1. The claim that there is no historical evidence in seventh century on the origins of Islam
Tom
Holland's assertion that there is no historical evidence for the seventh
century origins of Islam is untrue. This notion cannot be sustained in light of
contemporary non-Islamic evidence. For instance, early Christian chronicles in
the seventh century elaborate on the origins of Islam, the prophet Muhammad
(upon whom be peace) and some of the laws which the Muslims practised. Below
are some examples of these chronicles:
Doctrina Jacobi written in 635 CE
A document called Doctrina Jacobi written only two
years after the death of the prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace) clearly
mentions that a prophet had appeared amongst the Arabs:
"I, having arrived at Sykamina, stopped by a
certain old man well-versed in scriptures, and I said to him: "What
can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?" [i]
A record of the Arab conquest of Syria written in
637 CE
A record of the Arab conquest of Syria written in
637 CE, just 5 years after the death of the prophet Muhammad (upon whom be
peace), clearly mentions him by name. Interestingly, the date of the agrees
with the best Arab date for the battle of Yarmuk: "...and in January, they
took the word for their lives did the sons of Emesa, and many villages were
ruined with killing by the Arabs of Mụhammad and a great number of people were
killed and captives were taken from Galilee as far as Bēth." [ii]
Sebeos, Bishop of the Bagratunis (Writing c.660 CE)
An early seventh century account of Islam comes from
Sebeos who was a bishop of the House of Bagratunis. From this chronicle, there
are indications that he lived through many of the events he relates. As for
Muhammad (upon whom be peace), he had the following to say:
"At that time a certain man from along those
same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Mụhammad], a merchant, as if
by God's command appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth.
He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was
learned and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from
on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion.
Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had
appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to
eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in
fornication. He said: with an oath God promised this land to Abraham and his
seed after him forever. And he brought about as he promised during that time
while he loved Ismael. But now you are the sons of Abraham and God is
accomplishing his promise to Abraham and his seed for you. Love sincerely only
the God of Abraham, and go and seize the land which God gave to your father
Abraham. No one will be able to resist you in battle, because God is with
you." [iii]
This narrative by Sebeos clearly undermines
Holland's assertion that there are no historical records elaborating on the
life, teachings and mission of the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace).
2. Unjustified rejection of the Islamic narrative
Tom
Holland has presented a clear bias in the programme as he did not use
non-Muslim scholars that are supportive of the Islamic narrative. For example,
Michael Cook, a historian specialising in early Islamic history explains the
implications of early non-Muslim accounts of the origins of Islam:
"What
does this material tell us? We may begin with the major points on which it
agrees with the Islamic tradition. It precludes any doubts as to whether
Muhammad was a real person: he is named in a Syriac source that is likely to
date from the time of the conquests, and there is an account of him in a Greek
source of the same period. From the 640s we have confirmation that the term
muhajir was a central one in the new religion, since its followers are known as
'Magaritai' or 'Mahgraye' in Greek and Syriac respectively. At the same
time, a papyrus of 643 is dated 'year twenty two', creating a strong
presumption that something did happen in AD 622. The Armenian chronicler of the
660s attests that Muhammad was a merchant, and confirms the centrality of
Abraham in his preaching. The Abrahamic sanctuary appears in an early
source dated (insecurely) to the 670s." [iv]
Holland's
rejection of the Islamic narrative lacks academic rigour. Commenting on
Holland's approach Peter Webb, who teaches Classical Arabic literature at the
University of London, SOAS, explains the "resilient" and
"robust" nature of the Islamic tradition:
"Over
the past century, the Muslim tradition has been challenged by many academics
and it has proven remarkably resilient in its own defence...but the Muslim
account of history, the textual integrity of the Koran and the mnemonic
capacity of oral traditions are more robust than Holland gives them
credit...few scholars today would claim it was entirely fabricated. Holland
would have done better to adopt a cautious and sensitive approach to the Arabic
sources, rather than abandoning them in favour of a sensational rewriting of
history." [v]
Professor
Robert Hoyland from the University of Oxford highlights how conclusions similar
to Holland's, including the view that Mecca was in a different place, is a
result of not studying the Islamic material and developing scenarios not based
on evidence:
"..the
historical memory of the Muslim community is more robust than some have
claimed. For example, many of the deities, kings and tribes of the pre-Islamic
Arabs that are depicted by ninth-century Muslim historians also feature in the
epigraphic record, as do many of the rulers and governors of the early Islamic
state. This makes it difficult to see how historical scenarios that require for
their acceptance a total discontinuity in the historical memory of the Muslim
community - such as that Muhammad did not exist, the Quran was not written in
Arabic, Mecca was originally in a different place etc. - can really be
justified. Many of these scenarios rely on absence of evidence, but it
seems a shame to make such a recourse when there are so many very vocal forms
of material evidence still waiting to be studied." [vi]
3. Rejecting Islamic oral tradition
As
discussed above, Holland's approach is inherently biased as he unjustifiably
rejects the entire corpus of the Islamic tradition, including the oral
Prophetic traditions. During the programme a historian of early Islam, Patricia
Crone, mentioned that with oral traditions "you remember what you want to
remember". With this assertion Holland attempts to undermine the entire
science of hadith (Prophetic traditions). The science of the Prophetic
traditions is based upon a scrutinising the isnad (chain of narration) and the
matn (the text).
