This is a good book that attempts to introduce Muhammad in the most positive light possible: Armstrong believes that Westerners do not understand enough about Islam and its founder, and so produces this argument. It is long on reason and seeking to find common ground - essentially in monotheism - between the East and West. No doubt this is an important task, but her approach in my reading is to bend over backward to excuse Muhammad of virtually any negative legacy. As such, this slants the book too much towards good intentions.

In socio-historical terms, Armstrong believes that Muhammad emerged in a culture in crisis, offering a new religious solution that first and foremost worked politically. The Arabs, she says, had developed a tribal culture, whereby relative peace was maintained by the threat of blood feud - if a tribal member was injured or murdered, revenge was exacted on whomever belonged to the offending tribe, beyond the individual responsibility of the person who carried out the act itself. This worked while tribes were separated in the desert, but began to break down with increasing urbanization in 7C: close proximity bred violence, which easily spiraled out of control into endless mob violence. Muhammad's solution was to create a version of monotheism, that united the Arabs to a single purpose, transcending the polytheistic patron gods of the various tribes in their battles. This is a very interesting existential perspective.

Armstrong also describes the unique details of Islam, as Muhammad created it: the Kuran offered a poetic vision that mesmerized many Arabs in an untranslatable sense. The new religion also offered a new kind of submission to Allah, which carried with it an ethical code that she convincingly argues is close to the essence of Islam. I enjoyed her vision of the religion and gained empathy from it for the prayers I have observed personally.

Muhammad's vision was of course not easy to impose on a primitive culture. This is where Muhammad's political genius comes in, a perspective I found fascinating and valuable: he knew when to compromise, but also understood how society was reorganizing itself and so could set political precedents that often caused grave doubts in his followers before revealing themselves as phenomenal strategic successes later on.

Along the way, Armstrong does pose many of the difficult questions, but somehow finds a way to dismiss them by putting them into historical context, comparing them to existing practices in Christendom and elsewhere. This works well, for example, when she argues that Muhammad in fact worked to liberate women (in a relative way). However, it often fails to satisfy, at least in my own reading. He ordered massacres in Jihad (even of Jews in Medina), the text of the Kuran froze many medieval attitudes into an orthodoxy that is proving rigid today, etc. These are serious problems that cannot be argued away as facilely as Armstrong attempts. In my opinion, she did not wrestle enough with a lot of these questions.

The book ends on an interesting note, arguing that the current crisis in Islam began in the 17C, over 1000 years after Muhammad created his politico-religious system. At that time, as science and then industry developed in Europe, Islamic states/empires began to falter, which raised the question of whether God annointed their religion as indisputably superior anymore. This is very thought-provoking and articulated a view I have wondered about for a long time.

Recommended. Armstrong's heart is in the right place, even if it makes her argument a bit too politically correct for my taste. Nonetheless, a worthy introduction to Islam it is indeed, but only as a starting point.

This is a good book that attempts to introduce Muhammad in the most positive light possible: Armstrong believes that Westerners do not understand enough about Islam and its founder, and so produces this argument. It is long on reason and seeking to find common ground - essentially in monotheism - between the East and West. No doubt this is an important task, but her approach in my reading is to bend over backward to excuse Muhammad of virtually any negative legacy.

In socio-historical terms, Armstrong believes that Muhammad emerged in a culture in crisis, offering a new religious solution that first and foremost worked politically. The Arabs, she says, had developed a tribal culture, whereby relative peace was maintained by the threat of blood feud - if a tribal member was injured or murdered, revenge was exacted on whomever belonged to the offending tribe, beyond the individual who carried out the act itself. This worked while tribes were separated in the desert, but began to break down with increasing urbanization in 7C: close proximity bred violence, which easily spiraled out of control. Muhammad's solution was to create a version of monotheism, that united the Arabs to a single purpose, transcending the polytheistic patron gods of the various tribes. This is a very interesting existential perspective.

Armstrong also describes the unique details of Islam, as Muhammad created it: the Kuran offered a poetic vision that mesmerized many Arabs in an untranslatable sense. The new religion also offered a new kind of submission to Allah, which carried with it an ethical code that she convincingly argues is close to the essesnce of Islam.

