I have observed that punching a boxing bag properly with protective gloves never causes injury. Therefore no one will be injured using a boxing bag.

As can be seen from the example above, induction faces a key problem which is the inability to guarantee the conclusion, because a sweeping generalisation cannot be made from a limited number of observations. The best it can provide are probabilities, ranging from low to very high.[A] In the aforementioned example the person who made the statement could not logically prove that the next person to punch a boxing bag will not get injured.

Therefore, the problem with induction is that it can’t produce certainty.[B] This issue was raised by the 18^th century Scottish philosopher David Hume in his book, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Hume argued that inductive reasoning can never produce certainty. He concluded that moving from a limited set of observed phenomena to making conclusions for an unlimited set of observed phenomena is beyond the present testimony of the senses, and the records of our memory.[1]

From a practical scientific perspective, generalisations made for an entire group or for the next observation within that group based on a limited set of data, will never be certain. For example, a scientist travelled to Wales and wanted to find out the colour of sheep (assuming he does not know the colour of sheep), and he started observing the sheep and recording what colour they are. Say after 150 sheep observations he found that all of them were white. The scientist would conclude based upon his data, using induction, that all sheep are white. This basic example highlights the problematic nature with the process of induction as we know sheep can also be black. Certainty using induction will never be achieved. Professor Alex Rosenberg in his book Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction explains the problem of induction and he concludes that this is a key problem facing science; he writes,

Here we have explored another problem facing empiricism as the official epistemology of science: the problem of induction, which goes back to Hume, and added to the agenda of problems for both empiricists and rationalists. [2]

Notes & References

[A] There are two main types of induction, strong induction and weak induction. Strong induction moves from the particular to the general in a way that makes a conclusion for the whole group. Weak induction moves from the particular to the general in a way that makes a conclusion for the next observation.

An example of strong induction is the conclusion that all ravens are black because each raven that has ever been observed has been black.

An example of weak induction is that because every raven that has ever been observed has been black, the next observed raven will be black.

[B] Induction can reach certainties but not in the form of generalisations. For example,

I observe an instance of A with the quality B.

Therefore, the nature of A allows B.

If you have observed Crows that are black you can conclude with certainty that some Crows are black. But you could not achieve certainty if you concluded that all Crows were black based on a limited set of observations. This type of induction that produces certainty doesn’t apply to evolution as inductive reasoning in the form of generalisations is not certain.

[1] David Hume. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, p. 108.

[2] Professor Alex Rosenberg. Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction. 2012, p. 198.

‘The origins of Islam are a legitimate subject of historical enquiry…’

We agree and this legitimate enquiry should continue. We applaud and appreciate the efforts of any sincere, honest and objective scholar in this regard. In fact Muslims were the first people to scrutinise their own historical tradition and came up a systematic method to do so: ilm ul hadith (the Science of Hadith). Thousands of early Muslim authorities have put a tremendous amount of time and effort to ensure an unadulterated authentic transmission of the prophetic tradition to subsequent generations. We invite Holland to pay more attention to the science of Hadith and a number of works have been written in the English language for him to peruse.

‘We were of course aware when making the programme that we were touching deeply-held sensitivities and went to every effort to ensure that the moral and civilizational power of Islam was acknowledged in our film, and the perspective of Muslim faith represented, both in the persons of ordinary Bedouin in the desert, and one of the greatest modern scholars of Islam, Seyyed Hossein Nasr.’

Here Holland suggests that “ordinary Bedouin” were the right people to represent the intricate details of Islamic historiography or the Islamic academic position. How could the desert Bedouin present an academic view on the origins of Islam, as they are known to be not very well educated? They certainly do not have access to some of the early dated papyri evidence scattered all over international libraries, which mentions the disciples of the Prophet (peace be upon him). How could the Bedouin contribute to an academic debate at all? Instead of going to people like Patricia Crone and Fred Donner, why didn’t Holland visit the local public house to seek advice on matters academic for a non-Muslim perspective, just like he went to the tea drinking Bedouin in the desert to seek opinions on the historical origins of Islam?

As for Seyyed Hossein Nasr, he is indeed a very well established academic and has written extensively on Islamic philosophy. But the question is: was he the right person to consult on a specialist subject like the early Islamic history, when we have hundreds of other specialists/academics to deal with the topic? Early Islamic history is a very specific subject and requires a specialist to comment on it. The Nasr Foundation website describes his expertise as follows and early Islamic history is not one of them:

‘Professor Nasr speaks and writes with great authority on a wide variety of subjects, ranging from philosophy to religion to spirituality, to music and art and architecture, to science and literature, to civilizational dialogues and the natural environment.’ [2]

Dr Nasr may well be qualified to speak on Islamic topics but some of the questions posed to him ended with a “yes” or “no” answer. Having seen the biased selection of authorities in this programme, how do we know that Nasr’s views were even represented without any necessary editing?

While visiting the Bedouin in the desert, Holland should have taken some time to visit some of the academics in Arabia to ask the very questions he was asking Patricia Crone. We are sure he would come away enlightened. Holland further said:

‘An accusation laid against the film is one of bias and, although I believe that absolute objectivity is a chimera, what was incumbent upon us, in making the film, was to be up-front about my own ideological background and presumptions, and to acknowledge the very different perspective that Muslim faith provides.’

Our view is that Holland’s presumptions were historically anachronistic and we have already shown that conclusively in our response. Our response to the documentary presents some relevant crucial primary evidence and quotes from some of the major authorities in the field. Why would Holland deliberately presume the worst, especially when all historical evidence suggests otherwise?

‘If the film was about the origins of Islam, then it was also about the tensions between two differing world-views. Whether one accepts or rejects the truth of the tradition is ultimately dependent upon the philosophical presumptions that one brings to the analysis of the sources.’

There is no inherent tension between the “two world views” as far as the historical enquiry is concerned. Even if one was to accept the dichotomy of “two world views”, one would come to realise that truth and honesty are virtues common to all world views. Historical enquiry must be based upon truth and the whole truth can never be known until one has all facts explored. The programme utterly failed to take all facts into consideration, as seen from our response to the programme. The film was clearly biased in its presumptions and some of the evident presumptions were the non-existence of contemporary Islamic evidence and the rejection of the Islamic historical tradition. This was shown to be a misconception in our response to the programme.

‘It has been suggested that I say in the film that Mecca is not mentioned in the Qu’ran. In fact, I say that Mecca is mentioned once in the Qu’ran. As a historian I have to rely on original texts and although later tradition (as brought to us through the hadith) has come to accept that other names are synonymous with Mecca, the fact is that there is only one mention of Mecca in the Qu’ran (although due to an unwarranted interpolation, a second one does appear in the Pickthall translation).’

The Mecca question was one of the most disturbing parts of the programme, as far as historical honesty is concerned. Here is what Holland said in the documentary at 39:20: ‘aside from a single ambiguous mention in the Quran itself, there is no mention of Mecca, not one, in any datable text for over a hundred years after Muhammad’s death.’ How is the reference ambiguous? The mention of Mecca is very explicit and there is only one meaning of the noun i.e. the sacred city where Muhammad (peace be upon him) was born. To suggest that the reference is ambiguous is to deliberately turn a blind eye to established facts. This is the problem with rejecting the Islamic tradition as any meaning and any interpretation, no matter how erroneous, can be entertained. Commenting on the prospect of taking up another explanation for Mecca, Patricia Crone states in the documentary: ‘why take it on, well that’s what historians do, if things don’t fit you try something else that might fit’. Both, Holland and Crone, do not provide any reasons to suspect the historicity of the city of Mecca presented in the Islamic narrative. Holland’s reason seems to be “the absence of evidence is evidence for absence”. But is the evidence absent? Absolutely not, there is more than enough evidence to ascertain the existence of the sacred city of Mecca of the Islamic narrative. By questioning the existence of such a city, Holland is claiming a mass conspiracy on part of the early Muslims. Hundreds of thousands of Muslim pilgrims have been travelling to Mecca from the early days of Islam and this practice never ceased to exist to this day. Before that, thousands of pagans used to visit the city when it was the central place of idol worship in Arabia before Muhammad (peace be upon him) returned it to its Abrahamic origin as a bastion of monotheism. To ask the question whether the Mecca of Islamic tradition existed or not is to ask whether the Arabs of the seventh century were deaf, dumb and blind. Why would hundreds of thousands of people, in the second half of the seventh century, suddenly begin to visit the city of Mecca as a pilgrimage site if they didn’t find their predecessors do it?

‘On the broad perspective some complaints assert unequivocally, as is often said, that Islam was “born in the full light of history unlike the ancient faiths”. That may have been the belief of Western scholars back in the days of Ernest Renan, but it is most certainly not the academic consensus today.’

We ask Holland: have we yet discovered the full light of history or is there still a lot to discover? We quote Robert Hoyland again to show Holland as to the amount of evidence still in need of serious study:

‘The problem of the historiography of this period is certainly a very challenging one, and will remain so while no accepted criteria exist to verify the Muslim literary tradition. And yet there are grounds for optimism. Firstly, we do have a number of bodies of evidence – especially non-Muslim sources, papyri, inscriptions and archaeological excavations – that can serve as a useful external referent and whose riches are only just beginning to be exploited in a systematic manner. Secondly, the historical memory of the Muslim community is more robust than some have claimed. For example, many of the deities, kings and tribes of the pre-Islamic Arabs that are depicted by ninth-century Muslim historians also feature in the epigraphic record, as do many of the rulers and governors of the early Islamic state. This makes it difficult to see how historical scenarios that require for their acceptance a total discontinuity in the historical memory of the Muslim community – such as that Muhammad did not exist, the Quran was not written in Arabic, Mecca was originally in a different place etc. – can really be justified. Many of these scenarios rely on absence of evidence, but it seems a shame to make such a recourse when there are so many very vocal forms of material evidence still waiting to be studied.’ [3]

If there is a lot more to be studied, and that is definitely the case, then how can one even think of a consensus? Robert Hoyland provides some of the epigraphic and papyri evidence to suggest that this material evidence actually confirms the authenticity of the Islamic narrative in many regards. Holland, however, simply doesn’t seem to be aware of this evidence in the documentary.

