The First Muslim: The Story of Muhammad by Lesley Hazleton

The First Muslim: The Story of Muhammad Reviews

• 
  Shahmeer

  Extremely disappointing book!
  
  Anyone looking for a quality biography of Prophet Muhammad should read 'Muhammad: Man and Prophet' by Adil Salahi.
  
  I have read 'After the Prophet' by Lesley and although it had provided good insights on the divide between Sunni & Shia, her over-analyses of every thing was a let down for me. It frustrated me because I don't know how a person living in the 21st century can tell us what people born in the 7th century were thinking.
  
  Lesley doesn't change her style in this book. She keeps on telling the readers what she thought was going through Mohammad's (PBUH) mind at specific periods in his life. She even provides us insights on what Abu-Sufyan and other opponents of Mohammad were thinking. Personally for me, this was very frustrating, I would rather read the facts and what the historians have recorded, rather than reading a Freudian style analysis of everything. (Life in the 7th century was very different than the lives we live in the 21st century and I can't imagine how Lesley with such certainty can tell us what these people were thinking).
  
  Then there is this issue where she is very biased towards Mohammad and the Muslims in Medina when they are dealing with the Medinan jews. She indirectly portrays Mohammad as the villain from his dealings with the Jews. This is easily understandable as her background is Jewish. In the book, she praises Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy for confronting Muhammad and criticizing Muhammad's decisions publicly. She fails to address that he was a coward who marched out of battle of Uhud with his 300 men. Living in a society where a man's words were stronger than a written contract; this was a cowardice act from Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy. But bacuase Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy was a former Jew, his cowardice is ignored.
  
  Similarly when the subject of Banu Qurayza comes up, she is sympathetic and bias towards them and indirectly portrays Muslims as barbaric for beheading 300 men of Bany Qurayza. She fails to go in detail about the betrayal from Banu Qurayza as it would show negatively on the Jewish tribe.
  
  A few chapters in the book have been simple copied and pasted from 'After the Prophet' which was very frustrating. I understand that she was writing about the same events again but I was expecting a rewording when writing those events or a different perspective.
  
  All the great qualities of Muhammad (PBUH) which made him a charismatic leader and a source for inspiration for his followers are simply ignored in this book.
  
  All in all this was a disappointing book. If anyone would like to read about Muhammad and his life from a non-Muslim author, I would definitively suggest Karen Armstrong's book as it is an unbiased factual book and much well written than Lesley's book.
• 
  Marla

  I made it a little past halfway with this book. It was well written. It's very readable, almost novel-like. I picked it up because I knew little to nothing about the life of Muhammad. Perhaps if I already had some knowledge of him, I would have finished it. But I was looking for a readable history of his life. Throughout this book, there were many "Muhammad felt...", "...he was thinking..." or "his reasoning was..." Being new to Muhammad, I wanted fact. What I got was a lot of assuming what Muhammad's feelings, thoughts and emotions were. I think reading these statements can be dangerous (especially for someone who knows little about his life). They can give a false view. Just my opinion. Like I said, it's very well written and readable. I couldn't get past the suppositions Hazelton made.
• 
  Shadin Pranto

  লেসলে হ্যাজলেটনের চাইতে সহজ-সরল এবং চমৎকার ভাষায় আর কোনো অমুসলমানের পক্ষে নবি মুহাম্মদ (স) এর জীবনী লেখা খুবই কঠিন হবে। এত সুন্দরভাবে এই ভদ্রমহিলা নবি মুহাম্মদকে নিয়ে লিখেছেন যে একবার পড়তে শুরু করলে শেষ না করে ওঠা কঠিন৷
  
  বইটি লিখেছেন যিনি, তিনি ধর্মে মুসলমান নন। ইহুদি। এটা প্রচলিত অর্থে সিরাতে রাসূল নয়। বরং 'যুক্তি এবং বাস্তবতার' আলোকে কুরাইশ বংশের হাশিমি গোত্রের আব্দুল মুত্তালিবের অনাথ দৌহিত্র মুহাম্মদের নবি মুহাম্মদ হয়ে ওঠার কাহিনি। তাই শতভাগ ধর্মীয় দৃষ্টিকোণ থেকে যাঁরা নবি মুহাম্মদকে ভাবেন, তাঁদেরই বইটি না পড়াই ভালো৷ কারণ কিছু ঘটনা লেখক উল্লেখ করেছেন যা হয়তো আপনার বিশ্বাসের সাথে সাংঘর্ষিক মনে হতে পারে। যেমনঃ মদিনার ইহুদিদের শাস্তি দান, পালকপুত্র জায়েদের বিধবা স্ত্রীকে বিয়ে, ইবনে উবাইয়ের সঙ্গে বিবাদ, ইহুদি মারিয়া নামক তরুণী সম্পর্কিত ঘটনা প্রভৃতি। আবারও বলব প্রচলিত মতের বিরুদ্ধে যেতে পারে এমন ঘটনার তালিকা আরও দীর্ঘ হতে পারে। হ্যাজলেটনের একটি ভালো কিংবা মন্দ অভ্যাস হলো তাঁর লেখায় সাইকো আ্যনালাইসিসের ব্যাপক ব্যবহার দেখা যায়। এই বইতেও তার বিকল্প হয়নি। হযরত মুহাম্মদের মনোভাব, পরিস্থিতিকে নিয়ে অনেকক্ষেত্রেই ব্যাখা করতে করতে সামনে এগিয়েছেন। যারা বিশ্লেষণী ধাঁচের লেখা পড়তে পছন্দ করেন, তারা নিঃসন্দেহে খুব খুশি হবেন। বাকিরা....
  
  লেখক রেফারেন্স হিসেবে নবির পয়লা জীবনী সিরাত ইবনে ইসহাককে বেশি গুরুত্ব দিয়েছেন। এছাড়াও অন্যান্য সিরাতের পাশাপাশি তাবারির সিরাত এবং আল কুরআনের বিভিন্�� আয়াতকে তথ্যসূত্র হিসেবে ব্যবহার করেছেন।
  
  সাদাসিধা ভাষায় লেখা হলেও এটি বলার সুযোগ নেই লেখক পড়াশোনায় ফাঁকি দিয়ে এ বই গছিয়েছেন। প্রত্যেকটি অধ্যায়ে হ্যাজলেটনের পড়াশোনার ছাপ সুস্পষ্ট।
  
  ধর্মীয় জায়গা থেকে নবি মুহাম্মদকে জানতে সিরাত পড়ুন। আর মানুষ মুহাম্মদের আল্লাহর রাসূল হয়ে উঠবার চমৎকারতম কথনটি সুন্দরতম গদ্যে যুক্তি এবং দুর্দান্ত বিশ্লেষণী ক্ষমতার মিশেলে পড়বার ইচ্ছে থাকলে অবশ্যই আপনার জন্য হ্যাজলেটনের "The First Muslim: The Story Of Muhammad "
  