Muhammad's vision was of course not easy to impose on a primitive culture. This is where Muhammad's political genius comes in, a perspective I found fascinating and valuable: he knew when to compromise, but also understood how society was reorganizing itself and so could set political precedents that often caused grave doubts in his followers before revealing themselves as phenomenal strategic successes later on.

Along the way, Armstrong does pose many of the difficult questions, but somehow finds a way to dismiss them by putting them into historical context, comparing them to existing practices in Christendom and elsewhere. This works well, for example, when she argues that Muhammad in fact worked to liberate women (in a relative way). However, it often fails to satisfy, at least in my own reading. He ordered massacres in Jihad (even of Jews in Medina), the text of the Kuran froze many medieval attitudes into an orthodoxy that is proving rigid today, etc. These are serious problems that cannot be argued away as facilely as Armstrong attempts. In my opinion, she did not wrestle enough with a lot of these questions.

The book ends on an interesting note, arguing that the current crisis in Islam began in the 17C, over 1000 years after Muhammad created his politico-religious system. At that time, as science and then industry developed in Europe, Islamic states/empires began to falter, which raised the question of whether God approved their religion anymore. This is very thought-provoking and articulated a view I have wondered about for a long time.

Recommended. Armstrong's heart is in the right place, even if it makes her argument a bit too politically correct for my taste. Nonetheless, a worthy introduction to Islam it is indeed.

It's been awhile since I read this book, but I must say that it is clear and concise, and informative. I think everyone should read this book, maybe George Bush should be sent a copy (does he read?)

It's imperative to have understanding about the Story of Mohammed, after all, we know he existed, we have no proof that Christ did.

It is simply amazing what Mohammed managed to do to create stability where there was the possibility for factions by the score to develop. Bad enough we must deal with two factions at this time, (and Karen explains where this originated) But we have Mohammed to thank for the fact there are 'only' two.
It could be worse!

I was glad to see, too, that Karen put the connection together in this book about the Ismael the first son of Abraham, (with the maid servant of Sarah) and Mohammed connection . I was sure there was a connection. It's in this book!

Insight, and education, makes such a huge difference in our perspectives. Karen is a prolific writer who began this writing early in life for reasons explained in The Spiral Staircase. Another great book that helps us to understand the part the brain plays in spirituality. Go on to read, The Brain That Changes Itself. ( not an Armstrong book)

I have read several reviews about Karen Armstrong book many have liked it and others have called her naive . I guess it is how we view her writting skill. First point is that she is not a muslim to have any kind of biasing.I have found her impartial.she has presented queries from western perspective as well as islamic perspective. She has presented her work in such a way that it brings out prejudism and threaten their own pre assumtions regarding Mohammed and Islam. I have found her work very analytic not lacking any sophistication.
This book can bring out prejudism and preconcieved ideas that people have developed over the ages living in western world viewing islam through that lense.
It is how we view a glass half full or half empty. We are looking at same book and presenting different views as we see it.

I would have preferred more direct sources- more quotes, more historical moments- less interjecting of personal ideologies, especially her recovering Catholic philosophical interludes. She also made blunders that led me to question her reliability. For example, she inferred that the Qu'ran is written in chronological order! (The Qu'ran is ordered from longest to shortest chapters).

Her book does not strike me as being historically accurate, but is an attempt to show Muhammad in a positive light- every attack Muhammad made on the Quraysh, Jews, and non-believers were pro-active defensive measures... reminiscent of George Bush's "pre-emptive strikes".

I enjoyed a few passages when Armstrong's personal interludes were kept down to a minimum and the history of a fascinating man and time and place unfolded. But for the most part I felt like I had to read between the lines. I know when I'm hearing only one side of a story.

Definitely not a historical book. Falls into the category of polemics.

If you haven't read an other book on the subject try a different author first.

