The traditional approach restricts itself to the use of traditional, Muslim sources — it is assumed that they are largely, if not perfectly, accurate. 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.
The most curious facet of the disagreement between the two schools is what, exactly, the disagreement is about. The traditionalists do not criticize or reject the methods of the revisionists, even if they do not make use of the same methods. It would be difficult to do so, 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 ignore revisionist publications entirely and label the skeptical, critical approach as “anti-Islam.” They do not, however, offer a serious critique of revisionist methods and premises.
The traditionalist approach assumes as fact that an accurate history of 7th century events can be reconstructed. For the revisionists, this is a hypothesis which needs to be proven. Unfortunately for traditionalists, doing so becomes difficult as one looks at evidence. This is one of the reasons why traditionalists only bother with traditional, Muslim sources: with less variety, there is less risk.
Ultimately, the approach with the most clearly defined methods and which uses the widest possible sources of evidence will do the best job in providing an accurate history.
Muhammad and History
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 really know with any reasonable certainty about the earliest history of Islam and the life of its founder, Muhammad? Not too much — the evidence for common assumptions and claims is worse than is usually believed.
Did a Muhammad even exist? The only positive conclusion which we can be at all sure of is that a Muhammad lived 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.
Believers and Critics
With so little reason to believe traditional accounts and so much reason to acknowledge that much of what is assumed about early Muslim history is compounded by myth and redaction, why do so many still believe? Why do so many Western scholars who aren’t Muslim and have no personal, vested interest in the truth of traditional accounts insist on promoting them despite their poor foundation?
Ibn al-Rawandi argues that Westerners have long had a romantic obsession with all things Arab: art, literature, culture, environment, and even religion:
- “Islam is in fact the last refuge for those conservative western intellectuals who wish it were true that the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, the French Revolution, in short “the modern world,” had never come about. Islam is, indeed, the only remaining mental space in which these events have not yet happened.”
The result of such romanticizing of Islam is a scholarship which ignores skepticism, abandons criticism, and treats Islam in a privileged manner. “The Quest for the Historical Muhammad” is an excellent antitdote to the claims and writings of such scholars. It’s not meant for general audiences, though, and the material can be complicated.
« Back...