  বি.দ্র. টেড টকে ভদ্রমহিলা এই বইটি নিয়ে সংক্ষেপে আলাপ করেছেন। সেখানেই বলেছিলেন মুহাম্মদকে নিয়ে তিনি বইটি কোনো বিদ্বেষপ্রসূত হয়ে রচনা করেননি। বরং লিখেছেন 'Good faith' থেকে।
• 
  Erdal Bodur

  I am a translator and I was offered to translate this book by my publisher into Turkish. Being an agnostic like the author herself I had very limited knowledge about Muslim religion and the prophet Mohammed. I obviously had to read the book before I decide whether to undertake the task or not, so I did then I also read the After the Prophet also from Lesley Hazleton and decided to go ahead with the project. It took me about 6 months to finish the translation as it also involved reading Kor'an from cover to cover. Towards the end of the project Lesley and I also became friends however geographically distant it may be.
  She tells her story from a very humanistic perspective and questions her characters inner worlds along with circumstances that shaped them.
  Lesley has a vast authoritative knowledge on religious history and sifted through hundreds of ancient titles some dating back to 9th century. Blending these references with her excellent understanding of human psychology she tells her story in an unparalleled manner that has never been done before.
  I would recommend any and everyone religious or not, who are interested in exploring the circumstances that shaped the history of the world and the events still continue to stir the people of the region and affect everyone around the globe.
• 
  musarboijatra

  এটা শেষে বলতে হতো। শুরুতে বলে রাখি, কারণ আমার ধারণা বইটার প্রতি কিছুটা বিরূপ ধারণা পোষণ করে আসবেন অনেক মানুষ।
  
  আপনার কি এই বইটা পড়া উচিৎ, অথবা না?
  
  (১) আপনি যদি মুসলিম হোন, এবং সীরাত সম্বন্ধে জানাশোনা থেকে, অর্থাৎ পুরো সীরাতুন্নবী পড়েছেন বা পড়েননি কিন্তু ধারণা আছে। তাহলে আপনি এই বইটি পড়তে পারেন। অদ্যাবধি জানার সাথে একটা নতুন দৃষ্টিকোণ যোগ করবে বইটি। আমি বলব, আপনার পড়া-ই উচিৎ, কারণ কিছ��� প্রশংসনীয় ও যুক্তিযুক্ত দৃষ্টিকোণ এসেছে এই বইয়ে, যা (অন্তত আমার পড়া) সীরাত গ্রন্থে দেখতে পাইনি।
  [ যারা Enayet Chowdhury ভাইয়ের রিভিউ ভিডিও দে���েছেন তারা ধারণা রাখবেন কিসের কথা বলছি। ]
  
  (২) আপনি যদি অমুসলিম হয়ে থাকেন এবং রাসুল মুহাম্মাদের (সা.) জীবন সম্বন্ধে জানতে চান, নির্দ্বিধায় পড়তে পারেন। ধর্মীয় শ্রদ্ধাবোধের বাইরে থেকে এটা লেখা হয়েছে, তাই নিরপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি আশা করতে পারেন।
  তবে এক্ষেত্রে আমি আব্দুল্লাহ ইবনে মাহমুদ ভাইয়ের এই অনুবাদটাই পড়তে অনুরোধ করব, কেননা লেখিকা কেবলমাত্র ক্রসচেক করার অভাবে কিছু ক্ষেত্রে সাংঘর্ষিক কিছু তথ্য (fact) উল্লেখ করেছেন, অনুবাদক সেগুলো শুধরে দিয়েছেন বইয়ের টেক্সটে অপরিবর্তিত রেখে, টীকা'র সাহায্যে।
  
  (৩) আপনি যদি মুসলিম হোন এবং সীরাত পড়তে আগ্রহী হোন, তাহলে এই বই দিয়ে শুরু না করা-ই উত্তম। একে তো কিছু সাংঘর্ষিক বিষয় আপনাকে দ্বিধায় ফেলতে পারে, দিতীয়ত, ধর্মীয় আঙ্গিকে আপনি যা আশা করতে পারেন সীরাতুন্নবী (সা.) পড়তে যেয়ে, সেটা এই বইয়ে পাবেন না। তাই শুরুর জন্য প্রচলিত কোনো সীরাত পড়া উত্তম।
  
  বইয়ের মূল্যায়ন :
  
  আগের প্যারার প্রথম পয়েন্টে যেটা বলেছিলাম, একটা বাড়তি দৃষ্টিকোণ লক্ষ্য করা যায় এই বইয়ে, এটা একটা ভালো অভিজ্ঞতা ছিল। মুসলিম হিসেবে সীরাত পড়ে এলেও নবী মুহাম্মাদের (সা.) নবী-সুলভ মাহাত্ম্যের বাইরে যে উনি একজন মানুষ হিসেবে বড় হ��়েছেন আরবের সামাজিক পরিস্থিতিতে, এই বেড়ে ওঠা ওনার মনন এবং আচরণে কেমন প্রভাব রেখেছে, এটা কিন্তু একজন *মানুষের* জায়গায় নবীকে রেখে খুব বেশি চিন্তা করা হয়নি গতানুগতিক সীরাতে।
  
  জন্মেছিলেন এতিম হয়ে, পাঁচ বছর অব্দি বেদুইনদের মাঝে আরব সন্তান হয়ে বেড়েছেন, নবুয়্যাতের আগ অব্দি মা, দাদা-কে হারিয়ে এক খাদিজা-কে (রা.) পেয়েছেন ভরসার জায়গায়। যখন প্রথম ওহী আসে, কাঁপতে কাঁপতে আশ্র‍য় নিয়েছিলেন স্ত্রীর কাছে, একটা দ্বিধা, অনিশ্চয়তা কাজ করেছিল যে আসলেই যে অভাবনীয় ঘটনা ঘটেছে তা সত্য কি না, তিনি তার যোগ্য কি না। এরপরও দীর্ঘ পথে একে একে উত্তরণ করতে হয়েছিল তাঁর। এই সময়কালে একজন মানুষের মানসিক অবস্থা কেমন হতে পারে পারিপার্শ্বিকের কারণে, লেখিকা একজন সাইকোলজিস্ট হিসেবে সেটা দেখতে চেয়েছেন বাস্তবতার নিরিখে।
  
  অন্যদিকে, মক্কার আর্থসামাজিক অবস্থায় ইসলাম যে কুরাইশদেরকে কেবল আইডোলজিকাল চ্যালেঞ্জে ফেলেনি বরং অর্থনৈতিক/রাজনৈতিক চ্যালেঞ্জেও ফেলেছিল, লেখিকা সেটাকে নির্দেশ করেছেন সুন্দরভাবে। এই ব্যাপারটাও অন্যান্য সীরাতে লক্ষ্য করিনি।
  
  মোদ্দাকথা, ধর্মীয় মোহ থেকে একজন ধর্মীয় নেতার জীবন সম্বন্ধে জানা, আর ঐতিহাসিক দৃষ্টিভঙ্গী থেকে একজন ধর্মীয়/রাজনৈতিক নেতা থেকে পরবর্তীতে শাসকের জীবন আলোচনা করা দুইয়ের মাঝের যে ফারাক-টা, এই বইটা পড়তে গিয়ে আমার সামনে উঠে এসেছে।
  
