but there were many times that Armstrong glossed over or dismissed truly worrying episodes in Mohammed's life. Reading either one of these books individually I would give two stars, but reading them together makes the overall experience worthy of three. (less)
flag14 likes · Like · comment · see review
John
Jul 21, 2009John rated it really liked it · review of another edition
Shelves: 2009
If you think Muhammed was a man of peace, a man to be admired, and a man to be imitated, you need to read up on him. Muhammed was none of these things. The historical record is very clear. He was a man of violence, expediency, and is a man worthy of disdain.
This is a good extended introduction to Muhammed and Islam. For the most part Spencer avoids value judgments on the truthfulness of Islam, instead focusing on the ethics of Muhammed and his followers. With regard to these, he is very harsh, and justifiably so.
(less)
flag12 likes · Like · comment · see review
Johnrh
Mar 29, 2012Johnrh rated it it was amazing
Like his book The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Islam (and the Crusades) it is packed with facts, the conclusions to draw are your own. These are largely quotes and accounts from the Quran, Sura, and hadith. The book is largely a fascinating and reasonably brief historical account of the life of Muhammad. As a Protestant Westerner and minor history buff, I enjoyed it and felt educated by it! I was enthralled enough to listen to the 7 hour book within a single 24-hr period. Spencer sticks to the facts throughout and lets them speak for themselves. Only in the final chapter does he coalesce the various points presented and apply them to our modern world. Is 7th century Muhammad a bad example for conduct in the 21st century? (My question.) Read\listen and decide for yourself. I highly recommend this book. (less)
flag9 likes · Like · comment · see review
Rachel
Jun 14, 2014Rachel rated it it was amazing
I found this book to be well written, well researched, and factual. As a non-Muslim, I fully anticipated others degrading the author's words, but I have been independently studying islam now for several years and there was little presented that I had not come across on my own whether in hadiths or in the Quran. My experience has been that most people will turn a blind eye or adamantly deny the truth of Islam. It is not Islamophobia to be educated and know the teachings of Islam. I would highly recommend the book. (less)
flag8 likes · Like · see review
Crowbar
Jan 13, 2009Crowbar rated it liked it
Shelves: psych-cult-spiritual-abuse
Look at the reviews below that rate this less than three stars. They don't even comment on the content and references sited. I was very impressed with how meticulously the author referenced assertions and claims that would understandably upset those that follow Muhammad. No matter what side of the fence you are on before reading this book or listening to the CD version, truth is truth, and this author can't change truth. Do the research and be informed. A fantastic read and listen! AN ABSOLUTE MUST READ FOR THOSE WHO CARE ABOUT THE WESTERN WORLD. I also liked 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades'. Semper Fi. (less)
flag7 likes · Like · comment · see review
Alexandra
Sep 06, 2007Alexandra rated it really liked it
Recommended to Alexandra by: George
Shelves: nonfiction, read-in-2007, islam, recommend-to-john
What Muslims won't tell you about Muhammad. Robert Spencer is excellent on this topic. (less)
flag7 likes · Like · see review
Michael Connolly
Mar 10, 2012Michael Connolly rated it liked it
Shelves: reviewed, islam
Some reviewers have called this book a polemic, but I found it rather dry and academic. Spencer goes into a great deal of detail about the Arabic sources on the life of the Prophet Muhammad. The three main sources are the Qur'an, the Hadith (traditions and commentary) and the Sira (biography of Muhammad).
Muhammad was born in 570 A.D. His full name was Muhammad ibn Abdallah ibn And al-Muttalib. Muhammad's tribe was the Quraysh. Mecca was their main city. Their local shrine was the Ka'bah. Muhammad was the first person to unite all the tribes of Arabia, and the first to convert the Arabs from their traditional polytheistic religions to a monotheistic religion.
Muhammad first tried to peacefully persuade his Arab tribe in Mecca, the Quraysh, to convert to Islam. They refused. In 622 A.D. he left Mecca and moved to Medina. The Muslims call this journey the Hijra. Medina was a Jewish city at the time, called Yathrib. The three main Jewish tribes in Medina were the Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayzah. Muhammad tried to peacefully persuade the Jews in Medina to convert to Islam. They also refused. So then he mounted an army, attacked Mecca, and forced the Arabs there to convert to Islam. (less)
flag5 likes · Like · 1 comment · see review
taarak
Apr 16, 2007taarak rated it it was amazing
Recommends it for: Anyone interested in saving Western Civilzation from the new barbarian hordes
Shelves: robbarrettsaudiobookshelf
To know is to be fore-warned. To be fore-warned is to be fore-armed. This is NOT an easy thing to listen to. Sobering, insightful, and necessary for anyone who values Western culture and the global threats it faces.
In The Truth about Muhammad, New York Times best-selling author and Islam expert Robert Spencer offers an honest and telling portrait of the founder of Islam -- perhaps the first such portrait in half a century -- unbounded by fear and political correctness, unflinching, and willing to face the hard facts about Muhammad's life that continue to affect our world today. Spencer details Muhammad's development from a preacher of hellfire and damnation into a political and military leader who expanded his rule by force of arms, promising his warriors luridly physical delights in Paradise if they were killed in his cause.
(less)
flag5 likes · Like · comment · see review
Tom Schulte
Jul 02, 2011Tom Schulte rated it it was ok
Wow, after reading this one-sided muckraking, one may wonder how anybody can revere this Muhammad. ("One-sided" because the opinions are basically only the author's and "muckraking" because the author's stated premise is that the worst historical facts about Muhammad can and should guide American policy.) While there can be benefit from raking the muck of Muhammad's martinet side (and why not The Crusades and Inquisition, too?), the author is not seeking a balanced view. I don't have any reason to disagree with any of his historical observations. I only disagree with his conclusions, such as that "Islam is peace" is a "mantra that controls American policy." I think many Muslim families would also disagree with that assessment.
