Customer Reviews

The Quest for the Historical Muhammad

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(18)

 

 

Who was the Prophet Muhammad?

By Daniel Pipes The Jerusalem Post Friday, May 12 2000

In a well-known and oft-repeated statement, the French scholar Ernest Renan wrote in 1851 that, unlike the other founders of major religions, the Prophet Muhammad "was born in the full light of history." Indeed, look up Muhammad in any reference book and the outlines of his life are confidently on display: birth in CE 570 in Mecca, career as a successful merchant, first revelation in 610, flight to Medina in 622, triumphant return to Mecca in 630, death in 632. Better yet, read the 610-page standard account of Muhammad's life in English, by W. Montgomery Watt, and find a richly detailed biography. There are, however, two major problems with this standard biography, as explained in a fascinating new study, The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, edited by Ibn Warraq (Prometheus Books). First, the massive documentation about Muhammad derives in every instance from Arabic written sources - biographies, collections of the prophet's sayings and doings, and so on - the earliest of which date from a century and a half after his death. Not only does this long lapse of time cast doubt on their accuracy, but internal evidence strongly suggests the Arabic sources were composed in the context of intense partisan quarrels over the prophet's life. To draw an American analogy: It's as though the first accounts of the US Constitutional Convention of 1787 were only recently written down, and this in the context of polemical debates over interpretation of the Constitution. Second, the earlier sources on the prophet's life that do survive dramatically contradict the standard biography. In part, these are literary sources in languages other than Arabic (such as Armenian, Greek, or Syriac); in part, they are material remains (such as papyri, inscriptions, and coins). Although the unreliability of the Arabic literary sources has been understood for a century, only recently have scholars begun to explore its full implications, thanks largely to the ground-breaking work of the British academic John Wansbrough. In the spirit of "interesting if true," they look skeptically at the Arabic written sources and conclude that these are a form of "salvation history" - self-serving, unreliable accounts by the faithful. The huge body of detail, revisionist scholars find, is almost completely spurious. So unreliable do the revisionists find the traditional account, Patricia Crone has memorably written, that "one could, were one so inclined, rewrite most of Montgomery Watt's biography of Muhammad in reverse." For example, an inscription and a Greek account leads Lawrence Conrad to fix Muhammad's birth in 552, not 570. Crone finds that Muhammad's career took place not in Mecca but hundreds of kilometers to the north. Yehuda Nevo and Judith Koren find that the classical Arabic language was developed not in today's Saudi Arabia but in the Levant, and that it reached Arabia only through the colonizing efforts of one of the early caliphs. Startling conclusions follow from this. The Arab tribesmen who conquered great swathes of territory in the seventh century were not Moslems, perhaps they were pagans. The Koran is a not "a product of Muhammad or even of Arabia," but a collection of earlier Judeo-Christian liturgical materials stitched together to meet the needs of a later age. Most broadly, "there was no Islam as we know it" until two or three hundred years after the traditional version has it (more like CE 830 than 630); it developed not in the distant deserts of Arabia but through the interaction of Arab conquerors and their more civilized subject peoples. A few scholars go even further, doubting even the existence of Muhammad. Though undertaken in a purely scholarly quest, the research made available in Quest for the Historical Muhammad raises basic questions for Moslems concerning the prophet's role as a moral paragon; the sources of Islamic law; and the God-given nature of the Koran. Still, it comes as little surprise to learn that pious Moslems prefer to avoid these issues. Their main strategy until now has been one of neglect - hoping that revisionism, like a toothache, will just go away . But toothaches don't spontaneously disappear, and neither will revisionism. Moslems one day are likely to be consumed by efforts to respond to its challenges, just as happened to Jews and Christians in the nineteenth century, when they faced comparable scholarly inquiries. Those two faiths survived the experience - though they changed profoundly in the process - and so will Islam.

(The writer is director of the Philadelphia Middle East Forum and wrote his first book on early Islamic history.)

I would like to Thanks Ibn Warraq for writing a great "Reference" work for us (Muslims). His books: Why I am not a Muslim, Origins of Koran and Quest for the Historical Muhmmad are the books which should be read and appreciated by all Muslims. I do not understand why Muslims call "him" Islam Basher when he is not really saying anything about Islam or Muhammad (s) from his own. All he is doing is compiling some Hadiths (traditions), from our so-called "holy" hadith and Sira books, in his books. If there is anyone to blame for Islam bashing then you should blame Ibn Hisham, Bukhari and all the other people who have written Muslims history.