‘It has also wrongly been suggested that we said there is no historical evidence for the seventh century origins of Islam. What I actually said in the film was that I had expected to find contemporaneous Muslim evidence – “but there’s nothing there.” And the Qur’an aside, the first mention of the prophet Muhammad’s name in Arabic is on the coin that we featured in Part Five, and on the Dome of the Rock, which we also featured prominently. The evidence provided by Christian contemporaries was mentioned in Part Three, and is dealt with at greater length in the book.’

Holland has actually confirmed what we claimed he said in our response. He repeats it here again: ‘I had expected to find contemporaneous Muslim evidence – “but there’s nothing there.”‘ Even though we provided so much contemporaneous evidence in our response, Holland simply failed to acknowledge it again. We presented links to original documents and inscription for Holland (and his likes) to see the evidence in black and white but that doesn’t seem to have changed his mind. Here it is again:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Papyri/
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/

We will ask Holland again: the inscription of Zuhayr, is it not contemporaneous enough? The papyri documents mentioning ‘Amr ibn al ‘Aas by name, are they not enough evidence to confirm the authenticity of the Islamic chronology as well as narrative? We invite Holland to look at the contemporaneous evidence in Arabic provided by Robert Hoyland and the Islamic Awareness team on their website and reconsider his position or provide an alternative objective view on this evidence. One cannot simply claim “there is nothing there” and ignore piles of evidence in front of him. It is really surprising to see Holland accept a pile of undated stones as valid evidence to support his argument for the existence of an early mosque but when it comes to acknowledging dated contemporary texts that go against his “presuppositions”, he simply fails to address them in the documentary.

As for the mention of Muhammad (peace be upon him), why should we put the Quran aside, which is the biggest source of evidence for the historicity of Muhammad (peace be upon him)? The Quran is a valid form of contemporary evidence, which cannot be ignored. Our view is that if all the available evidence on Islam, excluding the traditional Islamic narrative, is put together it confirms rather than call into question the authenticity of the Islamic traditional narrative. Hence, all epigraphic, numismatic, archaeological, papyri, manuscript and other material evidence in fact confirms the authentic transmission of the Islamic historical tradition. Holland finally stated in the concluding remarks of his response:

“Obviously in a film of only 74 minutes, which opens up very rich and complex arguments and brings to light detailed academic scholarship, which has been going on for over forty years, it is impossible to articulate all the resonances and implications of every argument.”

This is why we were shocked to realize Holland’s choice of Bedouin to represent the Islamic perspective. In an important 74 minutes long full of “complex arguments” and “academic scholarship” documentary, Holland should have spent a little more time with Islamic historians instead of wasting all those precious minutes in learning the way of the Bedouin.

Undercutting Holland’s Revisionist Approach

Tom Holland’s entire argument rests on a daring presupposition: the rejection of the Islamic historical tradition. The Hadith, which forms a substantial part of the Islamic historical corpus, is one of the most valid sources of history. Holland however rejects the Islamic narrative due to his epistemological bias. He argues that the basis of the Islamic tradition, the chain of transmission (isnad), is not a valid source of knowledge. This perspective is philosophically and historically rogue and cannot be taken seriously. As discussed in our paper, testimony is considered as one of the valid sources of knowledge, and when applied properly it can form justified beliefs. Testimony is a valid source of knowledge only when it comes from a reliable source, especially if there are multiple sources in agreement. Obviously there are conditions as to how we can use testimony, but in the majority cases we consider testimony as a valid source of knowledge. The philosopher C. A. J. Coady in his book ‘Testimony: A Philosophical Study’ highlights our dependency on testimony and the implications of rejecting it:

‘…many of us have never seen a baby born, nor have most of us examined the circulation of the blood nor the actual geography of the world nor any fair sample of the laws of the land, nor have we made the observations that lie behind our knowledge that the lights in the sky are heavenly bodies…’ [4]

Therefore the rejection of testimony would be tantamount to rejecting the existence of Peru or the roundness of the earth. Concerning the Hadith, not only do we have mass testimony of events and statements of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), we have a detailed science dedicated to authenticate these traditions. Prophetic traditions consist of two components: isnad (chain of narration or transmission) and matn (text). Each of these have detailed criteria that scrutinise the chain and the text to a degree that leaves very little room for doubt. Moreover, each Prophetic tradition has been scrutinised more rigorously than any historical fact we have with us today. Thousands of companions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) narrated reports from him and these reports were then transmitted to subsequent generations with maximum care and authenticity. An anonymous report or a narration originating from an unknown or untrustworthy source was immediately rejected. This method of authentication validates testimony as an acceptable source of knowledge. The emeritus professor of philosophy, Keith Lehrer, in the book ‘The Epistemology of Testimony’ concludes that testimony provides a valid source of historical information once the ‘trustworthiness of others’ is ‘evaluated’. Lehrer writes:

‘The final question that arises concerning our acceptance of testimony is this. What converts our acceptance of testimony of others into knowledge? The first part of the answer is that we must be trustworthy in our evaluations of the trustworthiness of others, and we must accept that this is so. Moreover, our trustworthiness must be successfully truth-connected, that is, the others must, in fact, be trustworthy and their trustworthiness must be truth-connected. We must accept this is so. In short, our acceptance of their testimony must be justified in a way that is not refuted or defeated by any errors that we make in evaluating them and their testimony. Undefeated or irrefutable justified acceptance of the testimony of others is knowledge.’(emphasis added) [5]

Holland needs to answer the following questions if he wants his work to be taken seriously:

1. Since authenticated testimony, which forms part of the Islamic historical tradition, is a valid source of knowledge, on what grounds do you reject this well-founded source of history?
2. If you do reject authenticated testimony, are you willing to accept the philosophical and practical absurdities that follow from your unjustified skepticism?

Holland’s revisionist approach rests on the daring presupposition that authenticated testimony is not a valid source of knowledge. As explained above, this epistemological bias is unfounded and therefore Holland’s entire revisionist argument breaks down. In this light, it appears that Holland was not even interested in a serious academic discussion, hence no mention of the Islamic Hadith tradition and its value. He didn’t even present a valid reason for not considering the Islamic tradition as a historically valid source of information. Even the contemporary epigraphic evidence was ignored by Holland. Just because the Islamic tradition is religious in nature does not imply it is untrustworthy. Perhaps, Holland’s secular outlook prevented him from consulting the most important source of information in this enquiry: the hadith.

So long as the Quran is with us, we will continue to believe and worship the Lord of the worlds. It is the Quran that encourages valid intellectual pursuit. The Quran poses existential questions and encourages mankind to question its prejudices. We, the Muslims, are open to any valid debate and pursuit. May God guide us all to that which is true, Amen. 

[1] http://www.channel4.com/programmes/islam-the-untold-story/articles/tom-holland-responds-to-the-programmes-critics

[2] http://www.nasrfoundation.org/bios.html

[3] Robert Hoyland, New Documentary Texts and the Early Islamic State, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 69,No. 3 (2006), pp. 395-416.

[4] C. A. J. Coady. Testimony: A Philosophical Study. Oxford University Press. 1992, p. 82.

[5] Keith Lehrer cited in The Epistemology of Testimony. Oxford University Press. 2006, p. 158.

1. The claim that there is no historical evidence in the seventh century on the origins of Islam:

Tom Holland’s assertion that there is no historical evidence for the seventh century origins of Islam is historically inaccurate. This notion cannot be sustained in light of the contemporary non-Islamic as well as material evidence. For instance, early Christian chronicles in the seventh century elaborate on the origins of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and some of the laws practised by the early Muslims. Below are some examples of these chronicles:

Doctrina Jacobi written in 635 CE

A document called Doctrina Jacobi written only two years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) clearly mentions that a prophet had appeared amongst the Arabs:

“I, Abraham, went off to Sykamina and referred the matter to an old man very well-versed in the Scriptures. I asked him: “What is your view, master and teacher, of the prophet who has appeared among the Saracens”.(1)

Here it can be clearly seen that a prophet among Saracens  [i.e. the Arabs] is  mentioned.  The questions is: who was this prophet among Arabs? And what does  a prophet do? The Prophet of Arabs was non other than Muhammad (peace be upon him)  and it appears that the meaning of the term “prophet” was clearly understood by the author of this narrative. A prophet, in a Judeo-Christian sense, leads his people and teaches them about God and this is exactly what the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did. A Christian chronicler couldn’t have understood the term differently. Holland’s claim that there is no evidence of Islam before the early Islamic conquests is anachronistic. If there is evidence of a prophet among Arabs, why then one should doubt the existence of the teachings of that prophet?

A record of the Arab conquest of Syria written in 637 CE

A record of the Arab conquest of Syria written in 637 CE, just 5 years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), clearly mentions him by name. Interestingly, the date of the document agrees with the best Arab date for the battle of Yarmuk:

“…and in January, they took the word for their lives did the sons of Emesa, and many villages were ruined with killing by the Arabs of Mụhammad and a great number of people were killed and captives were taken from Galilee as  far as Bēth.” (2)

In this record, the name of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is clearly mentioned. Holland’s claim that the Prophet does not appear in records until 60 years after his death is historically obnoxious.

