Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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 There is no need to presume that the Byzantines had totally withdrawn their forces in the process of establishing Arab foederates circa 500-525, or a century before the Sassanid invasion. And, even to the degree Byzantine troops were withdrawn, this certainly doesn't mean Byzantine interests were withdrawn.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.

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.

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.

As David Cook of Rice University stated, Nevo's work falls squarely into the "Hagarist" tradition that radically reinterprets early Islamic history. For the most part, scholars of early Islam--even Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, authors of Hagarism[1]--have avoided the full implications of this interpretation because of the almost complete lack of non-Muslim sources and the difficulties in working with the tendentious Muslim ones. Nevo and Koren overcome this problem by focusing upon sources not usually adduced by scholars of Islam: archeology and epigraphy. By examining the archeological remains (and in some cases the lack thereof) of the early Islamic period, the authors call into question the standard accounts of Muslim conquest that are still cited as fact in most history books. They supply a vast selection of inscriptions hitherto unnoticed and uncited in the standard histories, which for the most part are datable to the seventh and eighth centuries, and use them to build a historical theory considerably different from the standard account.

Nevo's theory is that Arab history--specifically not Islamic history--is completely a construct and cannot stand up to historical examination on the basis of non-Muslim sources. His theory surmises that paganism was far more deeply rooted in pre-Arabian society than was previously thought and that much of what we now call early Islamic history records the development away from that heritage into a monotheistic belief-system that did not reach perfection until the ninth century at the earliest.

For the most part, Crossroads employs a very rigorous, historical methodology, focusing exclusively upon those sources datable from before the ninth century, which usually means non-Muslim ones. These sources provide a view of Islam that lacks the preeminence of Muhammad and the exclusivity of later Islam. This reviewer finds much of Nevo and Koren's work to be plausible or at least arguable, and it certainly presents a powerful challenge to the mainstream view of the origins of Islam.

It is a pity that Nevo and Koren do not include the work of Fred Donner, who also has come (from a more mainstream approach) to reject the early exclusivity of Islam. More broadly Crossroads to Islam suffers to some extent from a lack of cited scholarship after the early 1990s, which is a pity.

One area, however, where this reviewer disagrees with Nevo and Koren concerns their theory, following John Wansbrough, of the Qur'an as the product of a redaction during the `Abbasid period (eighth-ninth centuries). While agreeing that the historical narratives of the conquests are highly problematic and for the most part probably fanciful, they do represent, according to the historical memory of the Arabs, the supreme confirmation miracle of Islam. If the Qur'an were redacted at such a late date, when numerous datable hagiographical accounts of the conquests already existed, these accounts would surely have been represented within the text of the Qur'an. Their absence pushes the date of the Qur'an back to the earlier period.

Other than that, the account given by Nevo and Koren must be seriously considered by scholars of early Islam.

[1] Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).

It is a very interesting book on the beginning of Islam. While the first part on Byzantium policy to leave its eastern provinces is not very convincing, the second part on the lack of historical, numismatic or epigraphic proofs of both the traditional story of the beginning of Islam and of the existence of Muhammad is convincing.

I found this to be an excellent book for those who have an open mind, and want something more than the typical books about early Islam which consist of little more than retelling traditional Muslim scholarship. The book provides a variety of archeological data (inscriptions, markings on coins, buildings) and early sources to support their view. Despite claims by others, the authors do not appear to be writing from any particular bias against, and while the books conclusions in general are contrary to much of what Muslim traditional scholarship asserts, the authors appear to be motivated by scholarly research than by the political or religous conviction, and the book does not attack Islam, unless to disgree with Muslim scholars is considered an attack on Islam. While some of the authors' theories are rather a speculative, most of the arguments are supported by a variety of evidence. To anyone who is not committed to accept as dogma the Muslim historical view, I would recommend that they read this book and judge for themselves.

Another in the growing series of Prometheus Books attacking Islam from an historical-critical perspective. Much of his evidence is numismatic, but his suggestion that absence of references to Muhammed in early Islamic inscriptions supports the suggestion that Muhammed was a fictional character is a bit of a stretch in light of Islamic tensions with Christianity and the importance from an Islamic perspective of playing down the status of one's messenger, rather than inflating it as Christians do. The material on indigenous Arab monotheism, influences from Ebionite Christianity is interesting and plausible, but not new. Though the general effort to get behind the traditional version and see what speaks for and what against it is laudable, Nevo grossly overstates his case. One must ask in particular how strong a case there is for suggesting that someone is a fictional character based on a delay in the appearance of widespread public references to them. On this criterion, I am probably a fictional person myself. It would be far more plausible, if one is to argue along these lines, that there is a disparity between the historical Muhammed and Muhammed as used by the emerging community, rather than that there is no historical Muhammed at all. This is the approach historical Jesus scholarship tends to take, and while there are those who use exactly similar arguments to suggest that Jesus never existed, very few people take them seriously. In any event, Nevo's line that there is absolutely no evidence for an early reference to Muhammed is belied by the 634 AD text which states that a false prophet has arisen from the Saracens. Nevo saves his claim that there is *no* evidence by denying that the Saracen false prophet was Muhammed, but must have been some *other* Saracen false prophet. Not very likely. Read with great caution.

Crossroads To Islam is an informed and informative survey of the origins of the Arab religion and state is an important addition to the literature on Arab-American history: it's written by an archaeologist who spent months in the field as well as conducting research, and provides a fine multifaceted survey of the findings of recent important excavations. Anticipate a controversial new view of the origins of the Arab state.

The authors, neither one of them possessing credentials as historians, make specious arguments to advance an agenda, distorting or omitting the important evidence or issues whenever it serves their purposes. For a sound overview of how desperate this book is to torture the evidence into supporting its preconceived conclusions, see a recent issue of the Bryn Mawr Classical Review (ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2004/2004-02-33.html).