Yet another example of EVERY translation of the Qur’an DELIBERATELY mistranslating an ‘ayah:

[Shakir 23:52] And surely this your religion is one religion (أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً??????) and I am your Lord, therefore be careful (of your duty) to Me.

[Pickthal 23:52] And lo! this your religion is one religion (أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً?????) and I am your Lord, so keep your duty unto Me.

[Yusufali 23:52] And verily this Brotherhood of yours is a single Brotherhood (أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً????), and I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore fear Me (and no other).

وَإِنَّ هَٰذِهِ أُمَّتُكُمْ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً وَأَنَا رَبُّكُمْ فَاتَّقُونِ

This passage is referring to God speaking to Jewish prophets: Moses and the historical Jesus, which the Qur’an differentiates as `Isa (a transliteration of “The Doer” of the Torah from Essenic usage) instead of the Arabic-Christian “Yasua`”. It refers to these two as giving dietary law to their followers, Moses kashrut, and Jesus with Essenic Nazirut (no different than the Nazirut in the Tanakh).

This phrase is important because this is the SAME phraseology used in the Constitution of Medinah which says Muhammad’s community and the Jews of Medinah are أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً.

In Rabbeinu Bachya ibn Paqudah’s “Fourth Gate” of his Duties of the Hearts (Al-Hidayat ila al-Fara’id al-Qulub), we find in the Bab al-Tawakkul (Gate of Reliance on God alone) an unexpected term: Istislam. This Arabic term denotes Absolute, Complete Surrender to God alone, and it is related, directly to the word Islam. The Duties was originally written in Arabic, but was translated by Yehudah ibn Tibbon into Hebrew under the more well-known title, Chovot Ha’Levavot. This text is still studied in Orthodox Yeshivot today in Hebrew translation.

Arabic was Rabbeinu Bachya’s native language. He was living, studying, teaching and writing in an Islamic Andalusia. He does not simply use Islamic terminology throughout his work, he uses terms and phrases which are, and certainly were in his context, particular to Sufism. His use of this particular term, which we are focusing on here, Istislam, is of immense significance, for he relates it, synonymously to Judaism or Yahudut. Rabbeinu Bachya asks, for instance, “In what context are we bound to practice humility and submiss[ive surrender] (istislam)?” Any form of the term Islam would have been obvious and unmistakable. But Rabbeinu Bachya does not think the term Islam is specific enough to the Jewish focus on all of the Torah’s mitzvot, so he uses an intensified form of the word to describe the Yehudi  covenant to fulfill all of the Torah’s mitzvot. 

To give an example, the Qur’an respects mitzvot like Shabbat, and indeed, the Arabic term for Friday at sundown to Saturday at sundown, was then, and is still, Yawm al-Sabt. The Qur’an vehemently castigates those who profess to follow Shabbat but hypocritically use it as an opportunity to get an edge on their competition, advancing their businesses in secret (2.65-66; 5.60; 4.47-48). It does not, however, mandate Shabbat for all the world, but only for those who accept this mitzvah as Jews. Jews, of course, do not believe that all of the mitzvot  apply to the whole world. The Torah does not mandate Shabbat for the whole world, nor for Gerim Toshavim. No one would suggest that a person who is not under the Brit or Covenant with God to obey the Torah’s mitzvot is “sinning” by not keeping Shabbat. Shabbat is for those who keep it, and Qur’anic references to those who dispute about keeping it (and in what capacity), refer only to Jews, whom it is mandatory for (16.124).

This radical perspective, that Judaism is essentially an intense form of Islam, mirrors what we find with the Jewish `Isawiyah Movement and the Neo-Platonist Sufi Rabbi, the leader of the Jews of Yemen, Natanyel ibn al-Fayyumi. Ibn al-Fayyumi maintained that Muhammad was a prophet to the nations, but there was nothing in his message that was intended to abrogate the Torah, nor to release Jews from the binding of the eternal covenant of the mitzvot. The `Isawiyah Jews had no problem openly professing the shahadatayn, but had no desire to break their Eternal Covenant with God, regarding the mitzvot, and made no efforts to conform to the norms of the Caliphate, nor their demands.