Karen Armstrong writes an incredibly accurate portrayal of the life of the Prophet accept without 75% of his life. Muhammad had a life where the entire last half was dripping with blood. Armstrong does a great job of referencing the great, peaceful philosophies of Muhammad while grazing over the slaughter of the Jews of Banu Qurayze for not converting. Islam has the belief of abrogation, which is that it is alright for the Qur'an to contradict itself because the later revelation overwrites the earlier one. The call for Jihad at the end of Muhammad's life is then the law that is to be followed. Muhammad was not a man of peace by any means. Extremely intelligent, and a phenominal leader, but far from peaceful. For a dry but immensely more accurate picture of Muhammad's life, read The Life of Muhammad. This is the oldest account of the life of the Prophet that is still in existance and many historians claim as the most accurate.

A must read for almost everyone who wants a better understanding of Islam...Karen Armstrong has written the book with so much passion that it makes you wonder if she is a Muslim...She has managed to give an objective overview of the life of Muhammad (saw) - a great leader whose followers have gone astray from the essence of his teachings...and given the skeptics an opportunity to tarnish a beautiful faith whose essence is 'peace'. Please also read Karen's new book 'Muhammad- A prophet for our time' released post 9/11. It provides an interesting perspective to current day world issues.

As a Muslim I wish Karen has never written this book. Even though the intention was right, the book is filled with numerous errors, baseless opinions and constant unjustified assumptions. She seems to make up statements that suit her own particular outlook - if you look at people's comments on her other books; you see that she as an unhealthy habit of this.
1. The pre-Islamic Arabs did not find their religion inferior to that of the Jews and Christians. They loved their Gods and way of life. These Arabs never wished to have a Prophet for their very own. If this was true, they would have all embraced Muhammad with open arms
2. When Muhammad received his first revelation, he did not become suicidal as Karen will like you to believe!!! But yes he was overwhelmed and frightened
3. She constantly contradicts herself. She'll begin by saying that God gave him a revelation, than she will say that Muhammad took a particular custom from the Jews and integrated it into his own religion. This happens throughout the entire book. She should of just stuck to one line of thought, either that God gave him the revelations or Muhammad just simply believed he did
4. Muslims believe the devils (shaytan) will be punished for eternity not forgiven!!! In fact hell well mostly consist of devils
5. She believes that Muhammad learned about Abraham and Ishmael from the Jews from Medina and used it for his own religion. This is another of her baseless assumptions.
6. The fasting of the month of Ramadan did not begin to commemorate the battle of Badr. If she doesn't understand the basic pillars of Islam it shows you why she can be prone to so many errors.
7. Karen states that Islam was originally a religion for the Arabs and that some conversions were prohibited on racial boundaries. This is another absurd statement by her, considering that some of the earliest converts were Jews, Persians and Abyssinians [modern day Ethiopians] and that Muhammad preached that there is no race in Islam from the very beginning.
I'm sure there were many more errors in the book. People say it's the little things that make up life, and in terms of a book it's the little things that make up its integrity. If you want to learn about the life of Muhammad and Islam I suggest Martin Lings: Muhammad - His life based on the earliest sources'.

I feel strongly that, in this book, Armstrong's passion for her subject shines through magnificently. Her adoration for the Prophet shines through on every page, bringing one closer to the warm, conflicted, human personality of the Prophet, which can be so obscured in modern Islam. I found this book refreshing, engaging and informative. Its principal shortcoming seems to be the author's unwillingness to say ANYTHING bad about the Prophet. But, on the other hand, don't we already have enough people around doing that?

Having read a number of books on this topic I can safely say that Karen Armstrong has written a very gripping biography of Prophet Muhammad, which makes us THINK instead of holding onto preconceived notions - a sign of a great book. It is very relevant to what is happening today in the world, as one fifth of the world owe it's faith to his efforts. The author very expertly explains how the Prophet with his devotion and powerful personality turned around a people primarily belonging to the desert, into a nation which conquered the two main world powers of that period, within 16 years of his arrival into medina. We have tried to over simplify the Prophet's life ever since, but as shown beautifully in this book, he was a human being experiencing and facing all the complexities of life as we all do. The book cover is magnificent as well.

If you are looking for a serious work on the life of Muhammad then look no further. This is an amazing read that keeps the reader turning pages throughout the book. This will help any reader get an insight into Islam from a serious academic and unbiased perspective.

