The Hidden Origins of Islam:
Research + Dead-End?
Early
in 2010, a collective book directed by Karl-Heinz Ohlig
and Gerd-Rudiger Puin was
published in New York under the rather ambitious title: The Hidden Origins
of Islam. New Research into Its Early History (Prometheus Books, 2010, 405
pages / / trad. Die dunklen Anfänge. Neue Forschungen zur Entstehung und frühen Geschichte des Islam, Verlag Hans Schiler, 2005).
There is no need to present Puin.
He is well-known for directing the research around the pictures of fragmentary
pieces of « Koranic texts » he was able to
bring back from Sanaa (Yemen) – these pictures, and Puin’s related investigations, have yet to be made
available in a published work. As for Karl-Heinz Ohlig,
he began to take interest in Islam since 2000. He is a New Testament scholar
strongly influenced by the theology of liberal Protestantism. His positions are
shared by two essential contributors of the book, namely Volker Popp and, to a
lesser extent, Professor Christoph Luxenberg.
In accord with the specific outlook of its
three authors, the book 
develops
a precisely delineated thesis relative to the origins of Islam. They contend
that for close to two centuries, Muslims may not have been
« Muslims, » but rather Christians having retained a more authentic
vision of the faith (similar to the view in which Islam, still today, sees
Jesus). But the question raised here is not one of designations. Certainly,
until the 8th century A.D., the terms « islam »
and « muslimun » simply meant
« submission » and « submitted. » Back then, « Muslims » called
themselves « muhajirun, » literally « those
who made the Hegira » (to Medina in 622 with Mohammed,
but historically not from Mecca – hajr, root hjr, to migrate). Interestingly enough, Volker
Popp seems to be ignoring precisely that point of self-naming (see p. 40). The
question rather focuses on the alleged existence of a primitive Christian
movement the authors referred to as « pre-Nicaea Arabic
Christianity, » that is, predating the Council of Nicaea
in 325 A.D. According to the three authors, who rally themselves to the manner
of thoughts developed during the Aufklärung
under Voltaire and others, today’s Christian faith would simply be the
fabrication of that 4th century Council, while a pre-Nicaea
Arabic movement would have propagated throughout the centuries the vision Islam
will precisely have regarding Jesus – their premise being that Islam could only
have been born in an exclusively Arabic setting. One might immediately retort
to the face of such a shaky hank of postulates that, way back then, there
should be no reason to find the name of Jesus in Arabic altered or misspelled
in the Koran (yet, one always finds ‘Îssa
instead of Yassû‘). Let us then proceed by
considering their arguments.
The Argument Contended by Christoph
Luxenberg
Of this supposed Arabic heterodox Christianity, one finds
no concrete indications whatsoever – except for the ones the authors want to
see in a note inscribed upon the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. It is here that
Christoph Luxenberg kicks
in. Known for his book Die syro-aramäische Lesart des Koran (published in 2004), this Syriac scholar (he took a pen name) wanted to show that the
texts in which consists what is known today as the Koran are in fact the
translation of original writings in Aramaic (or Syriac).
Admittedly, some obscure verses can be made better sense of once stripped from
their diacritics (which the most ancient Koranic
texts are bereft of), the bare letters that can be read in a variety of ways,
thus allowing a reading in meaningful accord with Aramaic. Half of the examples
put forward by Luxenberg are genuinely persuasive;
the other half are not. In effect, what he actually demonstrates is not the
existence of a predating Koranic text in Aramaic, but
simply the fact that the author of the folios of the future Koran (or the
authors among whom a preacher emerges) was infused with Aramaic culture. He
sure expresses himself in Arabic to win Arabs, but he thinks in Aramaic.
This analysis actually leads us astray from the
postulate of an exclusively Arabic birth setting for Islam (or first
Islam). Yet, Luxenberg’s subsequent
investigations take on another direction on account of a graffito, found on the
Dome of the Rock (inward side), which makes mention of the word « muhammad. » However, this should not be read,
according to Luxenberg, as a proper name (Mohammed
in English). Rather, it should be understood as a verbal form signifying
« praised » and addressed to… Jesus. This Jesus would only be
recognized to be a « prophet » and « messenger, » as the
inscription indicates (see below), obviously agreeing with the Koranic text itself. However, this thesis implies the
neglect of a small detail: the Koran refers to Jesus eleven times as Messiah,
a title whose meaning significantly differs from the function and definition of
a messenger or a prophet. Why then omit to mention it? Is it
because it actually turns out to be impossible to explain such a title in the
reconstructed framework of a « primitive Arabic Christianity »?