Linguistically, the participle form of Istislam (إستسلام) is mustislim (مستسلم) in the same way that muslim (مسلم) is the participle of the infinitive Islam (إسلام). That is, Rabbeinu Bachya was clearly saying, in his native language of Arabic, that there is a direct connection between Judaism, Yahadut – which he describes with this verbal Istislam – and Islam. Rabbeinu Bachya is implicitly saying the Jews, authentic, Torah-following Jews, are Mustislimin and those who were called in the Second Temple Era, theosebes (θεοφοβείς, or φοβουμενοι τον θεον) are Muslimin. He does not spell this out as completely as the explanation here, for the same reason that he refers to Muhammad and `Ali by the term chassid rather than naming them when he quotes them. He knew that what he was saying would be met with resistance by some.

In the Second Temple Era, these Muslimin were known as “God-Fearers”, known as theosebes. In Hebrew these were called various names, such as “Fearers of Heaven” (yirei ha’Shamayim). From both historical and archeological sources, we have undeniable evidence that these “God-fearers” prayed, worshiped and learned in the Second Temple Era synagogues. The evidence of this continued even after, up to the third century CE. The decline of this inclusive practice only emerged with the onset of Christian, State persecution of Jewish proselyte-making.

Today the Lubavitcher Chabad movement has popularized the notion of Noachidism which is essentially a return to this ancient practice of Gerim Toshavim living side-by-side with Jews in the Holy Land, agreeing to at least the mitzvot mandated to the whole world, through the sons of Noah. The seven laws are listed in Tosefta `Avodah Zarah 9.4, quoted in Sanhedrin 56a

1. Eschewing idolatry, and embracing absolute monotheism.
2. Keeping away from any form of unjustifiable killing, wherein one kills a person who has not themselves killed an innocent directly and intentionally.
3. Prohibition of theft, or taking what belongs rightfully to another.
4. Refraining from adultery, incest, and bestiality.
5. Prohibition of Blasphemy of the Divine Name.
6. Prohibition against eating the flesh or blood taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4, as interpreted in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 59a), probably referring to the historical and continued practice in some cultures of drinking blood from still living cattle.
7. The Theosebes, or Qur’anically, the Muttaqin or Muslimin, must have a system of laws.

Acceptance of these mitzvot, at a minimum, makes one a “God-Fearer” and along with public declaration of this as one’s identity, renders them eligible for inclusion in a Jewish society, with full social rights.

The Qur’an was instituting this Classical Jewish model of theosebes or Muslimin and Jews or more commonly, Ma’minim (Believers) worshiping together, as part of One Nation as we see in the late recension of the Constitution of Medinah, where Jews and Muslims are described as being part of the same singular Ummah. 

Istislam includes Islam in the same way that Yahadut includes the “Noachidism” which the Qur’an calls, essentially Islam. Thus, Yahadut is all of the mitzvot of the Torah, not just the Noachid mitzvot, but it also contains them. A true Yehudi must follow the Noachid laws as well as other ones. Those who wantonly disregard the Covenant of the Torah were viewed as koferim (Sanh. 39a; 106a) in Yahdut (literally a kofer ha’Torah a concealer, coverer of the Torah), meaning an apostate, former Jew. The Muslim will recognize this term instantly as the etymological source of the Qur’anic term kafirin. 

The Qur’an speaks of Muslimin and Mu’minin. The term Mu’minin (مؤمنين) was commonly used amongst Jews for self-description, as Believers (Ma’minim, מאמינים), until around the 10th century CE. It is no secret amongst Muslims that the Qur’anic level of the Mu’minin or what Shaykh Bawa Muhaiyaddeen calls “Iman Islam” is higher than the state of Islam. The Qur’an thus describes the activity of Muslimin and that of Mu’minin, with Mu’minin always ranked at a higher state. The practice of the verbal Islam is the bare minimum, Iman is what we are to strive for. No Muslim would dispute this.

It is clear that the Qur’anic concept of Iman, deriving from the Hebrew Emunah is exactly what Rabbeinu Bachya meant by Istislam. We are to ultimately surrender to God without a fight in which we finally submit; but Islam is implicit in the surrender. That is to say, a Muslim is not necessarily a Mustislim, just as they are not necessarily a Mu’min. However, Islam is implicit within the activity of a Mustislim, what we, accepting Rabbeinu Bachya’s characterization of Yahadut as Istislam, can call a Jew.