Nabia
Abbot, a prominent academic who has conducted extensive study on the Prophetic
traditions, explains how the growth of these traditions were as a result of
parallel and multiple chains of transmission which highlight that these
traditions are trustworthy and a valid source of historical information. She
writes:
"...the
traditions of Muhammad as transmitted by his Companions and their Successors
were, as a rule, scrupulously scrutinised at each step of the transmission, and
that the so called phenomenal growth of Tradition in the second and third
centuries of Islam was not primarily growth of content, so far as the hadith of
Muhammad and the hadith of the Companions are concerned, but represents largely
the progressive increase in parallel and multiple chains of transmission."
[vii]
The
academic Harald Motzki has similar sentiments. In an essay that appeared in the
Journal of Near Eastern Studies he concludes that the Prophetic traditions are
an important and useful type of source concerning the study of early Islam:
"While
studying the Musannaf of `Abd al-Razzaq, I came to the conclusion that the
theory championed by Goldziher, Schacht and in their footsteps many others -
myself included - which in general, reject hadith literature as a historically
reliable sources for the first century AH, deprives the historical study of
early Islam of an important and a useful type of source." [viii]
4. The absurdity of rejecting oral tradition
Even
if we follow Holland's line of enquiry it will lead us to absurdities. The
philosophical implications of rejecting the Prophetic traditions are quite
damning. In epistemology - which is narrowly defined as the study of knowledge
and belief - testimony is considered as one of the sources of knowledge, and
when applied properly it can form justified beliefs. Testimony is a valid
source of knowledge only when it comes from a reliable source especially if
there are multiple sources in agreement. Obviously there are conditions to how
we can use testimony, but in the majority of the cases we consider testimony as
a valid source of knowledge. For instance, take our certainty on the fact that China
exists. Many people have never been to China, eaten Chinese food in China or
spoken to someone in China. All they have as evidence is a map of the world and
people telling them they have travelled to China and others claiming to be from
China but is this sufficient? However, if we examine why we have such a high
level of certainty that China exists, regardless of the above questions, we
will conclude that it is due to recurrent testimony. Recurrent testimony is
when such a large number of people have reported a claim to knowledge (such as
the existence of China) that it is impossible for them to agree upon a lie or
to simultaneously lie. This is accentuated by the fact that most of these
people never met and lived in different places and different times. Therefore
to claim they have lied is tantamount is to propose an impossible conspiracy
took place.
Linking
this to the Prophetic traditions, not only do we have mass testimony of events
and statements of the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace), we have a detailed
science dedicated to authenticate these traditions. Prophetic traditions have
an isnad (chain of narration) and a matn (a text), each of these have detailed
criteria that scrutinise the chain and the text to a degree that leaves very
little room for doubt. To reject these traditions is tantamount to rejecting
facts such as the existence of China or the entirety of history, as these
events have been verified via testimony also. Moreover, each prophetic
tradition has been scrutinised more rigorously than any historical fact we have
with us today.
The
criteria used to verify prophetic traditions are summarised below:
Some criteria for the evaluation of Isnad
The unblemished and undisputed character of the narrator was the most important consideration for the acceptance of a prophetic tradition. A branch of the science of hadith ('ilm al-hadith) known as asma' ar-rijal (the biographies of the people) was developed to evaluate the credibility of narrators. The following are a few of the criteria utilized for this purpose:
1. The name, nickname, title, parentage and occupation of the narrator should be known.
2. The original narrator should have stated that he heard the hadith directly from the Prophet.
3. If a narrator referred his hadith to another narrator, the two should have lived in the same period and have had the possibility of meeting each other.
