The Quest for the Historical Muhammad

Rating:
Summary: Systematically Misleading
Review: "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.

Rating:
Summary: Systematically Misleading
Review: Here is a review which was published in a real journal. The review is by an acomplished Professor of Early Islamic History who actually has the competence to speak on this topic(unlike some of the other reviewers here).

Book Review of Ibn Warraq's "The Quest for the Historical Muhammad", NY: 2000
Fred M. Donner
Middle East Studies Association Bulletin, Volume 35, Number 1, Summer 2001, Cambridge University Press, ISSN 0026-3184, p. 75

The study of Islam's origins, including the life of Muhammad, is a notoriously contentious undertaking. Scholars with admirable training differ sharply among themselves on how to understand it. The appearance of a volume that claims to provide "sufficient background to put the current debates, between revisionists and traditionalists about the origins of Islam, in their intellectual context" (p. 9) is thus sure to attract notice.

Unfortunately, the compiler, identified only by the pseudonym "Ibn Warraq", who also wrote the volume's long introductory essay, is triply unqualified to serve as our guide in this field. "Ibn Warraq" like the equally mysterious author of the second essay, on the sources, "Ibn Rawandi" (perhaps one and the same individual?) lacks the rigorous specialist training in Arabic studies that alone could qualify him (her?) to evaluate independently the different schools of interpretation in this field. This inadequacy is revealed by, for example, inconsistent handling of Arabic materials, and by the fact that neither "Ibn Warraq" nor "Ibn Rawandi" contributes any original arguments to this debate.

More serious still is the compiler's heavy-handed favoritism for certain revisionist theories (particularly those of John Wansbrough), resulting in a thoroughly one-sided selection of articles and translations that constitute the bulk of the volume. These include works, mostly well-known, by Ernest Renan, Henri Lammens (including a complete translation of his monograph "Fatima and the Daughters of Muhammad"), C. H. Becker, Arthur Jeffery, Joseph Schacht, Lawrence I. Conrad, Andrew Rippin, J. Koren and Y. D. Nevo, F. E. Peters, Herbert Berg, and G. R. Hawting. Most of these were landmark contributions to the lengthy debate on the origins of Islam, by scholars who had (have) strong opinions about it and were possessed of full mastery of the primary languages (especially Arabic) and sources.

"Ibn Warraq's" bias, however, causes him to omit fine contributions that pose challenges for some revisionist ideas by H. Motzki, U. Rubin, and many others. This lopsided character makes The Quest for the Historical Muhammad a book that is likely to mislead many an unwary general reader.

Most problematic of all, however, is the compiler's agenda, which is not scholarship, but anti-Islam polemic. The author of an earlier book entitled Why I Am Not a Muslim (1995), "Ibn Warraq" and his co-conspirator "Ibn al-Rawandi" detest anything that, to them, smacks of apologetic; for this reason they criticize harshly several noted authors for their 'bad faith' or 'moral ambiguity.'

Yet this book is itself a monument to duplicity. The compiler never has the honesty or courage to divulge his identity, even though a list of contributors (pp. 551-54) gives a biographical sketch of all the other contributors who, unlike "Ibn Warraq" and "Ibn al-Rawandi", are already well-known.

Far more serious is the fact that this book is religious polemic attempting to masquerade as scholarship. It is a collection of basically sound articles, framed by a seriously flawed introduction, and put in the service of anti-Islamic polemic dedicated to the proposition that Islam is a sham and that honest scholarship on Islam requires gratuitous rudeness to Muslim sensibilities.

By associating these articles with "Ibn Warraq's" polemical agenda, The Quest for the Historical Muhammad will raise suspicions among some Muslims that all revisionist scholarship is motivated by such intolerance.

This is likely to make the future progress of sound historical scholarship on Islam's origins harder, rather than easier. The publication of The Quest for the Historical Muhammad is, therefore, a most unfortunate event.

