Historical Islam, Historical Muhammad
Dateline: June 07, 2000
Methodology
In their essay "Methodological Approaches to Islamic Studies," Judith Koren and Yehuda D. Nevo describe two different paths which scholars take in their attempt to describe and explain Islamic scripture: traditionalist and revisionist.
The traditional approach restricts itself to the use of traditional, Muslim sources - it is assumed that they are largely, if not entirely, accurate in what they convey. The other approach analyzes sources by more skeptical and critical methods, and even includes information from other, non-Arab sources. This is derisively described as the "revisionist" school by the traditionalists - but lacking any better term, Koren and Nevo use it.
Perhaps the most curious facet of the disagreement between the two schools is what, exactly, the disagreement is about. In general, the traditionalists do not criticize or reject the general methods of the revisionists, even if they do not make use ofthe same methods. It would be difficult to do this, since these methods are part of the general way in which Western scholars address any issues of ancient history. The traditionalists don't even seriously dispute much of the evidence which revisionists bring to the table.
Instead, the traditionalists object to the conclusions which the revisionists reach with their evidence and methodology. They often ignore revisionist publications entirely and have a habit of labeling the skeptical, critical approach as "anti-Islam." They do not, however, ever offer a serious critique of revisionist methods and premises.
The traditionalist approach thus assumes as a fact that an accurate history of seventh-century events can be reconstructed. But for the revisionists, this is simply a hypothesis which needs to be proven. Unfortunately for traditionalists, this becomes more and more difficult as one actually does look at a wide variety of evidence. This is, then, one of the reasons that traditionalists only bother with traditional, Muslim sources: with less variety, there is less danger in having your assumptions questioned.
Ultimately, however, the approach with the most clearly defined methods and which uses the widest possible sources of evidence will probably do the best job in providing an accurate history.
Muhammad and History
So, given the "revisionist" approach to Islamic history and after examining a wide variety of sources with a skeptical eye, what do we learn? What do we *reallly know with any reasonable certainty about the earliest history of Islam and the life of its founder, Muhammad? Not nearly as much as we might have thought. The evidence for common assumptions and claims is actually a lot worse than is usually believed.
Starting out with the most obvious question: did a Muhammad actually exist, or not? The only positive conclusion which we can be at all sure of is that a Muhammad did live in the 620s and 630s, that he was a warrior who led followers to many victories, and that the names of some people and battles have been preserved.
Even the existence and role of the city of Mecca - the holiest city in Islam - is highly questionable. In traditional Islamic writings, Mecca is portrayed as a large, wealthy trading center full of activity and interchange. So why is there no mention anywhere in non-Muslim sources of a city called Mecca in the place where the current city of Mecca exists?
And if they really were "middleman" in long-distance trade routes, the traders and customers would have mentioned the city and its inhabitants - but we can find no such mentions. And the site of the current city of Mecca is not anywhere close to where trade routes passed. Caravans would have had to travel long out of their way to stop over at the current Mecca. It certainly didn't serve as a place of sanctuary and pilgrimage, as is also often claimed.
Yet traditional and ancient Muslim sources all testify to the opposite of these findings. It is very unlikely that those sources are accurate in these vital details - and this means that we have to be very skeptical about their ability to provide accurate information in other areas as well.
Next Page > Critiques of Islam >
Page 1 , 2 , 3
More on: Islam
Do you have an opinion about this article? Make it known on the Discussion Forum!
Get weekly updates about what's new on the site and news from around the world:
|
|
|
|
Read the Latest News on religion, freethought and related topics from around the world! Updated regularly. |
|
|
|
|
