Crossroads to Islam: The Origins of the Arab Religion and the Arab State

by Yehuda D. Nevo, Judith Koren

In this controversial exploration of the early history of Islam, archaeologist Yehuda D. Nevo and researcher Judith Koren present a revolutionary theory of the origins and development of the Islamic state and religion. Whereas most works on this subject derive their view of the history of this period from the Muslim literature, Crossroads to Islam also examines important types of evidence hitherto the literature of the local (Christian) population, archaeological excavations, numismatics, and especially rock inscriptions. These analyses lay the foundation for a radical view of the development of Islam.According to Nevo and Koren, the evidence suggests that the Arabs were in fact pagan when they assumed power in the regions formerly ruled by the Byzantine Empire. They contend that the Arabs took control almost without a struggle, because Byzantium had effectively withdrawn from the area long before. After establishing control, the new Arab elite adopted a simple monotheism influenced by Judaeo-Christianity, which they encountered in their newly acquired territories, and gradually developed it into the Arab religion. Not until the mid-8th century was this process completed.This interpretation of the evidence corroborates the view of other scholars, who on different grounds propose that Islam and the canonized version of the Koran were preceded by a long period of development. This new view turns on its head the traditional history of the rise of Islam, which claims that Islam began with Muhammad in Mecca and Medina around 622; then spread throughout Arabia under his charismatic leadership; and finally, after Muhammad's death (632), inspired his followers to conquer widespread territories both in the East and West. By contrast, Nevo and Koren suggest that the rise of the Arab state created a need for a state religion, eventually called Islam.This absorbing and controversial rethinking of Islam's early history is must reading for students and scholars of Islamic history and anyone interested in the origins of the world's second largest religion.

Genres: Islam, Nonfiction, Religion, History

470 pages, Hardcover

First published June 1, 2003

Reviews

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 2 out of 5]

The most interesting book I've ever two-starred; it really is worth a read of some sort, even if problematic

I am torn by this book. While I have read previous academic journal articles and in-depth humanities public magazines about such things as textual variation in the Quran and its theoretical path of evolution (with which I agree), nonetheless, Nevo and Koren take this ball and run onto a whole new playing field. And here, on the issues of secular Byzantine history and eastern church history, the two seem to almost willfully adopt a contentious theory and deliberately reinterpret every bit of archaeological and literary evidence that does not agree with said theory.

So, I give it 2 stars; I hate doing that, but, as the first reviewer, there's not so much risk of driving people away. Here's why, with some suggested alternative reading at the end of this review.

While the Sassanid seizure of Palestine (and Egypt), followed by Byzantine counter-war later, would have left Palestine stripped of Byzantine troops and open to a peaceful non-Muslim monotheist Arab infiltration, some of their speculation here is historically unfounded, and unnecessary. There is no need to presume that the Byzantines had totally withdrawn their forces in the process of establishing Arab foederates circa 500-525, or a century before the Sassanid invasion. And, even to the degree Byzantine troops were withdrawn, this certainly doesn't mean Byzantine interests were withdrawn. To the north and west, over the previous two centuries or more, Eastern, Western and unified Roman Empires had established various Germanic tribal foederates without withdrawing Roman interests in Gaul, Pannonia, etc.

On church history, the authors engage in pure speculation, unsubstantiated by any footnoted research. They claim Byzantine emperors such as Justinian and Justin deliberate fostered heresy in outlying provinces as a way of pushing Palestinians, Egyptians, etc., out of the Byzantine fold and forcing them to survive on their own. Again, the withdrawal of Byzantine troops does not imply withdrawal of Byzantine interests and therefore does not require such a Machiavellian scenario.

Also implausible is their contention that the Byzantine emperors were in reality puppets of the court camarilla. Some may have been puppets of the troops that revolted against a previous emperor to put the on the throne, but that's a different story.

Now, with all those reservations about the book (with a couple still to come), here is the scenario of Nevo and Koren.

The Muslim Arabs never mounted a jihadic Muslim war against the Byzantine empire. First, they moved into a power vacuum. Second, they were not unified until the establishment of the Umayyad caliphate under Muawiya in 661, some 30 years after the death of Muhammad. Third, there was no Islam until Umayyads recognized the need for a state religion and invented one out of extant Arab monotheism. Fourth, there was no Muhammad.