"Muhammad married to 6 years old girl while he was 51" or "He slept with his 11 wives in one night" and so on are not ibn warrq's words but "Bukhari's".... All this is quoted in "Sahih Al-Bukhari", then why don't you call Bukhari a Islam Basher, or Kafir, or why don't you give "Fatwa" (verdict) against him, why don't you call Bukhari and all of his followers "Murtid".

Muslims should be thankful to Ibn Warraq for revealing these absurdities from our so called holy literatures, instead you are requesting John Esposito (is he really a scholar? ) to write a review, whose only purpose to write is to please Muslim leaders and fundamentalists to make money. I dare scholars like Esposito to write one critical analysis on Hadith literature, I bet they won't.

If you are "Muslim" and would like to know, what kind of Islam is depicted by your Mullahs, Shikhs, Hazrats, Muhadits, Sufis and Muftis then Ibn Warraq's books are must for you.

Look up the Prophet Muhammad in any reference book and the outlines of his life are confidently on display: birth in C.E. 570 in Mecca, career as a successful merchant, first revelation in 610, flight to Medina in 622, triumphant return to Mecca in 630, death in 632. There are, however, two major problems with this standard biography, as explained in this fascinating collection of essays. First, the massive documentation about Muhammad derives in every instance from Arabic written sources - biographies, collections of the prophet's sayings and doings, and so on - the earliest of which date from a century and a half after his death. Second, the earlier sources on the prophet's life that do survive dramatically contradict the standard biography. In part, these are literary sources in languages other than Arabic (such as Armenian, Greek, or Syriac); in part, they are material remains (such as papyri, inscriptions, and coins).

Although the unreliability of the Arabic literary sources has been understood for a century, only recently have scholars begun to explore its full implications. They look skeptically at the Arabic written sources and conclude that these are a form of "salvation history" - self-serving, unreliable accounts by the faithful. The huge body of detail, revisionist scholars find, is almost completely spurious. For example, an inscription and a Greek account leads Lawrence Conrad to fix Muhammad's birth in 552, not 570. Patricia Crone conclude that Muhammad's career took place not in Mecca but hundreds of kilometers to the north. Yehuda Nevo and Judith Koren find that the classical Arabic language was developed not in today's Saudi Arabia but in the Levant, and that it reached Arabia only through the colonizing efforts of one of the early caliphs.

Startling conclusions follow from this. The Arab tribesmen who conquered great swathes of territory in the seventh century were not Muslims, according to Judith Koren and Yehuda Neva; perhaps they were pagans. The Qur'an is a not "a product of Muhammad or even of Arabia," John Wansbrough suggests, but a collection of earlier Judeo-Christian liturgical materials stitched together to meet the needs of a later age. Most broadly, Ibn al-Rawandi concludes, "there was no Islam as we know it" until two or three hundred years after the traditional version has it (more like C.E. 830 than 630); it developed not in the distant deserts of Arabia but through the interaction of Arab conquerors and their more civilized subject peoples. Patricia Crone and Michael Cook go yet further, doubting even the existence of Muhammad.

Though undertaken in a purely scholarly quest, the research made available in Quest for the Historical Muhammad raises basic questions for Muslims concerning the prophet's role as a moral paragon; the sources of Islamic law; and the God-given nature of the Qur'an.

I didn't know this was a work of the person who wrote "Why I Am Not A Muslim" till someone told me. The truth is this book contains little to anything by Ibn Warraq anyway, it's a bunch of essays from different view points, different times, different places, and he even states in the beginning that he is trying to be as unbiased to either side as possible.

The main thing this book does is say "Islamic accounts are unreliable, we know nothing barely anything about the prophet." How is that bad? It's true. Islamic Traditions is what is making Islam backwards. The Hadith spreads many lies. In the Hadith for example, we derive the rule of killing a Muslim who converts out of his religion. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, read this: This is against the teachings of the Qur'an.(5.32 . For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than retribution for death, or corruption in the earth , it shall be as if be had killed all mankind , and whoso saveth the life of one , it shall be as if he had : saved the life of all mankind . Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs ( of Allah ' s sovereignty ) , but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.) This quote is very similar to a quote from the Torah. The quotes you see promoting killing are taken out of context, these quotes are referring to when a foreign nation tries to oppress you. Muslims are supposed to fight oppressions and oppressors, even if the oppressed are not Muslim.

Anyway, if I am correct, most of the essays are from Western authors. He could have used some more from Middle-Eastern authors to balance it out a little, even though Middle-Eastern authors are obviously biased, so are Western authors. That's why I took off a star.

