Mick Hartley

In his book For Lust of Knowing: The Orientalists and Their Enemies (in the course of which he takes a few devastating swipes at Edward Said’s influential book), Robert Irwin writes of one of the more sceptical scholars looking at the birth of Islam, John Wansbrough:

Noting that none of the Arabic sources for the life of Muhammad are contemporary ones, Wansbrough argued that the final text of the Qur’an was put together some two hundred years after its supposed revelation. Moreover much of that text was generated by two centuries of confessional polemic against Christians and Jews. Even so, there was a strong rabbinic influence on the Qur’an. As for the details of the life of the Prophet, these were not the product of documentary reporting, but were rather topoi (stock literary or rhetorical themes) that had been used to construct a salvation history, that is to say, ‘the history of God’s plan for mankind’. The deeds of the prophet were modelled on Old Testament prototypes. Rather than being suddenly revealed in Arabia, Islam evolved elsewhere in the Middle East, especially in Iraq. The Qur’an, Qur’an commentaries and the earliest lives of the Prophet are not straightforward historical sources and were never intended to be.

Of course these views are controversial, and are far from being universally accepted among scholars. It’s not always easy to tell, though. As Irwin goes on to say:

Because of the possible offence to Muslim sensibilities, Western scholars who specialise in the early history of Islam have to be extremely careful what they say and some of them have developed subtle forms of double-speak when discussing contentious matters.

No doubt – but there are different forms of double-speak. Take Karen Armstrong for example. Her latest book, perhaps rather too aptly titled Muhammad: Prophet for Our Time, is a pick of the week at the Sunday Times:

The confident simplicity of the author’s writing belies the clear choices she has made: her Muhammad is a pluralistic monotheist with an enlightened and attractively modern view (to western eyes) of sexual equality, the problems of capitalism and the value of peace.

Muhammad had an attractively modern view of sexual equality? And of the problems of capitalism and the value of peace? Does this view, perhaps, conflict with the historical record? It’s not a problem:

She downplays the difficult, sometimes horrific events that contradict this — ie massacres, taking more wives than he allowed his followers, exiling opposing tribes…. Most of us are shamefully ignorant of Muslim history, and Armstrong legitimately portrays a version of Muhammad that could be used as an examplar by a “modern”, tolerant Islam.

That’s OK then. No matter that the book isn’t, strictly speaking, accurate. As long as it makes people feel good, and doesn’t cause any offence….