Sebeos, Bishop of the Bagratunis (Writing c.660 CE)

A mid seventh century account of Islam comes from Sebeos who was a bishop of the House of Bagratunis. This chronicle suggests that he lived through many of the events he relates. As for Muhammad (peace be upon him), he had the following to say:

“At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ishmael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Mụhammad], a merchant, as if by God’s command  appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learned and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning  their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father, Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. He said: with an oath God promised this land to Abraham and his seed after him forever. And he brought about as he promised during that time while he loved Ishmael. But now you are the sons of Abraham and God is accomplishing his promise to Abraham and his seed for you. Love sincerely only the God of Abraham, and go and seize the land which God gave to your father Abraham. No one will be  able to resist you in battle, because God is with you.” (3)

This narrative by Sebeos clearly undermines Holland’s assertion that there are no historical records elaborating on the life, teachings and mission of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). In fact this particular narrative  suggests that  the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had taught his companions about Islam and the tenets of this faith were well established and understood by the time Sebeos  was writing his chronicle. Holland, for some reason, failed to notice these important non-Muslim testimonies as to the established existence of Islam as a  way of life in the mid seventh century. Some more evidence of the early mention of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) can be seen here:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/earlysaw.html.

Holland appears to have turned a blind eye to the rich Islamic historical tradition. There are no “black holes” and there is no missing information. There is plenty of material evidence available to substantiate the accuracy of the Islamic narrative on the early history of Islam. For instance, there are thousands of inscriptions on rocks  in Saudi Arabia confirming the chronological accuracy of the Islamic historical records such as Hadith and Sira/Maghazi literature. One such inscription can be  found here:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/kuficsaud.html.

This inscription states ‘In the name of Allah, I, Zuhayr, wrote [this] at the time Umar died in the year four and twenty (i.e. 24 AH)’. This dated early text confirms the established existence of the Islamic Hijri calendar, the truth of the event of Hijrah (migration) of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the existence of Umar bin Khattab (the second Caliph of Islam), and the accuracy of the Islamic chronology, as according the Islamic historical records, the second Caliph of Islam died in the year 24 AH (644 CE). Also, there is an undated early seventh century inscription, which documents the Islamic Shahadah proclamation. It can be found here:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/hamid3.html.

There is also plenty of Papyri evidence available to confirm the chronological as well as the factual accuracy of the Islamic narrative. Some of this papyri evidence can be witnessed here:http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Papyri/.

Why would Holland ignore all of this visible evidence and turn a blind eye to it?

2. Unjustified rejection of the Islamic narrative:

Tom Holland’s presentation was clearly biased in the programme, as he ignored other scholarly views that would call his approach into question. For example, Michael Cook, a historian specialising in early Islamic history explains the importance of early non-Muslim accounts of the origins of Islam:

“What does this material tell us? We may begin with the major points on which it agrees with the Islamic tradition. It precludes any doubts as to whether Muhammad was a real person: he is named in a Syriac source that is likely to date from the time of the conquests, and there is an account of him in a Greek source of the same period. From the 640s we have confirmation that the term muhajir was a central one in the new religion, since its followers are known as  ’Magaritai’ or ‘Mahgraye’ in Greek and Syriac respectively. At the same time, a  papyrus of 643 is dated ‘year twenty two’, creating a strong presumption that something did happen in AD 622. The Armenian chronicler of the 660s attests that Muhammad was a merchant, and confirms the centrality of Abraham in  his preaching. The Abrahamic sanctuary appears in an early source dated (insecurely) to the 670s.” (4)

Holland’s rejection of the Islamic narrative lacks academic rigour. Commenting on Holland’s approach Peter Webb, who teaches Classical Arabic literature at SOAS, the University of London, explains the “resilient” and “robust” nature of the Islamic tradition:

“Over the past century, the Muslim tradition has been challenged by many academics and it has proven remarkably resilient in its own defence…but the Muslim account of history, the textual integrity of the Koran and the mnemonic capacity of oral traditions are more robust than Holland gives them credit…few scholars today would claim it was entirely fabricated. Holland would have done better to adopt a cautious and sensitive approach to the Arabic sources, rather than abandoning them in favour of a sensational rewriting of history.” (5)

Professor Robert Hoyland from the University of Oxford highlights how conclusions similar to Holland’s, including the view that Mecca was in a different place, is a result of not studying the Islamic material and developing scenarios not based on evidence:

“..the historical memory of the Muslim community is more robust than some  have claimed. For example, many of the deities, kings and tribes of the pre-Islamic Arabs that are depicted by ninth-century Muslim historians also feature in the epigraphic record, as do many of the rulers and governors of the early Islamic state. This makes it difficult to see how historical scenarios that require for their acceptance a total discontinuity in the historical memory of the Muslim community – such as that Muhammad did not exist, the Quran was not written in Arabic, Mecca was originally in a different place etc. – can really be  justified. Many of these scenarios rely on absence of evidence, but it seems a shame to make such a recourse when there are so many very vocal forms of material evidence still waiting to be studied.” (6)

3. Rejecting the Islamic oral tradition:

As discussed above, Holland’s approach is inherently biased as he unjustifiably rejects the entire corpus of the Islamic tradition, including the oral Prophetic traditions. Patricia Crone asserts in the documentary that with oral traditions “you remember what you want to remember”. With this assertion Holland attempts to undermine the entire science of Hadith (Prophetic traditions). The science of the Prophetic traditions is based upon scrutinising the isnad (chain of narrations) and the matn (the text). Nabia Abbot, a prominent academic who has conducted extensive study on the Prophetic traditions, explains how the growth of these traditions was as a result of parallel and multiple chains of transmission which highlights that these traditions are trustworthy and a valid source of historical information. She writes:

“…the traditions of Muhammad as transmitted by his Companions and their Successors were, as a rule, scrupulously scrutinised at each step of the transmission, and that the so called phenomenal growth of Tradition in the second and third centuries of Islam was not primarily growth of content, so far as the hadith of Muhammad and the hadith of the Companions are concerned, but represents largely the progressive increase in parallel and multiple chains of transmission.” (7)

Harald Motzki, an academic on Hadith literature, has similar sentiments. In an essay that appeared in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies he concludes that the Prophetic traditions are an important and useful type of source concerning the study of early Islam:

“While studying the Musannaf of `Abd al-Razzaq, I came to the conclusion that the theory championed by Goldziher, Schacht and in their footsteps many others – myself included – which in general, reject hadith literature as a historically reliable sources for the first century AH, deprives the historical study of early Islam of an important and a useful type of source.” (8)

Hence, even a sceptic like Motzki couldn’t resist the strength of the preservation the Islamic Prophetic tradition. On what basis then people like Holland reject the entire Islamic literary corpus?

4. The absurdity of rejecting the oral tradition:

Even if we were to follow Holland’s line of enquiry, it would lead us to absurdities. The philosophical implications of rejecting the Prophetic traditions are quite damning. In epistemology – which is narrowly defined as the study of knowledge and belief – testimony is considered as one of the sources of knowledge, and when applied properly it can form justified beliefs. Testimony is a valid source of knowledge only when it comes from a reliable source especially if there are multiple sources in agreement. Obviously there are conditions as to how we can use testimony, but in the majority cases we consider testimony as a valid source of knowledge. For instance, take our certainty on the fact that China exists. Many people have never been to China, eaten Chinese food in China or spoken to someone in China. All they have as evidence is a map of the world and people telling them they have travelled to China and others claiming to be from China but is this sufficient? However, if we examine why we have such a high level of certainty that China exists, regardless of the above questions, we will conclude that it is due to recurrent testimony. Recurrent testimony is when such a large number of people have reported a claim to knowledge (such as the existence of China) that it is impossible for them to agree upon a lie or to simultaneously lie. This is accentuated by the fact that most of these people never met and lived in different places and different times. Therefore to claim that they have lied is tantamount  to propose the existence of an impossible conspiracy.

Linking this to the Prophetic traditions, not only do we have mass testimony of events and statements of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), we have a detailed science dedicated to authenticate these traditions. Prophetic traditions consist of two components: isnad (chain of narrations) and matn (text). Each of these have detailed criteria that scrutinise the chain and the text to a degree that leaves very little room for doubt. To reject these traditions is tantamount to rejecting facts such as the existence of China or the entirety of history, as these events have been verified via recurrent testimony also. Moreover, each Prophetic tradition has been scrutinised more rigorously than any historical fact we have with us today. Thousands of  companions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) narrated reports from him and these reports were then transmitted to subsequent generations with maximum care and authenticity. An anonymous report or a narration originating from an unknown source was immediately rejected. Companions such as Abdullah bin Umar, Anas bin Malik, Abu Hurairah, Aysha, Hudaifah bin Yamaan and many more narrated reports from the Prophet and they were then passed onto the next generation. A very good treatment of this subject can be found in M. M. Azami’s “Studies in Early Hadith Literature”.

The criteria used to verify prophetic traditions are summarised below:

Some criteria for the evaluation of Isnad

The unblemished and undisputed character of the narrator was the most important consideration for the acceptance of a prophetic tradition. A branch of the science of hadith (‘ilm al-hadith) known as asma’ ar-rijal (the biographies of the people) was developed to evaluate the credibility of narrators. The following are a few of the criteria utilized for this purpose:

1. The name, nickname, title, parentage and occupation of the narrator should be known.
2. The original narrator should have stated that he heard the hadith directly from the Prophet.
3. If a narrator referred his hadith to another narrator, the two should have lived in the same period and have had the possibility of meeting each other.
4. At the time of hearing and transmitting the hadith, the narrator should have been physically and mentally capable of understanding and remembering it.
5. The narrator should have been known as a pious and virtuous person.
6. The narrator should not have been accused of having lied, given false evidence or committed a crime.
7. The narrator should not have spoken against other reliable people.
8. The narrator’s religious beliefs and practices should have been known to be correct.
9. The narrator should not have carried out and practiced peculiar religious beliefs of his own.

Some criteria for the evaluation of Matn

1. The text should have been stated in plain and simple language as this was the undisputed manner of speech of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
2. A text in non-Arabic or containing indecent language was rejected (for the same reason as above).
3. A text prescribing heavy punishment for minor sins or exceptionally large reward for small virtues was rejected.
4. A text which referred to actions that should have been commonly known and practiced by others but were not known and practiced was rejected.
5. A text contrary to the basic teachings of the Qur’an was rejected.
6. A text contrary to another established prophetic tradition was rejected.
7. A text inconsistent with historical facts was rejected.
8. Extreme care was taken to ensure the text was the original narration of the Prophet and not the sense of what the narrator heard. The meaning of the Prophet tradition was accepted only when the narrator was well known for his piety and integrity of character.
9. A text by an obscure narrator which was not known during the age of the Prophet’s companions or of the subsequent generation was rejected.

