The Truth About Muhammad

By Robert Spencer

Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

I've had this book since Christmas, and only recently gotten around to reading it.  I found it, on the whole, to be a very thorough and informative book about what information about Muhammad has been in circulation in Muslim circles, and how the Muslim world generally views their central figure.

It's clear that Spencer comes at this from an American perspective; not a religious one, but this may be for the best, as it might make the book sound simply biased if written in any other way.

It's also not as enjoyable to read as certain other books are, though for me, that's just because it chronicles so much death and deception.  I'd have felt worse if the book had left these things out.

My last complaint is solely to do with the title (which I understand is largely out of the control of the author.)  The book's title is "the Truth About Muhammad."  However, inside the book, Spencer says that he's not so concerned with what Muhammad was -really,- like, as with the way that modern Muslims view him.  That's fine, and it's a viable subject for discussion, but in that case, it's more like "the Truth About How Modern Muslims -View- Muhammad."

I understand the difficulties, of course, with attempting any sort of actual biography of Muhammad.  Unlike many other historical figures, such as Napoleon, Joan of Arc, or Jesus, we don't have multiple, early documents chronicling the events of his life, so there's never any guarantee that the information that we have is true -about Muhammad himself.-

As I said, though, this is solely a problem with the title, which gives the impression that the book's purpose is to address Muhammad, as a person, rather than its real purpose; to address what modern Islam believes about him.

The Muhammad depicted in this book, and the one in which modern Islam believes, begins as a sort of self-proclaimed prophet, repeatedly having "visions" whenever it's convenient or required to get him what he wants.  However, he must have been pretty charismatic, because he soon develops a following, and starts to become a powerful military leader in the middle east.

Through it all, Muhammad's central goal seems to be religious expediency, as Spencer outlines midway through the book; anything that advances Islam being placed first in priority.  He also seems to recognize that in order for a community of believers to be truly successful, they must have dominance, fervor and something around which to unit.  The protection of the property of his followers is another point of interest.

I have zero problems with the idea that one religion must be dominant in a society, or with the view that that religion must have fervor and something around which to unite, or even that property is a basic human right.  I believe all of those things.  Yet, I draw the line at assassinations, deceptions, breaking treaties unprovoked, and so on, all of which, according to the stories, Muhammad was guilty of.  I admit, I've been disheartened by the recent trends in the American church towards depictions of a more womanized Jesus, and I think this hesitation to depict or imply overt masculinity is a major reason for the vast loss of faith that's taken place in much of the Christian world.  However, Muhammad's many crimes against the peaceful people who surrounded him prove that it's possible to go too far in the other direction.  There's simply no excuse for breaking your word, regardless of what dangers you "suspect."

Now, all that having been said, I was very pleased with this book.  It goes over lots of the stories of Muhammad which are widely-believed in the Muslim world, and addresses just why this is a problem from every non-Muslim in the world, quoting -only- from Muslim source documents as it does so.  It's expertly done.

I also find it of interest that while, like every controversial book, it's gotten mixed reviews, many negative reviews seem to amount to "this book doesn't say what Muhammad was really like/relates stories that were later inventions."  I acknowledge this is not just possible, but likely.  However, as Spencer points out near the end of the book, that's simply not the point.

Whether or not Muhammad was -anything- like he's depicted in the stories; even if the stories had been invented less than a year ago, the point would still be that these are the things that modern-day Muslims believe about him, and when Muslims commit acts of violence, they're doing so in imitation of this believed-in figure (whether or not there's any real basis for believing any of this.)  It's the commitment to this violent version of Muhammad by modern Muslims which is the problem; not the historical origins of said version.

As I said, I was impressed by Spencer's frankness, professional way of writing, boldness and honesty.  I may have had slight scruples with minor elements of the book, but I think it's the kind of book that Americans (especially those in positions of power) need to read.