"The Quest For The Historical Muhammad" is a collection of scholarly essays, presented chronologically from the work of 19th century "Orientalist" scholarship to the recent scholarship of Wansbrough and Crone. The choice of presenting an essay represenative of each generation of Islamic scholarship in chronological order, along with Ibn Warraq's introduction and survey of Islamic scholarship, is the collection's strongest point. This allows the reader to see the evolution of Islamic scholarship in terms of its methodologies and conclusions(the most important being John Wansbrough's revolutionary work on the origins of Islam.) Anyone new to Islamic scholarship will be greatly helped out by both Ibn Warraq and Ibn Rawandi's introductions. The selections by Renan, Lammens, and Becker are not so essential reading but part four and five are a must.

While the work that has been done after Wansbrough like Crone and Cook are refered to throughout the "modern" period of the book, I would've like to have seen essays by or about their work as a whole. I believe Mr.Warraq should update, revise, and add to this collection in the future. I also wish the glossary of Arabic terms at the back of the book had included all Arabic words used in the book. This collection is also moderately priced(as far as books on Islamic scholarship go.) I recommend this book to both lay readers and specialists, and look forward to reading "What The Koran Really Says" in the near future.

Of Warraq's first three books with Prometheus, this is by far the finest of the lot. "Why I Am Not a Muslim" served as a basic introduction for those who seek to criticize Islam, and "Origins of the Koran" was a slight step up in the level of difficulty (dare I say, "intermediate kufr"?). This book would have to be considered advanced level scholarship as far as Prometheus' Islamic studies section goes.

Warraq's introduction gets into the world of the ahadith and sira literature, the only information on the "historical" Muhammad. This makes for a great information on the problems with the reliability of these sources, such as the fact that many of the more respective compilations came about centuries after the time Muhammad allegedly lived. The second chapter of the book is an essay by Ibn al-Rawandi, it is a brilliant and sharped-tongued attack on Islamic historical sources that compliments the book perfectly.

The rest of the book, like Origins of the Koran, is a compilation of scholarly essays from other sources. Some of it is rather old, but the more recent works are highly entertaining. The best of the essays, in my opinion, is Lawrence Conrad's Abraha and Muhammad, which exposes the weakness of the Islamic calendar, causing many events measured by it to also come into question.

After Sept. 11th I wanted some in-depth background on Islam, something that maybe could explain the motivations of what had happened. Unfortunately for me, nothing can explain the warped logic of a madman. Fortunately for me, this book by Ibn Warraq goes a long way to explaining the defensive, reactionary posture of many Muslims in today's world. I say this with eyes open. I know the author to be anathema in many (if not most) Islamic circles for his perceived anti-Islam bias. But in this book, Ibn Warraq assiduously compiles primary sources and lets the reader make the conclusions.

Well, sort of. In an introductory essay, Ibn Warraq draws his own conclusions that are not particularly flattering to the modern interpretation of Islam, but even these conclusions are meticulously footnoted and documentated. While sometimes ponderous, this is an important book to peruse, and the ideas and questions raised are important to consider. Both for Westerners and for Muslims.

Warraq talks about the origin of Islam, its pagan background and the influence of Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism on Muhammad. He talks about the origin of Allah in Arab culture, about the early days of Muhammad as a preacher and his rivalry with another storyteller "Al Nadir" and his revenge against him.

Warraq traces back the origin of many Islamic rituals to Arab superstitions and Muhammad's strange belief in jinns, demons and other shadowy beings. He also describes how Muhammad rehashed the biblical nonsense about creation, Noah's Ark, birth of Christ etc. while misunderstanding a lot of it, like confusing Mary the mother of Christ with Miriam sister of Aaron, or the Christian belief in Trinity. You will learn about Muhammad's bizarre view of cosmology, science, history, and medicine. He prescribed drinking the urine of camel as a remedy against stomachache!

Then you will learn about Muhammad's metamorphosis from preacher to despot. How his call for tolerance, when he was still in Mecca and weak changed to the cry of killing and looting when he became powerful in Medina. You will learn how Muhammad encouraged his handful of followers to attack the caravans, kill the men, rape the women and bring the booty (20% for himself) to please Allah, while assuring them that if they are killed their rewards will be pedophelia with young boys, rivers of wine, and many hurries in the other world. All what Warraq says is backed by Quran and Ahadith.