  অনুবাদ এবং সংশোধন প্রসঙ্গে :
  
  লেজলি হেইজেলটন যে ভুলগুলো করেছেন এবং সাংঘর্ষিক তথ্যগুলো উপস্থাপন করেছেন, সেগুলো অন্তত কোনো প্রপাগান্ডার অংশ মনে হয়নি। তবে এই বইয়ের অনুবাদক সেগুলো শুধরে না দিলে, অথবা অন্যান্য রেফারেন্স উল্লেখ না করে দিলে আসলেই পাঠকের বিভ্রান্ত হবার সুযোগ রয়েছে।
  
  দুই জায়গায় একদম মোটা দাগে ভুল করেছিলেন লেখিকা, টাইমলাইনে। সূরা দ্বোহা নাযিলের সময়ে সূরা মুদ্দাসসিরের কথা বলেছেন, আর মুদ্দাসসিরের সময়ে দ্বোহা।
  
  এছাড়াও, ইবনে ইসহাক এবং তাবারির সীরাত অনুসরণ করে অধিকাংশ বর্ণনা দেওয়াতে কিছু ঝামেলা হয়েছে। তার কারণ, 'অমুকে এটা বলেছে বা বলতে শুনেছি' ধরণের অনেক বর্ণনা থাকে, সেগুলোকে যাচাই করে ক্রসচেক করে গ্রহণ করার বিষয় থাকে। সীরাতে ইবনে হিশাম কিংবা আর-রাহীকুল-মাখতুমের মতো সীরাতে তা-ই করা হয়েছে। কিন্তু আগে উল্লেখিত সীরাতগুলোতে এই সব সংশয়পূর্ণ বক্তব্যগুলোও রাখা হয়েছে, অবশ্যই *সংশয়পূর্ণ* লেবেলের তলায়। হাদীসশাস্ত্র সম্বন্ধে ধারণা থাকলে এটা জানবেন, হাসান এবং জয়ীফ (দুর্বল) হাদীসকে গ্রহণ করা হয় না যদি একই ব্যাপারে সহীহ হাদিস থাকে, কিন্তু তাদেরকে বিলোপ করে দেওয়াও হয় না, শাস্ত্রীয় আলচনায় তা থাকে। ইবনে তাবারির সীরাতেও এই সকল রেফারেন্স এভাবেই *সংশয়পূর্ণ* বলে উল্লেখ থাকলেও, লেজলি হেইজেলটন সেগুলোকে একবাক্যে তুলে দিয়েছেন।
  
  অবশ্যই লেখিকা তুলনামূলক হাদীস দেখিয়ে গবেষণাগ্রন্থ লিখতে যাননি, লিখেছেন জীবনীর বর্ণনা। কিন্তু এই তথ্যগুলো পাঠককে বিভ্রান্ত করতে পারে এবং সীরাতের পূর্ব জ্ঞান না থাকলে তা ক্ষতিকর প্রভাব ফেলতে পারে।
  
  এই জায়গায় অনুবাদক টীকা আকারে অন্যান্য রেফারেন্স অথবা সঠিক তথ্যগুলো উপস্থাপন করেছেন, সেটা বইয়ের মূল টেক্সটের ক্ষতি না করেই। অনুবাদকের এই কাজটুকু পাঠকের আন্ডারস্ট্যান্ডিংকে অনেকটা বিপদের হাত থেকে বাঁচিয়ে দিয়েছে।
  
  আর এই কাজটা লেখিকা এবং প্রকাশনার অনুমোদন নিয়েই করতে পেরেছেন অনুবাদক।
  
  প্রডাকশন কোয়ালিটি :
  
  পয়লা কথা, দাম নিয়ে একটা আপত্তি দেখতে পাচ্ছি অনেকের মাঝে। এখানে উল্লেখ্য, যেহেতু কপিরাইট কেনা হয়েছে, এতে করেই বইয়ের দাম বেড়ে যাবে জানা কথা।
  এর বাইরেও বইয়ের প্রডাকশন বেশ ভালো মানের। মলাট, বাঁধাই, পৃষ্ঠা যথাসম্ভব সবথেকে ভালোটাই দেওয়া হয়েছে মনে হলো।
  
  
  শেষ কথা :
  
  যা বলে শুরু করেছিলাম, বইটা সম্বন্ধে নানা মতের পার্থক্য লক্ষ্য করা যাচ্ছে। ব্যাক্তিগতভাবে আমি এমন কিছু দিক পেয়েছিলাম যেগুলো অদ্যাবধি পড়ে আসা সীরাতগুলোয় পাইনি। তবে লেজলি হেইজেলটনের 'দ্য ফার্স্ট মুসলিম' (অনুবাদে 'দ্য প্রফেট') আদতে সীরাত হিসেবে গ্রহণ করে নেবার জন্য আমার সর্বোত্তম চয়েস না। বইটার সাথে আমার অভিজ্ঞতা উত্তম, এক বসায় একশ' পেইজ করে পড়েছি, ভাল যেমন লেগেছে তেমন 'নতুন কিছু পড়ছি' অনুভব হচ্ছিল। কিন্তু ওটাই কথা, আমার এতদিনের জানার সাথে খানিকটা ভিন্ন স্বাদ যোগ করলো বইটি। এখন যদি *পাথেয়* দরকার হয়, সেক্ষেত্রে এই বইটা আমার অপশন না।
  
  আপনার মত আমাকে জানাতে পারেন, কথা বলতে ভালো লাগবে।
  
  দ্য প্রফেট (মূল নাম : 'দ্য ফার্স্ট মুসলিম')
  লেখক : লেজলি হেইজেলটন
  অনুবাদক : আব্দুল্লাহ ইবনে মাহমুদ
  প্রকাশক : আদী প্রকাশন
  প্রকাশকাল : ২০২১
  পৃষ্ঠাসংখ্যা : ২৮০
  মুদ্রিত মূল্য : ৫৫০ টাকা
• 
  Ulfah

  although the first chapters, revealing prophet Muhammad's life before moving to Madinah seems somewhat sympathetic, it was surely surprising when the book suddenly changed into a more distanced approach on the prophet which was extremely uncomfortable for myself. somehow it doesn't follow the early chapters, that a man so humbled by his situation would take drastic measures unless something logical is behind it. but maybe because she is of the same ancestry of the very people prophet Muhammad decide to take drastic measures with, it makes it hard for her to write it in a gentler way as armstrong had done (as she came from another monotheistic background), but then, it's just natural to do so. at times, i found the book simply helpful in understanding much of the miracles surrounding the prophet, which were make sense and which were not (because i just can't help to think that quran itself is the miracle rather than the necessity of the prophet to perform miracles as in Moses's time) but then really, as it gets to the second half, i really really felt distanced and left in a gap (to take another's word from goodreads) because somehow the stories became simplified, less disciplined in telling, and it dissapointed me in a way (the idea of digging a trench around madina, but it was salman al farisi's idea, not mentioned. or the appereance of maryam, hanging with no resolution as what happened to her. or the accounts on the days to his death, where he seems to be saddened rather than relieved that his 'job' was done). but then in her approach of making the prophet more 'beliavable', it is also somewhat making him a mind too simple despite all the things he endured. as if after i finished reading, i was in a disbelief that this was all she can say about the prophet... warm at the beginning but seems to be dry and matter of the fact at the end. but then again, i can't expect one to write exactly like i wanted to. it's her point of view anyways.
  