Islam, the faith founded by Muhammad, has usually been misunderstood by Westerners in the past, and perhaps even more so since a group of extreme fanatics attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. Like some violent extremists and literalists of all faiths, these people chose to commit a great crime in the belief that their religion required such an act against what they saw as an impious and decadent West. Similar attacks were launched against England, Spain and Australia (the latter in Indonesia) and led to the current impasse that threatens to become a violent religious war, not only between Islam and the West, but between branches of the faith itself.

What is the background of this faith that inspired such fanatical violence? Is it truly more violent than other religions? Exactly who was Muhammad, how did he become the Prophet of Islam and what did he teach?

These questions are to a large degree answered in Karen Armstrong's masterful book "Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet." In it we learn about what is known and what was said about the life of Muhammad, the most recent of the great religious teachers (unless you count Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism). Karen Armstrong has produced an easy to read popular introduction to Islam and the Prophet. This is certainly not a scholarly study, but in general the story as told by a non-Muslim who is trying to portray Muhammad in as good a light as she can. Certainly many people have criticised her for this portrayal, especially in regard to the treatment of women in Islamic societies (not totally Muhammad's fault, as at least some the the problem comes from fairly brutal local traditions, not Islam), his polygamy (probably as much a result of the need for widows and orphaned girls to have husbands as for lust), and his massacre of the Bani Qurayzah, which was certainly violent, but under the circumstances and the times, not exactly unknown. Indeed, Islamic armies were often more merciful than Christian ones during the Crusades. This is not to say they were always so, however.

Despite a few irritating typos, this book is the best popular treatment of the subject that I have encountered so far. Certainly it is a good introduction to the life of the Prophet for Westerners who are not blinded by the excesses of the few. As a non-Muslim I recommend this book as a antidote to the often venomous (and inaccurate) writings that have appeared, especially since 9/11, on Muhammad and the followers of Islam.

Muhammad and his religion, Islam, has been usually misunderstood by Westerners in the past and perhaps even more so after a group of extreme fanatics attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. Like some violent extremists and literalists of all faiths, these people chose to commit a great crime in the belief that their religion required such an act against what they saw as an impious and decadent West. Similar attacks were launched against England, Spain and Australia (the latter in Indonesia) and led to the current impasse that threatens to become a violent religious war, not only between Islam and the West, but between branches of the faith itself.

What is the background of this faith that inspired such fanatical violence? It is truly more violent than other religions? Exactly who was Muhammad, how did he become the Prophet of Islam and what did he teach?

These questions are to a large degree answered in Karen Armstrong's masterful book "Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet." In it we learn about what is known and what was said about the life of Muhammad, the most recent of the great religious teachers (unless you count Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism). Karen Armstrong has produced an easy to read popular introduction to Islam and the Prophet. This is certainly not a scholarly study, but in general the story as told by a non-Muslim who is trying to portray Muhammad in as good a light as she can. Certainly many people have criticised her for this portrayal, especially in regard to the treatment of women in Islamic societies (not totally Muhammad's fault, as at least some the the problem comes from fairly brutal local traditions, not Islam), his polygamy (probably as much a result of the need for widows and orphaned girls to have husbands as for lust), and his massacre of the Bani Qurayzah, which was certainly violent, but under the circumstances and the times, not exactly unknown. Indeed, Islamic armies were often more merciful than Christian ones during the Crusades.

Despite a few irritating typos, this book is the best popular treatment of the subject that I have encountered so far. Certainly it is a good introduction to the life of the Prophet for Westerners who are not blinded by the excesses of the few. I recommend this book as a antidote to the often venomous writings that have appeared, especially since 9/11, on Muhammad and the followers of Islam.

