Western historians have generally accepted a traditional paradigm for the rise of Islam - the pagan pre-Islamic Arabia of the jahiliya (period of ignorance); the revelation of the Quran to the Prophet Muhammad ca. 610 CE; the hijra (migration)  of the Prophet from Mecca to Medina in 622 CE, and the establishment of a community of believers there; the conquest of Mecca in 8 AH/630 CE; and the death of the Prophet in 11 AH/ 632 CE, followed by the Islamic conquests of Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, and Iran.  The Quran was compiled, and a definitive written text was produced under the rule of the Caliph Uthman (644-56CE).This traditional paradigm is based largely on Islamic literary sources, such as the Quran, Hadith, biographies of the Prophet and chronicles, most of which were written later; there is little contemporary documentary evidence.  The traditional paradigm is based on faith-based claims, instead of an historical critical approach which insists upon the testing of evidence for reliability according to objective criteria.

In recent decades, there began a movement to challenge the traditional paradigm and the sources upon which it was based.  Some scholars argue that the Islamic sources are unreliable, since so many were written much later, and often with a non-historical, religious or politcal, intent.  They discard Islamic sources and use only non-Islamic, Syriac and Byzantine, sources, claiming that these would be more reliable.  Some postulate that the Prophet may have lived in a milieu of monotheism (Jewish, Christian and Zoroastrian); others question the nature of the early spread of Islam through jihad (struggle) and hijra (migration or settlement).  Some have suggested that the Quran was composed and canonized much later, or that Islam arose as a variety of Judaism, or arose in Syria or Palestine rather than Mecca.

There has been a movement to re-examine the traditional sources, along with the physical, archaeological and numismatic evidence that does exist.  According to Donner, "it is noteworthy, however, that the little truly documentary evidence of this kind that has been available until recently has tended to fit reasonably well into the framework of traditional interpretations of Islamic origins, and have not required a dramatic re-thinking of the traditional view, at least in its externals" (Narratives of Islamic Origins, 3).  It is also worth noting that there are few contemporary non-Islamic sources as well, and many of these were also written with an intent other than historical, e.g. religious or political.

In the course of this summer institute, we read and discussed the various paradigms,  the reasoning behind them and evidence for them.  Perhaps the end result is, rather than the radical revisionist view, the possibility of a more nuanced traditional paradigm, one which situates the origins of Islam within a jahili Arabia that was not exclusively pagan but also included Jewish and Christian, as well as hanif (monotheist) elements; within an urban Arabian setting; and within the larger framework of the Middle East in Late Antiquity, with Jews and Christians to the south in Yemen, different Christian sects in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, with traditions of piety and asceticsm, and Zoroastrians in Persia; and informed as well by South Arabian culture, and the political conflicts and cultural exchange between the Byzantine and Sassanian empires.  Such a view admits re-exained Islamic sources, and incorporates archaeological evidence.  And surely other results of the institute include an enhanced appreciation for historical method, and, hopefully, sensitivity to the problems of dealing critically and respectfully with materials rooted in the faith system of Islam.

Some of the key themes addressed and issues  that emerged in discussion were:

·        The problem of pejorative, inflammatory or misleading language to refer to Muslims and Islam by some revisionist authors.  Terms such as 'Hagarene/Hagarism', 'Arab religion', 'Muhammadan/Muhammadanism', and so on, are derogatory, and may reveal ignorance, insensitivity, or an underlying agenda.

·        The world of Late Antiquity.  Situating early Islam in the historical context of the Late Antique Middle East.  The Byzantine and Sassanian empires.  Religion, culture, politics, economics.  Refutation of the 'decline and fall' of the Roman Empire, and in particular the continuity of the Byzantine, Eastern part of the empire.  Jews and Christian sects in the Byzantine empire.  Tradtions of piety and asceticism.  Icons.  Latin, Greek and Syriac literary works and translations.  Zoroastrianism.  Ethiopia and Yemen.

·        The Quran.  Linguistic and interpretive barriers.  There is no official English version, because of the belief that it is a divine revelation in Arabic.  Translations for those "innocent of Arabic" do not convey the whole meaning, particularly because many passages are ambiguous in the original Arabic, or contain multiple levels of meaning, and there are a variety of translations and interpretations.  Commonalities between the Quran, and the Bible and epic traditions, for example, the stories of the Flood, and of Abraham and Joseph; and the problem of avoiding reductionist views of those links, e.g. imputations of "dependence" or "derivation."  The problem of dealing in an historical manner with a document dealing with faith and salvation, or of using such a document as an historical source.  The importance of the Quran as the first Arabic text other than a few inscriptions.  The dating of the Quran.  Differences between the Quran and Hadith in terms of style and themes.  The primacy of the Quran as divine revelation, as compared to Hadith as the sayings of the Prophet.  Validity of hadiths.    

·        The development of Islam into an institutionalized religion.  Islam as a political and cultural system.  Issues associated with the spread of Islam (religious, economic, social, political, and cultural).    

·        Existence, accessibility and authenticity of sources and interpretation.  There are few documentary sources and little physical evidence contemporary with the period.  Different categories of sources, i.e. the Quran, Arabic literary texts, Byzantine and other literary texts, papyrii, inscriptions, coins, and other archaeological evidence.  The dating of physical evidence.  The reliability of oral transmission.  Prejudice or theological bias in literary accounts of early Islam and the conquest.  Records of trade and pilgrimages.  How to establish the validity of historical evidence.

·        The physical environment.  The role in the earliest Islamic community of Mecca and Jerusalem, the Kaaba and the Dome of the Rock.  The idea of the haram/sanctuary.  Urbanism vs. nomadism. 

·        The relationship of Islam to other religions.  Paganism and idolatry.

·        The success of Islam.  If Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and monotheists were already present in parts of Arabia and the surrounding lands, and they already had ideas of monotheism, the Last Judgement, Paradise and Hell, what was so appealing about this new religion?  The need to see multiple factors underlying the successful spread of Islam as a religious and cultural system.  The lack of physical evidence for the military destruction of churches or cities during the conquest, with the exception of Caesarea. 

·        Modern reluctance to admit that religious ideas could have historical force.  The use of a nationalist model for this historical period.

·        The contributions of archaeology to history.  The Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem and Aqaba.  The urban character of the Muslim conquerers, and their building new cities next to older, conquered cities.  Streets and gates.  Arabian architectural and urban models.

< back to issues page ... >

< back to main page ... >