  ah well, i must be biased, that i agree. but karen armstrong did a better job on her first biography of the prophet (and yet i may be too, biased, because she wrote a sympathetic book about him) but i feel that the prophet is more relatable and plausible based on Armstrong than Hazleton (i don't know, is it in the details? i remember being pretty exhausted by Armstrong's book due to her extensive quotation, etc). there are already some reviews in goodreads about her book. and while it being particularly easy read for someone who never read prophet Muhammad's biography, it is a too simplified one for one who actually have read and learned his life's story many many times before. finishing this book makes me crave to re read some of Armstrong's or other more (internally) biased biography! so sorry!
• 
  Osama Siddique

  I did not approach this book as a faithful. Instead I tried to be as objective as I could be and endeavored to gauge it purely on the basis of rigor, impartiality, authenticity and flair. I had heard some great things about it and welcomed an avowed agnostic doing an impressionistic account while ostensibly relying on the earliest sources but without the piety bound restraint, decorum and devotion that traditional lives of the Prophet staunchly observe.
  
  It worked brilliantly for the first part - Orphan. In hindsight, this is where Hazleton manages to evocatively and persuasively transport herself to the times, shedding the inhibitions, assumptions and stereotypes of the present, and managing to excavate the essence of the times and the place. Her bringing out of the marginalized early years and alienation of the Prophet - orphaned, destitute, largely unprotected, raised by bedouins in his earliest years, vulnerable - makes the story more human than the hagiographies and also highly endearing. In the years before the bestowing of Prophethood, she brings out the development and emergence of the essence of the man and his character; his self-dependence, dignity, integrity, and his love for solitude as well as deep pursuit of the spiritual. Also, the remarkable and uplifting union with Hazrat Khadija and the unparalleled strength of their bond, the passionate devotion of the early converts, the myriad slanders and cruel persecution by the Meccans, the other-worldly desolation of the Arabian landscape, the quiet solitude of the Cave of Hira, the nights of meditation under the stars, and the bewildering and terrifying experience of the revelations.
  
  Hazleton adroitly neither expresses belief in the revelations nor disbelief. The Quranic voice is simply present in the narrative and responds to events and at other times precedes them. The Prophet is the receiving vessel - overwhelmed and overawed. It is a narrative beautifully constructed and Hazleton is poetic and even admiring. But for me it is unimportant that she is admiring. What is important is that she gets most of the known facts right and at the same time evocatively recreates a time that is highly significant as well as enigmatic but also relatively straightforward when it comes to the contestants and the contestation.
  
  It is, however, extraordinary how out of her depth Lesley Hazleton is in 'Exile' - the second of the book's three parts. What worked so well in the first part - an emotive, impressionistic and deeply personal as well as personalized capturing of the development of the Prophet as a man and then one receiving Divine instruction - just withers away as an approach in the second part. In all probability because the second part deals with subject matter much more complex as well as more documented and written about. She appears often prone to dealing with the earliest authorities rather whimsically; she tends to accept and reject received knowledge without any scientific or consistent basis and often prefers her own speculation, deliberately ignoring it appears the entire hierarchical system of hadith literature. What frequently dominates instead are not just her own sentiments, speculations and conjectures on what might have happened she regularly makes leaps of faith (or should they be called leaps of lack of faith in this case?) and pretends to read and imagine what a protagonist would be thinking or what his imperative might be, from amongst multiple possibilities, that reflect her own instincts. Her neutrality as to the Voice of Revelation also disappears and is replaced by a barely disguised communique that the revelation responds to what is expedient and exigent to the one to whom it comes.
  
  When you are not rigorous and exhaustive, and don't meaningfully engage with the literature in the area or its epistemology, then you become guilty of an almost negligent subjectivity. The further transgression that can be committed is then to not be implicit, suggestive and inferential but to state things as incontrovertible facts. She commits that transgression as well. She also divulges a great tendency to showcase and highlight a particular ascribed statement by someone to the exclusion of discordant voices and counter-authorities, often giving undue and exaggerated primacy to a voice and to a statement (invariably the more controversial one). One cannot escape the impression that a certain narrative appeals to her and she selectively cites, quotes or at times imagines the rest, often blundering through some of the most profound and rich phases of this period which she deals with sketchily and without doing justice to all necessary aspects and unignorable nuances.
  
  It is only human for a commentator to succumb to her biases and pre-conceived notions and Hazleton appears particularly fragile on that score. Of course one is neither expecting nor looking for a devotional text here and the promised critical approach of the book as well as its ostensible endeavor to show the Prophet's life at its essential human level is what makes it compelling. At the same time, that makes it all the more necessary that the authorial voice and closely held worldview don't overwhelm and taint the picture. But it often does so and at times quite inelegantly. May it be her desire to sound folksy or her all too frequent and off-putting references to a Bullish Wall Street or her forced references to Machiavelli or her obvious sensitivity when it comes to the Jewish tribes and the fairly lopsided treatment of the events surrounding them or her dislike for certain members of the Prophet's retinue and penchant for picking out statements that show them in the worst possible light or her failed endeavor to contextualize (and resent) the events leading to his marriages.
  
  The very methodology that worked for Hazleton so very effectively in the first part exposes her inadequate scholarship, her tone-deafness, and her tendency to constantly juxtapose her US liberal arts bolstered contemporary notions of politics and society on a quite different milieu. This is Orientalism of a different shade. One that cites Edward Said at the drop of a hat and scoffs at 19th century avatars of it but is no less superior, judgmental and flawed in its assessments. I am not even listing here the multiple errors and omissions: may they be of leaving out important events, missing known facts, misunderstanding traditions, or not fully covering and grasping the essential texts on a particular idea or event.
  
  The final part - Leader - is only marginally better than the previous one. By now Hazleton appears inclined to find a controversy with every development and hidden intent behind every episode. Which is not to say that this period was by any stretch pristine and sanitized. But from all accounts it was also not as embroiled as she makes it out to be. Hers is a fairly convoluted sense of the final years with ex post facto contemporary assessment deeply influencing and coloring a selective reading of some recorded quotations and renditions from the times. Often it is not even that and sounds like what she feels would or even should have happened. For a book that started so promisingly (the only reason I give it two stars) it is quite a disappointing one. I can also see how a less generous approach than mine would find it quite irreverent at times. Even I found it objectionable at places due to its flippancy and obtuseness. I wonder if Reza Aslan and others like him even read the whole book before endorsing it. If you want to do justice to this profound and exalted theme I would recommend going for a proper scholar.
• 
  Arvind Munshi

  The book starts on a unbiased note portraying Muhammad as a seeker, who tries to fill the vacuum created by the loss of his parents by praying to God, spends nights on Mt. Hira in meditation and contemplation, comes back with some revelations for his own good and for others.
  
