Tom Holland wrote and presented Islam: The Untold Story for Channel 4. The show follows on from his book In the Shadow of the Sword on the early history of Islam. Most commentary on the show has concentrated on the complaints and threats it has engendered from the Muslim community. Holland himself deserves a great deal of praise for tackling this subject. I caught the show on Channel 4’s internet service (a screening for journalists and experts was cancelled due to security concerns). I haven’t read Holland’s book, so the comments below are based on the show rather than his more detailed written treatment.
Holland takes a sceptical approach to early Islamic history that echoes the work of the nineteenth-century higher critics on Christianity. His thesis is that the Arab invaders who destroyed the Persian Empire and took over the Levantine provinces of Byzantium was not originally Muslim. Islam only arrived sixty years later when it was introduced to hold the disparate Caliphate together.
The early written sources for Islam are indeed scarce. So, what do we know? Professor Patricia Krone, the dean of critical studies of Early Islam, summarised the situation in Holland’s film. There is the Koran, which dates from the early-seventh century. Muhammad certainly lived about that time. But the Koran contains almost no historical information and exists in a vacuum. There is no way to connect it to Mecca (which it only mentions once) and no evidence of the Arabs being Muslims until sixty years after Muhammad died. Holland and the critics assume this absence of written evidence is evidence of absence and fill it in with their own speculations.
Let me say from the outset that I think Holland is wrong and that the traditional account of Islam’s origins, in its rough contours, is basically correct. We can’t trust the early biographies of Muhammad to be completely accurate, but alternative accounts (that Mecca was in Syria, or that the Arab invaders weren’t Muslims) are simply implausible. Looking only at the evidence presented by Holland in his show (which, you’d hope, is the best he’s got), his alternative hypothesis of a late adoption of Islam by the Arabs simply falls apart.
For instance, he notes that the Arabs initially worshipped at the Jewish temple. They were certainly monotheists, but not Christians or Jews. Early Christian sources have no idea what they were and they would surely have recognised a Jew if they saw one. But sixty years later, we are asked to believe that these Arabs became Muslims; that they did so right across there now vast Empire; and that no one else converted at the same time. We know the early conquerors made no effort to proselytise their subject populations. But a new religion coming from outside after the conquests would surely have led to conversions across the board and not just in a single narrow strata of society. Far more likely that the Arabs were Muslims from square one and that Islam spread across their new Empire as they conquered it, not following a couple of generations later.
In fact, the earliest record of Muhammad comes from a coin minted by a pretender to the throne of the Umayyads called Ibn al-Zubair. But, al-Zubair, who was based in Medina and controlled Mecca, lost the resulting civil war. So, Holland asks us to believe that the Umayyads defeated the rebel and then successfully adopted his new religion over their vast domains. Again, it is far easier to imagine that both sides were already Muslims and that the rebellion only prompted the Umayyads to advertise their religious adherence more widely. This they did with spectacular effect at the Dome of the Rock.
Holland also notes that much of the Koran is addressed to farmers. This is odd because Mecca was a trading entrepôt in the middle of the desert. There were no farmers to address. What Holland forgets to mention is that Muhammad spent much of his life in Medina (he is even buried there) and it was here that he made his first converts. Medina is an oasis city which had plenty of agriculture. Of course, the Saudi authorities have been industriously destroying all trace of early Islam from Mecca and Medina in their misguided iconoclasm. Many ancient mosques and monuments have been bulldozed and dynamited in an orgy of destruction that makes the Taliban look like museum curators.
Still, the traditional story of Islam’s origins is likely to be accurate in its main themes. Admittedly, a huge bundle of traditions grew up around Muhammad’s life, many of which are not true. These were culled into the received version of his biography and teachings between one and two hundred years after his death. Critical analysis of these texts is likely to give us a picture of Islam’s origins with more nuance than we currently possess. But today’s critical scholars have, like Christianity’s higher critics, gone too far in their scepticism. None of this means this isn’t a debate worth having. But non-Muslims need to be careful that they don’t gleefully turn it into a rod to beat Islam. This, at least, is something Tom Holland could never be accused of. Discuss this post at the Quodlibeta Forum
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
