Crossroads to Islam: The Origins of the Arab Religion and the Arab State (Islamic Studies (Amherst, N.Y.).) [Hardcover]

Yehuda D. Nevo (Author), Judith Koren (Author)

Book Description

Series: Islamic Studies (Amherst, N.Y.). | Publication Date: June 2003

In the consensus view of early Muslim history, the Arab tribes, united and inspired by Muhammad's teachings, embarked on a military jihad that wrested Syria and Palestine from a weakened Byzantine Empire in the years after 630AD. But according to this radical revisionist treatise by the late Israeli archaeologist Nevo and Koren, an 'information specialist', every particular of this orthodoxy is wrong. Basing their arguments on a detailed examination of archaeology, contemporary texts, linguistic analyses and evidence from coins, the authors arrive at a thesis that will surely be incendiary to Islamic believers. The authors argue that Byzantium voluntarily transferred her eastern provinces to Arab client states in continuance of an imperial policy stretching back for centuries. The Arabs who took over the region after 630 AD were not Muslims, but a mixture of pagans and adherents of a Judeo-Christian 'indeterminate monotheism' from which Islam evolved over succeeding decades. Muhammad was not a historical person, they argue, but a mythical figure who became, starting in the 690s, a 'National Arab Prophet' of a new official religion for the consolidating Arab state. In addition to the Muslim ire that the authors' religious debunking will raise, specialists in the field may have objections to their treatment as well. Especially unconvincing is their rational-actor account of Byzantine policy towards the eastern provinces, where, they assert, the Byzantine government deliberately fomented and then persecuted heresies, stoked hatred of the emperor himself and left its territories open to military incursions by rival powers, all in order to reconcile the inhabitants to their long-planned abandonment by the empire.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

In the consensus view of early Muslim history, the Arab tribes, united and inspired by Muhammad's teachings, embarked on a military jihad that wrested Syria and Palestine from a weakened Byzantine Empire in the years after 630 A. D. But according to this radical revisionist treatise by the late Israeli archaeologist Nevo and Koren, an "information specialist," every particular of this orthodoxy is wrong. Basing their arguments on a detailed examination of archaeology, contemporary texts, linguistic analyses and evidence from coins, the authors arrive at a thesis that will surely be incendiary to Islamic believers. The authors argue that Byzantium voluntarily transferred her eastern provinces to Arab client states in continuance of an imperial policy stretching back for centuries. The Arabs who took over the region after 630 A.D. were not Muslims, but a mixture of pagans and adherents of a Judeo-Christian "indeterminate monotheism" from which Islam evolved over succeeding decades. Muhammad was not a historical person, they argue, but a mythical figure who became, starting in the 690s, a "National Arab Prophet" of a new official religion for the consolidating Arab state. In addition to the Muslim ire that the authors' religious debunking will raise, specialists in the field may have objections to their treatment as well. Especially unconvincing is their rational-actor account of Byzantine policy towards the eastern provinces, where, they assert, the Byzantine government deliberately fomented and then persecuted heresies, stoked hatred of the emperor himself and left its territories open to military incursions by rival powers, all in order to reconcile the inhabitants to their long-planned abandonment by the empire.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Review

"informative survey of the origins of the Arab religion and state; an important addition to the literature on Arab-American history" -- The Bookwatch, November 2003

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 462 pages
• Publisher: Prometheus Books (June 2003)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1591020832
• ISBN-13: 978-1591020837
• Product Dimensions: 8.7 x 6.6 x 1.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.5 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (9 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #967,389 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

32 of 35 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars A few gems that require hard mining - alternatives available, September 28, 2003

By 

S. J. Snyder "De gustibus non disputandum" (Various, United States) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Crossroads to Islam: The Origins of the Arab Religion and the Arab State (Islamic Studies (Amherst, N.Y.).) (Hardcover)

I am torn by this book. While I have read previous academic journal articles and in-depth humanities public magazines about such things as textual variation in the Quran and its theoretical path of evolution (with which I agree), nonetheless, Nevo and Koren take this ball and run onto a whole new playing field. And here, on the issues of secular Byzantine history and eastern church history, the two seem to almost willfully adopt a contentious theory and deliberately reinterpret every bit of archaeological and literary evidence that does not agree with said theory.

So, I give it two stars. Here's why, with some suggested alternative reading at the end of this review.
While the Sassanid seizure of Palestine (and Egypt), followed by Byzantine counter-war later, would have left Palestine stripped of Byzantine troops and open to a peaceful non-Muslim monotheist Arab infiltration, some of their speculation here is historically unfounded, and unnecessary. There is no need to presume that the Byzantines had totally withdrawn their forces in the process of establishing Arab foederates circa 500-525, or a century before the Sassanid invasion. And, even to the degree Byzantine troops were withdrawn, this certainly doesn't mean Byzantine interests were withdrawn. To the north and west, over the previous two centuries or more, Eastern, Western and unified Roman Empires had established various Germanic tribal foederates without withdrawing Roman interests in Gaul, Pannonia, etc.