Fred M. Donner,Professor at University of Chicago.

Rating:
Summary: Here's a Muslim's view
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Pointless book of lies
Review: If this author uses the fact that most of the references on Muhammad's life were his followers as a reason to lie about him. Then what does that say about all the other prophets before him (e.g. Jesus, Moses, Abraham) that no proof is available that they ever lived.
The only things written about Jesus were by his "apostles" and they were written centuries after his "death". I have yet to see any anti-Jesus books written by a Muslim. It just isn't in Islam's nature to put down Holy Prophets of God.

Ibn Warraq should have used the pen name Iam ACrock

Rating:
Summary: Unveiling the weakness of Islamic salvation history
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: A Review
Review: 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

Rating:
Summary: Another Angle
Review: This book is heavy sledding for those of us who aren't up on our ibns and isnads. The contributors are obviously learned and well-respected scholars and the essays are well-written, but it's a book for those who have more background in the subject than I. For those who just want a readable and even-handed account of the life of Muhammad, I recommend _Muhammad_ by Maxime Rodinson, an author referenced by Ibn Warraq in the volume under review.

Rating:
Summary: Lacks accuracy!
Review: This book lacks accuracy and is full of mistakes. However, I prefer to give some facts about the life of Muhammad she should have included:

Muhammad was born in Arabia in 570 years after Christ. He was the descendant of Abraham and Ishmael. He was orphaned as a child and grew up poor. By the age 25 he came to be known for his honesty and good character. People called him Al-Ameen meaning trustworthy and truthful. At the age of 25 a wealthy widow impressed by his honesty and good character proposed marriage to him. Although she was 40 he accepted her proposal, and they lived for the next 15 years a comfortable and blissful marriage.

Until the age of 40 Muhammad had lived as a good citizen--a quiet uneventful life. One night while he was meditating in a cave Angel Gabriel appears to him and asks him to, "Read in the Name of Your Lord." Muhammad was illiterate so he said I can't read. But eventually he repeated the words after Gabriel. This began 23 years of revelation that we know now as the Qur'an. When he proclaimed the message people laughed at him. They wondered why God has chosen him instead of much wealthier more intelligent and powerful leaders of Mecca. But God chooses whomever he wills! They attacked him and early Muslims physically and verbally. At one point due to severity of persecution, a group of Muslims that migrated from Arabia to a nearby country, Ethiopia, rules by a just Christian king. At his court facing extradition to Mecca, they explained to the Christian King why they had left the religion of their forefathers in the following manner:

"O King!! we were plunged in the depth of ignorance and barbarism; we adored idols, we lived in unchastity, we ate the dead bodies, and we spoke abominations, we disregarded every feeling of humanity, and the duties of hospitality and neighborhood were neglected; we knew no law but that of the strong, when God raised among us a man, of whose birth, truthfulness, honesty, and purity we were aware; and he called to the Oneness of God, and taught us not to associate anything with Him. He forbade us the worship of idols; and he enjoined us to speak the truth, to be faithful to our trusts, to be merciful and to regard the rights of the neighbors and kith and kin; he forbade us to speak evil of women, or to eat the substance of orphans; he ordered us to fly from the vices, and to abstain from evil; to offer prayers, to render alms, and to observe fast. We have believed in him, we have accepted his teachings and his injunctions to worship God, and not to associate anything with Him, and we have allowed what He has allowed, and prohibited what He has prohibited. For this reason, our people have risen against us, have persecuted us in order to make us forsake the worship of God and return to the worship of idols and other abominations. They have tortured and injured us, until finding no safety among them, we have come to your country, and hope you will protect us from oppression."