To expand further, a surrenderer would not say that they are not also a submitter, but their submission is different than a general submitter, in that they have surrendered under free will, and obeyed all the requests of their Master, not just what they were told must be the minimum. We see a beatiful description of this by Muhammad’s son-in-law, and closest companion, who lived in his own household, `Ali ibn Abi Talib, where he explains Iman, the practice of the Mu’minin saying:

Some people worship God out of greed, this is the worship of the merchant. Others worship out of fearl this is the worship of slaves. Others worship out of love; this is the worship of the free man.

This view parallels the Jewish Sufism of Rabbeinu Bachya, who prefers not only the term istislam to denote submission out of mahabbah Allah (all-encompassing love of God), the highest stage and supreme rank forthose who live in istislam (B. Paqūda, Duties, ed. and Hebrew translation by Yosef Qafih (Jerusalem, 1973) 409), but also uses the term iltizam (التزام) over the term `ibadah.

The Third Gate of the Duties is devoted to obedience to God. Bachya phrases thisiltizamu ta`ati Allah (إلتزام طاعة لله ); in Tibbon’s Hebrew translation `avodut ha’Shem, (עבדות השם). Rabbeinu Bachya’s avoidance of employing the obvious term `ibadah (عبادة) seems to draw a distinction between the terms. `Ibadah, the `Arabic parallel of the Hebrew `avodah, would not have been the least bit obscure a term, to employ and yet he passes it by for iltizam, meaning “commitment.” It is clear that Rabbeinu Bachya is taking pains to avoid the use of the term `ibadah (“servitude” or “slavery”), as he seems to see itizamu as more compatible with the notion of istislam. Perhaps Rabbeinu Bachya saw `ibadah as lower, or contrary to the utterly voluntary, self-motivated surrender free of compulsion that he describes throughout the Duties. If he did, this should not surprise us, as he is attempting to describe the ideal form of Yahadut, as one of pure devotion, pure love of God, where there is nothing done because it must be done, but because one longs to fulfill every last desire of the Most High.

The parallel `Arabic term is used by Jewish authors, and even other Jewish Sufi authors. We see `ibadah used, perhaps with less concern, in the later Kifayatu-l-`Abidin of Avraham ben Maimonides. Therein, Avraham comments that the Sufis have adopted the traditions of the ancient prophets while simultaneously lamenting that these traditions had been abnegated by Jews in his day. As such, he encouraged the practice of many Islamic traditions which he traced to the ancient Children of Israel, including Salat towards the original direction of prayer in Jerusalem.

It is worthy of note here that the Qur’an actually specifies only three daily times for Salat; a distinction highlighted in Shi`ism which has five sets of prayers, all but the Fajr (Dawn) prayer run in combination for a total of three times and five prayer groupings. In the Qur’an these times are: Evening (24.58; 17.78; 11.114), Dawn (24.58; 11.114), Afternoon (2.238; 17.78), compare with Psalms 55:18; Daniel 6:11. Shi`ah would claim that this was the original way Salat was offered by Muhammad and passed down by his progeny.

Both Avraham ben Rambam and Rabbeinu Bachya saw Jewry as having deviated from the path of the prophets and the Classical Judaism of the Chassidim Rishonim. They each made their own literary, and communal attempts to reintegrate ancient modes of Judaism to their respective communities and followers. From even a cursory study of Medieval Jewish history, we can see that they were in many ways successful. Still, it is clear that today the Jewish world has lost knowledge of the original relationship to Islam and Muslims just as the Muslim world has lost knowledge of Islam’s relationship to Judaism. This is one attempt to open the community’s eyes to the pages of our common history.

It is well known within Shi`i scholarship that numerous ahadith attest that the Mahdi will “rule according to the judgment of David and Solomon.” This article will attempt to answer just what this tradition meant in its historical context. For the sake of focus, this study will assume that the reader is critically minded. In approaching any hadith, we must keep in mind both the late compilation of the traditions in written form, and the layers of retelling of the tradition as it is passed down over the years. This study will treat ahadith as African historiography today treats oral tradition; that is, as an important source, but one which we must not accept uncritically.

We must always remember that Hadith collections are late renderings of oral tales. We should not discard this important source, but we similarly should not treat the late writing of oral tradition in the same way that we treat written sources regarded as sacred writ by the same people, like the Qur’an. As such in an attempt to understand ahadith, we are seeking not simply to verify if the hadith is based upon an actual oral tradition or if it was fabricated (as Traditional Muslim `Ulema’ seek to do), but to decipher what the historically probable core of a tradition is, or if there is one at all.