However, drama aside, it basically suggests Islam as a religion can serve as a basis for a culture that can condone religious persecution and some abuse. As a textbook for Islamophobia I give it an A+, but it doesn't jive with the reality of a religion held by so many worldwide with most of them being decent people. (less)
flag4 likes · Like · 16 comments · see review
Kathleen C. Tucker
Feb 06, 2015Kathleen C. Tucker rated it it was amazing · review of another edition
Enlightening!
Very informative book about the founder of Islam. With politicians and the media constantly repeating that Islam is a religion of peace but constantly seeing acts of violence in the name of Islam, I decided to learn more about the religion. This book delivers the facts about Islam from it's most reliable sources. (less)
flag4 likes · Like · comment · see review
Vincent T. Ciaramella
Jul 26, 2015Vincent T. Ciaramella rated it liked it
When it comes to religion every one is weird from an outsiders prospective. The Romans thought that the early Christians were incestuous cannibals (eating the flesh of their lord, drinking his blood, and calling each other brother and sister while being husband and wife). Islam is no different. What I liked about this book is that it doesn't whitewash some of whats said in The Qur'an or Muhammad's later actions in the Medina period. What I didn't like is that it makes it hard to look at early Muslim history in the same light as I once did.
When it comes to Muhammad he reminds me in ways of Joseph Smith, another controversial religious figure. I think both thought they started out thinking they were on the right path and both were but then they went astray. In Muhammad's case it seems after his first wife died he didn't have her to reel him in. If you read the Mecca portions of his revelations VS the Medina period you will see a dramatic shift from Abrahamic monotheism to localized events dealing in warfare. In ways I think Muhammad wanted to be accepted by his tribe and also the Jews of Arabia and was rejected by both thus setting him off on Holy War.
I know Muhammad was just a man and fallible. Muslims believe he is a model to live up to. This idea seems difficult when bringing 7th century morals and standards into the 21st. As a non-Muslim I see no reason not to modernize but as I said, I am not a Muslim and don't have that life experience.
In the end through I do believe in my heart of hearts that most Muslims are good people. Right now the religion is going through a turbulent period much like Christianity did. Islam has given us some of the greatest buildings in history, saved Plato from the dustbin, and kept the light of learning going why Europe was stuck in the Dark Ages. It cannot be an all bad religion if it has survived this long. I really hope Islam can come to terms with itself. If not it might self destruct.
One of my best friends is a Muslim and he will always be my friend regardless of how I feel about his faith. Faith is just one aspect of every human and not the complete package. (less)
flag3 likes · Like · 5 comments · see review
Thomas
Jan 04, 2016Thomas rated it really liked it
A quick aside: in high school a good friend of mine picked up the Koran on a whim and would carry it throughout the school day (more for show than actually reading it) and no one batted an eye. (This was the late 80’s – long before the insanity that’s besieged the world for the last almost-twenty years now.) But when I started reading this book I knew I’d never feel comfortable carrying it around on a train or bus and it could prove dangerous (to my own health and well-being).
So I opted to read it in the safety of my own home and it was rather informative but dry and boring a lot of the times (so many similar names of early followers and warriors/victims didn't help matters). It's well-researched and even-keeled (at least until the last chapter where the author finally takes the gloves off). Yes, of course it has an agenda - but what doesn't?
It wasn't planned but at the same time I was reading this book (about the man who created one of the major world religions) I was also re-reading 'Footprints of Gautama the Buddha' (about a man who created one of the other major world religions a thousand years before Islam) and it's really sad even so early in history we were already going backwards and could be so vicious and vile towards each other.
Throughout reading the book I kept thinking about a great segment on 60 Minutes from years ago which shows a surviving relic that was written (and 'signed' with a handprint) by Mohammad to be cool with Christians. If we could only just be cool with each other...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashtiname_of_Muhammad
(less)
flag3 likes · Like · comment · see review
Jahnavi Jha
Oct 22, 2017Jahnavi Jha rated it really liked it
Shelves: ebook
In the current political scenario, this book is a perfect fit. Everyday we hear apologists defending terrorists and the general backward behaviour of these people. I would urge them to read this and understand how fundamental these principles are in Islam. This writing is well backed up by verses from the Quran and teachings from the Hadith. What I really liked about the book is that it doesn't read like it is filled with personal hate against Islam but it is a proper factual look at Mohammed's life and prophetic career. (less)
flag3 likes · Like · comment · see review
Ryan
Feb 11, 2020Ryan rated it really liked it · review of another edition
This is a somewhat abrasive in intent book summarizing the life of Muhammad, founder of the Islamic religion. It mostly uses original/accepted source material, but obviously cherry picks the "offensive" parts (no one is complaining about the 2.5%-of-wealth Zakat to the poor). Aside from the obvious (7th century nomadic arab life was pretty horrible generally...), the main takeaway is that IS and other fundamentalist Islamic movements are pretty solidly grounded in the fundamentals of the religion, and trying to confront them on that basis is doomed to failure. (less)
flag2 likes · Like · see review
Amjad Al Taleb
May 04, 2014Amjad Al Taleb rated it really liked it
Shelves: religion, politics
I don't think Muslims would agree to anything written in this book, which has been made clear by the author himself by presenting the opinions of apologetics of the history of Islam on many of the issues raised in the book. But anyway, the main idea which at least sincere Muslim reformers might be to some degree in accordance with; is that Islam is outdated and need to be fixed by Muslims themselves, otherwise, they cannot blame Islamophobic for how they see Islam. (less)
flag3 likes · Like · comment · see review
Ahmed Mofty
Oct 14, 2014Ahmed Mofty rated it did not like it
I think Spencer made an assumption based on his own feelings and vision and started writing the book about prophet Mohammed PBUH. He tried his best to view Islam and the Prophet as violent and ignored the facts on ground when compared to other religions.