It is clear from the above that the criteria for verifying the Prophetic traditions is comprehensive and robust. Even in the philosophy of history we do not find such comprehensive criteria.

5. The textual Islamic tradition:

Holland continues to espouse his uninformed perspective by claiming that there is an absence of textual evidence from the Islamic narrative. In response to this there are a myriad of written works in the early period of Islam. Below is a list of some of the early works:

Saheefah Saadiqah: Compiled by Abdullaah Ibn ‘Amr ibn al-Aas during the life of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). His treatise is composed of about 1000 prophetic traditions and it remained secure and preserved.

Saheefah Saheehah: Compiled by Humaam Ibn Munabbih. He was from the famous students of Abu Hurairah (the eminent companion of the Prophet). He wrote all the prophetic traditions from his teacher. Copies of this manuscript are available from libraries in Berlin and Damascus.

Saheefah Basheer Ibn Naheek: Ibn Naheek was also a student of Abu Hurairah. He gathered and wrote a treatise of Prophetic traditions which he read to Abu Hurairah, before they departed and the former verified it. (9)

One of the early Hadith compilations was Muatta of Imam Malik , compiled by Malik bin Anas (d. 179 AH/795 CE). A fragmentary papyri manuscript of this collection from the time of the author is extant to this day. It can be seen here:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/PERF731.html.

This clearly shows that the Hadith literature existed in textual form and was written with extreme care and enthusiasm. Malik bin Anas was a student of Nafi’, who  was a student of Abdullah bin Umar and Abdullah narrated directly from the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). This is an uninterrupted chain of Hadith (also known as the Golden Chain).  Malik narrates extensively from Nafi’ in his book and all these reports reach the Prophet Muhammad directly and some of these reports can be verified in manuscript form in international libraries.

In light of the above, the claim that there were no texts or historical documents in the early seventh century is a false one, and clearly undermines the integrity of the programme.  All authentic Hadith literature can be traced back to the Prophet and much of this literature existed in written form in the early days of Islam.  

6. Further baseless assumptions:

Holland’s unjustified rejection of the oral and textual Islamic tradition forces him to attempt a coherent alternative. Admitting that he cannot do this, many times describing his source of information as a “black hole”, he uses certain Quranic verses in an attempt to justify his revisionist approach to the Islamic narrative. Holland uses the story of the Prophet Lot and the so-called non-mention of the city of Mecca as means to justify his alternative theory.

The Story of Lot

Holland argues that the Qur’an alludes to places, landscapes and geography that are not descriptive of Mecca and the immediate surrounding areas. He claims that this implies that the Qur’an originates from a location other than Mecca or southern Arabia. He mentions the following verse of the Qur’an:

“And indeed, Lot was among the messengers. [So mention] when We saved  him and his family, all, except his wife among those who remained [with the evildoers]. Then We destroyed the others. And indeed, you pass by them in  the morning. And at night. Then will you not use reason?” (10)

Holland claims that the words “you pass by them in the morning and at night” indicate a place outside of Mecca because the ruins are nowhere to be found in Mecca. With this conclusion Holland makes some bold assumptions. He assumes that Meccans did not travel. This is a blunder as the historian Ira M. Lapidus in his book, “A History of Islamic Societies”, clearly states that the Arabs in Mecca were established traders travelling far and wide:

“By the mid-sixth century, as heir to Petra and Palmyra, Mecca became one of the important caravan cities of the Middle East. The Meccans carried spices, leather, drugs, cloth and slaves which had come from Africa or the Far East to Syria, and returned money, weapons, cereals, and wine to   Arabia.” (11)

If Holland had carefully read the Qur’an, he would have understood that the context of these verses was explained elsewhere in the book, as the Qur’an rhetorically asks the Meccans if they had travelled through the land to see the ends of other civilisations and cities:

“Have they not travelled through the land and observed how was the end of those before them? They were more numerous than themselves and greater in strength and in impression on the land, but they were not availed by what they used to earn.” (12)

The non-mention of Mecca

Holland claims that the city of Mecca is not mentioned in the Qur’an and therefore justifies his revisionist perspective. This is a complete fabrication. The Quran in the forty-eighth chapter clearly mentions the city of Mecca.

“And it is He who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them within [the area of] Makkah after He caused you to overcome them. And ever is Allah of what you do, Seeing.” (13)

This in itself shows as to how reckless, ill-informed and  biased was Holland’s approach to the whole subject.

7. Did the Arab Empire create Islam?

Although this contention of Holland’s does not provide a strong argument against Islamic tradition, it is worthwhile pointing out that his view that Islam emerged as a result of the Arab empire does not make sense when the historical events are viewed objectively. The late professor of Islamic studies William Montgomery Watt asserts:

“Islamic ideology alone gave the Arabs that outward – looking attitude which  enabled them to become sufficiently united to defeat the Byzantine and Persian empires. Many of them may have been concerned chiefly with booty for themselves. But men who were merely raiders out for booty could not have held together as the Arabs did. The ideology was no mere epiphenomenon but an essential factor in the historical process.” (14)

Hence, according to Watt, it was the religion of Islam that inspired the Arabs to unite and consequently carve an empire, not the other way around. In a similar vein the author Dr. Lex Hixon writes:

“Neither as Christians or Jews, nor simply as intellectually responsible individuals, have members of Western Civilisation been sensitively educated or even accurately informed about Islam…even some persons of goodwill who have gained acquaintance with Islam continue to interpret the reverence for the prophet Muhammad and the global acceptance of his message as an inexplicable survival of the zeal of an ancient desert tribe. This view ignores fourteen centuries of Islamic civilisation, burgeoning with artists, scholars, statesmen, philanthropists, scientists, chivalrous warriors, philosophers…as well as countless men and women of devotion and wisdom from almost every nation of the planet. The coherent world civilisation called Islam, founded in  the vision of the Qur’an, cannot be regarded as the product of individual and national ambition, supported by historical accident.” (15)

To claim that the empire of the Arabs produced a religion called Islam is to  assert that a child gave birth to his mother. Holland was certainly attempting to challenge all established historical laws.  

8. What if the Qur’an is God’s word?

One of the key reasons of why the Muslim narrative has remained resilient against baseless and uninformed polemics is based on the fact that the Qur’an is from God. The argument is simple yet profound. If it can be shown that the Qur’an is from God, an Infallible and Omnipotent being, then it follows that whatever is in the Qur’an is true. This will include the fact that Islam is a religion sent by God and not the development of an Arab empire, as claimed by Holland.

How can we ascertain that the Qur’an is from the Divine?

The Qur’an, the book of Islam, is no ordinary book. It has been described by many who engage with the book as an imposing text, but the way it imposes itself on the reader is not negative, rather it is positive. This is because it seeks to positively engage with ones mind and emotions, and it achieves this by asking profound questions, such as:

“So where are you people going? This is a message for all people; for those who wish to take the straight path.” (16)

“Are the disbelievers not aware that the heavens and the earth used to be  joined together and that We ripped them apart, that We made every living thing from water? Will they not believe?” (17)

“Have they not thought about their own selves?” (18)

However the Qur’an doesn’t stop there, it actually challenges the whole of mankind with regards to its authorship, it boldly states:

“If you have doubts about the revelation we have sent down to Our servant,  then produce a single chapter like it – enlist whatever supporters you have other than God – if you truly think you can. If you cannot do this – and you never will – then beware of the Fire prepared for the disbelievers, whose  fuel is men and stones.” (19)

This challenge refers to the various wonders in the Qur’an, even within its smallest chapter, that give us good reasons to believe it is from God. Some of these reasons are the existence of supernatural linguistic, historical and factual statements in the Quran and these statements couldn’t possibly have originated from the mind of an unlettered seventh century Arabian inhabitant of Mecca i.e. the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Linguistic

The Qur’an’s use of the Arabic language has never been achieved before by anyone who has mastered the language past or present. As Forster Fitzgerald Arbuthnot, a notable British Orientalist, states:

“…and that though several attempts have been made to produce a work equal to it as far as elegant writing is concerned, none has as yet succeeded.” (20)

The Qur’an is the most eloquent of all speeches that achieves the peak of excellence, it renders peoples attempts to match its miraculous style as null and void. It is no wonder Professor Bruce Lawrence writes:

“As tangible signs Qur’anic verses are expressive of inexhaustible truth, the signify meaning layered within meaning, light upon light, miracle after miracle.” (21)

For more information please read the essays “The Qur’an’s Challenge: A Literary and Linguistic Miracle“ and “The Philosophical Implications on the Uniqueness of the Qur’an“.

Historical

There are many historically factual statements in the Qur’an that show us that it is from God. One of them is that the Qur’an is the only religious text to use different words for the rulers of Egypt at different times. For instance while addressing the Egyptian ruler at the time of Prophet Yusuf (Joseph), the word “Al-Malik” in Arabic is used which refers to a ruler, king or sultan.

“The King said, ‘Bring him to me straight away!’…”(22)

In contrast, the ruler of Egypt at the time of the Prophet Musa (Moses) is referred to as “Pharaoh”, in Arabic “Firaown”. This particular title began to be employed in the 14th century B.C., during the reign of Amenhotep IV. This is confirmed by the Encyclopaedia Britannica which states that the word “Pharaoh” was a title of respect used from the New Kingdom (beginning with the 18th dynasty; B.C. 1539-1292) until the 22nd dynasty (B.C. 945-730), after which this term of address became the title of the king. So the Qur’an is historically accurate as the Prophet Yusuf lived at least 200 years before 18th dynasty, and the word “al-Malik” or “King” was used for the king of Egypt at the time, not the title “Pharaoh”.