Here is how Luxenberg
translates the inscription “Muhammad[un] ‘abdu Llahi wa-rasuluhu”: “Praised be the Servant of God [=
Jesus] and [= he also is] His messenger” (p. 127). However, this rendition is
hardly patent – the expression “wa-rasuluhu”
sort of gets in the way. The usual rendering simply goes as: “Mohammed is the
servant of God and His messenger.” The fact that « Servant of God »
happens to be a biblical expression applicable to Jesus (owing to its
signification in Isaiah 52-53) is not an argument in favor of the first
interpretation. This title was in no way a novelty for Christian Arabs. It has
inspired the Christian name ‘Abdallah, which
was very common among them before Islam.
Admittedly, to read « muhammad »
as a participle may quite well agree with what may have been its customary use
in Arabic before it became a proper name. But from there, to push back the
creation of this name to more than a century, is to take too far of a step! All
the more if one considers the fact that contemporary non-Muslim sources already
make mention of it, which begs the question: where do they hold that « Mahmet » was a leader of Arabic war from? The
noteworthy absence of that name in Islamic milieus until the years 680 actually
turns out to make perfect sense without resort to the hypothesis of a creation:
obvious reasons led the first Caliphs to « forget » the period of their
dependence to Judeo-Nazarenes and with it, the memory of their war leader who
died in 632.
Besides, how could the hypothesis of a pre-Nicaea Arabic Christianity not be in evident
contradiction with the many indications pointing to connections with the Aramaic
Christian world, elements of which Professor Luxenberg
gives himself credentials? And there is another major difficulty, relative to
the Dome of the Rock itself, which Alfred-Louis de Prémare
(† 2006) actually addresses and lays open in his own contribution to the book.
On page 191, without appearing to do so and with his usual kindness and
erudition, he calls attention to another inscription of the Dome along the
outward side by the northern door:
“We believe
in God and in what has come down upon muhammad,
and in that which the prophets have received from their Lord; we make no
distinction, and to Him, we are indebted.”
In this text (which appears today as a
compound of verses 136 and 185 in sura 2, Al-Baqarah), the term « muhammad »
can only be made sense of as a proper name. Henceforth, we can reasonably
wonder about the actual credibility of a different meaning attributed to the
same term (« muhammad ») as
found in the other inscription on the inward face of the same Dome! Are there
any credible reasons to think that the inscriptions found along the outward
face of the same Dome may have been altered (except for the name of ‘Abd al-Malik, which really was
replaced with that of a successor, Al-Mamun)?
The Other Arguments
In the face of these major objections, how much is
actually left to support the thesis of a « primitive Arabic
Christianity »? One might wish to appeal to the theological discussions
debated prior to the 7th century, and which dealt with the definitions
of canonical formulations and ways of expressing (in various languages) the
Mystery of Jesus the Christ and Savior amidst the rising, on the one hand, of
« Monophysite » tendencies (minimizing the
reality of Christ’s human nature); and, on the other, of « Diophysite » or « Nestorian » tendencies
(insisting on the two « natures / Hypostases » without knowing
how they coexist in Christ). However, never did these debates put in question
the general recognition of the historical figure of Jesus as Savior evincing
God’s visit and revelation to His people. To see therein antagonistic
conceptions of the Christian faith is as fruitless as conceiving of the many
juridical schools in Islam as though they resulted in various Islamic
« faiths » or antagonistic interpretations of the Koran.
Are the few other arguments more convincing? Appeal is
made to the fact that Arab invaders were decently welcomed in Egypt, where the
Byzantines had, for a variety of reasons, brought enmity upon themselves. The
deficiency of the argument appears all the more upon considering other key
historical facts, starting way back to year 640 A.D. (during which the first
fortified Arabo-Muslim military posts settled in the
region), as does Magdi Zaki
in his Histoire des Coptes
(Paris, 2005). He remarks that: “According to John, bishop of Nikiou and witness of the Arab invasion, ‘Amr perpetuated the slaughter of a large number of people
in Behnasa, Fayum,
Alexandria… including civilians who did not take part in any combat.” The
savage killings of many people by Muslim troops and subsequent anti-Arab
uprisings that colored in blood the first centuries of Islamic occupation do
not quite support the book’s thesis.
In a similar fashion, Popp tries to avoid the
objection of the recurrent campaigns against Byzantium commissioned by the
first Caliphs: why would supposed Christians go and attack other
Christians? To justify the determination (for him inexplicable) to destroy
Byzantium, he appeals several times to the desire for revenge “borrowed from
the Persians” by the new Arab masters of the Near-East.
In the same way, the Arab-driven
characteristic of Islam comes as a problem in so far as it asserted itself very
early on (at least, since the end of ‘Umar’s reign).