flag2 likes · Like · 2 comments · see review
Chuck
Jun 06, 2010Chuck rated it it was ok
well i can say it was pretty biased.
flag3 likes · Like · comment · see review
FAD
Aug 28, 2014FAD rated it really liked it
Shelves: islam, muhammad
A truly enlightening book written by Robert Spencer. I appreciate this book because he addresses all the goods and bads of Muhammad's ministry. The controversial aspects to Muhammad's time on Earth were intriguing because it seems like the type of things Muslims would (and do) try to cover up. Yet, Spencer points out how real even these gritty details are because even the Pro-Muhammad historians have to at least acknowledge their existence if they are going to paint over or fudge the details. His coverage of the fiasco of the Satanic Verses was my favorite part of the book. His conclusions regarding the Satanic verses incident are also hold a lot of truth to them, but I won't spoil them.
The reason I gave 4 stars instead of 5 were some things that did come across as low blows in what may be seen as a personal attack on Islam. He criticizes Islam over certain historical facts that someone can turn around and give to Mr. Spencer (a self-proclaimed Eastern Catholic) over historical details in Christianity. They don't really work when attacking Christianity, and it is clear they don't seem to work with Islam either.
Robert Spencer is very passionate in what he does, but it is clear he is not an Islamophobe. He treats the subject very respectfully, albeit boldly. The end of the book that sums up the negative aspects of Muhammad is also treated very respectfully. Given that Mr. Spencer puts his life on the line to talk about Islam, it is surprising that he maintains such a cool head when discussing these matters intellectually.
One final thing that I agree with him involving his writing both this book and his other book "Did Muhammad Exist?"- he wrote both of these books to see if it could be done. He wanted to approach Muhammad and Islam from a similar historical criticism approach that secular scholars do to Christianity. He wanted to see if society, as well as Muslims around the world, would tolerate a scholarly approach towards Islam without resorting to hatred, violence, and retribution- but also that the conversation could continue. It doesn't seem like too many people are eager to join in Robert Spencer's conversations, and one can understand why. Yet, this is still early in the conversation that Mr. Spencer is revving up. I hope everyone can keep their heads cool and read this book as an intellectual investigation. One doesn't have to come to the same conclusions Mr. Spencer does, but at least by reading this they can come to a better reason as to why they disagree. All in all, a great read. (less)
flag2 likes · Like · see review
Steven Below
Oct 29, 2017Steven Below rated it really liked it
Like many people after 9/11, I started a path of discovery into the religion of peace [sic]; and found that peace is only for the believer of Islam. Anyway, I digress. I recommend, anyone looking to venture down the path of Islamic discovery to read this book; not as a study guide to end all study guides, but to give yourself an idea of the root system of this ideology. Unlike the apologists within Islam, this book outlines the relationship Muhammad had with, not only his own tribe but how he forced his way through Arabia. It also starts to paint a humorous picture of how it seemed whenever something or someone approached Muhammad on a matter, he somehow received the right message at the next moment from Allah, which always leaned in his favor. It's also interesting how--once you read the Quran and this book--that Muhammad's messages appear to be plagiaristic in nature to that of the Torah and Christian Bible; of course, always benefiting Muhammad in the end. (less)
flag2 likes · Like · comment · see review
Russell
Aug 08, 2012Russell rated it did not like it
What a load of crap! This guy's "facts" must have come straight from Fox News....they are grossly distorted and misinterpreted. It's obvious he doesn't know any muslims nor has he read the Qur'an. He can't even reference the Qur'an correctly and his translations and selective use of ayats (verses) while excluding others is irresponsible. Spencer's motivation in writing this book and connections with AIPAC becomes evident the more I read. He makes his living by spreading hatred and misinformation. Spencer had better hope that God isn't real regardless of the chosen faith or he will have much to answer for. Make him get a real job by NOT purchasing this book! (less)
flag2 likes · Like · 4 comments · see review
Shabbar Raza
Mar 01, 2013Shabbar Raza rated it did not like it
The worst about ever. Author clearly has not done enough research to convey the history of Islam.
flag2 likes · Like · 2 comments · see review
VEL – The Contemporary Heretic
Oct 28, 2018VEL – The Contemporary Heretic rated it it was ok
Islam is Intolerant – But So is The Old Testament
“But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.”
The passage quoted above represents a more overt call for genocide than anything in contained within the pages of Mein Kampf. Yet it comes, neither from Mein Kampf, nor from the Quran or Islamic aḥādīth. It comes from the Hebrew Bible (Deuteronomy 20: 16-17).
The next book of the Bible, describes Joshua fulfilling this command:
“He left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded” (Joshua 10:40).
Meanwhile, another biblical passage from another book of the Old Testament/Torah extends these sentiments to another ethnic group:
“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass” (Samuel 1 15:3).
Let me then be clear: I am quite convinced, as Spencer ably demonstrates in ‘The Truth About Muhammad’, that the Quran, aḥādīth and Islamic law are indeed wholly incompatible with contemporary Western values.