In light of this, how could have the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) known such a minute historical detail? Especially when all other religious texts, such as the Bible are mistaking in this regard? Also, since people at the time of revelation did not know this information (as the Hieroglyphs was a dead language at the time), what does this then say about the authorship of the Qur’an?

There are many more reasons for the Muslim belief in the Qur’an. We hope this provides the window of opportunity for the reader to study further and engage with a text that not only changed Arabia, but the entire world. Johnston , an authority on early Islamic history, agrees:

“Seldom, if ever, has a set of ideas had so great an effect on human societies  as Islam has done, above all in the first half of the seventh century. In little more than twenty years, the religious and political configuration of Arabia was changed out of all recognition. Within another twenty all of the rich, highly developed, militarily powerful world enveloping Arabia was conquered, save for Asia Minor and north Africa.” (23)

One of the biggest effects of the Quran on human history was the survival of Jews and some minor Christian sects due to the protection of Islam. This  outcome of the teachings of the Quran in itself was a phenomenon, please see “Islam’s War on Terror” for details here:http://www.iera.org.uk/downloads/Islam_war_on_Terror.pdf.

9. Selective Scholarship

Holland’s choice of scholarship was very selective and was carefully planned to substantiate his argument. He appears to have ignored a bulk, in fact the majority, of scholarship to make his point stand out. He relied heavily upon the opinions of Patricia Crone (featured in the documentary), whose theories on the early Islamic history are discarded by most historians today. She has expressed her erroneous views on Islamic sources in a number of works. She went as far as to assert that some of the Islamic sources are ‘”debris of obliterated past”; and some of the early works, including Ibn Ishaq’s Sira (biography of the Prophet), are “mere piles of desperate traditions”. (24)

Crone has been heavily criticised by fellow historians for her radical views. Even Fred M. Donner, another historian featured in the documentary, rejected Crone’s approach. Referring to people like Crone, Cook and Wansbrough, Donner asserts that:

“…the sceptics have encountered some scepticism about their own approach, because some of their claims seem overstated – or even unfounded. Moreover, their work has to date been almost entirely negative – that is, while they have tried to cast doubt on the received version of ‘what happened’ in early Islamic history by impugning the sources, they have not yet offered a convincing alternative reconstruction of what might have happened.” (25)

Angelika Neuwirth, a German scholar on the Quran, has expressed similar sentiments on Patricia Crone and her likes. She states:

“As a whole, however, the theories of the so called sceptic or revisionist scholars who, arguing historically, make a radical break with the transmitted picture of Islamic origins, shifting them in both time and place from the seventh to the eighth or ninth century and from the Arabian Peninsula to the Fertile Crescent, have by now been discarded…New findings of Quranic text fragments, moreover, can be adduced to affirm rather than call into question the traditional picture of the Quran as an early fixed text composed of the suras we have…The alternative visions about the genesis of the Quran presented by Wansbrough, Crone and Cook, Luling and Luxenberg  are not only mutually exclusive, but rely on textual observations that are too selective to be compatible with the comprehensive quranic textual evidence that can be drawn only from a systematically microstructural reading.” (26)

Carole Hillenbrand has also rejected the extremely negative and selective approach of Patricia Crone and her school. (27)

It is clear from above, mainstream scholarly opinions that the Islamic historical narrative is far richer and trustworthier than most historical traditions. Most historians, who have no underlying political or religious agendas, accept the historical validity of Islamic sources.

In summary, Tom Holland has cherry picked from evidence as well as scholarship to take an unsubstantiated and marginalised view on the origins of Islam.  He saw what he wanted to see and rejected recklessly what he didn’t like. His exclusion of established academic positions and material facts points to the only conclusion of justifying his own prejudices and ignorance of Islamic tradition. 

1. Doctrina Jacobi, Readings in Late Antiquity: A  Sourcebook, Routledge, 2005, p. 354.

2. A. Palmer (with contributions from S. P. Brock and R. G. Hoyland), The Seventh Century In The West-Syrian Chronicles Including Two Seventh-Century Syriac Apocalyptic Texts, 1993, Liverpool University Press: Liverpool (UK), pp. 2-3; Also see R. G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey And Evaluation Of Christian, Jewish And Zoroastrian Writings On Early Islam, 1997, op. cit., pp. 116-117.

3. R. W. Thomson (with contributions from J. Howard-Johnson & T. Greenwood), The Armenian History Attributed To Sebeos Part – I: Translation and Notes, 1999, Translated Texts For Historians – Volume 31, Liverpool University Press, pp. 95-96. Other translations can also be seen in P. Crone & M. Cook, Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World, 1977, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 6-7; R. G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey And Evaluation Of Christian, Jewish And Zoroastrian Writings On Early Islam, 1997, op. cit., p. 129; idem., “Sebeos, The Jews And The Rise Of Islam” in R. L. Nettler (Ed.), Medieval And Modern Perspectives On Muslim-Jewish Relations, 1995, Harwood Academic Publishers GmbH in cooperation with the Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, p. 89.

4. Michael Cook. Muhammad, Past Masters Oxford University Press, Page 74. First published 1983 as an Oxford University Press paperback. Reissued 1996

5. http://www.standard.co.uk/arts/book/islams-real-origins-7640194.html

6. Robert Hoyland, New Documentary Texts and the Early Islamic State, 2006

7. N. Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri, Volume II (Qur’anic Commentary & Tradition), 1967, The University Of Chicago Press, p. 2.

8. H. Motzki, “The Musannaf Of `Abd al-Razzaq Al-San`ani As A Source of Authentic Ahadith of The First Century A.H.”, Journal Of Near Eastern Studies, 1991, Volume 50, p. 21.

9. M. M. Azami. Studies in Early Hadith Literature. 2001. American Trust Publications.

10. Qur’an 37: 133 – 138

11. Ira M. Lapidus, ‘A History of Islamic Societies’, Cambridge, p.14.

12. Qur’an 40: 82

13. Qur’an 48: 24

14. William Montgomery Watt, ‘Economic and Social Aspects of the Origin of Islam’ in Islamic Quarterly 1 (1954), p. 102-3.

15. Lex Hixon. The Heart of the Qur’an: An Introduction to Islamic Spirituality. Quest Books. 2003, page 3.

16. Qur’an 81: 26 – 28

17. Qur’an 21: 30

18. Qur’an 30: 8

19. Qur’an 2: 23

20. F. F. Arbuthnot. The Construction of the Bible and the Koran. London, p 5.

21. Bruce Lawrence. The Qur’an: A Biography. Atlantic Books, p 8.

22. Qur’an 12: 50

23. Johnston, Witnesses to a World Crises (Oxford, 2010), p. 357-8.

24. Patricia Crone, Slaves on Horses (Cambridge, 2003), p. 10.

25. Fred M. Donner, Modern Approaches to Early Islamic History, New Cambridge History of Islam v. 1, 2010, p. 633.

26. Angelika Neuwirth, Structural, Linguistic and Literary Features, the Cambridge Companion to the Quran, 2006, p. 100-1.

27. Carole Hillenbrand. Muhammad and the Rise of Islam. New Cambridge Medieval History.

Professor Krauss is a popular theoretical physicist and has published research on a great variety of topics within that field. His primary contribution is to cosmology, as he was one of the first physicists to suggest that most of the mass and energy of the universe resides in empty space, an idea now widely known as “dark energy”. He wrote “A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing” with an afterword by Richard Dawkins. The book became a New York Times Bestseller within a week of its release, and is being translated into 18 languages.

Professor Krauss is an active atheist defending scepticism and the atheist world-view. A July, 2012 article in Newsweek written by Krauss explained that the Higgs particle could get rid of the idea of a supernatural creator permanently. He also wrote a longer piece in the New York Times explaining the science and significance of the Higgs. He is the director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University and has been Hailed by Scientific American as a rare public intellectual. Professor Krauss has described Islam as a “curse” and its ideas as “nonsense”.[1]

Please follow The Big Debates blog to be regularly updated on this exciting forthcoming debate.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kX_x04QteU

“…the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximise freedom of choice.”[2]

Professor of Philosophy Will Kymlicka confirms the bedrock of Liberal thought, “…liberals base their theories on notions of individual rights and personal freedom.”[3]

The proposition upon which these values are based on – in other words, the premise for Liberalism’s core political values – is atomism or individualism. Political Philosopher Marilyn Friedman adds that,
“…individualism…underlies some important versions of liberal political theory.”[4]

Individualism is the consideration that individual human beings are social atoms abstracted from their social contexts, attachments and obligations.[5] In light of this, is individualism a correct premise to base a political outlook or philosophy? Similar questioning is expressed by Political Philosopher Charles Taylor, he states,

“The very idea of starting an argument whose foundation was the rights of the individual would have been strange and puzzling…why do we begin to find it reasonable to start a political theory with an assertion of individual rights and to give these primacy?…the answer to this question lies in the hold on us of what I have called atomism.”[6]

If it can be shown that individualism is ontologically false – which refers to whether this viewpoint has a basis in reality – this should raise fundamental questions about the validity of Liberalism as a suitable ideology for humanity. The argument here is that individualism is a false premise and the reasons for this are many. This view is supported by Philosopher and Professor Michael Sandel who concludes that the problem with individualism is with its faulty foundations.[7] Individualism views, and seeks to understand, the self – in other words the human being – as an abstract entity divorced from its social reality. This is incorrect because:

1. There are social and communal attachments which determine the individual.[8] For example, during the cognitive development of a child, developmental psychology has moved away from emphasising the child as the “independent constructor”[9] of his or her own development. According to research cognitive development is not so abstract but is more closely tied to social attachments including socially prescribed routines and tasks.[10]

2. Individuality is dependent on aims and values. The human being is a vessel of aims and values. Aims and values must be considered when determining the individual, and aims and values can only be truly understood within a social context. Shlomo Avineri and Avner de- Shalit argue this point, “We cannot analyse their behaviour as if they were abstract entities, as if their values existed somewhere in the distance, ‘outside’, so to speak. This is a critique of the image of the person put forward by the individualists, who tend to distinguish between who one is and the values one has.”[11]

3. There are dynamic links between society’s values and behaviour. Social Constructionist Vivien Burr concludes that key features – or values – of a specific society will affect an individual’s personality, she uses competition as an example, “For example in a capitalist society competition is fundamental; society is structured around individuals and organisation that compete with each other for jobs markets etc…so that where competition is a fundamental feature of social economic life, what you will get is competitive people.”[12]

4. Charles Taylor argues the incoherence of individualism. He contends that human beings have capacities and the affirmation of human capacities, defined as the presence of characteristics and traits of individuals that ensure the possession of rights, has normative consequences in that it cultivates these capacities in a society. Liberalism’s core political value of the primacy of rights, affirms the capacities that were nurtured in a society, therefore the obligation to belong to a society should be as fundamental as the assertion of rights.[13] However by asserting the primacy of rights, one cannot always claim an equally fundamental obligation because at times the assertion of an individual right is achieved at the expense of the society. To assert the rights to the point of destroying a society, deprives the environment for nurturing the required human capacities as well as prevents future individuals in exercising the same capacity, therefore rights cannot be ensured if individual rights are taken as a priority (primacy) at the expense of society.

