- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
DISCLAIMER: I write fairly lengthy reviews, so I apologize for the length of this post. Feel free to skip it if you like. This is Armstrong’s second biography of the prophet Muhammad. It is shorter than the first, meant to be a more brief version focused on helping Westerners understand Muhammad, and by extension Islam more effectively.
In review, Armstrong lays out the life of the prophet in 5 main parts, namely Mecca, Jahiliyyah, the Hijrah, the Jihad, and Salam. In Mecca, the prophet came to an understanding of his revelatory gifts. This seemed to happen rather spontaneously, and, like other prophets, Muhammad did not know what to make of his experiences. Like many prophets, Muhammad was rejected primarily by his own people. He desired social change based on his revelations and this did not sit well this those in power.
Muhammad was eventually driven out of Mecca and took up residence in Medina. This is where Muhammad spent most of his prophetic career. At this period in history, violence seemed to be much more accepted, and Muhammad’s efforts were no exception. Although eventually Muhammad did become an advocate of peace, he was no stranger to war, and used violence to obtain his political/religious agenda. One of the primary points emphasized by Armstrong is the dispelling of the notion that Jihad is a violent pillar of Muslim faith. Jihad means “struggle” and was primarily meant to be a personal struggle, or wrestle to align one’s will with God (in the opinion of Armstrong).
Armstrong says in the introduction:
“Some Muslim fundamentalists have based their militant ideology on the life of Muhammad; Muslim extremists believe that he would have condoned and admired their atrocities. Other Muslims are appalled by these claims, and point to the extraordinary pluralism of the Qur’an, which condemns aggression and sees all rightly guided religions as deriving from the one God. We have a long history of Islamaphobia in Western culture that dates back to the time of the Crusades. In the twelfth century, Christian monks in Europe insitsted that Islam was a violent religion of the sword, and that Muhammad was a charlatan who imposed his religion on a reluctant world by force of arms; they called him a lecher and a sexual pervert. This distorted version of the Prophet’s life became one of the received ideas of the West, and Western people have always it difficult to see Muhammad in a more objective light.”
Later in the book we do learn that Muhammad did use violent means to achieve his goals. However, it is painted in the light of the customs of the times. While this may not make it right, it certainly does help us understand. At this point, Muhammad also instituted polygamy. This was primarily instituted in order to take care of the numerous widows and children who had been left behind from the battles.
At the end of the book, and toward the end of Muhammad’s life, Muhammad seemed to have taken a turn toward pacificism. He stopped resisting the Quraysh (those in Mecca who forbade his return) and humbly accepted their abuses against him and other Muslims. This worked to Muhammad’s advantage and eventually Muhammad was able to regain control of Mecca and overthrow the Quraysh by non-violent means.
Here is my take on the book:
I really like Armstrong’s writing style, and I thoroughly enjoyed learning about Islam, and its origins. One difficulty I faced is in the abundance of foreign arabic words in the text. Although Armstrong does define them when she uses them, I found myself continually forgetting what each one meant, and why it was significant. This isn’t a fault of hers per se, but is a difficulty in learning about Islam in general.
There is one particular idea that I would like to break down a bit. Armstrong is of the strong opinion that the interpretation of “jihad” as a holy war, and an aggressive action against non-Muslims is unjustified despite the interpretations of many and despite Muhammad’s example somewhat to the contrary. I am of mixed opinion on the matter. I want to believe that what she thinks is true, and I think one can make a good case for the customs of that period of time, as well as the inimical doctrines that preach pluralism and peace towards those of other religious persuasions. At several places in the Qur’an the “People of the Book” (Christians and Jews) are praised and peaceful relations with them are mightily encouraged. And yet, in other places Muslims are encouraged to strive against them.