  The exile to Medina has been excellently written, the circumstances so evident and the journey well depicted.
  
  However, in Medina, things take U-turn and Muhammad starts rationalizing gory episodes, where I think the author seems to be a bit biased.
  
  How could a seer, who received messages from God initially, a person who was astute, a person so humble, tolerant, religious and spiritual, a person who attracted so many tribes to leave their homes to follow him, start incubating violence, intolerance and hatred.
  
  The explanation seems to be very confusing, although the wars might have actually happened, however the rationale or reasoning given doesn't match with the persona depicted in the early pages of the book.
  
  However, I find the book as a good read and recommend this for people who don't know much about Muhammad and Islam.
  
  
• 
  Hasnat Sujon

  কিছু অংশের ভাবানুবাদ করি।
  
  'পাওয়ার পলিটিক্স' - এ শব্দটি একটি অপ্রয়োজনীয় দ্বিরুক্তি। কারণ পাওয়ারের জন্যইতো পলিটিক্স করা হয়। অথবা, ডিকশনারিতে যেভাবে সংজ্ঞা দেয়া হয়েছে, সরকার পরিচালনার বিজ্ঞান ও কলাকে পাওয়ার পলিটিক্স বলে।
  
  যাই হোক, পাওয়ার পলিটিক্স শব্দটি এখন খুবই নেতিবাচক অর্থে ব্যবহৃত হয়। পাওয়ার পলিটিক্স- এই চিন্তাভাবনাটা প্রথম করেন নিকোলো মেকিয়াভেলি। মেকিয়াভেলির প্রশংসা করতে গিয়ে পলিটিক্যাল ফিলোসফার ইসাইয়াহ বার্লিন এই নেতিবাচক ধারণাটার বিরোধীতা করেন। যারা কখনো 'দ্য প্রিন্স' পড়েনি, তাদের অনেকের কাছে মেকিয়াভেলি একজন নিষ্ঠুর মানবতাহীন দার্শনিক। কিন্তু বার্লিনের কাছে মেকিয়াভেলি একজন অসাধারণ দক্ষ রাজনৈতিক স্কলার।
  
  বার্লিন লিখেছেন, "আপনি যদি রাজনৈতিক যে পদ্ধতিগুলো ( নোটঃ রাজনৈতিক পদ্ধতি বলতে শুধু আজকের গণতন্ত্র বুঝলে হবে না, নবী হযরত মুহাম্মদও পলিটিক্স করেছেন এবং তাঁর পুরোটাই হচ্ছে পাওয়ার পলিটিক্স) আছে, সে পদ্ধতির বিরোধীতা করেন, কারণ আপনার কাছে মনে হচ্ছে এই পদ্ধতি ঠিক নৈতিক নয়, অথবা আপনি আপনি রাজনৈতিক কোন কাজ করতে চাচ্ছেন না, কারণ আপনার মনে হচ্ছে এর পদ্ধতিগুলো ভয়ঙ্কর (নোটঃ ভয়ঙ্কর বলতে কী বুঝানো হচ্ছে তা নিশ্চয় বুঝতে পারছেন), তাহলে আপনার জন্য মেকিয়াভেলির উত্তর হচ্ছেঃ আপনি নিশ্চিতভাবে একজন চমৎকার ভালো মানুষের জীবন যাপন করতে পারেন। আপনি দেশ ছেড়ে একজন প্রাইভেট সিটিজেন হয়ে যান, অথবা বনে গিয়ে সন্ন্যাসী হয়ে যান। আপনি প্রাইভেট সিটিজেন হোন বা সন্ন্যাসী, আখেরে যে তেমন কোন লাভ হবে না এই কথাটি শুধু মাথায় রাখবেন। সরাসরি বাস্তব কথাটা বললে, হয় আপনি অগ্রাহ্য হবেন অথবা ধ্বংস হয়ে যাবেন।" অথবা মেকিয়াভেলি নিজে যেভাবে বলেছেন, "All armed prophets have conquered, and the unarmed ones have been destroyed."
• 
  Mijan Rashid

  এটি আমার পড়া ল্যাজলি হ্যাজেলটন প্রথম বই। লেখক নবীর জীবনের উল্লেখযোগ্য ঘটনার সাইকিক এনালাইসিসের মাধ্যমে নবীকে জানার এবং নবীর কর্ম / জীবন পদ্ধতি বুঝার চেষ্টা করেছেন। এক্ষেত্রে লেখকের অনেক পড়াশোনা করেছেন যা বই এর শেষে উল্লেখ করা রেফারেন্স বই এর তালিকা থেকে বুঝা যায়। লেখকের পড়া বই এর মধ্যে আছে কোরআন (লেখক বলেছেন তিনি ইংরেজি ভাষায় পাঁচ জন ভিন্ন ভিন্ন অনুবাদকের অনুবাদের সাথে একটা আরবি ভাষায় কোরআন পড়েছেন), ইবনে ঈশাক রচিত সিরাত রাসুলুল্লাহ এবং আল তারাবি রচিত তারিখ আল রাসুল উয়াল মুলুক।
• 
  Louise

  Leslie Hazelton's
  After the Prophet: The Epic Story of the Shia-Sunni Split in Islam is the best recounting of the Sunni - Shia split that I've read. For this reason, I put The First Muslim on my reading list, where it sat for months until now. Hazelton, again, clearly presents complex material and unfamiliar (to me) history. This book has more interpretation and speculation than its predecessor.
  
  Through the story of Muhammad the story of the development of Islam is told. Some of it is a tale of the two cities, Mecca and Medina. Some of the story is how the doctrines grew incorporating elements of prior faiths (such as Judaism by recognizing Abraham as the father and local religions by maintaining the pilgrimages to the Kaaba in Mecca). Other parts are explanations of turning points for Muhammad (such as the "night journey" and the "satanic verses"). Other parts of the story are the significance of "one god", the role of the prophet's wives and their families and the vigil at the prophet's deathbed are also well explained.
  
  The interpretation of Muhammad as an "outsider" is a recurring theme. Hazelton shows how his experience as an orphan increased the emotional pain of his exile from Mecca. She speculates that he, like other exiles, dreamed of a triumphant return. While the outsider theory is well developed, it can't be applied to everything. It is not enough to explain the how the believers changed from what appears to be non-violent prayer circles in Mecca to robbing caravans and becoming an army in Medina.
  
  Hazelton also speculates on Muhammad's decision making. For instance he considers moves based on how he would keep the loyalty of this or that person, or how a move would be interpreted by followers.
  
  Hazelton has sifted through a tremendous amount of scholarly material and, as she did in After the Prophet, created a book to help the general reader understand this significant man and his times.
• 
  Farah Firdaus

  Full review to come. Need some time to articulate and reconcile my feelings and thoughts on Hazleton’s discomforting yet intriguing navigation of human side of the Prophet.
• 
  Inzemamul Haque

  The author is very critical in her approach to find the truth in history especially when there are incidences of miracles. The author looks unbiased throughout the book.
  