The book purports to strip away "centuries of myth and distortion"--yet she needs to do a better job of dealing with canonical Islamic texts which have no doubt contributed to this distortion. Perhaps the major example here is Ibn Ishaq's _Life of the Prophet Muhammad_, which Al Azhar University in Egypt considers authoritative and reliable. And if you don't know what the importance of Al Azhar University is in the Islamic world, you're likely to be one of the googly-eyed Starbucks-guzzling fools who will uncritically swallow Armstrong's lies. Ibn Ishaq, a pious Muslim, unabashedly describes the Prophet's treatment of the Jews of the Banu Quraiza tribe, whom he had lined up in front of a ditch and beheaded.
A close reading of the Quran doesn't help mitigate this harsh picture of the Prophet. All you have to do is read Suras 5 (the Table) and 9 (Immunity) to see that Islam is a religion which MANDATES violent, armed struggle against unbelievers so that they are one of three things:
(1) dead (2) converted (3) humiliated into accepting second-class status as "protected" peoples who must pay a special tax (sort of like extortion or the Mafia version of "protection."
Read Armstrong if you want to, but don't confine all your reading about Islam to her books. Read the Islamic texts themselves, to include the Quran itself, of course. You WILL BE SHOCKED.

I am usually a fan of Karen Armstrong -- her work on comparative religion is normally stellar, and easy to process at any level. This book surprises me, though -- although she seems to very much respect Muhammad as a man and for the historial role that he played, I am a bit disappointed in her characterization of an entire culture. Throughout the book, she refers to the tribal system of Arabia (pre- and post-Islam) as primitive and uncivilized, in relation to the "civilized" agricultural West. As an anthropologist, I was shocked at this characterization, particularly from a noted scholar such as Armstrong. She continually downplays the organization of tribal and pastoral society as somehow "needing" improvement -- a gross misunderstanding of culture and social organization on a landscape. Unforunately, this colors the rest of the book (particularly the early chapters -- I found them disturbing at some points to read).

Although I encourage readers to read this book, I also encourage you to round out your study of Islam and Muhammad with other books so that you have a rounded view. I particularly recommend "No God But God" (Aslan) -- hopefully it will provide a broader perspective to Armstrong's book.

I am heartened by her attempt to humanize a very dehumanized character in history -- I just wish she would have taken the time to look at the society in the same humanizing light.

I am usually a fan of Karen Armstrong -- her work on comparative religion is normally stellar, and easy to process at any level. This book surprises me, though -- although she seems to very much respect Muhammad as a man and for the historial role that he played, I am a bit disappointed in her characterization of an entire culture. Throughout the book, she refers to the tribal system of Arabia (pre- and post-Islam) as primitive and uncivilized, in relation to the "civilized" agricultural West. As an anthropologist, I was shocked at this characterization, particularly from a noted scholar such as Armstrong. She continually downplays the organization of tribal and pastoral society as somehow "needing" improvement -- a gross misunderstanding of culture and social organization on a landscape. Unforunately, this colors the rest of the book (particularly the early chapters -- I found them disturbing at some points to read).

Although I encourage readers to read this book, I also encourage you to round out your study of Islam and Muhammad with other books so that you have a rounded view. I particularly recommend "No God But God" (Aslan) -- hopefully it will provide a broader perspective to Armstrong's book.

I am heartened by her attempt to humanize a very dehumanized character in history -- I just wish she would have taken the time to look at the society in the same humanizing light.

I might disagree with karen armstrong over a few things but at least she tried her best.
A reader posits that jewish tribes had become de facto second-class citizens in their own land. Indeed he is a twenty first reader but mistakes in mixing principles of today with that of a few centuries ago. He deliberately reads history as if it was happening today, there were no citizens let alone second class or third back then in Arabia, Nationality didnt exist even.
Another mistake he makes in" Muhammad's total annihilation of the Qurayzah" which is straight off some ancient stories of arab historians who wrote about such incidents at least a century afterwards where someof the stories themselves were laregly exaggerated and numbers inflated too. One has to look at the number of fatalities of the battles to see the vast discrepancies from one historian to another, its easy to see the historian himself saying 70 were killed & in some other stories 700 & others say 300 killed, to take such stories of total annhilation seriously from historians who werent sure what age was Mohamed hismelf when he died or some of his companions with 20 year difference sometimes shows how you can make a mockery of history.
Anyone reading historical books should bear in mind thats its not absolute & that these events took place in a different world than ours by people who lived alot differently than we do today. Anyone who wants to know more must read more sources & not just pick from one or 2 what he likes & dismiss what refutes it.

