Amir Maziar's Article 'Kadivar and the Claim of Historical Criticism'

Kadivar and the Claim of Historical Criticism

On the Historiography of Early Islam

Amir Maziar

1_ In his critique of Soroush's claims about the Prophet and early Islam, Kadivar has rightly stated that all Islamic texts and scriptures "must be examined in the critical manner customary in the historical sciences" (The Challenge of Islam and Power, text of the first session, 8). This statement raises the expectation that perhaps the gap between the traditional approaches of Muslim scholars and modern sciences might narrow somewhat, or a path might be opened for a more serious critical evaluation of traditional knowledge. Unfortunately, however, when Kadivar undertakes this historical criticism, we see no trace of the "customary manner of the historical sciences" in it; merely the same traditional methods of assessing the authenticity of narrations are employed, and the talk of "thorough historical research and critical study" (ibid., 8) is neither properly formulated nor has it moved beyond mere claim. It is as if the methods of historiography and authentication outside of old jurisprudential and hadith texts have no definition, and as if dozens of books and articles with new historical approaches critiquing the sources, texts, and methods of the traditional sciences have not been published. Kadivar, who greatly emphasizes methodology, not only fails to apply the methods of modern historical science but also remains intensely entangled in sectarian literature (Shia/Sunni) and the polemical atmosphere of inter-religious debates of the ancient world. (In a sarcastic and dismissive remark, Kadivar refers to Islamic studies texts as the works of "Jewish and Christian Orientalists" that are based on "Sunni" sources. The Punishment of Apostasy, 141).

2_ To assess the authenticity of narrations related to apostasy, Kadivar, following the traditional model, primarily examines the chains of transmission (isnads) and the trustworthiness of the narrators. In modern historiography, however, this method of authentication is insufficient for various reasons. Among them is the existence of possible assumptions regarding the fabrication of the chain of transmission itself and the chain of hadith narrators, or subsequent alterations to the text. Even those who grant relative credibility to chains of transmission disagree on precisely how far back these chains can be plausibly traced. According to "more rigorous" criteria, no text can be confidently and plausibly attributed to the earliest decades. According to more lenient criteria, it is possible that some of this material genuinely dates back to early Islam. Based on these same criteria, the latter group considers various other texts, which are not deemed authentic in the traditional view, to possess preliminary authenticity (see the introduction by Motzki, himself a moderate, to the book The Benefits of Islamic Hadith: Origins and Development). Overall, in the new historical approach, historians' view of surviving sources and the manner of their use and authentication is completely different. Traditionally weak hadiths can be historically authentic, and traditionally reliable hadiths can be considered entirely fabricated. The authentication of hadith narrators in the old science also has completely sectarian criteria, and generally, the doctrinal and political developments of later times have influenced the assessment of early narrators; for this and other reasons, it is not an effective tool in modern historiography. Right from the start, and merely by examining the chain of transmission of narrations and the credibility of narrators—and in search of "proving" their correctness—Kadivar deems the reports in old texts unreliable and sets them aside. Historians do not reject and confirm texts and reports in this manner. Kadivar's judgment on this matter lacks historical validity and scholarly value and has no historical method.

