<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Beware of Guillaume's Distortion of the Sira by Ibn Ishaq
Review: Guillaume resorts to dishonesties too numerous to mention; among them is the insertion of two pages from one of at-Tabari's works, in which at-Tabari recounts a spurious tale (Page 165). Guillaume never indicates his external quotations clearly, flanking them with parenthesis instead of setting them apart from the main body text, and preceeding them with a "T" which is vigorously employed but never explained. A lay muslim can fall in the trap and swallow truth with polytheistic fiction and unwittingly accept the tale as a definitive part of Ibn Ishaq's serious historical work.
The sad part is that this book has been published continously in muslim countries since 1967
Rating: 
Summary: Needs to be read with an alert mind ? possible inaccuracies
Review: I was thoroughly disappointed with this book. However, I must admit to having approached it with high expectations. As one who does not speak Arabic, I had no choice but to rely on the various modern works available on the subject of Muhammad, his life and mission. While there are many excellent examples of such biographies, they inevitably mirror the author's particular way of thinking and this affects how they interpret certain important milestones in Muhammad's life. That left me feeling that I couldn't really pierce through the veil that was each author's interpretation.When I came across Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirah, I was ecstatic. Here at last was an opportunity for me to read about Muhammad's life from primary sources, I thought. As I am quite familiar with translations (into English) of other Arabic works from the same period, I knew that reading the book would be hard work - the style in which classical Arabic texts are written just doesn't conform to modern prose, and I was prepared for that. But what I wasn't prepared for was what I believe can only be construed as factual inaccuracies in the text. And here's why I believe so: There are just too many inconsistencies in both the style of prose as well as the picture it paints of Muhammad and his contemporaries that I cannot help but believe that something's gone amiss. For example, sometimes the exposition is somber, calm and considered. (I find these parts of the Sirah pleasantly enlightening.) At other times, the story becomes so incredulous - often childish - so as to defy belief. It is extremely difficult to believe that Ibn Ishaq could have varied that much in his style of writing. The same thing goes for the picture Guillaume's rendition of the Sirah paints of Muhammad and his companions. The picture is simply too conflicting and inconsistent to make sense. I find it quite beyond belief that a man who had painstakingly adopted an attitude of non-confrontation in dealing with the prejudice of the Meccan elite - which could often get very brutal and which culminated in an attempt on his life - could also be the same person who attacks members of foreign delegations for something so trivial as his being asked an odd question. Anyone familiar with modern biographies of Muhammad will not, I am quite sure, readily identify the latter as a feature of what they've read. These kinds of inconsistencies begin imperceptibly at first, but then become more glaring as one advances through the pages. In the end, by the middle of the book, I found myself very confused and unable to readily make out what was accurate and what was probably not. Reading Guillaume's rendition of the Sirah had by then become a laborious affair for me. Some readers below have pointed fingers at Guillaume for his supposedly Orientalist bias. I don't know if this is a fair accusation - I am not familiar with Guillaume's views - nor do I think it is a very helpful stance to adopt. Be that as it may, I do think Guillaume can be faulted for negligence in some aspects of the translation. One example of this is the section dealing with "the hypocrites" (around p.272 or so). Much of the text here is just an exposition of Qur'anic verses so that there would have been plenty of other references with which Guillaume could have cross-referenced. Instead, the meaning of a number of Qur'anic verses here have been completely distorted (i.e. no translation of the Qur'an would ever give you that meaning). A person of Guillaume's caliber should have thought to double-check, surely - after all, many of the "standard" translations of the Qur'an we have today (viz., Pickthall and Yusuf-Ali) were already in circulation during his time. By way of summary, Guillaume's translation of the Sirah is definitely not for the reader unfamiliar with the subject, in my view, however much (s)he is keen to learn of the life of Muhammad from the earliest sources. It will be just too easy to get lost and confused. I was disappointed with the book, but maybe that's only because I had such high expectations for it in the first place. For those who deem themselves fit enough to swim in deep waters, as it were, this book can offer some rewards; but please keep an open mind and watch out for potential inaccuracies! A better translation, as some readers have called for, is most definitely needed.