As noted, I believe that item four may be true, from previous reading. You don't need this book to learn that. No. 3 hangs with no. 4, and again can be found elsewhere -- more on this in a second. No 1 may be true, but without the off-the-wall reasoning of Nevo and Koren behind it; arguments from silence at that time, from Christian writers not describing a massive invasion, may be telling. No. 2 -- depends on one's definition of relative degrees of unity, or lack thereof; this is an open book, and one where their rereading of literary evidence from the period and shortly after is most contentious.

Now, back to their points three and four.

They note Muhammad is not named on Arab coins until 690, well after the Umayyads would have started organizing Islam as a state religion in their scenario. However, this could be countered by the idea that the proto-Muslim state didn't create much coinage in general until it got big enough to feel the need for that for various reasons. Second, when he first became known to Christian writers of that era, it is as a king, not a prophet. (However N/K overlook the possibility that Christian polemicists might have refused to discuss him even as a "so-called prophet." Third, "Muhammad" is only mentioned four times in the Quran, compared to 136 for Moses and 24 for Jesus, but this is countered by the argument that an actual Muhammad would consider it riduculous, or even sacrilege, to compare himself to Moses or Jesus. Fourth, "Muhammad" can be a title, roughly and idiomatically, but not literally, equivalent to Messiah or Christ.

What eventually led to "Islam" being formed, then?

Their conjectured sources are Abrahamism, based on Jewish influence; Judeo-Christianity, more commonly known as Ebionism -- Jews who accepted Jesus as a prophet, or even the Messiah, but as a purely human being Messiah without any Pauline deity overtones; and Christian sects/heresies, i.e. Nestorianism and Monophysitism.

However, N/K don't go far enough. They do not discuss the possible influence of Manicheanism, which still had faint elements in the Middle East at this time, certainly in areas outside Byzantine or Sassanid control. They apparently are unawares of the religion of Mandeanism -- a Jewish-based religion similar to the Ebionites of Judeo-Christianity, except with John (the Baptist) revered as the Messiah, not Jesus. (Read between the lines in Acts about disciples of John knowing "only" the baptism of John and you see the curtain briefly pulled back on proto-Mandean/proto-Christian conflict.

I am not enough of an Islamic scholar to comment on the thoroughness or accuracy of all their research there. I do hold a graduate divinity degree, though, and find much of their speculation, especially emperors' alleged use of heresy to political ends, as being unsubstantiated.

One final etymological note. "Muslim" did not originally mean "one who submits," despite Muslim claims for that. Instead, the s-l-m root of the word is the same as in Salem, Jerusalem in Hebrew, and therefore involves the idea of peace -- communal peace, similar to what Paul calls for in his letters - greeting one another with the (kiss of) peace.

This book has some gems, but they require a lot of digging. Here's a better place to dig:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/a...

Read the 1999 article in Atlantic Monthly for an easier to digest, and much more plausible, historical-critical basic overview of the development of Islam.

[Pradeen Krishna · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding thesis. Never have I imagined it this way. The thesis set forth in the book is quite bold. There were no Islamic conquests into Syria; Byzantium had already abandoned its Eastern provinces (perhaps not completely though, but a significant decrease in military units is surely visible in early sources mentioning the events, it is likely due to the plague and earlier war with Persians), and Arab tribes began to move in (sometimes asking for tribute from subjects after looting and plunder villages but in most cases the Arabs are offering them security in return of Gold or slaves). The Arabs at that time (corresponding in the traditional narrative to the Rashidi and early Umayyad periods) were pagans as well as a group of monotheists (sort of a Jewish-Christian creed that centered around Abraham), 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 (maybe lesser to an extent), 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 except Ali, whose name appears in a Maronite Christian chronicle in Syria( but not in any other documents, and we are not sure if the Maronite chronicle were edited later by copyists to add his name or perhaps the other caliphs including Ali were local warlords). Mu'awiya is in effect the first caliph, having won an inner-Arab struggle (strong man from previous feodorati) 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 (Which I'm not fully convinced, but I personally believe that there was a prophet somewhere active in the Syria-Palestine border). 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 (because the regions Arab took over, were dominated by many Jewish-christian heretic groups as well as the Zoroastrian Persians and Manicheans). Hence, the later composition of the sira, the traditional narrative, and the Qur'an.

This is a well-researched thesis that includes examination of coins, epigraphy, and other early sources. This book did not get the recognition it deserved. More research is required to uncover the thesis presented in this book. I'm also skeptical of many of the authors' claims, though I'm not a historian, so I can't comment on that. However, it should be considered alongside the many other hypotheses developed by historians.