It can be concluded that the premise of Liberalism – individualism – is a false one. Its attempt to understand the individual or the self is incorrect as it seeks to dissociate the human being from its social reality, in other words, it argues that the individual is shaped, influenced and developed without any reference to social links. This raises an important question: if an entire political outlook is based upon a false premise, will it negatively effect its society?

[1] The Liberal Project and Human Rights. Cambridge University Press. 2008. p. 1.
[2] Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics. Oxford University Press. p. 309.
[3] Will Kymlicka. Contemporary Political Philosophy. Oxford University Press. 2002. p 212.
[4] Marilyn Friedman ‘Feminism and Modern Friendship: Dislocating the Community’ in Shlomo Avineri and Avner de- Shalit. Communitarianism and Individualism. Oxford University Press. 1992. p 101.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Charles Taylor. Communitarianism and Individualism. Oxford University Press. p 31.
[7] See Michael Sandel. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge University Press, 1982. p 64 – 5, 168 – 73
[8] Charles Taylor. Communitarianism and Individualism. Oxford University Press. p 31.
[9] Peter E. Bryant and Andrew M. Colman (Eds). 1995. Developmental Psychology. Longman Group Limited. 1995. p. 20.
[10] See R. Hinde, A-N. Perret-Clermont & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds).1985. Social Relationships and Cognitive Development. Oxford University Press.
[11] Communitarianism and Individualism, p 3.
[12] Vivien Burr. Social Constructionism. Routledge. 2003. p 33.
[13] Charles Taylor. Communitarianism and Individualism. Oxford University Press. p 31 – 38.

“If…men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters, and no one would think of interfering.”[1]

In similar light, if the actual conditions of our rearing was like that of the Nurse Shark[2] we would bite, wrestle and shove our partners while procreating – which would be tantamount to rape. So to answer the initial question, biology or natural selection cannot provide a valid foundation for objective morals because if our conditions were different, our morals would be different. This renders our sense of good and bad as meaningless and subjective, as it is subject to biological conditions and could have been different if our biological “rearing” was different.

If there are objective morals, then natural selection cannot be a valid foundation, as an objective conceptual anchor would best explain our sense of objective right and wrong. Isn’t this best explained by God?

[1] Charles Darwin. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Second Edition. New York. 1882, page 99.

[2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0213_060213_shark_video.html

This debate was of particular importance because Craig is a world renowned philosopher and Christian apologist who advocates the veracity of the Christian tradition. He also regularly speaks and comments on Islam and Islamic theology. We at The Big Debate have been inspired by his work on the existence of God, as he had revived key Islamic arguments, however his misrepresentation of Islamic theology has raised serious concerns. Craig is an established academic but his views on Islam lack depth, accuracy and consistency. For example, Craig advocates the view that the Islamic conception of the Divine is inadequate, or in his words “not the greatest conceivable being”, as salvation is only attained through doing works and performing good deeds.

This is a gross misrepresentation of Islamic theology. A fundamental principle in the Islamic tradition is that neither actions nor beliefs guarantee one’s salvation. All people need is God. To elaborate on this point reflect on the following prophetic traditions:

`A’isha (God be well pleased with her) narrates that the Prophet (God bless him and grant him peace) said, “Perform your deeds properly and in moderation, and know that one’s deeds will not cause anyone of you to enter Heaven, and that the most beloved of actions to Allah are the most consistent ones even if little in amount.” [Narrated by Bukhari]

Abu Hurayra (God be well-pleased with him) narrates that the Prophet (Godbless him and grant him peace) said, “There is no one whose deeds will cause him to enter Heaven. It was said, ‘Not even you, Messenger of Allah?’ He (God bless him and grant him peace) said, ‘Not even me unless my Lord envelops me with His mercy.’” [Narrated by Muslim]

In another narration the Prophet (God bless him and grant him peace) said, “There is no one whose deeds will cause his salvation. It was said, ‘Not even you Messenger of Allah? He (God bless him and grant him peace), ‘Not even me unless my Lord takes hold of me with mercy.’” [Narrated by Muslim]

Therefore it is God’s mercy that will cause our salvation, and God’s mercy is truly immense.

“Say: O My servants who have transgressed against their own souls, despair not of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, God forgives all sins. Truly, He is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [Qur'an, Chapter az-Zumar verse 53]

The Big Debates is concerned that professor Craig advocates inaccurate views on Islam, because any basic reading around the topic will conclude that the professor has either not studied the topic or has deliberately misrepresented the Islamic perspective. Since Craig has publicly announced that he specialised on Islam, we can only wonder what his intentions are.

Our offer is still open, and look forward to positively engaging with one of the great minds of the contemporary Christian world.

From a contemporary philosophical perspective the Dahrīs had an affinity for naturalism, which is the view that the laws of nature operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe. [iii] Commenting on this, Particia Crone, a historian of early Islamic history, writes:

Dahrīs are identified as empiricists who held that knowledge must be based only on sense impressions (al-ḥiss)—above all, on what one had seen for oneself (al-ʿiyān)—in combination with a strictly limited amount of reasoning, and nothing else. On this basis, the Dahrīs found themselves able to affirm that the world was composed of four elementary qualities (ṭabāʾiʿ), or of those four qualities and spirit (rūḥ), which together generated everything that existed in this world, which had always existed, and would always exist, without any creator or providential ruler, except in the sense, according to the adherents of rūḥ, that the world was managed by the spirit that pervaded it. The Dahrīs found it impossible to affirm, or positively rejected, the existence of God, angels, spirits, demons, prophets, reward and punishment after death, or an afterlife of any kind. Many sources make it clear that they were skilled debaters who voiced their views in disputation.[iv]

The 5^th/11^th century philosopher and theologian al-Ghazālī was a key source on the Dahrīs who identified them as ancient philosophers. In his Kimiyāʾ-yi saʿādat he describes the Dahrīs as some form of reductionists who do not have a holistic understanding of the universe and its purpose. He asserts that they are like ants on a piece of paper, who cannot lift their eyes from the ink or the pen they see before the, and fail to see who is writing.[v] Following al-Ghazālī the evidence of atheism lessens, however in the 6^th/12^th century the Dahrīs appear in Ibn al-Jawzī’s Talbīs Iblīs, who responds to their claim.

As can be seen, the Islamic tradition has been exposed to a form of Atheism since its inception, and Islamic scholarship rose to the challenges of the Dahrīs who are similar to post-modern naturalists.

These are the words of Pope Gregory the Great (c. 594) who was a contemporary of the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him). He was clearly wishing for divine justice to emerge in order to correct the evildoers i.e. the Lombard tyrants in this case. The Divine intervention was at hand:

“And We have sent you (O Muhammad [peace be upon him]) not but as a mercy to mankind”[2]

And mercy he was. The Messenger of Allah received the above revelation not long after the disturbing plea of the Pope and this revelation was a signal for the Prophet to initiate a war against terror and tyranny. Islam emerged as a power and in a very short period of time took over large portions of land from the surrounding establishments. Prophet Muhammad died in 632 CE and exactly a century later in 732 CE the Muslims had reached as far as Southern France and Northern China. This was the largest and the fastest expansion the world had ever known and it was made possible only by the justice and mercy the Muslims had to offer, as will be amply demonstrated in the following paragraphs.

It may be puzzling to some who may question how the Muslims were able to conquer such a large portion of land so rapidly without much difficulty? A Muslim believer would give an easy and simple answer to this question by quoting the Qur’an:

“Allah has promised those among you who believe and do righteous good deeds, that he will certainly grant them succession (to the present rulers) in the land, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them authority to practise their religion which he has chosen for them(Islam).”[3]

History testifies that this is precisely what occurred and here one must note that the Arabs, at the time, were the least able people to achieve this, primarily, due to the lack of military equipment and resources. Carole Hillenbrand, a leading Arabist/historian from the University of Edinburgh, confirms this:

“Much ink has been spilt on the phenomenon of the Islamic conquest, but few firm conclusions can be drawn. It seems unlikely that the Arabs possessed military superiority over their opponents. Certainly, they had no secret weapon, no new techniques. Indeed, in some military spheres they were inexperienced; they allegedly learned siege warfare, for example, from the Persians. They were also unfamiliar with how to fight naval engagements.”[4]

Even the contemporary Christian writers could not offer a reasonable explanation and attributed this rapid expansion of the Islamic governance to Divine intervention. John Bar Penkaye (690 CE), a contemporary of the early Islamic conquest, had this to say:

“We should not think of the advent (of the children of Hagar) as something ordinary, but as due to divine working. Before calling them, (God) had prepared them beforehand to hold Christians in honour; thus they also had a special commandment from God concerning our monastic station, that they should hold it in honour. Now when these people came, at God’s command, and took over as it were both kingdoms, not with any war or battle, but in a menial fashion, such as when a brand is rescued out of the fire, not using weapons of war or human means, God put victory into their hands in such a way that the words written them might be fulfilled, namely, One man chased a thousand and two routed ten thousand. How otherwise, could naked men, riding without armour or shield, have been able to win, apart from divine aid, God having called them from the ends of the earth so as to destroy, by them a sinful kingdom and to bring low, through them, the proud spirit of the Persians.”[5]

Byzantines and the Persians were utterly uprooted by these ill-equipped nomads. European scholarship is still perplexed about the causes that led to the early Islamic conquest. To a sceptical historian or a conditioned rationalist, Divine intervention could never be entertained as a logical or even a scientific hypothesis. Such people require a historical justification, which is based upon political and socio-economic factors.