The reader becomes familiar with Muhammad's favorite way of eliminating his opponents, namely assassination. Asma Bint Marwan a poetess who wrote against the prophet was assassinated by his order in the middle of the night while nursing her infant. Her five small children where forced to convert to Islam. Muhammad's hit list also included Ka'b Ibn al-Ashraf and Abu Rafi who spoke against him and had to be taken out traitorously. This policy was adopted by Muslims throughout the history and is being practiced up to this day. What we call terrorism, to a Muslim is Jihad (holy war). The much-publicized fetwa against Rushdi is an example. Among other things we learn about Muhammad's preference for young girls (Ayesha was 9 years old when he consummated his "marriage" with her) rather at an advanced age and how he is unabashed to make Allah reveal Quranic verses to justify his lust for women and his sexual appetite. The Virgins....

Warraq makes a thorough study of the totalitarian nature of Islam. He even goes as far as to compare the impact of monotheism on human rights versus polytheism and atheism. For all those who still wonder why Muslims hate so much the west I recommend reading this book. There is a whole chapter dedicated to this subject.

Warraq talks about "Arab Imperialism and Islamic Colonialism". He explains eloquently how through Islam, many civilized nations lost their identity, their dignity and humanity to bow in front of a savage god of a bunch of uncultured Arabs and follow the wimps of a fanatic and schizophrenic bloodthirsty madman of Arabia. Islam is the enemy of science, of freethinking, of reason and of human rights. It acts as a powerful break on the advancement of civilization. Warraq keenly points out that "Islamic Civilization" is a contradiction in terms. You can either be Islamic or civilized. In another place he argues that also "Islamic Philosophy" is a contradiction in terms, because philosophy was regarded as a "foreign science, which led to heresy, doubt, and total unbelief". Brilliant minds like Zacharia Razi and Avicena never believed in Islam and were attacked by Muslims. More recent intellectuals and freethinkers don't fare better.

For example Ali Dashti, the brilliant scholar and the author of "23 years"; a book written about Muhammad and his 23 years of prophetic life, was incarcerated while in his 80s during Khomeni's rule and died in prison. In Warraq's own words: "Thus we had the spectacle of periodic persecution of various group considered either doctrinally suspect or politically subversive; individuals (philosophers, poets, theologians, scientists, rationalists, dualists, freethinkers, and mystics) were imprisoned, tortured, crucified, mutilated, and hanged; their writings burned. Significantly, none of the heretical works of Ibn Rawandi, Ibn Warraq, Ibn al-Muqaffa, and al-Razi has survived. Other individuals are forced to flee from one ruler to another more tolerant ruler (e.g. al-Amidi). Some were exiled or banished (Averroes). Many were forced to disguise their true views and opinions by difficult or ambiguous language. Those who managed to get away with blasphemy were those protected by the powerful and influential." from a Former Muslim....

This book is great!

What sort of man was Muhammad? Oddly enough, those reviewers who deride this book fail to miss one vital point. Almost all our sources on Muhammad come from Islamic writers!

Thus when Ibn Warraq quotes ancient sources depicting Muhammad as a mediocre and petty man, a licentious man, he uses the writings of Muhammad's friends and contemporaries.

But, how then does this work? Surely those who knew him would only paint him in a good light. Well, the thing is that many of the things Muhammad did were, back then, considered normal... such as marrying a six year old, and consumating the marriage when she was nine (see for instance the Haddith - Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64).

When Muhammad ordered the execution of 900 PoWs, his contemporaries thought that this was a wise and prudent measure. So, now today, Muslims try and gloss over these facts. Ibn Warraq then, has taken the role of telling what really happened.

Other reviewers say that these are just 'cheap shots'. Again, I must stress, Ibn Warraq uses Islamic sources. If there are things in the House of Islam that need to be straightened out, then so be it!

This book is better than Ibn Warraq's "Why I'm not a Muslim" which is also available at amazon.com

"A religion for example which, under the rule of pure justice, is to be transformed into historical knowledge, a religion which is to be known in a scientific way, will at the end of this path also be annihilated. The reason is that the historical audit always brings to light so much that is false, crude, inhuman, absurd, violent, that the attitude of pious illusion, in which alone all that wants to live can live, is necessarily dispelled: only with love, however, only surrounded by the shadow of the illusion of love, can man create, that is, only with an unconditional faith in something perfect and righteous. Each man who is forced no longer to love unconditionally has had the root of his strength cut off: he must wither, that is, become dishonest."
--Nietzsche, On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life

Muslims who reject critical thinking about Islam's origins and the Quest for the Historical Muhammad know this in their bones.

Ibn Warraq is a brave and honest man.