[(FIRST MUSLIM : STORY OF MUHAMMAD )] [Author: Lesley Hazleton] [Feb-2014] Paperback – February 19, 2014

Muhammad's story so lends itself to hagiography. It follows then that anyone attempting to write it can take the easy road and yield to this wonderful temptation. After all, who doesn't like to hear (or tell) a super hero story once every while? But, all of us have to go home once the movie ends. And, that is where Lesley Hazleton's story begins.Building on the solid premise of an orphaned child's need for social acceptance and inclusion, she effortlessly provides a new window from which to view the Prophet's life and mission. She uses his various personality traits (detachment, integrity, steadfastness) to show why he was so exclusively suited to the role he played while also highlighting the weight of prophethood on even this strongest of shoulders. She presents us the man with all his frailties, idiosyncrasies and failures but with empathy and the understanding that hindsight is always 20/20. Lesley claims and does carefully avoid the mistake many historians (or history journalists as I like to call them) make - projecting the future into the past. She adamantly examines him in the backdrop of 7th century Arabia and remains true to Muhammad's early biographers, Ibn Ishaq and Al-Tabari.To a discerning Indian reader, especially to those exposed to Irawati Karve and M T Vasudevan Nair, this approach might not seem too novel. It is one thing to re-render a mythological story but it is totally another to reconstruct the story of a man who lived in flesh and blood and held dear by millions of people. That Lesley manages this with compassion and a lot of respect (for a scarcely understood man) is what makes this a compelling work.Some people (most people) like Tony Stark better than Iron man. Maybe you are one of them.

Most of us know about the lives of the prophets and most of what we know boils down to these simplicities: The prophet (Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammed) was born, he lived a thoughtful life, he was a great man and God chose him to be His prophet. Hazelton removes the screen to show who Muhammed the boy was, how he grew up and what his environment was like as he approached prophethood and after that.In this book Hazleton draws from historical writings and skillfully fills in gaps to create a picture of what Muhammed may have been like, how he may have been thinking and how he was influenced. To be sure, some of the material is pure conjecture, but it is intelligent conjecture with enough continuity to be convincing.Hazleton takes us into the prophet Muhammed's mind and his thinking. While it may be impossible to represent exactly what Muhammed may have been thinking, she drew sufficient material around certain events to help us understand the man. After reading The First Muslim, we can appreciate Muhammed better because he becomes more touchable; a man like us but better than us; a man who, while he was great enough to influence billions of people over time, to love him and his message, was still a man with very human reactions.A superbly written book that fills a gap that few books about the prophet Muhammed have been able to fill. I highly recommend reading this book because it will leave you with a better appreciation of who the leader of a great faith really was.

Based on early biographies of Muhammad, this is a secular but unbiased look at what we know about the man. The author takes great pains to be fair and balanced while not overly judgmental -- this book makes no qualitative claims about the relative good or bad of Islam, and instead presents Muhammad as a surprisingly human historical figure, deeply flawed and yet also highly influential. The narrative is an indispensable historical guide to understanding the religion and the man. The reader is left with a fuller understanding of the conflict between Islam and Judaism, the motivation behind Islamic jihad and learns not only about a religion started by a man, but about the man himself and his motivations; the politician, the husband, the war lord and the mystic. The author does an admirable job presenting the story without editorializing the existence or non-existence of miracles, the supernatural and divine, instead allows the reader reach his own conclusions on these topics as one witnesses the path of Muhammad transgress from non-violent spiritual guru to military rebel, from loving spiritualist to vengeful despot. Of course, this is my own interpretation of the man based on the book and the story it provides -- the brilliance in the author's style is her ability to present a narrative of events without sullying the expose by providing assumptions and emotional interpretations. She provides the proper 7th century context vital to understanding the often violent story of Islam's birth, warts and all, and it makes for a refreshingly human story.A must read for any American looking for a broader context to understanding current events impacting western civilization.

Lesley Hazleton is a great writer if you are looking for a fiction story. This really isn't a biography of the Prophet ( peace be upon him ) but more a personal fiction based prose. Hazelton,unfortuantly, has given too much personal opinion along with selected & preferential references to Ibn Ishaq. Some facts that she has got wrong :1 Hazleton says Abu Talib rejected the Prophets proposal for his daughters hand but this is not the case. Fact is the daughter wanted to marry someone else and it was common in those days for women to choose the husband as did Khadija later on ; hence why female infanticide was rampant because it could mean the daughter could ultimately marry an enemy and many other social implications.2 She claims Abu Taleb used the prophet for work and menial tasks and she says he took him on all his trade caravans because he wanted his nephew to do the menial work. Not so the fact is Abdul Al Mutalib the prophets grandad gave the prophet into the care of eldest son and requested for him to never let him out of his sight and to take special care of him and for this reason his uncle took him along on all expeditions.3 She mentions Waraqa bin Naful ( the prophets first wife Khadijas brother ) very briefly and claims he was part of Hanif group without proper explanation. It is fact that Waraqa was aged sage and wise man and practising christian and an expert of the authentic christian & jewish scriptures and he knew the signs of the prophet that was to come. She attributes none of this to Waraqa in the early chapters.4 She changes the oral traditions relating to the first revelations to her opinion . She states that the Prophet may have been in an altered state of mind.At this fairly early stage of the book with all these opinions and factual errors I could not continue with the book.In all fairness it is difficulty to understand the story of the prophet for the non religious westerner who has no understanding of the unseen and who does not believe in miracles.The opening verse of the Quran says this book is for those who believe in the unseen. So how can one penetrate the religion without any sense of belief in the unseenIt really is a shame because this could have been an excellent book if it were not for her opinions and important factual omissions .