On church history, the authors engage in pure speculation, unsubstantiated by any footnoted research. They claim Byzantine emperors such as Justinian and Justin deliberate fostered heresy in outlying provinces as a way of pushing Palestinians, Egyptians, etc., out of the Byzantine fold and forcing them to survive on their own. Again, the withdrawal of Byzantine troops does not imply withdrawal of Byzantine interests and therefore does not require such a Machiavellian scenario.

Also implausible is their contention that the Byzantine emperors were in reality puppets of the court camarilla. Some may have been puppets of the troops that revolted against a previous emperor to put the on the throne, but that's a different story.

Now, with all those reservations about the book (with a couple still to come), here is the scenario of Nevo and Koren.

The Muslim Arabs never mounted a jihadic Muslim war against the Byzantine empire. First, they moved into a power vacuum. Second, they were not unified until the establishment of the Umayyad caliphate under Muawiya in 661, some 30 years after the death of Muhammed. Third, there was no Islam until Umayyads recognized the need for a state religion and invented one out of extant Arab monotheism. Fourth, there was no Muhammed.

As noted, I believe that item four may be true, from previous reading. You don't need this book to learn that. No. 3 hangs with no. 4, and again can be found elsewhere -- more on this in a second. No 1 may be true, but without the off-the-wall reasoning of Nevo and Koren behind it; arguments from silence at that time, from Christian writers not describing a massive invasion, may be telling. No. 2 -- depends on one's definition of relative degrees of unity, or lack thereof; this is an open book, and one where their rereading of literary evidence from the period and shortly after is most contentious.

Now, back to their points three and four.

They note Muhammed is not named on Arab coins until 690, well after the Umayyads would have started organizing Islam as a state religion in their scenario. Second, when he first became known to Christian writers of that era, it is as a king, not a prophet. (However N/K overlook the possibility that Christian polemicists might have refused to discuss him even as a "so-called prophet." Third, "Muhammed" is only mentioned four times in the Quran, compared to 136 for Moses and 24 for Jesus, but this is countered by the argument that an actual Muhammed would consider it riduculous, or even sacrilege, to compare himself to Moses or Jesus. Fourth, "Muhammed" can be a title, roughly and idiomatically, but not literally, equivalent to Messiah or Christ.

What eventually led to "Islam" being formed, then?

Their conjectured sources are Abrahamism, based on Jewish influence; Judeo-Christianity, more commonly known as Ebionism -- Jews who accepted Jesus as a prophet, or even the Messiah, but as a purely human being Messiah without any Pauline deity overtones; and Christian sects/heresies, i.e. Nestorianism and Monophysitism.

However, N/K don't go far enough. They do not discuss the possible influence of Manicheanism, which still had faint elements in the Middle East at this time, certainly in areas outside Byzantine or Sassanid control. They apparently are unawares of the religion of Mandeanism -- a Jewish-based religion similar to the Ebionites of Judeo-Christianity, except with John (the Baptist) revered as the Messiah, not Jesus. (Read between the lines in Acts about disciples of John knowing "only" the baptism of John and you see the curtain briefly pulled back on proto-Mandean/proto-Christian conflict.

I am not enough of an Islamic scholar to comment on the thoroughness or accuracy of all their research there. I do hold a graduate divinity degree, though, and find much of their speculation, especially emperors' alleged use of heresy to political ends, as being unsubstantiated.

One final etymological note. "Muslim" did not originally mean "one who submits," despite Muslim claims for that. Instead, the s-l-m root of the word is the same as in Salem, Jerusalem in Hebrew, and therefore involves the idea of peace -- communal peace, similar to what Paul calls for in his letters - greeting one another with the (kiss of) peace.

This book has some gems, but they require a lot of digging. Here's a better place to dig:

Read the 1999 article in Atlantic Monthly for an easier to digest, and much more plausible, historical-critical basic overview of the development of Islam.

14 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An important contribution to a historical-critical reading of the Koran, May 28, 2007

By 

D. Layman (Elizabethtown, PA United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Crossroads to Islam: The Origins of the Arab Religion and the Arab State (Islamic Studies (Amherst, N.Y.).) (Hardcover)

This work is an important contribution to a historical-critical reading of the Koran and the origins of Islam.

As other reviewers have noted, it should not be read in isolation, and like all revisionist scholarly works, it must be read in an awareness that further sources or documentation might require even further revision.