Rating: 
Summary: Best source for early Islamic History
Review: Ibn Ishaq is one of the earliest Islamic historians. This book deals in detail with genealogy of Muhammad and events relating his life and death. The emphasis is on the events regarding Muhammad's childhood and manhood. It elaborates on the policies of Muhammad and the way he managed the infant Islamic state. I think this book should be used as a paradigm for the making for a true Islamic state. Many of Muhammad's practices described in this book are unknown to majority of Muslims. As Muslims I believe that it is the responsibility of them to read this book and further investigate their governments and their policies. I believe Islam is very much perceived as a totalitarian religion, which has nothing to do with the reality. The true Islamic beliefs and administration of the government can only be explored by reading materials such as this where we can see how Muhammad himself conducted the state and then relate it to modern times. Therefore it is imperative for Muslims and non-Muslims to launch their own enquiry and investigate the true meaning and purpose of Islam in the light of Koran, Traditions of Muhammad and early historical events documented by either Ibn Isahq, al-Tabari, Ibn Saad or al-Bladhuri (these the earliest sources).
Rating: 
Summary: Highly valuable translation, with orientalist tendencies
Review: In partial reply to the "reader from Maryland USA" below who scathingly reviewed this title ... The reader is correct in his summation of Alfred Guillaume. However, the translation of this classic text still is a work worthy of being read. Ibn Ishaq's abridgement of Ibn Hisham's work is used extensively throughout the Muslim world, and in its Arabic original it is out of reach to the normal English reader and student of Islam, Muslim or non. The wealth of biographical, historical, and other information in this volume is deep. The narration the "reader from Maryland" mentions (about the Gabriel incident) has in fact been mentioned by some Muslim scholars of the past (e.g. Ibn Sa'd, at-Tabari), though by general consensus among the majority of the 'ulema (Islamic religious scholars, both past and present) have deemed it false and weak. In studying this work, the reader should keep in mind A. Guillaume was not a Muslim, but rather an Orientalist translating a classic Muslim compilation of the Prophet of Islam. Biases and prejudices are apparent, but the views and "commentary" & notes of the translator should be kept in mind as such, and as not necessarily being the words of Ibn Ishaq or Ibn Hisham. With that said, I would recommend this title, and to read selected portions with caution.
Rating: 
Summary: Most Unfortunate
Review: It seems i must agree a hundred percent , if not more, with our good friend mrashdan_mradzi who has written his long review on this book. The simple fact that at least one of the incidents in the book is false clearly shows that this book is a danger to a new believer or anyone even curious about the Islamic Religion. If mrashdan_mradzi happens to come across this review, please contact me ... and let me know if you have come across a better book.
Rating:
Summary: No better source in English on the life of Muhammad
Review: One of the most influential and interesting books I have ever read, beautifully translated in the opinion of one who knows some Arabic. Not only a precious source on the life of Muhammand but also on Arabic literature and culture and Islam. This is a book which deserves to known by people outside of the field of Arabic and Islamic studies; it is one of the great biographies of all time.
Rating:
Summary: wonderful resource, provides info on Satanic verses
Review: This book is a wonderful historic resource on Islam and Muhammad. If one wants to study Islam in depth, one should read this book. However, the reader should know that this book contains one of the most embarassing moments in Muslim history, the Satanic verses. Not the novel. That is when Muhammad confused verses from Satan as verses from God. This presents Islam great difficulty in the biblical test for a prophet found in Deut. 18 as well as general epistimalogical [sic] problems.
Rating:
Summary: A classical work but not history
Review: This is a book mostly for the layman who is not fussed about getting the facts right but who just wants to enjoy a good story. The work is centuries old and so it is better to read a more critical work on Muhammad (if such a book exists at the moment) before reading this book. This is because it is written by a devout Muslim and it would be fair to presume that it is concerned mostly with religious issues then the historical truth (like trying to learn about the Historical Jesus from the Gospels).
Rating:
Summary: English translator didn't tamper with Arabic
Review: To that reader from Maryland, USA
who says Guillaume -the Orientalist- added passages from his own to the translation in order to defile Islam and Mohamed, Why don't you present an instance? Is it shocking to you that the Prophet killed the father and the husband of Jewish woman, spent the whole night with here, overslept, and wake after sunrise and missed the dawn Prayer? Or is it shocking to you that the Prophet did away with good habit of adoption in order to marry his own adopted sons' wife. And when his follower contested that, he got a convenient revelation warning and terrifying them if they ever do that. Read 33:36 in Koran
"It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path."
Read before and after that you might say I present it out of context, and tell if the prophet - who is supposed to be mere human in a religion you say it is a strict Monotheism- decides the matter with Allah, Who is really the true One God here?
These are just two examples of many more which I myself read it in both Arabic and English.
Mr. Guillaume just translated facts from Arabic to English
<< 1 >>
| 