First of all I really appreciate the hard work and amount of research did by author Lesley Hazleton to write about prophet Muhammad.I really make a point to read about the Prophet be it any author (not just by a Muslim author). Non Muslims author provides a different perspective to the story of Prophet. This book was no different. Lesley tries to present the story in believable manner. The miracles or super natural events in the biographies from earlier biographers are shown as something that happens in the mind. However, it was irritating to see that the author from 21st century tries to think what someone from 7th century could have thought.This particular biography is not rosy as seen in biographies from other Muslim authors. Although she seemed a bit biased against Prophet Muhammad specially during war against Jewish community. Watering down the betrayal and treason from the Jewish community, she presented Prophet as a villain and barbaric.Frustrating to see was the praise towards Abdullah ibn Ubay - who was the biggest hypocrite to core. He is presented as someone who is at par with the Prophet, a firm believer, highly capable as a leader. If one gets to know about that man from other sources, one would understand that is not a case.I am not sure why many important parts were skipped. Battle of Badr and Trench was not explained in detail. What went in the negotiation in the treaty of Hudaibiya was also not told. Also, irritating to see was the book is not divided properly in clear chapters.

A very sympathetic book on Mohammed, by a Jew! But this book repeats myths, which aren’t true. Myths that form the basis of hatred of the Jews from the Muslim world.The Battle of the Trench, claimed as victory for the Prophet is fallacy, as no battle took place.Conquest, for more than two thousand years, consisted of siege of major towns. This was an impossibility in the Arabian peninsular and the reason it was never conquered. Uniquely the towns surround an oasis, so bringing a large army, would mean the nearest water outside the town could be hundreds of miles away. All sieges therefore lasted a few days at most and all resulted in the town being left alone. Siege was rare, they would raid each other’s caravans and usually take great booty, from the goods being transported. In the Battle of the Trench, there was no booty to recompense for all the unpaid work in preparing to resist the siege.This was also a dispute between Mohammed and his own tribe, the Quraysh. The people of Medina were obliged to all help if one were attacked, except if it was an “internal” dispute. Mohammed had already exiled two Jewish tribes and the last remaining Jews in Medina, decided that, as this was an internal dispute, they should stand aside.The Jews were framed, accused of standing aside from the “battle” because they were helping the enemy (the Prophets own tribe). All the men were beheaded and all the rest sold into slavery. 900 were claimed to be executed and it took three days. Asked how to separate men from boys, they were told, that if they had pubic hair, they were to be executed. The booty in this case was great, homes, vast date palms etc.The whole event is probably myth, but far too many Muslims literally believe it. It’s all there in Muslim literature.Another lost opportunity to set the record straight. Otherwise I quite enjoyed the book.

The reference to "early eyewitness accounts" in the cover text sadly misled this reader. There are no surviving eyewitness accounts. Having researched the matter, I find that aside from the Quran itself, which unlike the Bible has no historical accounts, the earliest surviving texts describing the events of the period start from from about 150 years after the prophet's life. The earliest texts are strongly influenced by the political requirements of that time. According to Leontius, also known as Ghevond or Lewond, a late 8th century Armenian, in his description of the contemporary correspondence between Pope Leo III and and Caliph Omar II, all records of the time of the prophet were destroyed by Al-Hajjaj ibn Yussuf, or at least as many as he could get his hands on. Al-Hajjaj was an Ummayad governer of the late 7th to early 8th century, who introduced a uniform version of the Quran. He was noted as a capable but ruthless statesman. Whatever the truth of Al-Hajjaj's actions, there are practically no contemporary records from Arabia from the time of the prophet, in contrast to the periods both before and after. This makes the job of the historian rather tricky. Those who tried harder than most, such as Patricia Crone, have not produced accounts that have attracted widespread support, as it is difficult to place a strong account on rickety foundations.What we are left is a theologian interpreting the traditions of another religion as set out in what are essentially hagiographical and devotional texts. I suppose this approach might satisfy a certain audience, but it seems like a narrow audience. It certainly doesn't satisfy me, who wished for a more historical approach.

Interesting take on the life of Muhammad by an agnostic Jew psychologist. She tries her best to show the human side of Muhammad. She shows how some of Muhammad's emotions and reactions are not "perfect" and in a way exactly what one would expect from a real person if they truly believed that they were contacted by the divine. What I do not like is how she tries to explain and claim what Muhammad is thinking and why he does certain things. I would rather she have given possible explanations and not make such bold claims of "knowing" what is going on in his head. But if you can look past that or take these with a pinch of salt, then it is an amazing book showing the "human" reactions of someone interacting with the divine.