A most beautiful book. Islam and its prophet seen through the caring eyes of a knowledgeable woman willing to keep an open and receptive mind. Easy to read, yet not overly simplified. A good place to start for those who wish to know more about this religion and its founder; for those who sincerely wish to explore and learn; for those who want to understand and appreciate...not dismiss...

While this book is definately an excellent introduction to the life of Mohammed, Karen Armstrong clearly doesn't have the knowledge required to write an in-depth and more accurate biography of the prophet. The sources armstrong uses are mostly western and whilst she does depend on many early islamic sources, she does not do so critically. Tabari, a scholar that she quotes several times in a book, recounts different versions of early islamic history side by side (she mentions this point in the book) however she only uses those versions that are in lui with the mainstream interpretation of islamic history. Ismaili's, Shi'ites, Sufis, kharijites and other minority sects have different interpretations of the early history of islam, and whilst I am by no means saying that their versions of history are truer than the mainstream sunni version, I believe that is important to also give their viewpoints. For example, Armstrong give a rosy picture of the Caliphite period which came after the death of the prophet, whilst minority sects are more critical of this period. She also gives little importance to the members of the prophets family like ali and fatima whilst in shiite islam they are considered central figures who were persecuted by Abu Bakr, Omar and Aisha. She calls Fatima the daughter of the prophet a weak figure whilst in reality she is a very strong women who went to the mosque after the prophets death, and in front of an audience of mostly men, demanded her inheritance which was taken from her from abu bakr. Although muslims disagree on whether it was right for abu bakr to take her inheritance from her, it is important to note that not all muslims see abu bakr as a good persons and many shia portray both him and omar as cunning and deceiving. I am not advocating the shi'ite version of history, but I believe that armstrong should have examined the discrepanies between the two versions (and also the other minority sects) thus giving a less biased viewpoint of early islamic history.
Another problem that I have with armstrong is her apparent lack of understanding when it comes to the arabic names of the biblical prophets. For example, she mentions that mohammed may have confused mary, the mother of jesus with miriam the sister of aaron because they are both called mariam in the quran. In fact Christian Arabs call Mary, Mariam also and they call Aarons sister Miriem (note the slight difference)
All in all though, it is an excellent biography and I highly recommend that you read it.

Mohamed is a prophet who used extortion and terror to take over power, and he used them mercilessly. Once in Medina, he took over power, killed his critics (for example, three poets who rejected him), and expelled and murdered the Jews of Medina, who constituted 20 to 40% of the cities' inhabitants. As for the Pagans of Mecca, he terrorized them by attacking their caravans, and forcing them to pay tribute. He used the extortion money to build up an army. Eventually, he took over Mecca, and stole the Pagan Holy Shrine, and called it his own: The Moslem Holiest shrine. The pagans could not longer exist in what is now Saudi Arabia: They had to convert or face death.

Within a few years after his death, neither Jews, nor Christians could live and worship their faith in the Arabian Penninsula. That ban is enforced until today: No churches in Saudi Arabia. No non-Moslem may visit Mecca.

All this is ignored in Armstrong's book, who is trying to paint a totally false picture of a Prophet for whom the end -- imposing his religion while pretending to be tolerant -- justifies the most brutals of means.

I like this book because it is an explanation of Islam, to the western world from a western person in her most objective way. This is important because most westerners don't bother to take on readings of the abudndant available muslim-egyptian litertures on Islam.

I admire this book because though she is a westerner, she gave me a few more historical fact about my prophet which I myself didn't know. And I've been a muslim all my life (go figure).

She tries hard to explain the objectivity of every action Muhammad (PBUH) took in his lifetime. These are very precious because most western paradigm cannot understand some of those actions. Example: why he conducted polygamy. It was not due to lust. In order for islam to flourish, it has to change and deal with the community. The community must be at peace for a condusive environment for the teachings to commence. Therefore he decided to marry the daughters of the always-fighting-each-other chiefs to establish bloodties because pledges of alliegance can always be broken, but blood ties cannot. Hence, peace. This is exactly the same method used by european royals, inter-marrying each other to secure peace. no difference at all.

The fact that Karen to this extent of research (finding the real reasonings) is impressive. However, she was not able to explain a few of his actions which is normal because as far as I know, Karen is not a muslim.

Great book. Westerns sld read this book.