You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
marienh 's review for:
Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources
by Martin Lings
DID NOT FINISH: 35%
I love reading hagiographies, but this one was really tough to finish.
When reading religious history, it's to be expected that matters are presented, on the one hand, as a mix between past societies and events, and on the other hand, as stories with a parable-esque element, often containing religious wonders and such. That blend is something I generally enjoy and find enriching.
However, in my reading experience, this book blurs the line between what is historically grounded and what belongs to the realm of the mythical or miraculous. For example, the story in which the angel Jibreel teaches the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ how to perform wudu by stomping his heel or wing in the sand—causing water to spout from the earth—is presented as a plausible and integral part of the narrative. While this may feel reminiscent of the origins of Zamzam, this specific story is not found in the Qur'an, the commonly accepted hadith collections, or any major traditional sources.
What makes this even more problematic is that the book weaves such events into its storytelling without offering any citations or clarifications. It presents them alongside accounts sourced from Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa'd, al-Bukhari, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, and others, thereby creating the impression that all elements of the narrative are equally substantiated. In cases like these—especially when miracles are described—this approach demands more transparency. The lack of distinction between sourced history and interpretive or mythical additions weakens the book’s credibility, at least for readers who are familiar with the classical sources.
To be clear, I am not dismissing religious beliefs or the possibility of miracles. What I am questioning is the way this particular work presents such events—blurring genre boundaries—while invoking the authority of well-established historical and theological texts, yet failing to clearly identify which elements are derived from where.
That said, my intention is not to show disrespect to the faith or the tradition. On the contrary, I approach these texts with deep reverence, and it is precisely out of that respect that I find it important to maintain clarity between devotion, mythology, and historical documentation.
When reading religious history, it's to be expected that matters are presented, on the one hand, as a mix between past societies and events, and on the other hand, as stories with a parable-esque element, often containing religious wonders and such. That blend is something I generally enjoy and find enriching.
However, in my reading experience, this book blurs the line between what is historically grounded and what belongs to the realm of the mythical or miraculous. For example, the story in which the angel Jibreel teaches the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ how to perform wudu by stomping his heel or wing in the sand—causing water to spout from the earth—is presented as a plausible and integral part of the narrative. While this may feel reminiscent of the origins of Zamzam, this specific story is not found in the Qur'an, the commonly accepted hadith collections, or any major traditional sources.
What makes this even more problematic is that the book weaves such events into its storytelling without offering any citations or clarifications. It presents them alongside accounts sourced from Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa'd, al-Bukhari, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, and others, thereby creating the impression that all elements of the narrative are equally substantiated. In cases like these—especially when miracles are described—this approach demands more transparency. The lack of distinction between sourced history and interpretive or mythical additions weakens the book’s credibility, at least for readers who are familiar with the classical sources.
To be clear, I am not dismissing religious beliefs or the possibility of miracles. What I am questioning is the way this particular work presents such events—blurring genre boundaries—while invoking the authority of well-established historical and theological texts, yet failing to clearly identify which elements are derived from where.
That said, my intention is not to show disrespect to the faith or the tradition. On the contrary, I approach these texts with deep reverence, and it is precisely out of that respect that I find it important to maintain clarity between devotion, mythology, and historical documentation.