I think there are multiple things going on that have led to what Westerners view as the “holy war.” First, it seems to me that the Qur’an, like most scriptures (IMHO), have contradictory passages throughout on some topics. Are God, Jesus, Holy Spirit one, or three? Are “People of the Book” to be loved, and respected since they worship the same God, or be warred against? Secondly, I got the impression that, like Joseph Smith, the revelations Muhammad received addressed the problems the prophet was facing at the time. Tnis, I think, is what leads to somewhat discorant scriptures since each situation is different. In those cases God seems to be giving the solution for this particular problem rather than some great ideological cause. In some sense, to me, this feels very “convenient” (sarcasm implied) that God answers the pleas of his prophet in a way that often justifies the prophet’s actions or intents. Armstrong makes the point that the Qur’an justified the war on Meccans, but only when religious freedom and liberty were in danger. If such justifications for such actions are really true, I am led to believe that God is a very confusing god more interested in the outcomes than the means. I think in Mormonism we have at least one similar example in Nephi killing Laban. Thirdly, I think culture plays a large role in the interpretation and emphasis that we place on scriptures. If it suits our current culture we favor the interpretation of one set of scriptures, deemphasizing the others. War, fighting, and discord are prevalent in the Middle East, and have been for centuries (millenia?). So I am not surprised that some Muslims will place importance on the Qur’anic verses promoting “striving” against the “People of Book” completely ignoring the verses promoting pluralism. Finally, I should not discount the obvious fact that the vast majority of Muslims do not promote a violent “jihad” agenda. The vast majority of Muslims do emphasize the peace, love, and harmony that is promoted in the Qur’an with regard to those of other faiths.
I must admit that most of my thoughts while reading the book revolved around the parallels to Joseph Smith and the early saints. Frankly, I find the similarities startling in one sense, and yet unsurprising in another. On the one hand, the similarities feel so extraordinary to me that I cannot understand how I could possibly have believed in Joseph Smith’s story and rejected Muhammad’s at one time in my life (or truthfully that I never even gave it a chance). OTOH, this is the story of the mystics and visionaries of the world. Their methods, works, books, and revelations are very similar and the truths they bring forth have striking similarities.
For the rest of this review I would like to iterate the similarities that I found particularly striking.
1. Muhammad, like Joseph Smith did not seem to necessarily ask for the role he eventually took on. Their journeys initiated with simple questions, desires, and events that seem ordinary, but resulted in the extraordinary. In both scenarios, these men seemed to be rather surprised by their visions and revelations. This does seem to give creedence to their accounts.
2. Both men brought forth inspired books. Many claim that the Qur’an could be none other than divine just based on the language alone. This does not sound too unlike Joseph’s claim of the BoM being the most correct book on earth. One difference, however, is that Muhammad did seem to recognize more fully the importance of the Qur’an. In other words, the Qur’an was what defined Islam, as it was a compilation of the revelations (not unlike the Doctrine and Covenants). Joseph, on the other hand, didn’t seem to put quite as much emphasis on the BoM, almost to the point where one has to wonder whether Joseph really understood what was in the BoM and the impact it would have.
3. Both Joseph and Muhammad seemed to slowly grow into their calling. In Mormonism some have the idea that Joseph simply received text messages written by God indicating what he wanted done and how it was to be implemented. In fact, revelations to both men came at spontaneous times and left the men wondering how to enact, or implement the revelation. They had to learn and grow in wisdom and understanding as pieces of their theology came to them. In short, both prophets learned and authored the concepts of “line upon line.”
