The Truth About Muhammad

The Truth About Muhammad received a mixed reception in the popular media. British author of comparative religion Karen Armstrong gave a scathing review, calling it "a depressing read".[9] Armstrong found Spencer unable to understand Muhammad in the cultural, economic, historical, political and spiritual circumstances of 7th-century Arabian Peninsula, leading him to making "basic and bad mistakes of fact".[9] She noted that the author cherry-picked his sources, for instance, including only Quranic passages that are hostile to Christian and Jews but omitting the others that insist on Islam's tolerance with them.[9] She wrote that non-Muslims' ignorance of Islam would be really helpful for Spencer to achieve his anti-Islamic aim, mockingly describing his book as a gift for extremists of the same views "to 'prove' to those Muslims who have been alienated by events in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq that the west is incurably hostile to their faith".[9]

Ben Maldonado of The Stanford Daily called his book one-sided and criticised his poor, repetitive writing style.[11] While presenting itself as a biography of Muhammad, Maldonado felt nothing biographical in this book since, he believed, it is more a chronicle of "the more negative and controversial aspects" of its subject and provides nothing beneficial to the historiography of Islam.[11] In his 2008 book Nabi Kita Dihina Saudara! (The Prophet is Mocked by our Friends!), Indonesian author Muhammad Nurhidayat suggested Spencer to learn from the works of objective scholars, including Armstrong, John Esposito, William Muir and W. Montgomery Watt, before writing his own book.[12]

Christian and conservative publications welcomed the book. Andrew C. McCarthy of the National Review wrote: "Robert Spencer graphically illustrates the depth of our folly in thinking—or, rather, blithely assuming—otherwise. An alarming book, and a necessary one."[13] Paul Bower of the New Oxford Review praised Spencer's painstaking research of traditional Islamic biographies of Muhammad and on their contradictory nature.[14] Bower continued that, in spite of its critical tones, he regarded the book undoubtfully as "an essential resource, a reliable and duly documented account of who Muhammad really was, and a challenge to those who would assume that his actions and his life are perfectly just within the framework of Western society".[14] Srđa Trifković found the book brief yet readable[15] while Elizabeth Kantor deemed it an important contribution to understanding Muhammad.[16] Human Events included the book in their "Top 10 Conservative Books of 2006" listing.[17]

David Thompson of The Guardian labelled The Truth About Muhammad "a detailed and timely riposte to common misconceptions, outlining the mismatch between belief and historical reality and documenting the ways in which Muhammad's own deeds and purported revelations are used verbatim to mandate intolerance, xenophobia and homicidal 'martyrdom'".[18] Thompson added that Spencer "identifies the problem upon which current tensions hinge. A tradition of hagiography and censorship within the Islamic world has created a woefully inadequate picture of this most problematic of religious figures."[18]

Scholars were almost unanimously critical towards the book. Deepika Bains and Aziza Ahmed of the Asian American Law Journal condemned Spencer for his failure to have an objective stance; for instance, he used the negatively connoted mujehedins and jihadists to refer to Muslims.[19] The reviewers also noted many statements by Spencer that were not founded on provable evidence but his personal opinion, such as claiming that investigations for a historic Muhammad would not get a significant audience in Islamic world.[19] Bains and Ahmed wrote a pervasive theme of the book is all Muslims are "violent jihadists", and that he relied on his selective interpretation of the Quran and Islamic history.[19] They concluded that, with all the book's lack of analysis and historical context, "The Truth About Muhammad accomplishes Spencer's goal of vilifying Muslims and misinforming readers about Islam ... However, Robert Spencer exercises his right to free speech free from responsibility, choosing instead to inspire hatred and encourage intolerance."[19]

Tariq Aziz, Muhammad Shahbaz Manj and Saima Shahbaz Manj, reviewing for Al-Qamar, wrote that Spencer relied too much on his subjective opinion in the book and "has produced a work that not only denigrates the Prophet Muhammad, he even denigrates Islam as a religion of peace, holiness, tolerance and kindness."[20] University of Cape Town professor of religious studies Abdulkader Tayob argued that while the book presents itself as a biography of Muhammad, it however "intends to say something more specifically about Muslims".[21] Tayob cited Spencer as having provided "a sophisticated example of a general trend: turning to the Prophet to create an impression of the Islamic threat."[21] Author of interfaith dialogue Craig Considine cited the book as one of the many popular examples in the 21st century in which Muhammad has been misportrayed as a cruel figure, pedophile and one who discriminates against religious minorities like Jews and Christians.[22]

Joseph S. Spoerl of the Middle East Quarterly wrote a more positive review; he commented that the biography "deserves a wide audience" but opined that its title is sensationalistic and noted a number of chronological mistakes, such as dating the Expedition of Tabuk to 631.[23]