4. At the time of hearing and transmitting the hadith, the narrator should have been physically and mentally capable of understanding and remembering it.
5. The narrator should have been known as a pious and virtuous person.
6. 6. The narrator should not have been accused of having lied, given false evidence or committed a crime.
7. The narrator should not have spoken against other reliable people.
8. The narrator's religious beliefs and practices should have been known to be correct.
9. The narrator should not have carried out and practiced peculiar religious beliefs of his own.
Some criteria for the evaluation of Matn
1. The text should have been stated in plain and simple language as this was the undisputed manner of speech of the prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace).
2. A text in non-Arabic or containing indecent language was rejected (for the same reason as above).
3. A text prescribing heavy punishment for minor sins or exceptionally large reward for small virtues was rejected.
4. A text which referred to actions that should have been commonly known and practiced by others but were not known and practiced was rejected.
5. A text contrary to the basic teachings of the Qur'an was rejected.
6. A text contrary to another established prophetic tradition was rejected.
7. A text inconsistent with historical facts was rejected.
8. Extreme care was taken to ensure the text was the original narration of the Prophet and not the sense of what the narrator heard. The meaning of the Prophet tradition was accepted only when the narrator was well known for his piety and integrity of character.
9. A text by an obscure narrator which was not known during the age of the Prophet's companions or of the subsequent generation was rejected.
It is clear from the above that the criteria for verifying the Prophetic traditions are comprehensive and robust. Even in the philosophy of history we do not find such comprehensive criteria.
5. The textual Islamic tradition
Holland
continues to espouse his uninformed perspective by claiming that there is an
absence of textual evidence from the Islamic narrative. In response to this
there are a myriad of written works in the early period of Islam. Below is a
list of some of the early works:
Saheefah
Saadiqah: Compiled by Abdullaah Ibn ‘Amr ibn al-Aas during the life of the
prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace). His treatise is composed of about 1000
prophetic traditions and it remained secure and preserved.
Saheefah
Saheehah: Compiled by Humaam Ibn Munabbih. He was from the famous students of
Abu Hurairah (the eminent companion of the Prophet). He wrote all the prophetic
traditions from his teacher. Copies of this manuscript are available from
libraries in Berlin and Damascus.
Saheefah
Basheer Ibn Naheek: Ibn Naheek was also a student of Abu Hurairah. He gathered
and wrote a treatise of Prophetic traditions which he read to Abu Hurairah,
before they departed and the former verified it. [ix]
In
light of the above the claim that there were no treatises or historical
documents in the early seventh century is a false one, and clearly undermines
the integrity of the programme.
6. Further baseless assumptions
Holland's
unjustified rejection of the oral and textual Islamic tradition forces him to
form a coherent alternative. Admitting that he cannot do this, many times
describing his source of information as a "black hole", he uses
certain Quranic verses in an attempt to justify his revisionist approach to the
Islamic narrative. Holland uses the story of the prophet Lot and the so-called
non-mention of the city of Mecca as means to justify his alternative theory.
The Story of Lot
Holland argues that the Qur'an eludes to places,
landscapes and geography that are not descriptive of Mecca and the immediate
surrounding areas. He claims that this implies that the Qur'an originates from
a location other than Mecca or southern Arabia. He mentions the following verse
of the Qur'an: "And indeed, Lot was among the messengers. [So
mention] when We saved him and his family, all, except his wife among
those who remained [with the evildoers]. Then We destroyed the others. And
indeed, you pass by them in the morning. And at night. Then will you
not use reason?" [x]
Holland claims that the words "you pass by them
in the morning and at night" indicate a place outside of Mecca because the
ruins are nowhere to be found in Mecca. With this conclusion Holland makes some
bold assumptions. He assumes that Meccans did not travel. This is a blunder as
the historian Ira M. Lapidus in his book, "A History of Islamic
Societies", clearly states that the Arabs in Mecca were established
traders travelling far and wide: "By the mid-sixth century, as heir to Petra and
Palmyra, Mecca became one of the important caravan cities of the middle east.
The Meccans carried spices, leather, drugs, cloth and slaves which had come
from African or the far East to Syria, and returned money, weapons, cereals,
and wine to Arabia." [xi]
If Holland had carefully read the Qur'an, he would
have understood that the contexts of these verses was explained elsewhere in
the Qur'an as the Qur'an rhetorically asks the Meccans if they had travelled
through the land to see the ends of other civilisations and cities: "Have they not travelled through the land and
observed how was the end of those before them? They were more numerous than
themselves and greater in strength and in impression on the land, but they were
not availed by what they used to earn." [xii]
The non-mention of Mecca
Holland claims that the city of Mecca is not
mentioned in the Qur'an and therefore justifies his revisionist perspective.