4. Both men tell a similar tale of receiving revelation. Note the similarities between Armstrong’s characterization of Muhammad and some of the descriptions of Joseph Smith receiving revelation. Here are Armstrong’s words:
“Under the inspiration of Allah, Muhammad was feeling his way towards an entirely new solution, convinced that he was not speaking in his own name, but was simply repeating the revealed words of God. It was a painful, difficult process. He once said: ‘Never once did I receive a revelation without thinking that my soul had been torn away from me.’ Sometimes the message was clear. He could almost see and hear Gabriel distinctly. The words seemed to ‘come down’ to him, like a shower of life-giving rain. But often the divine voice was muffled and obscure: ‘Sometimes it comes unto me like the reverberations of a bell, and that is the hardest upon me; the reverberations abate when I am aware of their message.’ He had to listen to the undercurrent of events, trying to discover what was really going on. He would grow pale with the effort and cover himself with his cloak, as if to shield himself from the divine impact. He would perspire heavily, even on a cold day, as he turned inwards, searching his soul for a solution to a problem, in rather the same way as a poet has to open himself to the words that he must haul from the depths of himself to the conscious level of his mind. In the Qur’an, God instructed Muhammad to listen intently to each revelation as it emerged; he must be careful not to impose a meaning on a verse prematurely, before its full significance had become entirely clear.” – pp. 56 – 57
5. Both Joseph and Muhammad became war generals (basically). While Muhammad was certainly more violent in achieving his goals, both men resorted to militias and violence to retain their rights to freedom to worship. Additionally, I think that Muhammad’s increased use of violence was primarily a product of his time and culture. It was not uncommon to raid camps, caravans, and cities merely in order to prove a point and gain favor with a certain tribe. In all fairness, Joseph’s violence was most often in self-defense, whereas Muhammad was clearly at times on the offensive.
6. Both men worked furiously against the people of their time to modify culture. In other words, both men seemed to be ahead of their time socially, and culturally, and dreamed of a society that many resisted. In fact, these utopian societies had similarities. Both dreamed of a society in which divisions between classes were blurred, or removed, where universal human rights were respected. Both wanted all things to be equal, and for there to be peace and harmony amongst all people. In fact, the commonalities of their desired societies seem to exist among religious leaders of many times and places, including Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and additionally many cult leaders.
7. Both pushed against cultural norms for women. Additionally, Joseph pushed against cultural norms for Blacks as well. Ironically (depending on your point of view) both men also instituted polygamy which had a tremendous effect on the cultural norms for women. In the case of Muhammad, his treatment of his wives did seem to set an example of a better way to treat women. Indeed, even in the Qur’an women are revered and held up as important figures in society. Polygamy seemed to bolster this notion (of course dictated by the times and customs). Obviously, Joseph instituted polygamy as well. Whether or not this had the same uplifting effect upon women is certainly debatable and a matter of opinion, but Joseph also instituted a society, or sorority of women and gave his wife charge over it.
8. The followers of both men were fiercely loyal, perhaps to a fault in the eyes of many. OTOH, that seems to be what is needed in order for such religions to grow and become large movements. Both religions required much of their followers and seemed cult-like for their times and culture. Both religions seemed to divide families and create intense feelings among their opponents. It seems to be a direct product of the brilliance of their respective leaders in combatting the resistance against their movement that allowed their ideas to progress to later stages of development and continue to the present day.
9. Needless to say, both men had many many attempts on their lives. One significant difference is that Joseph’s enemies eventually did succeed in their attempts. Muhammad, in contrast, lived until an old age and died in the arms of his favorite wife.
Although theologically, Islam and Mormonism are very different, the characteristics of their founders, and nature of the initial followers have striking similarities. I think Armstrong does a very good job of articulating and making a case for Muhammad. I feel I am better equipped to understand Islam, and am open to and desire to obtain the goodness found in the Qur’an which I plan to read.
Great Review! Well done. It is very interesting to me the parallels you drew with Joseph Smith…I may need to go get this book and read it for myself.
There is something interesting to seeing how other mystics and visionaries were similar to Joseph, which in some ways validates Joseph as a credible mystic and prophet…and on the other side of the same coin also validates Muhammed, the Buddha, and others as well.
Thanks for the review, JMB. Of the major religions, I am ashamedly quite ignorant of the history of Islam. Your thorough review and comparison to Joseph was quite enlightening and entertaining. Thanks for taking the time to write it!