This is indeed hardly surprising since these works were authored in a non-western culture some thousand years ago.
However, I am unconvinced that the Old Testament is frankly any better – again unsurprisingly since it was written, again in the Middle East, long even before the Quran.
True, the New Testament of the Christian Bible is rather more pacifist in tone. So perhaps Christianity may have a claim for qualifying as a ‘Religion of Peace’ – at least if you regard parts of the Old Testament as overruled or repealed by the New Testament.
However, the same is not true of Judaism.
Indeed, the Old Testament always strikes me as something akin to a racially-supremacist tract. The Jews, it repeatedly tells us, are God’s ‘Chosen People’ and everyone else is, at best, a second-class species of human.
Yet these verses have not prevented Jews and Christians, many of them devoutly religious, some even self-described ‘Biblical literalists’, from living together peaceably without significant numbers among them feeling the need to regularly suicide-bomb one another or fly planes into buildings, or, for that matter, massacre Hittites, Canaanites and Jebusites.
However, there is clearly a difficulty in integrating Muslims into Western society, as various terrorist atrocities committed by citizens born and raised within the borders of western liberal democracies amply yet horribly demonstrate.
The problem is not simply that Muslims have, in general, not fully reconciled themselves with such ‘progressive’ notions as feminism and transsexual bathroom rights. After all, the same is true of many Christians, Jews and heathen secularists like myself.
Rather the problem is that significant minorities of Muslims within the West engage in terrorism against the West.
True, terrorists represent only a small minority of the Muslim population. However, they are not so small a minority as to be unable to wreak considerable havoc.
Of course, historically, Christians and Jews have had their own share of holy wars and religious bigotry, both against themselves, one another and outsiders. There were the Crusades, the burning of heretics, blasphemers and witches, countless wars justified in the name of God, plus the persecution of Protestants by Catholics, of Catholics by Protestants, of Jews by both Catholics and Protestants and of Palestinians (the descendants of the biblical Canaanites) by Jews, not to mention that whole nasty business with the Holocaust.
In short, liberal democracy and religious toleration came relatively recently even to the West.
Moreover, it is surely no coincidence that increasingly liberal attitudes, laws and governments have arisen hand-in-hand with the process of secularization.
In short, liberal democracy and Western civilisation have come about despite Christianity rather than because of it.
Yet, nowadays Catholics, Protestants and Jews resident in the West, together with various assorted secular heathens like myself, all live together in relative toleration.
This holds out the prospect that, in the long-term, Muslims might learn to do likewise.
However, it is unlikely to be a rapid transition, and nor is it necessarily an inevitable one. Therefore, we have every reason to be cautious about admitting more Muslims into our countries as migrants or asylum seekers.
However, given that the holy books of both Christianity and Judaism contain passages that rival anything in the Quran or aḥādīth when it comes to draconian bellicosity, I contend that the reason for the current unassimilability of Muslim minorities in the West must be sought in factors external to the content of the Islamic scripture itself.
One factor is that Muslims came rather late to Western modernity. Whereas the ancestors of contemporary Ashkenazim and Sephardim settled in Europe centuries ago, and have therefore, like Christians, been an integral (and, indeed, a disproportionately influential, and disproportionately secular and liberal) part of the secular, liberal West for at least as long as the West has had any claim to being secular and liberal, the presence of Muslim immigrants in Western polities is, to my knowledge, largely a recent phenomenon.
Women as Booty
Spencer condemns “the treatment of women as war prizes, with no consideration of their will” as “from a twenty-first-century perspective… one of the most problematic aspects of Muhammad's status as ‘an excellent model of conduct'” (p133-4).
He likewise condemns the Quran for allowing Muslims to “have sex with slave girls (‘captives that your right hands possess’)” (p173).
There are three problems with this argument:
First, the practice is not restricted to Islam. Indeed, Spencer acknowledges, “this phenomenon has manifested itself to varying degrees in all cultures and societies” (p134).
However, he maintains “in the Islamic world [this practice] is particularly hard to eradicate because of the prophetic sanction it has received” (p134).
Despite his background in Christian theology, Spencer seems blissfully unaware that the Hebrew Bible give even more explicit sanction to the capture of women as ‘booty’ than does Islam.
Whereas Islamic teaching only gives implied “prophetic sanction” to forced concubinage by describing the Prophet as participating in such practices, the Christian/Hebrew Bible explicitly commands such behaviour.
“When the LORD thy God hath delivered [a city that has refused to surrender peacefully] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee” (Deuteronomy 20: 13-14).
This phraseology, taken from the King James Version, seems to be an only mildly euphemistic incitement to mass rape. “The women and the little ones” along with “cattle” are explicitly equated with “the spoils”, and the Israelites are commanded to “take unto thyself; and… eat the spoil of thine enemies”.
Some prudish Christian apologists might affect to be blissfully unaware of what this passage alludes to, but I suspect all but the most naïve among them would be being disingenuous.
Or take this verse:
“Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man” (Numbers 31: 17-18).
Again, one does not have to be a cynic with a ‘dirty mind’ to guess for what purpose one is being commanded to “save for yourself” all these young virginal maidens, and I doubt it is purely because one wants help with the housework.
Who Gets Killed?
Yet, if female infidels were taken as booty, then male infidels defeated in war were typically killed outright.
Far from evidencing the oppression of women under Islam, therefore, the practice of taking captured women as spoils is actually an example of female privilege.
Indeed, this represents a classic case of what Adam Jones terms ‘Gendercide’.