Josef Horovitz attempted to pinpoint the earliest dating for the legendary Muḥammad of the Sīrah accounts.[1] Believing that the critical minded reader “could distinguish between the legendary and the real Prophet,” Horovitz went so far as to advance that the scholar could even get inside the mind of the historical Muḥammad, and determine how he “really thought and acted.”[2] More recently, Rudolf Sellheim published a literary analysis of Ibn Isḥāq’s Sīrah accounts. Here, Uri Rubin says in The Eye of the Beholder, is a “very clear-cut” differentiation between the creation of a literary character and the historical Muḥammad.[3]

Sellheim refines three major stages in the literary development of the story of Muḥammad’s life, each represented in a different literary “layer” or “schicht.” The “ground layer” is the most authentic, according to Sellheim, containing traditions which lead towards “actual events.” Next there is the “first layer.” in which the legendary image of Muḥammad evidently from reconfigured Jewish, Christian and Persian material. Finally, there is the “second layer” in which political interests of various Islāmic groups “manipulate” and “embedded” within the text.

We see within the narratives that follow, almost too-obvious schichts. That is, as a literary analysis, we can see the composition of the traditions answer pre-existing statements of earlier layers of hadith, which required further explanation as they grew more politically and theologically problematic.

The Sources

Kitab Al-Kafi, one of the Kitab al-Arba of Ithna `Ashari Shi`ism states in Chapter 99 that “When the Imam [al-Mahdi] will Rise he will judge among people as David and his people had done” and furthermore, “will not require any to testify.” We will focus on the core of the various narrations to this effect, that in the time of David and his son Solomon, there were no witnesses required to testify. In the following ahadith we will notice progressive attempts at exegetic interpolation; with each hadith being based on a core statement, followed by later narrators of the tradition adding on what they obviously thought was the meaning of the statement.

Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from Muhammad ibn Sinan From Aban from Abu ‘Abdallah (peace be upon him) who has said the following. “The world will not end before the rise of a man from us who would judge among people the way the family of David had been judging them. He will not ask any witness to testify.”  (H 1035, Ch. 99, h 1)

 

Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from ibn abu’Umayr from Mansur from al-Fadl al-A ‘al-A ‘war from abu ‘ubayda al-Hadhdha’ who has said the following. “We lived during the times of abu Ja’far (peace be upon him).” The narrator has said that the Imam said, “O abu ‘Ubayda, no one of us passes away before appointing a successor that would act and behave just as the preceding Imam and call people to what the Imam before him did. O abu ‘Ubayda what was given to David did not bar Sulayman from receiving (Allah’s blessings).” Then he said, “O Abu ‘Ubayda, when Al-Qa’im (the one who will Rise) will rise he will judge among people the way David and Sulayman had been judging among people. He will not call any witness to testify.”  (H 1035, Ch. 99, h 2)

We see here the simple formulation, core to all of the narrations on this matter: The Mahdi will judge in the manner the family of David judged. We see two aspects to this core. One aspect is the Talmudic notion of not requiring witnesses for conversion in the time of David (as we will see in the next section). The other aspect reveals an affinity for Jewish Halakhah, as the hadith speaks of the future adherence to the way of the family of David.

We see in other Shi`ah ahadith that the Mahdi will pray in Hebrew, and that other aspects of Jewish practice will be implemented (Al-Numayni, Kitab al-Ghaybah, p.326) This hadith then likely represents two layers of narration: one which relayed a Mahdist affinity for Halakhah and the other which sought to explain this by way of an oral memory originating from the Talmudic reference to there being self-conversions exclusively – with “no witnesses” or Beyt Din – during the reign of David and Solomon. That is to say that this is an amalgamation of two related oral memories, likely originating from the historical family of Muhammad.

Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from Muhammad ibn Sinan from Aban from Abu `Abdallah (peace be upon him) who has said the following. “The world will not end before the rise of a man from us who would judge among people the way the family of David had been judging them. He will not ask any witness to testify. He will make every soul’s rights available to it.” (H 1035, Ch. 99, h 2)

We see here that one of the narrators found it necessary to expand upon and try to interpret the tradition, saying “He will make every soul’s rights available to it.” That is, one could insert before this a student of one of the narrators, perhaps al-Kulayni himself, asking “What does it mean that he will not ask any witnesses to testify?” In the next ahadith, we see a different explanation:

Muhammad has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from ibn Mahbub from Hisahm ibn Salim from ‘Ammar al-Sabati who has said the following. “Once I asked abu ‘Abdallah (peace be upon him), “By what means do you judge when you would judge?” He said, “We judge by the laws of Allah and in the manner of David. If an issue would come before us for which there is nothing with us the Holy Spirit provides us inspiration.” (H 1036, Ch. 99, h 3)

 

Muhammad ibn Ahmad has narrated from Muhammad ibn Khalid from al-Nadr ibn Suwayd from Yahya al-Halabi from ‘Imran ibn A’yan from Ju’ayd al-Hamadani who has said the following. “Once I asked Ali ibn al-Husayn (peace be upon him), “By what mean do you issue judgments?” The Imam (peace be upon him) said, “We judge by the laws of Allah and the judgment of the family of David. If a case would frustrate us the Holy Spirit inspires us with its laws.” (H 1037, Ch. 99, h 4)

 

Ahmad ibn Mihran, may Allah grant him blessings, has narrated from Muhammad ibn Ali from ibn Mahbub from Hisham ibn Salim from ‘Ammar al-Sabati who has said the following. “Once I said to abu ‘Abdallah, “What is the degree of the excellence of the Imams?” He said, “It is like that of Zhul Qarnayn and like that of Yusha’ and like that of Asaf, the companion of Sulayman.” He asked, “With what do you issue judgments.” The Imam (peace be upon him) said, ” We issue judgments according to the laws of Allah the judgments of the family of David. The Holy Spirit inspires us with it.” (H 1038, Ch. 99, h 5)

In the different formulation we find above, someone in the chain of narrators has explained the hadith as referring to inspiration by the Holy Spirit, the Ruh al-Quddus in Arabic, or Ruach ha’Qodesh in Hebrew. We see here a clearly Shi`i understanding of theRuh al-Quddus, that is akin to the Jewish concept and far from popular Sunni tafasir that speculate whether the Qur’anic Ruh al-Quddus refers to the Angel Gabriel. The fact that these two explanations are so clearly parallel in the beginning and diverge at the end, couples with the fact that accounts without such an ending exist in this same chapter, argue for the later addition of these various endings.

Pre-Shi`i Talmudic Reference to Judgment with no witnesses and the time of David

We can see that the explanation of what “ruling like David and Solomon” means, in each hadith, that it has something to do with the authority of the Mahdi. This is a logical conclusion if one did not know of any previous Jewish traditions that told of the Messianic Era being a time akin to that of David and Solomon; a time when no witnesses would be required. This, however, did not refer to witnesses testifying in a court case, it refers to witnesses on a Beyt Din for a person to make gerut (“naturalization”, used for “conversion” to the Jewish path; ha’Derekh ha’Yahadut).

The Talmud refers to gerim g’rurim as effectively “self-made proselytes.” Just as Avodah Zarah speaks of two types of Gerei Toshav – one that declares itself before three Dayanim of a Beyt Din (Avodah Zarah 64b) and one that simply proclaims their adherance to the Noachid laws publicly (65a) – the same tractate (23a-24b), says the same regarding two types of gerut. One type of gerut is undertaken before a Beyt Din, composed of three Dayanim of any Jews knowledgeable in matters of gerut. The other is performed by the individual. In reference to Isaiah 60.7, that “all the flocks of Qedar shall be gathered together unto you”, the Talmud explains that this means the whole world will become Jews by the Messianic Era. Specifically, there is a significance laid here to the gerut of the Children of Ishmael, implicit in the reference to Qedar: “all these will become self-made proselytes [Jews] in the time to come” (כולם גרים גרורים הם לעתיד לבא).

The only time that gerim g’rurim will not be accepted is when Mashiach comes and the battles against Gog and Magog are underway. We see here that there is a correlation between the Shi`ah accounts and the rise of the Mahdi, a term which we first see used Messianically by the Jewish `Isawiyah movement.

At this time the righteous of the nations will either be Gerei Toshav or they will Gerim who made Gerut before a Beyt Din or Gerim who did not, as Gerim g’rurim. The same tractate discusses the prohibition at the onset of the Messianic Era, and says that this will be like the time during David and Solomon, when formal conversions did not exist with any witnesses.