Heber13 wrote:There is something interesting to seeing how other mystics and visionaries were similar to Joseph, which in some ways validates Joseph as a credible mystic and prophet…and on the other side of the same coin also validates Muhammed, the Buddha, and others as well.
Yes…agreed! From a purely objective standpoint, the similarities show what traits a religious leader must have to gain believing followers…whether truly divinely inspired…or not! I’ve know many who believe that the similarities are so striking that they deeply believe they were all inspired by God. And others have said they all just know what it takes to sell people on a religious product — no real revelation, but great salesmanship.
Who knows?!
I was happy to find this review because this is something that I have been studying a bit myself lately. Here are a couple links to LDS articles on Muhammad and Islam. Both pretty interesting. A Latter-day Saint Perspective on Muhammad
By James A. Toronto
Islam and Mormonism— A Comparison
By Hugh Nibley
Quote:“fairly lengthy reviews”
Thank you for not giving us the normally lengthy version.
😯 Yeah, jmb275, that’s ridiculous! Could you please cut it down to a firehose level next time 😆 😆 😆 !I find Islam to be most fascinating, and very misunderstood by Westerners. There is a lot of great stuff in the Qur’an, and their pure theology “submission to God” is very intriguing. I feel like much of Muhammad’s revelations were about trying to submit to God, but were wrapped up in the culture of the time, and Muhammad’s political agenda of getting back into Mecca.
Well, amongst the similarities I can think of between Muhammad and Joseph Smith – * Both got turned away from various churches (and synagogues in the case of Muhammad)
* Both got given a book of scripture by an angel.
* Both advocated polygamy.
* Both led a group of their followers away from their original location.
* Both got involved in politics in some way.
* Both are supposed to have been relatively uneducated.
* Both became military leaders of sorts.
I think however Muhammad was much more violent, and made proper wars against his opponents. I read the Koran a long time ago, I have to say it didn’t make the same impression on me as the BoM. Both are quite Old Testament in their flavor, but the Koran has more blood and thunder in it.
I suppose a parallel could be drawn between the Hadith and the D&C too.
Quote:Other Muslims are appalled by these claims, and point to the extraordinary pluralism of the Qur’an, which condemns aggression and sees all rightly guided religions as deriving from the one God.
From my personal study and notes on the Koran (albeit in English), it’s fairly obvious that it’s completely in two minds about how Jews and Christians should be treated. At some points it refers to them as “people of the book”, and at others describes them less pleasantly. It also says that the idea that God could have a son is “shirk” and blasphemy.
Thanks SamBee, some of those I hadn’t thought of. If you don’t mind, I’m gonna use a couple of those in a post I’m writing for mormonmatters.org. jmb275 wrote:Thanks SamBee, some of those I hadn’t thought of. If you don’t mind, I’m gonna use a couple of those in a post I’m writing for mormonmatters.org.
No problem!
A few of the differences –
* Muhammad conquered a large territory, and founded an empire. Joseph Smith did not.
* Muhammad seems to have been heavily influenced by his wife Khadijah and her uncle in his beliefs. Joseph Smith shows no similar influence from Emma.
* The thoughts of Muhammad’s contemporary opponents are not well recorded.
* Some of Muhammad’s beliefs, such as about polygamy, were very much in tune with his surrounding culture, whereas Joseph Smith came up with some radical departures from his surrounding culture. (Probably a better way of wording it)
* Muhammad was a fierce monotheist.
* Muhammad seems to have had a fairly successful business of sorts, whereas JS wasn’t much of a businessman (Brigham Young was though)
Euhemerus wrote:Yeah, jmb275, that’s ridiculous! Could you please cut it down to a firehose level next time
😆 😆 😆 !
Euhemerus, take it easy on jmb275. He’s a good guy too. If you don’t criticize his posts all the time, you may find you have a lot of ideas in common with him.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.