  If the reader is Muslim, he or she may feel at very few (almost rare) places that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is shown in bad light. But this paragraph from the author herself says it all.
  "Neither Gandhi nor Machiavelli could have done better. Muhammad had reversed the terms of engagement, turning apparent weakness into strength. He had proved himself as effective unarmed as armed, and used the language of peace as forcefully as that of war. In fact it was precisely this dual aspect of him that would so confound his critics and his followers alike. Whether in the seventh century or the twenty-first, he would frustrate the simplistic terms of those trying to pigeonhole him as either a "prophet of peace" or a "prophet of war." This was not a matter of either/or. A complex man carving a huge profile in history, his vision went beyond seemingly irreconcilable opposites. He had allowed himself to be turned away from Mecca in the full knowledge that he had in fact completed the first stage of his return."
  
  Finally Lesley Hazleton has a great talent of story-telling. I have read her another book titled "After the prophet." You would not like to stop and go on and on reading the book.
• 
  Khairul Hezry

  It is always sort of refreshing when reading the biography of the Messenger (pbuh) by a non-Muslim and an agnostic to boot. This is a 'story' of a man who lived and died over 1400 years ago in a society where written records were never kept, so do not expect 100% accuracy. I liked how the author attempeted to 'humanise' (is that even right?) the Messenger (pbuh) which a lot of Muslim readers find annoying if not downright insulting. Even I felt that occassionally while reading this book until I reminded myself who the author was. With that in mind, my reading became much more enjoyable.
  
  Would I recommend this book to someone who wants to learn about the Messenger (pbuh) and the history of Islam? NO! There are many others that are better both by Muslim and non-Muslim authors. I myself am partial to
  Muhammad: Man and Prophet. Only read The First Muslim as something to pass the time with (while at the dentist, for example) and not as a serious academic work.
• 
  Wanda Pedersen

  Having recently read Zealot, written by a non-Christian author about Jesus, I felt it was only fair that I also read The First Muslim by a non-Muslim author about Mohammed.
  
  You need to be on the outside looking in if you want to write a unbiased biography of a religious figure. Both books were good and gave me unexpected insights into each religion and sometimes all religions.
  
  I knew next to nothing about the origins of Islam. The First Muslim has educated me about the tenets of that religion and given some insights into the psychology of its followers, in the same way that Zealot gave me new ways to understand both Judaism and Christianity. Suddenly, certain reactions and opinions by religious groups are explained. [Why were Muslims so upset by those Danish cartoons? Why are the Jewish settlers so aggressive about building in Palestinian territory?]
  
  It may be a historical book, but if you want to understand the conflicts of the 21st century, this would be a good starting point.
• 
  Carol Chu

  I got this book for free in exchange for an honest review. What I liked most about this book is that it's in English, because that is the first language that I speak and most of all the first language that I think in. That said, this book is very refreshing for the insights of Muhammad's early life, at his peak and until his very death. A very apt biography of one of the most influential man in Muslim dom. My thoughts is that all historical facts in this book FEELS pretty accurate (my opinion from the FEEL of the book) except for some cases of I heard someone said that and THAT becomes a fact, which might be valid at that time solely for the fact that those times word of mouth is a means to pass down a story. A satisfying book, an easy book to read and digest and I somewhat enjoyed it.
• 
  withdrawn

  RANT ALERT
  
  This is one of those few books that I won't finish. All of the touchy freely about 3 times an orphan, all of the silly baseless questions and second guessing. This is just foolishness which I have no patience for.
• 
  Hilmi Isa

  Buku ini merupakan buku biografi pertama mengenai Nabi Muhammad S.A.W. yang ditulis oleh orang bukan Islam yang dibaca oleh saya. Menarik untuk membaca sesuatu yang subjeknya sangat rapat dengan agama Islam tetapi ditulis oleh orang bukan Islam. Penulisnya,Lesley Hazleton merupakan seorang agnostik (seorang yang tidak menganuti sebarang agama tetapi percaya kepada kewujudan Tuhan). Oleh itu,beliau cenderung untuk mengkaji Nabi Muhammad S.A.W. dari sudut pandangan seorang agnostik dan akademik,dan bukannya dari sudut keimanan. Lantas,mungkin apa yang disampaikan oleh Hazleton agak berbeza daripada pandangan umum atau lazim mengenai sejarah nabi terakhir ini. Namun demikian,Hazleton masih menyandarkan penyelidikannya berdasarkan tiga sumber utama iaitu;
  
  a) Al-Quran
  b) Sirat Rasul Allah (yang ditulis oleh Ibn Ishaq)
  c) Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk (ditulis oleh Al-Tabari)
  
  Namun,secara keseluruhannya,hasil pembacaan saya,Hazleton mempunyai pandangan yang positif kepada Nabi Muhammad S.A.W. Sebagai contohnya,Hazleton berpandangan bahawa hukuman bunuh secara beramai-ramai ke atas Bani Qureyz (kanak-kanak dan wanita dijadikan hamba tawanan dan harta benda dirampas) yang diperintahkan oleh Nabi Muhammad sebagai kejam dan hanya mahu menjadikan Bani Qureyz sebagai kambing hitam. Tetapi,pada masa yang sama,Hazleton juga mengakui bahawa baginda berbuat demikian untuk menunjukkan bahawa Nabi Muhammad merupakan seorang pemimpin yang tegas dan akan bertindak agresif kepada mana-mana pihak yang memusuhinya. Langkah ini penting dilaksanakan untuk memastikan tiada lagi pihak yang mahu mempertikaikan atau memperkecilkan pemerintahan baginda.
• 
  Mostafa Mostafa

  WoW!
  actually am not sure if its a 4 or 4.5 star book..
  regardless of that, Hazleton provides a book that sweeps away hundred of years away to an age of deserts and camels.
  for a while, you forget this is a religious biography, for it loses the complexity of religious themes, and it seems that its like any other non fiction book..
  from a muslim's point of view, i guess Hazelton showed the Prophet as he really is...as human as he is..with all his manners and peacefullness...a man with the most peacefullbrevolution on Earth...insisting on love and forgivness among his followers and other people...also, as a muslim, i discovered some new things in this book, mostly debatable which makes me want to.read more abt the topic regardless how provocative they are...
  one thing though shows clearly; how lesley hazelton nearly subsides with the jews in their battle against the prophet in an indirect way, she failed to be objective regarding that matter...
  In general, this book promises a change with huge effects on those who read it with no background about tbe history of islam..
  Amid the false images arising nowadays about islam being all abt terrorism...Hazelton sends a message abt the greatness of such a man, such a religion and the holiness of the Quran..providing non-muslims a balanced view about who muslims really are!
  i love this book ♥
• 
  Kadijah Michelle

  I had heard the TED talk that was related to this book, and I was very interested in the author's perspective. I liked how she had humanized Prophet Muhammed in her talk which is something many Muslims forget to do, but she did not deny his belief that he was a Prophet.
  