Tolerance or Terror:

In light of this there is a very reasonable explanation: The Muslims, when expanding, treated the non-Muslim inhabitants of vanquished nations with a previously uncharted level of tolerance, which in consequence encouraged the non-Muslim societies to embrace the approaching armies with open arms. Professor Thomas Walker Arnold gives an interesting account of such an occurrence. He states:

“When the Muslim army reached the valley of the Jordan and Abu Ubaydah pitched his camp at Fihl, the Christian inhabitants of the country wrote to the Arabs, saying: “O Muslims, we prefer you to the Byzantines, though they are of our own faith, because you keep better faith with us and are more merciful to us and refrain from doing us injustice and your rule over us is better than theirs, for they have robbed us of our goods and our homes. The people of Emessa closed the gates of their city against the army of Heraclius and told the Muslims that they preferred their government and justice to the injustice and oppression of the Greeks. The fear of religious compulsion on the part of the heretical emperor made the promise of Muslim toleration appear more attractive than the connection with the Roman Empire and a Christian government.”[6]

Perhaps, it was these facts, which persuaded Thomas Arnold to conclude:

“Of forced conversion or anything like persecution in the early days of the Arab conquest, we hear nothing. Indeed, it was probably in a great measure their tolerant attitude towards the Christian religion that facilitated their rapid acquisition of the country.”[7]

So the Muslims were in fact seen as liberators from the Roman/Byzantine tyranny. As far as the Syrian Christians were concerned, the Muslims were carrying out a noble war on terror.

Syria rescued from the Byzantine terror:

Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, a Jacobite (or a Syrian Orthodox Christian) patriarch from 818 to 845 CE, also gave some reasons of this preference of the Muslims over Romans by the people of Syria. He stated in his chronicle, which covers the period from 582 to 842 CE, that Heraclius mustered 300,000 troops from Armenia, Syria and the Roman heartlands to expel the Muslims out of Syria. Muslims decided to withdraw to reform their war strategy. However, whilst withdrawing, the Muslims decided, out of fairness, to refund the money, which they had taken as tribute from the Syrian Christians to protect them from any form of oppression:

“Abu Ubaydah, whom Umar had put in command of the Arabs, ordered Habib b. Maslama to return to the Emesenes the tribute which he had exacted from them with this message: We are both bound by our mutual oaths. Now we are going to do battle with the Romans. If we return, this tribute is ours; but if we are defeated and do not return, we are absolved of our oaths. So they left Emessa for Damascus; and the emir Abu Ubaydah ordered Saeed b. Kulthum to return the tribute to the Damascenes likewise. To them he said: If we return victorious we shall take it back. But if we are defeated and prove powerless to save you from the Romans, here is your tribute, keep it. We for our part shall be absolved of the oaths which we have sworn to you.”[8]

One must note that this was taking place in 7th century Syria where plunder, robbery and injustice were a common occurrence and what is mentioned above is quoted from a mid 9th century Christian source (which testifies that the Muslims did not abuse power and they did not betray the trust Christians bestowed upon them). Thomas Arnold adds, from an Islamic source (Abu Yusuf, Kitabul Khiraj [The Book of Taxes]), that:

“In accordance with this order, enormous sums were paid back out of the state treasury, and the Christians called down blessings on the heads of the Muslims, saying, May God give you rule over us again and make you victorious over the Romans; had it been they, they would not have given us back anything, but would have taken all that remained with us.”[9]

It would be fair to assert here that those Muslims acted in accordance with the teachings of the Qur’an:

“Verily, Allah commands that you should render back the trusts to those, to whom they are due; and that when you judge between men, you judge with justice. Verily, how excellent is the teaching, which He gives you! Truly, Allah is ever all- Hearer, all-Seer.”[10]

Dionysius of Tel-Mahre confirms the accuracy of Abu Yusuf:

“So the Arabs left Damascus and pitched camp by the river Yarmuk. As the Romans marched towards the Arab camp every city and village on their way which had surrendered to the Arabs shouted threats at them. As for crimes the Romans committed on their passage, they are unspeakable, and their unseemliness ought not even to be brought to mind. The Arabs returned, elated with their great victory, to Damascus; and the Damascenes greeted them outside the city and welcomed them joyfully in, and all treaties and assurances were reaffirmed.”[11]

It is very clear from Dionysius’s testimony that the Romans were extremely oppressive towards the non-Chalcedonian Christian population of Syria, which caused this population to prefer the Muslim tolerance over the Byzantine terror. Muslims, in most, cases treated the minor Christian sects of Syria with maximum justice and sympathy, which enabled all parties to live in peace for the first time for a long time. For most of the Jacobite and Nestorian Christians in Syria, Muslim arrival was a God sent retribution against the Byzantine terrorist establishment.

Egypt saved from the Chalcedonian persecution:

The same seems to have taken place in Egypt where, according to Dionysius, the Coptic Patriarch submitted Egypt voluntarily to the Muslims:

“We have found in the tales and stories of Egyptians that Benjamin, the Patriarch of the Orthodox in Egypt at the time, delivered the country to the Arab general Amr b. al-As out of antipathy, that is enmity, towards Cyrus, the Chalcedonian (Byzantine) Patriarch in Egypt.”[12]

This enmity, however, was due to the persecution of the Orthodox Church in Egypt at the hands of the Byzantine Church. John of Nikiou (690 CE), who was a Coptic bishop in Nikiu (Egypt), confirmed the testimony of Dionysius:

“When Muslims saw the weakness of the Romans and the hostility of the people to the emperor Heraclius because of the persecution wherewith he had visited all the land of Egypt in regard to the orthodox faith at the instigation of Cyrus the Chalcedonian Patriarch [in office 631/2-41], they became bolder and stronger in the war…And people began to help the Muslims.”[13]

And in some cases the Egyptians refused to fight the Muslims at all [14]. One must keep in mind that these are contemporary Christian sources testifying that the Muslims were actually being helped by the Egyptian Orthodox Coptic Christians to put the Chalcedonian Byzantine Christian persecution to rest. Alfred J. Butler, a leading authority on the history of Egypt, believed that the Muslim arrival benefited both Christian factions by enabling them to live in peace together under the Islamic protection:

“After all that the Copts had suffered at the hands of the Romans and the Patriarch Cyrus, it would not have been unnatural if they had desired to retaliate upon the Melkites [the Romans]. But any such design, if they cherished it, was sternly discountenanced by Amr, [the Muslim conqueror of Egypt] whose government was wisely tolerant but perfectly impartial between the two forms of religion. Many facts might be cited in proof of this contention. So that the two forms of Christianity must be imagined as subsisting side by side under the equal protection of the conquerors.”[15]

It is evident from the testimonies cited above that the Muslims came as a mercy for the wider Egyptian population. The Coptic Christians in Egypt were also a target for the Byzantine terror and it was this terror which caused the Copts to join the Muslims against their co-religionists. Amr bin al-Aas (may Allah be pleased with him) had established a peaceful abode for all parties and this he did by implementing the Shariah Law in Egypt. Thus the real operation “Enduring Freedom” was accomplished successfully in the land of Pharaohs.

Spain liberated from the Visigothic tyranny:

Muslims landed in Spain in 711 CE and many sources testify that they were welcomed by the population, as their reputation preceded them. This was due to the severe persecution afflicted upon certain communities by the Visigothic Kings. Under these kings’ rule (following their conversion to Catholicism from Arianism), the Jewish community, in particular, was severely oppressed. The Catholic hierarchy in Spain held many ecumenical councils to solve political and religious disputes and in these councils (many held in Toledo), severe edicts were issued against the Jews of Spain. One of the clauses in the text of the proceedings of the 4th Council of Toledo (633 CE) states,

“We decree that the sons and daughters of the Jews should be separated from the company of their parents in order that they should not become further entangled in their deviation, and entrusted either to monasteries or to Christian, God fearing men and women, in order that they should learn from their way of life to venerate the faith and, educated on better things, progress in their morals as well as their faith.”[16]

Zion Zohar, an American Jewish historian, confirms the Jewish appreciation of the Muslim arrival in this way:

“Thus, when Muslims crossed the straits of Gibraltar from North Africa in 711 CE and invaded the Iberian Peninsula, Jews welcomed them as liberators from Christian Persecution”. [17]

And what did this liberty bring for the Jews in the subsequent centuries? Was this liberty similar to the one the U.S government has delivered to the Iraqis, resulting in mass murder and abuse of prisoners, or was it a freedom that was deeply ingrained in Islamic values such as justice and tolerance? Zion Zohar has an answer:

“Born during this era of Islamic rule, the famous Golden Age of Spanish Jewry (circa 900-1200) produced such luminaries as: statesman and diplomat Hasdai ibn Shaprut, vizier and army commander Shmuel ha-Nagid, poet-philosophers Solomon Ibn Gabriol and Judah Halevi, and at the apex of them all, Moses Ben Maimon, also known among the Spaniards as Maimonides [who is Known as the second Moses among the Jews].”[18]

Thus the Jews were treated with fairness and Justice in Islamic Spain unlike the rest of Europe and it was this fair treatment which produced the famous Golden Age for the House of Jacob, which they appreciate to this day.