Our German authors do not seem to understand why did the project of an Arab
supremacy appear so early and therefore take as a late factor the coming into
play of this ethnic dimension. But, have they recognized the Messianic idea of
a « people chosen to rule the world in the name of God, » which is
fundamental in the Koran? It is true that at the time of the Koranic predications, the Arabs were not yet designated as
the ones chosen by God in view of the fulfillment of such an end. They were
then only assigned to assist the true « sons of Israel » as their
cousins, the « sons of Ishmael. »
Inescapable Dead-Ends
Finally, again according to Volker Popp, the
numismatic would support his thesis. Some African 8th century currencies
indicate the following: Non est Deus nisi unus cui non socius alius similis. For him, such
an inscription would be the sign of « the presence of Monophysites,
Monarchians [a variation of the former], Nestorians
[who share in the Trinitarian faith of both formers] and Arians [who deny the
Trinity and stand in opposition to all others] among the inhabitants of
[northern roman] Africa » (p.80). No less! And why not a couple
extraterrestrial aliens too? Certainly, the word « trinity » is not
found in the New Testament. It comes about as a conceptualized and, by definition,
later expression. But, even so, expressions of Trinitarian faith are plentiful
therein. And this same New Testament, common to all Christians, has never been
the object of dissensions between diverse ecclesial communities. Arians, on the
other hand, do not accept faith in the Trinity.
As for the text above quoted from the mentioned
coinage (there is no God but one and He has no associate), it clearly
stands as the primitive version of the Islamic Shahadah,
that is, before it incorporated the affirmation of Mohammed as God’s
prophet in place of « He has no associate. » The former was
rid of to avoid giving the « Islamic creed » a trinitarian
(= 3 terms) flavor. Various archeological evidence of these primitive and
binary creeds have been found – one of which actually ternary, with the mention
of Mohammed as God’s prophet occurring as the third term (« There is no God but one and He has
no associate and Muhammad is His messenger » – see Le messie et son prophète, 2005,
t. I, p. 489-500).
Moreover, to ignore (or at least to avoid mentioning)
what the Fathers of the Church actually have to say about the « Nazarenes
/Ebionites » is another serious lack of insight
on the part of scholars who should truly know better. If one knows these texts,
the idea of a « primitive Arabic Christianity » becomes pointless. And so
it is, if one analyses what is said of these « Nazarenes » in the Koranic text, where some manipulations in their respect
cannot be concealed (an article was published on this subject in a German
journal [1]).
With reason (see p. 191), Alfred-Louis de Prémare
recalls that (according to the original meaning in the Koran), the designation
of Christians is that of « associates » (mushrikun).
It is also necessary to mention the contribution of
Sergio Noseda relative to the Sassanid
influence on the Arabic writing system. At one point, he makes mention of the
first four verses of sura 30 ar-Rûm
(p. 288), but does so from a non-exegetical perspective. More than fifty years
ago in his translation of the Koran, Régis Blachère had already shed light upon the defective and
intentional vowelization (diacritics) of these verses
in order to divert the attention from Mohammed’s real history centered on
Jerusalem, and redirect it towards Mecca and its forged origins of Islam [2]. As for
Sergio Noseda, he is focalized on South Arabia where
the Islamic fiction locates Islam’s origins, which is quite problematical. Why
would Muslims have abandoned their (supposed to have been) South-Arabic script
and switched it with the one we know to be North-Arabic from ancient copies of
the Koran? He postulates the action of
“a
self-proclaimed committee of sages met with the intention of creating a truly
Arabic script, and with much goodwill, to provide their own people and language
with a different script to that of nearby peoples.”
(p. 301)
Except
that this Arabic script was not invented: it already existed! Examples
(engravings and graffiti) have been found in northern Arabia (Syria, Negev,
etc.). And these archeological documents clearly predate the Islamic era. Why
then should we keep pretending, against a plethora of overwhelming evidence at
hand, that the Arabs behind the rising of proto-Islam (or at least associated
with it) came from southern Arabia? Why so, when everything clearly indicates
that their genuine life setting belongs in northern Arabia, which intersects
the Syrian region and squeezes itself in to the Aramaic world?
In
the end, with the exception of a couple of remarkable contributions (in
particular, that of A.-L. de Prémare – see here a review
coming up soon), this collective work
gives the impression of developing what may sound like scientific hypotheses,
while, in fact, it fails to rationally account for them. This state of affairs
is all the more bothersome that the calling in question of Islamic rhetorical
talks regarding the origins of Islam and of the Koran needs to be stressed on
even more, and so along the lines of the remarkable scholarly effort pushed
forwards by several authors. The promises are not kept. The worst of all would
be to bring discredit thereby upon the scholarly value of serious islamologic research. Let us simply hope that this work
will not contribute in creating such a counterproductive effect in American
academic circles.
As a whole, one may draw the following two conclusions:
• Even if the « Arabic » hallmark of the internationalist claims put forward in the name of what is not yet known as « Islam » at the time appear very early (as early as the end of ‘Umar’s reign), this « proto-Islam » turns out to have no Arabic origins.
• Never could this so-called « proto-Islam » have set itself in South Arabia before circumstances actually compelled it to find refuge in Yathrib-Medina in 622.
Ed-M Gallez
Translated by Sébastien
Renault