Why then are we not talking about how both Christianity and Islam (and Judaism) discriminate against men?
Just as the biblical passages quoted above (Deuteronomy 20: 13-14; Numbers 31: 17-18) order massacres of all adult males, but the sparing of women and girls, so Islamic scripture is similarly ambivalent regarding the treatment of enemy females.
Spencer mentions an Islamic hadith that seemingly excuses the killing of females. Mohammad is quoted as excusing a massacre which included women and children among the victims by saying: “They are from them” – i.e. of the enemy group (Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3021) and Sahîh Muslim (1475): quoted at p87).
However, to my recollection, Spencer conveniently neglects to cite two other aḥādīth with a quite contrary message, namely Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3015) and Sahîh Muslim (1744).
Here, the killing of females is specifically condemned by Mohammed. The prophet is described as finding the body of a woman after a battle and reproving those responsible.
In short, Islamic law seems rather contradictory on the question of whether women can ever be killed in war. However, perhaps the two passages can be reconciled if female casualties are to be regarded as, to use two anachronistic contemporary terms, not ‘legitimate targets’ but rather excusable incidental ‘collateral damage’.
Again, this is reminiscent of the Old Testament, which contains similarly contradictory prescriptions regarding female captives.
Thus, in the passage which I quoted at the beginning of this review, deliberate massacres of entire cities, women and children included, is explicitly commanded (Deuteronomy 20;16-17).
However, elsewhere (Deuteronomy 20:12-14; Numbers 31:17-18), whereas Israelites are order to kill all adult males, they are advised to spare (or rather instead merely rape and enslave) certain classes of female captive.
Actually, Deuteronomy is not inconsistent; it is simply racist.
All non-Hebrews must be conquered, and all (non-surrendering) males of enemy groups must also be massacred. However, only among particularly objectionable ethnic groups (“these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance”: Deuteronomy 20:16) must the women and children also be massacred.
In contrast, Mohammad’s justification for the killing of women and children (“they are of them”) actually seems eminently practical, especially in this age of indiscriminate weaponry.
With bombs and missiles, civilian casualties are almost unavoidable. Yet to forsake the use of such weapons would be suicidal in a conflict with any enemy not willing to similarly handicap themselves.
Moreover, feminists ought presumably to welcome those Islamic aḥādīth (and biblical passages) which advocate the killing of women alongside their menfolk, since this is surely the logical conclusion (or perhaps the ‘reductio ad absurdum’) of what feminists have for so long so noisily and incessantly demanded – namely, the equal treatment of men and women.
Who Fights?
There is moreover another related form of sex discrimination implicit in so much Islamic teaching – namely, it is only males who are expected to sacrifice their lives in Holy Wars.
Spencer himself reports that, before a planned raid on Tabuk, a follower came to Mohammed asking to be excused. In response, “Muhammad granted him permission, but then received a revelation from Allah, counting people who made such requests among the Hypocrites” (p154: Qur'an 9:48-9).
Spencer reports:
“Allah even rebuked his prophet for excusing Muslims from the Tabuk expedition (Qur'an 9:43). He told Muhammad that true Muslims did not hesitate to wage jihad, even to the point of risking their property and their very lives. The ones who refused to do this weren't believers (Qur'an 9:44-45)” (p157).
However, it goes without saying that these injunctions applied only to men.
I am reminded of the build up to the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, when the media sought to justify the invasion by telling us incessantly how ‘oppressed’ women were in Afghanistan, because, apparently, they were forced to wear burkas.
Meanwhile, all able bodied men in Afghanistan were being forcibly drafted into the Taliban armed forces, including the elderly, some dragged from cars or their homes, and every household expected to provide at least one male to sacrifice in the coming war (Harding 2001).
Yet, strangely, no one said anything about men being oppressed in Afghanistan.
Likewise, one heard little about the widespread sexual abuse and sexual enslavement of young boys in Afghanistan, known as Bacha bāzī or ‘Dancing Boys’.
Instead, it was women, forced to wear Burkas, who were the only ones deemed to have been ‘oppressed’ – though I suspect it is the enforced veiling, seclusion and protections accorded women in Islamic societies that leads so many Afghan men to turn instead to young boys (‘bacha bereesh’, literally ‘boys without beards’) as an alternative sexual outlet.
Indeed, US troops serving in Afghanistan were specifically ordered not to interfere with the systematic sexual abuse of boys, on the grounds that “it is a part of their culture” (Goldstein 2015). Yet the wearing of burkas is also a part of Afghan culture and a surely less objectionable part of that culture than the sexual abuse of boys.
At any rate, the demand for women to wear burkas when in public was paralleled by the similar admonision that men go unshaven.
Yet both forms of sex discrimination are wholly trivial when compared to both the obligation to sacrifice oneself in war, and the sexual enslavement of boys.
In short, the idea that the right to wear high heels, short skirts, lipstick and sexually provocative clothing is a fundamental human right says more about the self-absorbed overprivileged lifestyles of western women than is does about real oppression.
Inheritance and Mahr
So are women oppressed under Islam as Spencer contends?
It is true that, under Islamic law, women are seen as possessions of their husbands, and commanded to be subservient and defer to them. However, in return, men were expected to provide for their wives.
Thus, Spencer rebukes the Quran for insisting that a son’s inheritance be twice that accorded one’s daughter (p273).
However, he neglects to mention a parallel form of discrimination against males which also represents an obvious rationale for the greater inheritance for males – namely that boys, if they wish to marry, will, not only be expected to both provide for their wife, but also must pay the Islamic bride price (‘Mahr’).
