YEHUDA D. NEVO AND JUDITH KOREN, Crossroads to Islam: The Origins of the Arab Religion and the Arab State (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2003). Pp. 470. $32.00 cloth
Mohammed A. Bamyeh
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020743806212364
2006-05-01
Abstract:The appearance of this book owes a great deal to the commitment of Judith Koren, an information specialist, who brought to its final form the thesis laid down by archaeologist Yehuda D. Nevo, whose death of cancer in 1992 left the project unfinished. The book joins the revisionist historiography of early Islam, attempting to accomplish a feat that seemed beyond the reach of the revisionist approach thus far. Not content with rejecting the traditional narrative, the authors reconstruct the rise of Islam with virtually no use of traditional Islamic sources. Typical of the revisionist approach, the authors discard all Islamic sources as unreliable, including classical histories, sı̄ra, and the Qur↩an, all of which are regarded to be later inventions. Nevo’s work, which forms the basis of this book, highlights material remains, and the authors flatly assert the superiority of archaeological and numismatic evidence above all kinds of textual evidence. (Yet, they freely make use of textual evidence whenever it supports their thesis—notably from Byzantine and church sources.) The thesis set forth in the book is quite bold. There were no Islamic conquests into Syria; Byzantium had already abandoned its Eastern provinces, and Arab tribes began to move in. The Arabs at that time (corresponding in the traditional narrative to the Rashidi and early Umayyad periods) were largely pagans, not Muslims. Islamic descriptions of pagan life derive from cult practices in the Negev, not Hijaz. The elites of the new Arab populations in Syria, still clients of Byzantium, adopted an indeterminate form of monotheism that had its basis in Judeo-Christian trends in Syria, not Arabia. Muhammad is not a historical figure, nor are any of the early caliphs. Mu↪awiya is in effect the first caliph, having won an inner-Arab struggle to form a unified national leadership. Still, Mu↪awiya’s religion was indeterminate monotheism, and the first verifiable physical references to Muhammad do not occur until the reign of ↪Abd al-Malik, around 692. Even then, the authors argue that those references are not to a historical person. Rather, “Muhammad” was used as an adjective, referring to an idea of a desired, chosen prophet. At a later stage, when the Arabs realized their lack of pedigree among the more established civilizations they came to rule and the need of their new state for an official religion, they felt the need for a unifying, glorious national myth. Hence, the later composition of the sı̄ra, the traditional narrative, and the Qur↩an. Typical of the revisionist historians, Nevo and Koren see their approach as scientific, hardnosed, and source critical, accepting only what can be proved beyond any doubt. Also typical of the same school, they freely interpret any source in order to arrive at a foregone conclusion. The authors here go a step further in this supposed positivism, yet their focus on material remains fails to support their thesis, and in some cases their evidence seems to validate the traditional narrative. For example, Mu↪awiya’s dam inscription near Ta↩if, dated to 677, is classified as an example of indeterminate monotheism rather than Islam, even though, while the
History