  This book is not like that. All through the book, while it seems she is on Muhammed's side, she pokes holes at his story. As if it was all made up just to obtain power. Many of her conclusions make perfect sense; I won't deny that. Also, in the second half of the book, the focus is only on the war path Muhammed went on, and not the way he revolutionized the way Arabs treated each other. Nothing is mentioned about how women were given rights that had never existed for them before or how learning became an obligation for all people so that they would not be unlettered.
  
  Military successes fade after the death of their leaders because the leaders are cruel and don't leave great legacies. Muhammad did, and the author of this book missed all of that.
• 
  শোয়েব হোসেন

  বইটা ভাল্লাগছে। অনেকদিন সময় নিয়ে পড়ছি আসলে। ছোটবেলা থেকে মহানবী (সা:) এর যত কাহিনি পড়েছি সবই ছিল ধর্মীয় দৃষ্টিকোণ থেকে। সেই দিক হিসাব করলে এই বইটা অন্য রকম। এখানে মুহাম্মাদ (সা:) মানুষ, নেতা এবং শাসক হিসেবে কেমন ছিলেন সে বিষয়ে আলোকপাত করা হয়েছে। ততকালীন আরবের কোন রাজনৈতিক প্রেক্ষাপটে কী সিদ্ধান্ত নিয়েছিলেন সেগুলো ব্যাখ্যা করা হয়েছে। বইটা পাঁচ তারকাই দিতাম কিন্তু কিছু কিছু ক্ষেত্রে স্পেকুলেশন ছিল। তাই চার তারকা দিলাম।
  হ্যাপি রিডিং এভ্রিওয়ান।
• 
  Imalah Akhund

  As a muslim, I like reading books by non-muslims on Islamic history and Islam to see my religion from different view but I had mixed feelings about this book. I loved the author's choice of writing the book in an easy-to-read, story-telling manner but she insisted on giving her own opinion on events. Throughout the book you find her saying "this is what history books say happened but this is what actually must have happened." While I think sometimes people tend to glamourize history and historical people but author's insistance that documentation by historians was only just glamourization really put me off. Moreover Lesley Hazelton had this gossipy way of talking about certain people that is just very annoying. I would have probably encouraged the author's opinion more if there were reference alongwith the events described in the footnotes maybe, but the author didn't do a very good job with that either. There was a short mention of two events I had no knowledge of previously so I can't say what my opinions are on them.
  
  I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone but also won't discourage people to read this book either. I haven't read enough history books but as a muslim who has some knowledge on Islamic history, I think that this book might be incomplete information for someone who is not so well read on the topic but for fellow muslims I think it's a different perspective.
  
  I have feeling that this review might make people think that I hated the book, which is not the case. I neither hated the book nor liked it. If I took any thing away from this book it was that it challenged me. It made realize there are still many events in the history that I am not aware of. And It made me see a different point of view. The point of this review is not to make people hate the author or prevent people from picking up the book but just to spark up the conversation.
• 
  Cassandra

  It's worth noting at the beginning of this review that my understanding of the life of Muhammad was pretty rudimentary before this book. I really enjoyed the way the author tried to bring the human aspect of the Prophet to life, especially in his early years, sifting through some of the miracle stories to more humble beginnings. This isn't exactly a biography, because while it pulls mostly from the writings of ibn-Ishaq and al-Tabari, both of those were written many years after the death of Muhammed. The author uses information about the history and culture to advance hypotheses about what is "the future written back into the past" and what seems to make sense. She also uses psychology and other disciplines to approximate what Muhammad may have been feeling at the time. Given that, while there are many facts in this book, there is also quite a bit of conjecture (as there inevitably is when there isn't much surviving written record from the time of his life) but I think the author does a good job of differentiating between the two.
• 
  Liz Janet

  An accessible introduction to the life of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, but beware, it is mostly interpretation, as well, most books about the prophet are, considering he lived more than a millennial ago.
  I am going to recommend her TED Talks because they are quite good.
  
  The Doubt essential to faith
  
  On Reading the Koran
• 
  SaRa Hajj

  The information in the book could be found on google easily with less time specially the first part of the book which included no analysis. I mostly enjoyed the analysis found in the last part of the book which urged me to think more and perform more researches about the prophet. But I found the style of writing of the author is disturbing somehow.
• 
  Tuğba

  This one is pretty good but I like Karen Armstrong's version best so far.
  "And I have been commanded to be the first [among you] of the Muslims." Qur'an [39:12] Az-Zumar
  --o--
  "After all, the revelations insistently instructed Muhammad to say that he was “ just a messenger,” “only a man like you,” “a warner from among yourselves.” It would be years before the Quranic voice would call him “the first Muslim.” This was emphatically not about him, but about the message itself. Those who opposed it did make it about him, however. And in so doing, helped him.
  The tribal totems were powerful as intercessors, their subservience clear in the collective name given to Lat, Manat, and Uzza: “the daughters of al-Lah.” But no other gods at all? That was a direct attack on the whole tradition of tribal identity. An attack, that is, on “the ways of the fathers.”
  --o--
  “Uncle, by God,” said Muhammad, “if they put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left on condition that I abandon this path, I would not abandon it, even if I perish in the course of it.” And having practically given abu-Talib permission to expel him and thus sanction his execution, he broke down in tears and made for the door, only to hear abuTalib, himself now in tears, call him to stop: “Come back, nephew. Say whatever you want, for, by God, I will never give you up on any account.”
  --o--
  His task was merely to warn his fellow Meccans, not to save them. “You cannot make the dead hear, nor the deaf listen to your call.” The cynics have “hearts they do not understand with, eyes they do not see with, ears they do not hear with.” Much as Muhammad may have wished it, “you cannot guide the blind out of their error . . . Even if they saw a piece of heaven falling down on them, they would say ‘ just a heap of clouds,’ so leave them, messenger, until they face the Day of Judgment.”
  --o--
  With aptly Orientalist irony, this might be called the Murder on the Orient Express plot, the key to Agatha Christie’s famous novel in which all turn out to have committed the murder and thus, legally, none. If they all participated in Muhammad’s death, then no single one of them could be held responsible, and the principle of blood vengeance would be rendered moot. Not that the Hashims’ new leader abu-Lahab, “father of flame,” would be likely to invoke it anyway. In fact, he’d understand that the other clans were doing him a favor. He had already expelled Muhammad from the clan and would be only too glad to accept monetary compensation for his death.
  --o--
  That vaunted hard-headed realist Machiavelli would define it as “the question of cruelty used well or badly.” But even the master of realpolitik found himself dogged by the terms of his own question: “We can say that cruelty is used well, if it is permissible to talk in this way of what is evil, when it is employed once and for all, and one’s safety depends on it, and then it is not persisted in but is as far as possible turned to the good of one’s subjects.” That’s four conditional phrases in one sentence—Machiavelli astutely hedging his bets. Clearly aware that this resolved nothing, he kept returning to the question. “A ruler must want to have a reputation for compassion rather than for cruelty,” he wrote, “but he must nonetheless be careful not to make bad use of compassion.” Eventually his own logic led him to earn lasting disrepute by arguing that cruelty can actually be more compassionate than compassion, coming up with a line that has served as the rationale of repressive dictators worldwide: “By making an example or two, the ruler will prove more compassionate than those who, being too compassionate, allow disorders which lead to murder and rapine.”
  Seen in the light of today’s ongoing Middle East conflict, the massacre of the Qureyz in the year 627 seems to set a terrible precedent. Since faith and politics are as inextricably intertwined in today’s Middle East as they were in the seventh century, the arguments given for the massacre in the early Islamic histories are still invoked, alongside the Quran’s evident anger at Medinan Jewish rejection of Muhammad’s prophethood, to justify the ugly twin offspring of the political extremism: Muslim anti-Semitism and Jewish Islamophobia. In the light of Muhammad’s political situation at the time, however, a less emotional analysis may be more to the point. The massacre of the Qureyz was indeed a demonstration of ruthlessness, but they were, in a sense, collateral damage.
  --o--
  The exchange between them, far from being antagonistic, seems more like banter: ruefully good-natured on abu-Sufyan’s part and almost teasing on Muhammad’s. “Alas, abu-Sufyan,” he said, “hasn’t the time come for you to know that there is no god but God?”
  “May my father and my mother be your ransom,” abu-Sufyan replied, “you are both forbearing and generous. If there were another god along with God, I think he would have availed me somewhat before now.”
  It’s not hard to imagine Muhammad smiling at this, at least to himself, before pressing his advantage: “Hasn’t the time come for you to know that I am the messenger of God?”
  “I have indeed been thinking about that,” said abu-Sufyan. And referring to Muhammad in the formal third person, he added: “He who with God overcame me, was he whom I had driven away with all my might.” At which Muhammad punched him playfully in the chest and said, “Indeed you did!”
  Then and there, the leader of Mecca formally accepted Islam by reciting the shahada: “I testify that there is no god but God and Muhammad is his messenger.” He placed himself and his city under Muhammad’s protection, and the pledge was returned as Muhammad swore to ensure the safety of life and property for all who did not resist when he and his forces entered. Mecca had formally surrendered.
  --o--
  There was to be no revenge for any bloodshed in the preIslamic days of jahiliya. In this new era, “know that every believer is a believer’s brother, and all believers are brethren.” Nobody was to be forced to convert, and Christians and Jews especially were to be respected: “If they embrace Islam of their own accord, they are among the faithful with the same privileges and obligations, but if they hold fast to their tradition, they are not to be seduced by it.” And perhaps most cogently, in the one sentence most often quoted from these days, Muhammad talked about himself in the past tense: “I have left you one thing with which, if you hold fast to it, you will never go astray: the Quran, the book of God.”
  --o--
  “For those who worshipped Muhammad,” he announced, “Muhammad is dead. For those who worship God, God is alive, immortal.”
• 
  Moon Rose