This Mahr is often extortionate and is payable directly to the bride herself, not to her family. Men in Iran are often imprisoned for failing to pay this sum on demand (see Mehraspand 2014).
Clearly it makes more sense to leave more money to your son than your daughter when your son is commanded by scripture to pay a bride-price should he wish to marry, and then expected to provide for his wife during marriage, whereas your daughter is likely to receive such a payment on marriage and thereafter be provided for by her husband.
Proving Rape
Even the supposed requirement for four male witnesses in order to convict a man of rape is a myth. This applies to other sexual offences (e.g. adultery), not rape
Indeed, even Spencer’s own account reveals that the requirement of four witnesses was actually introduced by Mohammed to protect women from allegations of adultery (p66-7: Quran 24:4, 24:6).
Given that infidelity typically occurred in secrecy, this made infidelity, in practice, impossible to prove – and any man who made such an allegation without the requisite four witnesses was himself punished by eighty lashes.
In contrast, women could evade punishment for adultery by claiming to have been raped, incentivizing false allegations.
Who Then is Oppressed?
Women are oppressed in traditional Islamic societies – but so are men. Islam is oppressive of all humans, male and female alike.
Indeed, oppression is virtually the defining principle of Islam, the very word ‘Islam’ famously translating as ‘submission’, which is defined by the OED as “The action of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person”.
Again, however, much the same is true of Christianity and Judaism. In both religions, adherents are expected to worship, obey, prostrate themselves in the presence of and sing songs in praise of, and sometimes even offer sacrifices to, or sacrifice themselves for, an allegedly almighty God.
This is, of course, directly analogous to how a subject under totalitarianism or despotism is expected to bow down before, obey and pay homage to an absolutist monarch or dictator.
‘Heil Hitler’ and ‘Praise be the Lord God’ are essentially analogous forms of salutation.
So all Judeo-Christian religions are oppressive. However, when men and boys are expressly singled out for massacre in holy scripture, while women and girls are spared, and when men are expected to fight and die in holy wars, if not martyr themselves with suicide bombs, for the glory of Allah, while women happily sit at home, perhaps wearing a burka, then there is no doubt whatsoever which sex is getting the better deal.
References
Harding L (2001) Taliban forcing thousands into army, Guardian, 4 October
Mehraspand A (2014) Indentured servitude for men in Iran: The myth of patriarchal oppressive divorce, A Voice For Men. (less)
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Kane Mason
Dec 16, 2015Kane Mason rated it really liked it
The Truth About Muhammad, by Robert Spencer.
I think it's important to say from the outset, because it's the truth, that most Muslim's do not support violent extremism, and most, regardless of what violent and barbaric acts their founder may or may not have done, and regardless of what violent teachings and misogyny can be found in the Koran, the Hadith and Sharia Law, most Muslim's practise their spiritual tradition peacefully and are NOT Islamists ("Islamist" meaning: those who wish to see Islam spread across the globe, creating a global Islamic empire).
However, we live in a time where there are some Muslims - violent Islamists - who are indeed waging Jihad. And, just as troubling, there was a poll done by the BBC which showed that up to 27% of Muslims in England sympathised with the Charlie Hebdo murderers, and another 10% wouldn't say. Adding to this, I started to find in my research that there are longstanding human rights issues toward women in countries under Sharia Law (Muslim Law). there are also so many people saying , "Islam is a religion of peace" and also that : the Koran doesn't push violence at all. It was because of all of this, that I very much wanted to look into Islam and develop my own understanding about these issues. And ever since I decided this was what I wanted to do, I've been trying to find some good sources of information (with good use of citations) to use for relevant exploration. Well, this book is definitely one of those sources.
"The Truth About Muhammad" by Robert Spencer is intelligent and bravely uncompromising in its pursuit of an honest portrait of Islam's founder. Noted, it is quite critical in its approach (I didn't give it five starts because it lacked any real emphasis of noble things Muhammad did) , but I can totally see why the author deems it necessary to write a book that takes a critically honest look at who, according to Muslim sources, Muhhamad really was. One reason being, myriad practising Muslims, according to this book, see Muhammad as a "perfect human" to be emulated across all time. That's a problem when you have a guy - Muhammad - who according to Muslim sources, was indeed violent, was indeed waging Jihad against "disbelievers", and was an advocate for what today would most definitely be called, domestic violence and arguably rape as well. .
Also, I feel this book is important, because there seems to me to be lot of pressure to conform to this idea that "Islam is a religion of peace", and that Muhammad was a peaceful, merciful and kind man. And I for one do not believe that pushing this idea, if it is not true, is the best way to navigate the issues we all face at the moment with all this hatred, killing and intolerance on multiple fronts. The truth, even when it may be inconvenient, is the best avenue in my opinion; as long as it is is accompanied with respect, love, empathy and compassion.
About the sources Spencer uses: All the sources Robert Spencer uses are Muslim ones. And he is extremely transparent from the outset about exactly which Muslim sources he has used to write his book, and explains too how most practising Muslim's would view these sources of information, when it comes to their believed historical accuracy. This is important, because what Spencer has tried to offer by way of this book, is not always what is most historically accurate, but what Muslim's believe to be historically accurate. Because as Spencer points out, Muhammad is seen as a "perfect man" and so should be looked to as a perfect example of how to behave. Countless citations are on offer too so the reader can check out for themselves the original texts (Ive done this a lot, it all check out so far).