This is a complete fabrication. The Quran in the forty-eighth chapter clearly
mentions the city of Mecca.
"And it is He who withheld their hands from you
and your hands from them within [the area of] Makkah after He caused you to
overcome them. And ever is Allah of what you do, Seeing." [xiii]
7. Did the Arab Empire Create Islam?
Although
this contention of Holland's does not provide a strong argument against Islam,
it is worthwhile pointing out that his view that Islam emerged as a result of
the Arab empire does not make sense when the historical events are viewed in a
holistic way. The late professor of Islamic studies William Montgomery Watt
asserts:
"Islamic
ideology alone gave the Arabs that outward – looking attitude which
enabled them to become sufficiently united to defeat the Byzantine and
Persian empires. Many of them may have been concerned chiefly with booty for
themselves. But men who were merely raiders out for booty could not have held
together as the Arabs did. The ideology was no mere epiphenomenon but an
essential factor in the historical process." [xiv]
In a
similar vein the author Dr. Lex Hixon writes:
"Neither
as Christians or Jews, nor simply as intellectually responsible individuals,
have members of Western Civilisation been sensitively educated or even
accurately informed about Islam…even some persons of goodwill who have gained
acquaintance with Islam continue to interpret the reverence for the prophet
Muhammad and the global acceptance of his message as an inexplicable survival
of the zeal of an ancient desert tribe. This view ignores fourteen centuries of
Islamic civilisation, burgeoning with artists, scholars,
statesmen, philanthropists, scientists, chivalrous warriors,
philosophers…as well as countless men and women of devotion and wisdom from
almost every nation of the planet. The coherent world civilisation called
Islam, founded in the vision of the Qur'an, cannot be regarded as the
product of individual and national ambition, supported by historical
accident." [xv]
8. What if the Qur'an is God's word?
One
of the key reasons of why the Muslim narrative has remained resilient against
baseless and uninformed polemics is based on the fact that the Qur'an is from
God. The argument is simple yet profound. If it can be shown that the Qur'an is
from God, an inflaiible and omnipotent being, then it follows that whatever is
in the Qur’an is true. This will include the fact that Islam is a religion sent
by God and not the development of an Arab empire, as claimed by Holland.
How
can we ascertain that the Qur'an is from the Divine?
The
Qur’an, the book of the Muslims, is no ordinary book. It has been described by
many who engage with the book as an imposing text, but the way it imposes
itself on the reader is not negative, rather it is positive. This is because it
seeks to positively engage with your mind and your emotions, and it achieves
this by asking profound questions, such as:
“So
where are you people going? This is a message for all people; for those who
wish to take the straight path.” [xvi]
“Are
the disbelievers not aware that the heavens and the earth used to be
joined together and that We ripped them apart, that We made every living
thing from water? Will they not believe?” [xvii]
“Have
they not thought about their own selves?" [xviii]
However
the Qur’an doesn’t stop there, it actually challenges the whole of mankind with
regards to its authorship, it boldly states:
“If
you have doubts about the revelation we have sent down to Our servant,
then produce a single chapter like it – enlist whatever supporters you
have other than God – if you truly think you can. If you cannot do this – and
you never will – then beware of the Fire prepared for the disbelievers, whose
fuel is men and stones.” [xix]
This
challenge refers to the various wonders in the Qur’an, even within its smallest
chapter, that give us good reasons to believe it is from God. Some of these
reasons include linguistic and historical.
Linguistic
The
Qur’an’s use of the Arabic language has never been achieved before by anyone
who has mastered the language past or present. As Forster Fitzgerald Arbuthnot,
a notable British Orientalist and translator, states: “…and that though several
attempts have been made to produce a work equal to it as far as elegant writing
is concerned, none has as yet succeeded.” [xx]
The
Qur’an is the most eloquent of all speeches that achieves the peak of
excellence, it renders peoples attempts to match its miraculous style as null
and void. It is no wonder Professor Bruce Lawrence writes: “As tangible signs
Qur’anic verses are expressive of inexhaustible truth, the signify meaning
layered within meaning, light upon light, miracle after miracle.” [xxi]
Historical
There
are many historical proofs in the Qur’an that show us it is from God. One on
them include that the Qur’an is the only religious text to use different words
for the ruler of the Egypt at different times. For instance while addressing
the Egyptian ruler at the time of Prophet Yusuf (Joseph), the word
"Al-Malik" in Arabic is used which refers to a ruler, king or sultan.
