A very good review of Karen Armstrong's new book, Muhammad: a prophet for our time has been published in today's New York Times. I was a big fan of her previous book on the subject, and like what I've read so far in NPR's excerpt. Anyone else read it yet? I'd be curious as to the differences between this book and the previous one, given the occurrence of 9/11 etc in the meanwhile; apparently the current Islamophobic political situation was one of her motives for the new book.
Karen Armstrong on Muhammad, take 2
By zeeshanhasan - Posted on December 20th, 2006
Tagged:
I have this at home. I haven't read it yet. On the whole I find her work too apologetic. Well, rather I would have my Aunt Roxie read her books. She seems to write for an audience of people who just need to learn that Muslims are explicable human beings. That is a huge thing. Not my thing, but a huge thing. I am grateful someone does it and someone as good as she is.
I have Karen Armstrong's "Short History of Islam" (or is it Brief History?).
She said one thing that I found somewhat shocking, and one thing that I consider profound.
The shocking statement was that, when Mohammed took refuge in Yatrib, that town did not have the means to support the prophet and his followers, so Mohammed and his followers resorted to raids on caravans, to raise money, only being careful to avoid killing anyone as this would result in blood revenge. I do not personally doubt that such a thing took place, but I find it shocking to see it described in such a matter of fact fashion, and written off as a prevailing and acceptible practice of those times.
The profound thing Ms. Armstrong said in that book is that the political unity of a world-wide umma is perceived as a reflection of the unity of Allah as the only God, and the unity of the believers. I think this must be an accurate explanation for why Islam has always strived toward such a hegemony.
Laury, I can see why many people would consider her to be too apologetic. However, as far as I can see it's quite a fine line between being sympathetic and apologetic. I like to think she accomplishes the former, at least most of the time.
Sitaram, I'm glad you take issue with the violent cultural background of caravan raiding in 7th century Arabia. The NPR selection from the new book also focuses on that issue, which I thought was very appropriate. It is the profound difference between that environment and the modern day that can allow modern liberal Muslims to reinterpret the Qur'an and Islamic law in different ways today. I'm afraid this is too big an issue to do justice to in a comment, but please have a look at http://liberalislam.net/women if you have a chance.
That kind of raid is akin to how indigenous/tribal cultures practice warfare. More to display bravery and skill, less about annihilating the enemy. Glorified cattle raids are an important part of Celtic folklore. It probably goes way back to the proto-Indo-Europeans. Those early Muslims could be imagined as a bit like Robin Hood or an inspired pirate utopia turning the world upside down?
I got up way too early this morning. Need more coffee.
hakim