Robert Spencer analyses Islam, and the life of Muhammid with the sophistication of a scholar and should be praised for the intelligence he brings to exploring the scriptural roots of this religion and the possible impact said documents have on the behaviour of it's followers. I noticed someone who gave this book a "one star" review, say that Spencer takes violent parts of Muslim scripture out of context. That just isn't the case. For example, with the Battle of Badr, Spencer explains that when Muhammad said "I will strike terror into the hearts of the disbelievers. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off all of their fingertips" (Koran: 8:12) he was talking about a specific army of polytheists on their way to try and wipe out the Muslims, and so was not talking about all "disbelievers" period (unfortunately it does seem that in other pieces at other times, he was) He also says that in context of the time and place in history, fighting, killing and taking slaves as spoils of war as Muhammad did, was not out of the ordinary or really particularly barbaric. But, he goes onto say what I have shared a few times already in this review, that the issue is that myriad Muslim's view Muhammad as a perfect human being who's actions are always righteous and also timeless, and so he should be emulated now as he acted then.
So, is Islam a religion of peace? Well, if you are going off of the aforementioned texts, then no, definitely not. But if you're going off of how many Muslim's are violent, then it's peaceful by and large for sure. That said, I feel, due to the violence that has happened in the name of Islam, and that it appears to been the increase, that there needs to be some changes within this faith - at least in certain countries and communities - regarding issues of: misogyny, freedom of speech and radicalisation. (less)
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Bhabani Mishra
Dec 03, 2021Bhabani Mishra rated it really liked it · review of another edition
Shelves: islam
If you have been following the ex-Muslim community since 9/11, you would already be aware of most this book talks about, if not this may be a good starting point. To my surprise the book is not as harsh as I thought it would be, it takes a more neutral POV than I am accustomed to from most Islamic critics. Though practicing muslim might still find it offensive it is one of the most euphemistic critic book I guess. It's hardly a critic but more of a un-heliographic journal. (less)
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Rodney
Jun 27, 2021Rodney rated it really liked it · review of another edition
Shelves: kindle
I liked it.
Good book on Islam and it founder Mohammed. I found the book informative and learned some things which is the number one reason that I enjoy reading. I recommend it.
flag1 like · Like · see review
George McCombe
Jun 02, 2018George McCombe rated it really liked it
Shelves: biography, world-history, religion, islam
Whenever an atrocity is committed by Islamic Jihadists, there is a rush by Western politicians and other members of the establishment to assert that the latest act of violence has ‘nothing to do with Islam’. This is not limited to terrorist attacks, but is the standard response whenever attention is drawn towards any unsavoury attitudes or practices associated with Islam. Mohammed—or Muhammad--, such people claim, was a ‘man of peace’ whose teachings have been perverted by a minority to advance their own political ends. Is this the case? Robert Spencer has devoted his career to the study of Islam and persuasively demonstrates in this book that those who engage in violence and oppression, far from corrupting the teachings of Islam, are acting in a manner entirely consistent with the example given by their Prophet.
Robert Spencer approaches the issue of Mohammed from two angles. The first is a study of the person of Mohammed as described in the Qur’an, the Hadith and the early biographies of him. The second is a look at the consequences of Muslim perception of him as the perfect man and worthy of imitation. Both approaches reveal aspects of Mohammed that non-Muslims will find extremely troubling.
Spencer does a fine job in presenting an overview of Mohammed’s life and, contrary to assertions by critics, places him within the context of the era in which he lived. While the early religious output of Mohammed was relatively benign in comparison to practices known in the region, the lack of acknowledgement of his claimed prophetic status by the majority of pagans, Jews and Christians in the area gradually hardened the message that he preached. The results which included him leading a massacre of pagan and Jewish tribes, and enshrining the harsh treatment of non-Muslims in law, continue to reverberate around the world today.
Spencer is thorough in examining the teachings and practices of Mohammed that many people would prefer to pretend didn’t exist. Spencer is often accused of taking verses from the Qur’an and other sources out of context. The reader is welcome to read this book with a copy of the Qur’an alongside it and will see that this charge is groundless. Furthermore, the fact that certain practices such as enforcing dhimmitude and severe punishment for crimes such as apostasy are common throughout the Islamic world demonstrates that a significant number of Muslims agree with Spencer’s reading of the Qur’an. It would seem that it his critics who are more comfortable taking verses out of context.
It goes without saying that not all Muslims put into practice the example given to them by Mohammed. This, however, does not alter what the texts say or the fact that millions of Muslims do follow his example as outlined in the Qur’an and the Hadith. Both the historical record and the theology are on the side of the hardliners and not the moderates. This may be alarming but it must be acknowledged if any serious progress is to be made in dealing with the issue of political Islam. Spencer’s book is a welcome contribution to this. (less)
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Helen
Jun 19, 2018Helen rated it it was ok · review of another edition
Recommends it for: Adults.
Recommended to Helen by: No-one.
I thought this wasn't surprisingly enough an overly negative book about the Prophet Mohammed, despite the "sensationalistic" cover and so forth. I read a bit about Islam after the 9/11 attack, and thought I'd see what this writer -- had to say -- although I realized he was probably an Islamophobe propagandist. Anyway, it turns out Mr. Spencer did his homework, he skillfully explains the ins and outs of the Islamic religion, how it is based on commentary in addition to the Koran, and what the consensus of scholars is with respect to Mohammed the man.