Heinrich Graetz, a 19th century Jewish historian expressed similar sentiments regarding Muslims in Spain:

“It was in these favourable circumstances that the Spanish Jews came under the rule of Mahometans, as whose allies they esteemed themselves the equals of their co-religionists in Babylonia and Persia. They were kindly treated, obtained religious liberty, of which they had so long been deprived, were permitted to exercise jurisdiction over their co-religionists, and were only obliged, like the conquered Christians, to pay poll tax (Dsimma)[19] Jewish Spain became the place of civilization and of spiritual activity- a garden of fragrant, joyous, and happy poetry, as well as the seat of earnest research and clear thought. Like the Arabian Christians (the Christians who lived amongst the Mahometans) the Jews made themselves acquainted with the language and literature of their conquerors, and often got precedence over them. But whilst Arabian Christians gave up their own individuality, forgot their own language- Gothic Latin- and could not even read the creeds, and were ashamed of Christianity, the Jews of Spain were so little affected through this contact with Arabs, that it only served to increase their love and enthusiasm for their mother tongue, their holy law, and their religion. Through favourable circumstances Jewish Spain was in a position at first to rival Babylonia, then to supersede it, and finally to maintain its superiority for nearly five hundred years.”[20]

In Islamic Spain, even the Christians preferred Islamic government (based upon Shariah Law) over that of the Franks. This assertion appears to be quite reasonable when the views of Reinhart Dozy, an authority on the early Islamic Spain, are taken into consideration:

“The unbounded tolerance of the Arabs must also be taken into account. In religious matters they put pressure on no man…Christians preferred their rule to that of the Franks.”[21]

Ulick R. Burke, a prominent historian specializing in the history of Spain, reached a similar conclusion:

“Christians did not suffer in any way, on account of their religion, at the hands of Moors…not only perfect toleration but nominal equality was the rule of the Arabs in Spain.”[22]

This tolerance had an immense impact on the Christian population of Spain, many of them converted to Islam and those who did not adopted the Islamic culture in regards to literature and lifestyle. This is emphatically substantiated by the 9th century Spanish Christian writer, Paul Alvarus (who was writing in the 850s at Cordova):

“The Christians love to read the poems and romances of the Arabs; they study the Arab theologians and philosophers, not to refute them but to form a correct and elegant Arabic. Where is the layman who now reads the Latin commentaries on the Holy Scriptures, or who studies the Gospels, prophets or apostles? Alas! All talented young Christians read and study with enthusiasm the Arab books; they gather immense libraries at great expense; they despise the Christian literature as unworthy of attention. They have forgotten their own language. For every one who can write a letter in Latin to a friend, there are a thousand who can express themselves in Arabic with elegance, and write better poems in his language then the Arabs themselves.”[23]

Most of the aforementioned opinions indicate that the Muslim arrival in Spain liberated the masses from a deep slumber of ignorance and oppression. Prior to the Islamic emergence, the Catholic Spanish establishment was known for persecuting the Jews and minor Christian sects. The Muslims changed all of that and what followed was the appearance of a true renaissance that enabled Jews, Muslims and Christians to live in peace for centuries. Maria Rosa Menocal, one of the authorities on medieval European literature, decided to title her work (which describes how the Abrahamic faiths co-existed peacefully during the Islamic era) the Ornament of the world[24]; the phrase was used by Hroswitha (a 10th century German nun) to describe Islamic Spain[25]. Thus, Islam came as a mercy for the people of Iberian Peninsula, who welcomed the new rulers as liberators for the tyranny of the Visigoths.

A 7th century War on Terror:

One may question as to why was it that the Muslims were invading these lands and removing the already existing governments from power? It must be recognized that most of the 7th/8th century powers were guilty of oppression against their own subjects. The Qur’an provides one of the reasons, which caused the early Muslims to intervene:

“And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will help.”[26]

The Muslims were thus charged to carry out a war on terror in order to liberate the weak and oppressed and they duly fulfilled the Qur’anic injunction (it has been substantiated above that the populations of some of the countries Muslims took were severely oppressed by their rulers and it was due to this reason that they welcomed the Muslims as liberators). However, in this 7th century war against terror there was no oil or re-construction/destruction contracts involved. An objective approach to the subject will lead to similar findings. Perhaps the views of the Nestorian Patriarch of Khurasan in the 7th century, Ishoyabh III, will help elucidate upon this more. He addressed a letter to Simeon, the Primate of Persia, where he wrote:

“and the Arabs, to whom God at this time has given the empire of the world, behold, they are among you, as ye know well: and yet they attack not the Christian faith, but, on the contrary, they favour our religion, do honour to our priests and the saints of the Lord, and confer benefits on churches and monasteries.”[27]

Usually exploitation and plunder of resources follows an invasion, as can clearly be seen in the case of the colonial period and modern day Iraq (Iraq’s most precious Baghdad museum was plundered following the US invasion (2003) and the 7000 years history of Mesopotamian civilisation was lost). Did Muslims follow the same precedence? Adam Smith, the 18th century founding father of modern capitalism (whose portrait is illustrated on the back of the current £20 note), did not think so:

“The ruin of the empire of the Romans, and, along with it the subversion of all law and order, which happened a few centuries afterwards, produced the entire neglect of that study of the connecting principles of nature, to which leisure and security can alone give occasion. After the fall of those great conquerors and the civilisers of mankind, the empire of the Caliphs seems to have been the first state under which the world enjoyed that degree of tranquillity, which the cultivation of the sciences requires. It was under the protection of those generous and magnificent princes, that the ancient philosophy and astronomy of the Greeks were restored and established in the East; that tranquillity, which their mild, just and religious government diffused over their vast empire, revived the curiosity of mankind, to inquire into the connecting principles of nature.”[28]

Adam Smith (1723-1790) was one of the most outstandingly intelligent economists of his time. His works such as The Theory of Moral Sentiments and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations are thought to be among the cornerstones of Western literature. The latter work (which is the most popular work in the field of economics to this day) seems to be very much concerned with an inquiry into how certain nations acquire prosperity. Some of the ways of acquiring prosperity and scientific advancement, which he expressed in the aforementioned quote, are security, the sense of tranquillity and justice; and Adam Smith believed that the mild, just and religious government of the Muslim Caliphs (who governed with Shariah Law) revived the curiosity of mankind to attain all kind of benefits from nature. The critics and the so called modern reformers of Islam need to pay heed to Adam Smith’s words and see whether he was reasonable in his conclusion in this regard. If Islam enabled mankind to achieve a high level of prosperity in those days, it still contains the potential to repeat the same today. One has to observe, in the light of history and contemporary reports, whether the present war on terror really is a war on terror or the 7th century Islamic war on terror better qualifies to be called a war on terror. If one was to examine objectively, one will find the 7th century war on terror to be a better choice, as today we do not see any positive outcome of the so called 21st century war on terror” but in the 7th century Muslims weakened the Byzantine, Persian and Visigothic terror to replace it by what, in the case of Spain, Adam Smith describes as scientific enlightenment for Europe:

“The victorious arms of the Saracens [Latin synonym for a Muslim] carried into Spain the learning as well as the gallantry, of the East; and along with it, the tables of Almamon, and the Arabian translations of Ptolemy and Aristotle; and thus Europe received a second time, from Babylon, the rudiments of the sciences of the heavens. The writings of Ptolemy were translated from Arabic into Latin; and the Peripatetic philosophy was studied  in Averroes [Ibn Rushd] and Avicenna [Ibn Sina] with as much eagerness and as much submission to its doctrines in the West, as it had been in the East.”[29]

[1] Pope Gregory I quoted by Mohammad Farooq Kemal, The Crescent vs The Cross, Lahore, 1997, P. 7.
[2] The Quran, Surah AL-Anbiya 21, verse 107.
[3] The Quran, Surah an-Noor 24, verse 55.
[4] Carole Hillenbrand, Muhammad and the rise of Islam, The New Cambridge Medieval History, 2005, vol 1, p. 340.
[5] John Bar Penkaye, quoted by Walter E. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquest, Cambirdge, 2000, p. 216.
[6] T. W. Arnold, Preaching of Islam, London, 1913, p. 55.
[7] Ibid, p. 132-4.
[8] Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles, tr by Palmer, Liverpool, 1993, p. 156-7.
[9] T. W. Arnold, Preaching of Islam, London, 1913, p. 61.
[10] The Quran, Surah 4 An-Nisa, Verse 58.
[11] Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles, tr by Palmer, Liverpool, 1993, p. 157.
[12] Ibid, p. 158
[13] John of Nikiou, quoted by Petra M. Sijpesteijn, Egypt in the Byzantine World, Cambridge, 2007, p. 442.
[14] Ibid, see footnote 28.
[15] Alfred J. Butler, The Arab Conquest of Egypt and the Last Thirty Years of the Roman Dominion, 1902, Oxford, p. 447-8.
[16] The Jews in the Legal Sources of the Early Middle Ages, edited by Amnon Linder, New York, 1997, p.488.
[17] Zion Zohar, Sephardic & Mizrahi Jewry, New York, 2005, p. 8-9.
[18]  Ibid, p. 9.
[19] H. Graetz, History of the Jews, London, 1892, Vol 3, p. 112.
[20] Ibid, p. 220.
[21] Reinhart Dozy, A History of Muslims in Spain, 1861 (reprinted 1913, 2002), Delhi, p.235.
[22] Ulick R. Burke, A History of Spain, London, 1900, vol I, p. 129.
[23] Paul Alvarus quoted by Maria Rosa Menocal, Ornament of the world, New York, 2003, p.66.
[24] Maria Rosa Menocal, Ornament of the world, New York, 2003.
[25] Stanley Lane-Poole, The Moors in Spain, London, 1920, p. 144.
[26] The Quran, Surah An-Nisa 4, verse 75.
[27] Ishoyabh III quoted by T. W. Arnold, Preaching of Islam, London, 1913, p. 81-82.
[28] The Essays of Adam Smith, London, 1869, p. 353.
[29] Ibid, p. 354.