The above summarizes the effect of Muhammad and his message on humanity. In this regard renowned British Historian Arnold Toynbee remarked in his Civilization on Trial, "The extinction of race consciousness as between Muslims is one of the outstanding achievements of Islam, and in the contemporary world there is, as it happens, a crying need for the propagation of this Islamic virtue...This Islamic spirit (of submission to divine guidance) maybe expected to manifest itself in many practical ways, and one of these manifestations might be liberation from alcohol, which was inspired by religious conviction and which was therefore able to accomplish what could never be enforced by the external sanction of an alien law...Here then in the foreground of the future we can remark two valuable influences which Islam may exert upon the cosmopolitan proletariat of the Western society..."
Many historians have attested to this fact and consider his accomplishment nothing short of a miracle. Yet as he said through out his mission he was only a man conveying God's message.

Historian Michael Hart wrote in his book The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, "My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels."

French Poet Lamartine wrote in Histoire de La Turquie, "Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a religion without images, the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, which is Muhammad. If Greatness of purpose, smallness of means and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad?"

I think you get the idea that Muhammad was more than a reformer or philosopher. He brought about real change, real peace, all in the name of God, never taking credit, live a humble simple life and died with no possessions.

Thus, I believe a serious study of his life and accomplishments are something to consider, especially his claim of receiving a message from God.


Rating:
Summary: Thw world: Please see the truth about mohammad
Review: Well, after reading the book I was not very surprised to be honest. I knew what I would expect from an ex-Muslim. I have no problem with Ibn Warraq, if he didn't see the truth about Islam and decided to abandon it, this is really his choice, God is the only one who judges. So I leave it to God to judge Ibn Warraq. However, when he starts saying absolute lies about the prophet, here we have to take a stand and say something.

First of all, Most of what is mentioned is absolute lies and fabrication of the truth. For instance, the part about Mohammad sleeping with his 11 wives in one night, I challenge Ibn Wararq or any one else to find one single source for this in the official biographies of the prophet. Also, the author mentions that Mohammad married a six year old girl, and made it look very negative. However, it is well documented in the Prophet's biographies that he never approached her physically until she reached the matured age (Why is this not mentioned in this book?) Also, the prophet's first wife was khadeeja and she was 25 years older than him. After khadeeja's death, The prophet married another women who was 80 years old - would a moneniser marry an 80 year old? We must see that the reason for the prophet marrying 11 women was purely to spread the religion amongst the women. This was fundamental as Islam values women's role in educating and raising their children. On another note, previous prophets such as David or Solomon marries many many women (the number of solomon's wives exceeded seventy). Did I ever hear anyone complaining about that? Never. It is just the grudge people have against Mohammad.

Second of all, this book is not the first nor will be the last who talks lies about Mohammad PBUH. The west through more than a thousand years have been saying things that are very similar to what is written in this book. If you want to know what was being said earlier, you can read Karen Armstrong's Prophet Mohammad biography. She did a brilliant job in summing what the west falsely accused Mohammad of all satanic doings, then she gives the real perspective about Mohammad's life.

Who is Mohammad? For the Christian world who does not believe in Mohammad and does not spare an effort in portraying him as the devil himself, Mohammad is a man who was responsible for having a community of believers that exceeded billions and continues to be the fastest growing faith. This community, the Muslims, have nothing but praise and respect for Jesus. Muslims believe that Jesus is the messiah, that his mother Virgin marry gave a miraculous birth to him even though she never touched a man, and that Jesus was by God's will able to raise the dead and heel the deaf.

I wonder why the Christian world hates Mohammad, when he had nothing but the most wonderful words to say about the great Jesus. If anything, Christians should be grateful to Mohammad because all Muslims love and respect Jesus. On another note, I wonder, has any Muslim written something bad about Jesus? I don't think so.

I might be getting off topic because Ibn Warraq is an ex-Muslim, however, I do believe that it is the same attitude of someone who hates Mohammad, whether he is a Muslim, Christian or something else. don't know if Ibn Warraq is a Christian or not, I don't care to know to be honest. But what I know that this book is nothing different than all the other false biographies written by Islam haters.



Rating:
Summary: who was Muhammad?
Review: 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.)