However, I can only give the book two stars, since obviously, the writer's intention is to pretty much emphasize the negative aspects of the religion, rather than consider everything Mohammed did. Personally, I'm not religious to begin with, although I respect all religions. I suppose I'm nominally Christian since I was baptized and brought up Christian, but I only have a tenuous attachment to religion. I think religion might have been invented by man as a kind of psychological crutch, and also perhaps bolsters the elites/ruling class - that aspect of religion is graphically demonstrated in the Homeric poems (just one example) as heroic ancient Greek warriors are assisted by various deities, and the Olympians are portrayed as arguing and acting much like their ruling class human counterparts.
One thing I wonder about though: Mohammed married his first wife Khadijah, his boss, and a woman quite a bit older than himself. He was considered a stocky, good-looking guy. Is it possible that the contradictions of the marriage, wherein Khadijah more or less held the dominant position, as the business owner of the caravan company in which he was employed, perhaps got to him after a while? He may have been viewed as no more than a toy catering to the much older and wealthier wife, who was also his boss. If he could find a way to turn the tables, and make her believe in him, as the more powerful of the two, despite him not having her money or property, then he would regain some of his self-respect. He was orphaned at an early age after all, and was perhaps un-educated. Therefore, to claim divine power might be a way for her -- Khadijah -- to follow him -- Mohammed, rather than the other way around. In fact, she was Muhammad's first convert to Islam. I'm not trying to downplay the genesis of the religion - it's not for me to say it's true or false, if folks find comfort in it, then it's true for them, I suppose. But just imagine if you were a propertyless, orphaned camel-driver, or caravan director (or whatever the title would have been) who caught the eye of the boss, a female of all things - or maybe he went to work for her thinking he might catch her eye, since she was a widow. Who knows? Did he marry her for money? Who knows? Certainly, after he assumed his prophethood - she revered him, that's for sure, not the other way around (him obeying her). He must have regained his dignity or even, gained it for the first time, after having been more or less a no-account worker, by bringing forth the Koran's verses, and preaching on the Arabian peninsula. He obtained political and economic power in this way, not just religious veneration and respect. Who can say what caused Muhammad to begin reciting the verses of the Koran to those who transcribed his sayings? Since, in general, I do not believe in supernatural occurrences, such as angels appearing and so forth, I wonder what psychological pressure must have led to the Prophet's rather late-in-life revelations.
Here are some quotes from the book:
"...it may yet turn out that as the West continues to pay homage to its idols of tolerance, multiculturalism, and pluralism, it will give up those hard-won freedoms voluntarily."
"...some historians believe that the Muhammad who comes to us in the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira is a composite figure, constructed later to give Arab imperialism a foundational mythos."
"Muhammad introduced Islam into an Arabia that was a welter of culture and religions. Muhammad's own tribe, the Quraysh, was pagan."
"[According to Muhammad Husayn Haykal, in is "Life of Muhammad"] ..."the rules which are law to the people at large do not apply to the great. A fortiori, they have no application on prophets the messengers of God."
"Abu Bakr [Muhammad's most faithful follower] was contemptuous [of those Muslims who abandoned their faith after hearing Mohammed's unconvincing descriptions of Jerusalem after his Journey by Night]: "If he says so then it is true. And what is so surprising in that? He tells me that communication from God from heaven to earth come to him in an hour of a day or night and I believe him, and that is more extraordinary than that at which you boggle!"
"Later Muhammad seems to have retreated from the claim that this was a bodily journey. Aisha [one of his wives] explained: "The apostle's body remained where it was but God removed his spirit by night."
"Once settled in Medina, the character of Muhammad's revelations began to change. The brief and arresting poetic apocalyptic of the early Meccan suras of the Qur'an ...began to give way to long, discursive, prosaic material, much of which involved making laws for the new community."
"These raids were not solely designed to exact revenge from the people who had rejected the Prophet who had arisen among them. They served a key economic purpose, keeping the Muslim movement solvent."
"In any event, [the battle of Badr vs. the Quraysh] ... was an occasion for him to avenge years of frustration, resentment, and hatred toward his people who had rejected him."
"Muhammad even received a revelation announcing that armies of angels joined with the Muslims to smite the Quraysh -- and that similar help would come in the future to Muslims who remained faithful to Allah..."
"Ultimately, Muhammad distributed the booty [from the battle of Badr] among the Muslims equally, keping a fifth for himself."
"Muhammad called both Jews and Christians to Islam, presenting it as the correction of the Judaism and Christianity of his day and the restoration of the original messages of Moses and Jesus..."
""Nothing so fits us and the vagabonds of the Quraysh," [Muhammad] ... exclaimed, "as the ancient saying 'Feed a dog and it will devour you.'"
"...[Muhammad] must have had a great deal of personal magnetism, as well as charm, in order to command such fierce loyalty among his followers (though then as now, it cannot be denied that the death penalty for leaving the group was a powerful inducement to remain within it)."
"If Western states acknowledged the existence of a global imperialist Islamic imperative, they could make aid to states like Egypt and Pakistan -- in which secular governments generally tolerate the proliferation of jihadist teachings in mosques and Islamic schools -- contingent upon the active rejection of those teachings and positive steps against them by the governments of each state."
All in all, this easy to read, and clearly written book is interesting, thought-provoking, raises interesting questions about the founder of Islam, the milieu that gave rise to him, and the way in which he more or less battled his way to success on the Arabian peninsula. From our perspective, there were aspects to his life and behavior that remain problematic, but in the context of medieval Arabia, his behavior was probably no different than that of other warlords. He had the additional advantage of commanding loyalty on a religious level - and perhaps it was the constant invocation of Allah, a God who spoke through the Prophet, assisting his troops who remained faithful to the religion he had invented, that held the key to his victory over all the tribes on the Arabian peninsula. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