  In the wilderness of Mount Hira, deep in the deserted region of its steppe, in a self-imposed isolation and solitary meditation, God revealed Himself to Muhammad in the most unlikely state, appearing in an apparition, not of the usual vision of Light and Peace, but of the Form that can make human senses tremble in fear, different from the Spirit of God that descended like a dove to Jesus Christ and the Spirit of Oneness in Nature that Buddha realized, it signals the beginning of what would place Islam in striking contrast from its religious counterparts, making the last prophet of God an instrument that will radically change the world into the world we know now for only God knows why.

  “So the man who fled down Mount Hira trembled not with joy but with a stark, primordial fear. He was overwhelmed not with conviction, but by doubt. He was sure of only one thing: whatever this was. it was not meant to happen to him. Not to a middle-aged man who had hoped perhaps at most a simple moment of grace instead of this vast blinding weight of revelation. If he no longer feared for his life, he certainly feared his sanity, painfully aware that too many nights in solitary meditation might have driven him over the edge.”

  I believe that God manifests Himself in many ways we could not possibly understand, in many forms that can totally bewilder our thoughts either in belief, or disbelief. His Power is just too great for us mere humans to grasp the totality of His Purpose. His many images are somehow just a reflection of the enigma of his Sacred Singleness. For instance, for us Christians, in the Old Testament, He seemingly appeared as the God of Wrath, of Punishment and of the Law, an ascetic disciplinarian who wanted to assert His Will, demanding it from His people with great authority while in the New Testament, Jesus Christ changed His Persona into the God of Light, making Him crystal clear as the God of Humility with a limitless capacity for forgiveness and bountiful means for mercy.
  
  Yet, despite God appearing incalculably mysterious in His ways, one thing remains true, He is the One God of Love. A love from which transcendence is still beyond our collective thoughts, beyond our known definitions, yet everything there is deemed by God towards that direction.
  
  Reading the story of Muhammad made me realize this even more...
  
  From the time he was born orphaned, growing up in the boondocks with the Bedouins under the free reign of nature, he learned to appreciate its beauty at a very young age, the natural splendor of its simplicity as his only backdrop with the serene visions of the somewhat endless landscape of the desert golden under the scorching heat of the sun and the contrasting quiet stillness of its open sky at night, Muhammad became attune with Nature, developing a sensitivity similar to Buddha that made him more aware than the rest, becoming more apparent when he went back to Mecca, especially growing up with a notion in his head that he was an outsider even in his own family, he learned to see the discrepancy among the people and all the injustices he recognized that went with it.
  
  With Buddha, the spark of enlightenment was ignited when he noticed the sufferings of other people around him that was in total contrast to his own opulent life. He appeared as an outsider from without as he recognized the true inside was deemed with so much pain and suffering. With Muhammad, he was perhaps physically an outsider in Mecca, but he was truly inside its helm as he appeared from within, part of the majority of its downtrodden milieu.
  
  Buddha withdrew from all worldly things to understand and to attain the full enlightenment while Muhammad must rise to power in domination to attest of what should become.
  
  Muhammad also shares the same theological ancestry with Jesus Christ with Abraham as the root of both of their monotheistic belief, but by the time he came to Damascus, which at that time was the melting pot of existing religious beliefs, the Christians had started to have disparate interpretation in the teachings of Jesus Christ that will bring further dissension among them down the line, harbinger to impending inquisitions and persecutions in the future. This was perhaps what Muhammad had perceived as he discerned these so many truths floating in the air of Damascus sky that conclusively will help him decide when he formed his own separate religion with a force that can be likened to his first moment of revelation, where human senses can do nothing, but be awed with the Divine.
  
  This force that took hold of Muhammad by the time he went on exile in Medina after all the persecution and scrutiny he and his believers went through was thinly explained in the book. He suddenly changed from Buddha-like-stance, the-turn-the-other-cheek martyr in Mecca into a radical believer with a force of the storm that can crush anything in its path. It was like God Himself sent Him His own legion of army to unite Arabia into one faith, beating the Persians and the Byzantines in their own game of warfare.
  
  With the disentanglement of Christianity from its stronghold, Islam began to built its empire that will start to spread all over the world like the will of the wind, reaching the Far East first even before Christianity did.
  
  And like Buddhism, Islam will be able to retain the purity of its Orientalism, freed from Western influences unlike Christianity. ☾☯