But as it stands, it cannot be ignored. It is certainly NOT "pseudo-scholarship," as one reviewer claims. I have a Ph.D. in religious studies, and am familar with historical-critical and source-critical methodology as it is used analyzing the origins of religions and biblical studies. It is those who dismiss Nevo who are guilty of "distorting or omitting the important evidence," evidence that is laid is in careful detail. Just the appendices, that lay out the inscriptional data, (in both Arabic and English translation) is worth the price of the book.

In evaluating this data, the non-specialist must bear one central fact in mind: there is NO primary, contemporaneous data for the origins of Islam. The Koran/Qur'an gives no such data. Muslim traditions are written 200-300 years later. This is why the careful analysis of the changing themes on the dateable inscriptions are so important.

Contrary to "R. Kevin Hill," it is not true that "Much of his evidence is numismatic." Nevo is explicit: numismatic [coin inscription] evidence is "insufficient as the [i]primary[/i] type of evidence on which to ground a historical theory." The core evidence is based on the sequence of ideas in inscriptions, both official and popular. This sequence is as follows:

-pagan, ending 5th/6th century
-a generic ("indeterminate"") monotheism, which as bases itself on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus
-the recognition of Muhammad as the prophet: 690 in official inscriptions (the Dome of the Rock) and 730 in popular inscriptions
-"Muslim" inscriptions, distinguished by the idea of "witnessing," and an explicit affirmation of the absolute unity ("tawhid") of Allah.

This is the core of the argument. The methodology is consistent with the use of archeology and historical criticism of the Bible, the origins of ancient Israel, and Christianity. None of the negative reviewers (including the one cited from the Bryn Mawr Classical Review) even recognize it, much show any flaws.

Nevo has raised fundamental questions, that further research should be able to answer:

1. Is Nevo right that there is NO evidence for a pre-Muslim Arab paganism in the Hijaz (the area on the Arabic Penisula around Mecca and Medina)?
2. Is Nevo right that the real locus for pre-Muslim and early Muslim Arabic religion is in the Negev and al-Sam (apparently the Arabic name for Palestine/Syria), NOT the Hijaz?
3. Is Nevo right that "Mohammed" is not documented as a prophet/religious leader until 690/730? (Sorry, Mr. Hill, an unnamed "false prophet" doesn't count. Prophets were a dime-a-dozen in the fevered religious world of the Middle East.)

If Nevo is WRONG, then his assertions ought to be easy to refute. So far, I have seen none.

One final point. I agree that Nevo overstates his case for the allegedly INTENTIONAL withdrawal of Byzantium from al-Sam. But he does show two things:

1. Byzantium followed a centuries-long policy that resulted in, intentionally or not, the withdrawal from al-Sam.

2. This allowed Arabic clans and armies to move into the vacuum.

3. Again, if Nevo is wrong, where is the [i]contemporaneous[/i] evidence for a dramatic "Muslim" invasion/conquest of al-Sam circa 630-640. It doesn't appear to exist.

Finally read this alongside of such works as Meccan Trade And The Rise Of Islam and the work of J. Wansborough (not linkable here).

P.S. Here is the Wansbrough [sic] text I wanted to link to: Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation.

12 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Interesting Alternative View....., November 8, 2003

By 

Timothy W. Dunkin "TQCincinnatus" - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Crossroads to Islam: The Origins of the Arab Religion and the Arab State (Islamic Studies (Amherst, N.Y.).) (Hardcover)

An interesting book, though weighed a bit towards the speculative side. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, since speculation is often the precursor to further research which leads to a better understanding of the truth. The theory presented in this book pretty much refutes point by point the "Traditional" account of the Muslim incursions into the Palestine/Syria area of what once was the Byzantine empire. They do build a good case, based upon extant contemporaneous information (epigraphic, archaeological, contemporary writers) to support their claim, and indeed most of their evidence IS thought-provoking. They sometimes overreach in "fitting" a piece of data into their paradigm - something they repeatedly accuse "Traditional" historians of doing (and rightly so, much of the time). Overall, the information presented is good and the theory seems pretty sound, as long as it is remembered that it IS just a theory, not to be dogmatised into absolute truth as has happened with so much else in the realm of the early origins of Islam.

The book is fairly easily read, the information is presented in a relatively straightforward way, but a fair amount of extraneous information seems to have been added in for filler, which has to be filtered out.

Overall, a good read which provides for a somewhat revolutionary view of the Late Byzantine/Early Islamic period in the Levant. As with most revolutionary ideas, the thesis built by Nevo and Koren will have its detractors, a good thing since this helps to weed out error and move a theory more towards extant reality. Unfortunately, as with some of Nevo's other books, this one has suffered from much attack by Muslims on purely obscurantist religious bases (i.e. the information contradicts the "accepted" Muslim account, and therefore is evil blasphemy against Allah). This sort of detraction has no place in the realm of intellectual discussion, and should probably be rightly dismissed by the seeker of truth.