
	Almost four years ago I took a course in Islam at CBC.  One of the main topics of heated discussion in the class was whether or not Islam is a hostile religion.  I believe that the question is even more relevant today than ever before.  Looking back on the events since 9/11 I have personally observed mass media go from a hostile view of Islam and extremists to an extreme from of tolerance for Islam in America.  I don’t think in 2001 we could have ever had a presidential candidate with the name Borac Obama, who has an obvious Muslim background in his family.
	The Biography of the Prophet is intriguing to me because according to what I know of the history of Muhammad, the biography contradicts the personality of Muhammad.  From what I know and learned in the past, I thought that Muhammad forced converts to Islam.  He would conquer and take over tribes and then force them to take on the Islam religion.  But according to the biography, Muhammad was written as a sort of Martyr, who was misunderstood and even humbled himself to others.  After which one by one people came to see the ‘truth’ in his teaching and sought him out.
	Also, there are some uncanny similarities between the ministries of Jesus and the ‘miracles’ of Muhammad.  The most obvious is when he took mutton and milk and multiplied it so that there was more than enough for forty men.  It is this style of writing that makes me believe the writers wanted Muhammad to be perceived as the humble prophet, who needed not to prove anything, but simply lived in truth and miracles.  This sort of fallacy is the worst because it downplays the miracle and life of Jesus Christ.  To me, it is like they are stealing and trying to take credit for the life and personhood of Jesus through Muhammad.  
	There are also a lot of stories in the biography that make it seem like part of their agenda is to provide proof of ‘witness’ or of how people ‘on their own’ converted to Islam.  But the problem is that a lot of the stories are at least from a third party perspective.  That is in the story the author illustrates that he heard from so-and-so who heard from so-and-so etc.  I didn’t like this much because although their idea was that it provided proof of the truth of the stories, I thought it diminished the stories and made it seem all that more suspicious.
	I think the thing that bothers me most about this work is that they try and exalt and lift up Muhammad as a godly man who was humble, endearing, wise, and gentle.  But history contradicts the idea that Muhammad was a gentle and humble man, and I can’t help but think if Muslims today know the true history behind Muhammad’s rise to power. 