Reddit mentions of Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy (Islam in the Twenty-First Century)

Martin Lings' Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources is popular for good reason.

But the best history book I've seen is the work of Dr. Ali M. Sallabi.

It's two volumes and like 2000 pages but it's fascinating read.

I have it on PDF if you want it.


**


For understanding context, Dr. Jonathan Brown is an excellent resource. He's got several books, including his most recent Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy (he's already working on 2nd edition lol...)

I'd suggest buying Jonathan Brown's book Misquoting Muhammad which provides a very good introduction to the science of hadith, the formulation of the hadith corpus, and the application of it.

>About the knowledge of Islam:

1. Not at all. The average Muslim in my experience barely knows how hadith works, who the major narrators are, no knowledge of detailed Islamic history, or what methodology to use when interpreting the Qur'an. There's a reason why interpreting legal rulings and such is done by scholars who have spent several years in training.
   
   1.1. Not really. Imams and scholars function as both sources of religious interpretation and knowledge (much like doctors do for the medical field for ex.) as well as community leaders. It's an institution that has been going on for 1400 years and I doubt it will change.
   
   1.2. The only thing they can't do is lead men in prayer. Other than that, history is filled with female religious scholars.
   
   >About the relation between hadith and Quran:
   
   
2. Of course it is. It's why the entire field of hadith science and verification exists, to determine the reliable from the unreliable. I would recommend reading Misquoting Muhammad by Jonathan Brown for more on this topic.
   
   1.1. It can be understood and explained to a certain extent, but for much of it, critical historical context will be missing such as: reason for revelation, context in which certain events occurred, determining references to certain battles or events or people, etc. Hadith is not a text of human creation: revelation came in two parts, the first being the Qur'an and the second being the commandments of the prophet (sawa) and his words that explained and expounded on the Quran and that we are ordered to follow as the Qur'an says,
   
   "By the star when it descends, Your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred, Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed" 53:1-4
   
   "And whatever the Messenger has given you - take; and what he has forbidden you - refrain from. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty." 59:7
   
   "And obey Allah and obey the Messenger; but if you turn away - then upon Our Messenger is only [the duty of] clear notification." 64:12
   
   >About being Islamic in today's world:
   
   
3. As a scientist and researcher, I'd say little effect to strengthened my belief in Islam. Yes much of the moral and legal code of Islam was framed a long time ago, but I don't see what morality has to do with the passage of time. I don't subscribe to moral relativism. Other legal aspects of Islam include within them the ability to include certain conventions of the society one is in (a.k.a. 'urf) in passing out rules and judgement. I see Islam like a tree: rooted in a solid foundation, branching into a variety of opinions, but with the flexibility to bend (up to a degree) in the wind as needed.
   
   
4. Maybe, maybe not. Aside from larger political and power struggles in the middle east, most sunnis and shias have lived in peace for centuries. Conflict is not necessarily because of different Islamic interpretations, it's political power struggles that have taken a religious bent or centered around religious identity. For more on this I recommend reading The Shia Revival by Vali Nasr which has excellent insight on the reasons and background behind the modern struggle between sunnis and shias in the larger middle east.
   
   
5. It's mostly fine, aside from a handful of countries. Beware of summing the 57 or so muslim majority countries in the world with Saudi Arabia and Iran. Sure, they can leave if they want to and a number of people in my wider social circle have done so quite publicly in my muslim majority home country. No one cares.
   
   
   >About the presentation of Islam:
   
   
6. I'll leave that for a non-Arab to answer.
   
   
7. Not a big fan. I'm sure they're doing their best in dealing with an influx of millions of pilgrims, but some things could use huge improvement, especially the destruction of certain historical sites of huge importance to muslims.
   
   >About the criticism of Islam:
   
   
8. I'm fine with it. No I don't think they are "interpreting Islam" when they are violating clear unequivocal commandments of Islam and the Qur'an.
   
   1.1. I don't know. I think they'll either decrease or will have to change to something less takfiri of others. They have hit a critical point where irresponsible and divisive sectarian takfiri hate speech in parts of the muslim world has laid the groundwork for a lot of the problems we see today, and which was ignited by the instability caused in the Iraq war and then the Syrian civil war. The money pumping won't last forever. Again, I recommend reading the books linked above.

No, you did read one hadith about Aisha saying she was six probably from a propaganda website and ignored all the other hadiths that contradict this one, that "6/9 years old" hadith is not reliable and not part of the earliest and most trusted hadith collection (Muwatta), Muslims who lived in Medina at that time rejected that hadith as fabricated and it came from Iraq and not Arabia.

Shit like that exists because of the shia/sunni split, of course Muslims couldn't resist fighting eachothers for power, Aisha was a political figure not a little girl and she led a rebellion that's why many slander hadiths exist about her. That specific hadith was canonized in the 12th or 13th century with the rest of bukhari by an Ottoman vizier iirc and had absolutely no value before that.

Early Muslims didn't give a shit about hadiths because of their unreliable nature, I doubt you're interested in reading anything that isn't propaganda but since it's my field I'll recommend you two books on this topic The Introduction of ḥadīth in al-Andalus by Isabel Fierro and Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy by Jonathan Brown

TL;DR : Hadiths were the equivalent of shitposting for early Muslims, Aisha was a strong political figure and many contradicting hadiths about her age exist.