“The
King said, 'Bring him to me straight away!'…”[xxii]
In
contrast, the ruler of Egypt at the time of the Prophet Musa (Moses) is
referred to as "Pharaoh", in Arabic “Firaown”. This particular title
began to be employed in the 14th century B.C., during the reign of Amenhotep
IV. This is confirmed by the Encyclopaedia Britannica which says that the word
"Pharaoh" was a title of respect used from the New Kingdom (beginning
with the 18th dynasty; B.C. 1539-1292) until the 22nd dynasty (B.C. 945-730),
after which this term of address became the title of the king. So the Qur’an is
historically accurate as the Prophet Yusuf lived at least 200 years before that
time, and the word “al-Malik” or “King” was used and not the word “Pharaoh”. In
light of this, how could have the prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace) known
such a minute historical detail? Especially when all the other religious texts,
such as the Bible, did not mention this? Also, since people at the time of
revelation did not know this information (due to the Hieroglyphs being a dead
language at the time), what does this say about the authorship of the Qur’an?
There
are many more reason why Muslims can justify their belief in the Qur'an. We
hope this provides the window of opportunity for the reader to study further
and engage with a text that not only changed the Arabia, but the entire world.
"Seldom, if ever, has a set of ideas had so great an effect on human
societies as Islam has done, above all in the first half of the seventh
century. In little more than twenty years, the religious and political
configuration of Arabia was changed out of all recognition. Within another
twenty all of the rich, highly developed, militarily powerful world enveloping
Arabia was conquered, save for Asia Minor and north Africa." [xxiii]
9. Selective Scholarship
Holland's
choice of scholarship was very selective and was carefully planned to
substantiate his argument. He appeared to have ignored a bulk, in fact the
majority, of scholarship to make his point stand out. He relied heavily upon
the opinions of Patricia Crone (featured in the documentary), whose theories on
the early Islamic history are discarded by most historians today. She has expressed
her erroneous views on Islamic sources in a number of works. She went as far as
to assert that some of the Islamic sources are ‘"debris of obliterated
past"; and some of the early works, including Ibn Ishaq’s Sira (biography
of the Prophet), are "mere piles of desperate traditions". [xxiv]
Crone
have been heavily criticised by fellow historians for her radical views. Even
Fred M. Donner, another historian featured in the documentary, rejected Crone's
approach. Referring to people like Crone, Cook and Wansbrough, Donner asserts
that:
"...the
sceptics have encountered some scepticism about their own approach, because
some of their claims seem overstated – or even unfounded. Moreover, their work
has to date been almost entirely negative – that is, while they have tried to
cast doubt on the received version of ‘what happened’ in early Islamic history
by impugning the sources, they have not yet offered a convincing alternative
reconstruction of what might have happened." [xxv]
Angelika
Neuwirth, a German scholar on the Quran, has expressed similar sentiments on
Patricia Crone and her likes. She states:
"As
a whole, however, the theories of the so called sceptic or revisionist scholars
who, arguing historically, make a radical break with the transmitted picture of
Islamic origins, shifting them in both time and place from the seventh to the
eighth or ninth century and from the Arabian Peninsula to the Fertile Crescent,
have by now been discarded...New findings of Quranic text fragments, moreover,
can be adduced to affirm rather than call into question the traditional picture
of the Quran as an early fixed text composed of the suras we have...The
alternative visions about the genesis of the Quran presented by Wansbrough,
Crone and Cook, Luling and Luxenberg are not only mutually exclusive, but
rely on textual observations that are too selective to be compatible with the
comprehensive quranic textual evidence that can be drawn only from a
systematically microstructural reading." [xxvi]
Carole
Hillenbrand has also rejected the extremely negative and selective approach of
Patricia Crone and her school. [xxvii]
It
is clear from above, mainstream scholarly opinion is that the Islamic
historical narrative is far richer and more trustworthy than most historical
traditions. Most historians, who have no underlying political or religious
agendas, accept the historical validity of Islamic sources.
In
summary, Tom Holland has selectively chosen to take a non-substantiated and
marginalised view on the origins of Islam. His exclusion of established
academic positions and material facts points to the only conclusion of
justifying his own prejudices and ignorance of Islam.