We will not accept converts in the Messianic Era, similarly, they did not accept converts, neither during the time of David, nor during the time of Solomon. (`Avodah Zarah 3b)

Clearly, “we” refers to the rabbis not performing giyurim for converts in the Messianic Era. We know this for two reasons, one because the same tractate later tells us that gerim g’rurim will become Jews during this time (as we have seen above), and two because we know that David was himself a descendant of Ruth and that Solomon must have married many converts from many lands, lest he have been in clear violation of Jewish law, even as understood in the era that these stories were composed. Thus, those who became Jews during the time of David and Solomon became Jews on their own, without a Beyt Din, without witnesses, as we read in 23b and 24a.

Rabbi Eliezer replied: All these will become self-made proselytes in the time to come. Rabbi Yosef said: What is the scriptural authority for this? For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of Ha’Shem (Zeph. 3.9).  Abaye asked: perhaps this merely means that they will [simply] turn away from idolatry?  And Rabbi Yosef answered him: The verse continues, and to serve Him with one consent. (`Avodah Zarah 24a)

Therefore, what is likely is that conversion was informal in their day, requiring no witnesses, no judges, and no Beyt Din just as we see in the story of Esther, were “many Persians” simply “became Jews” (mityahadim). Thus the sages wrote that “we will not accept” gerim in that era, because it will not be up to the rabbis to accept such individuals. The other layer of this Talmudic teaching is that the insincere who do not leave idolatry will be allowed to become gerim g’rurim, but they will leave on their own due to the difficulties Ha’Shem imposes upon them.

As many author from Ibn Kammuna to Abraham Geiger and Abraham Katsh have explored in detail, the Qur’an appears well acquainted with Talmudic accounts. When the Qur’an tells of Muhammad’s advent being foretold in the Jewish scriptures, might this be a reference to the mass-self-conversion of “all the flocks of Qedar”? It is worth mentioning that the earliest Jewish and Christian sources we have on the followers of Muhammad do not differentiate them from Jews. To give only one poignant example, the Mesopotamian Christian monk John Bar Penkaye (151/179, ca. late 7th century) wrote that in the era of Muhammad “there was no distinction between pagan and Christian, and the [Muhammadī] Believer was not differentiated from a Jew.”

Once one knows that there is a discrepancy between the Muhammad of religious tradition and the Muhammad of history, they cannot rest until they have excavated that long dead and buried Historical Muhammad. To such an individual, the Muhammad of history is the only Muhammad of faith. Rubin rejects what he considers an “Orientalist” enterprise, one which he admits having participated in,[4] of trying to ascertain the historical Muḥammad,[5] commenting that “orientalists have continued to preoccupy themselves till this very day with problems of historical reconstruction of the life of the Prophet.”[6] But for the true follower of Muhammad this preoccupation is part and parcel to being a Mu’min.

For the historian, reconstructing the life of a historical figure is fundamental, rather than simply accepting late writings, rendering oral accounts within the framework of religious dogma. Indeed, what could be more “Orientalist” than treating the subject of Islamic Origins in the same way that a 19th century Anthropologist treated “natives” of various colonized regions of Africa. The intention of the colonizer was not to truly understand the history of the people they subjugated, but to simply survey their practices, and beliefs. As they did not believe the “natives” were to be held to the same intellectual level as the European, they did not apply Modern methodologies of historiography to oral traditions. It was in fact Africans themselves who first began applying these methods to their own histories, and this was because they saw themselves as human beings, to whom such methodologies were appropriate in determining historical probabilities.

We must not reduce Islamic studies, the studies of Islamic Origins and the Historical Muhammad to an anthropological survey of the beliefs and customs of Muslims. We must instead treat the matter in the same way Western historians have been treating the study of Christian Origins and the Historical Jesus. The Muslim world is capable of handling the same intellectual endeavors that the West is. Scholars need not patronize them and reduce Islamic history to a collection of folk beliefs.

Endnotes:

[1] Uri Rubin. The Eye of the Beholder: The Life of Muhammad As Viewed By The Early Muslims. (Princeton: Darwin Press, 1995), 2, citing Josef Horovitz, “Zur Muḥammadlegende,” Der Islām 5 (1914), 41-53

[2] Horovitz, published in Gottingen in 1932. The English translation by Theophil Menzel is entitled Mohammed, the Man and his Faith (London, 1936), cited by Rubin, 2

[3] Rubin 2

[4] Ibid, 3

[5] Ibid, 1

[6] Ibid, 3