3. Suppose we apply the very traditional criteria Kadivar has in mind for investigating the actual life of the Prophet to the reports and narrations; what will be obtained? We know that the sira texts lack sufficient credibility from this perspective. In hadith collections, too, sectarian perspectives are at work, and generally the two main branches of Islam do not consider the reliable transmitters of the other sect, and hence their reports and narrations, as authoritative. Even if we set aside this problem, in the end only a few reliable hadiths concerning the life of the Prophet remain, which cannot even outline the general contours of the Prophet's life and the events of early Islam (particularly in Shiite sources, this access to reports of the Prophet's life is much more limited). Based on this method, Kadivar concludes that the implementation of the punishment for apostasy during the Prophet's time is "not provable." Apart from the fact that this meaning of "proof" is alien to the "method of historical sciences," one must ask him: according to this criterion, what other things in the history of early Islam are "provable"? Why should this criterion be applied only in cases we dislike and not to the rest of the events of early Islamic history? Of course, even in this very type of examination, the authoritarian face of Islam and the Prophet is not absent from the hadiths. The majority of Shiite and Sunni jurists accept the principle of the ruling on the apostate and the Prophetic hadith that documents it, and this hadith is "reliable" according to those very standards. Even Kadivar's teacher, the late Mr. Montazeri, while changing his views on the categories of apostasy and insulting the Prophet, never retreated from the principle of the ruling that the blood of an apostate and one who insults the Prophet is forfeited; he only limited and restricted the definition of the apostate individual and the subject of apostasy, and that was essentially based on rational and theological reasons—meaning he considered the existence of such a ruling in the Prophetic law to be definitive. (See Kadivar's report in the introduction to the book The Punishment of Apostasy. Also, the contents of this very book show that Kadivar's statement that the Prophet's hadith about apostasy was never "considered mutawatir" is false.)

Suppose we set aside all such reports and narrations, which appear abundantly in the sira texts and elsewhere, as fabricated and distorted accounts. Now, where is the true, real, and reliable life and history of the Prophet? Has this historical and real Muhammad ever been introduced and depicted anywhere in a scientific and reliable manner? Or must all Muslims wait for this new Muhammad to emerge from the historical works of future enlightened scholars? And will the result of this research be what these writers and researchers are inclined toward in advance? And is this historical and real "nominal" Muhammad knowable at all? Or is only a negative critique of the sources and reports related to his life possible, and is there no alternative but skepticism regarding the events of early Islam?

On the other hand, those who have paid attention to the life of the Prophet in Islamic studies using new historiographical methods fall into two main paths: either they have accepted that the historical Muhammad and the history of early Islam are not knowable or reconstructable and that the majority of the surviving material is fabricated, or they have accepted, to varying degrees, a more moderate view and grant a degree of initial credibility to a wider variety of texts, and through methods common in historical sciences, they arrive at a "relative" understanding of the events of early Islam, drawing on various texts, diverse sciences, and non-Islamic documents for this understanding. What Soroush has said about the Prophet does not contradict the results of this type of historical research, although many other points have also been raised in that research. Even if we adopt a completely skeptical approach to early Islam, it will still mean that what we can know about the Prophet and what the Islamic community has known about this over the centuries is the same "phenomenal" Muhammad reflected in the "fabricated" texts of tradition and sira, and we must suspend any judgment, negative or positive, about the Prophet beyond this. Apparently, this phenomenal Muhammad is also the authoritarian Muhammad. (See paragraph 4)

4. It is astonishing that Kadivar writes: "I agree with the respected religious intellectual on three propositions, as follows: a. The existing religious texts (from Quranic exegesis, hadith books, the sira of the Prophet, jurisprudence, theology, and mysticism) have a domineering and power-seeking orientation. b. These texts have also presented a picture of the Prophet as authoritarian, domineering, and that very armed mystic. c. The practice of Muslims, especially when they have been in power, shows this same tendency." (The Challenge of Islam and Power, 6) But what he denies is that Muhammad and his book are "in reality" so.

This claim has also been repeated in some critiques by other writers. But look carefully at each and every word and the domains referred to in this quotation. What does this claim mean? Its clear meaning is that the image Soroush paints of the Prophet is an image that has existed in the generality of Islamic texts up to our own day, and the generality of Muslims have believed in that very image. That is, the Prophet we know through this “history” and “tradition,” the Prophet who, according to this “history and tradition,” is recognizable at least in a primary sense, and the Prophet whom the generality of historians, theologians, exegetes, jurists, and even mystics of the Islamic world have known and believed in up to our own day, is that very authoritarian Muhammad whose actions are not very compatible with what we today understand under the rubric of human rights (Kadivar himself, in his book Islam and Human Rights, has confirmed that in “authentic” Islamic sources, including the Qur’an, there exist matters contrary to human rights on a wide scale). The statement that Soroush, by presenting this image of the Prophet—which has also been clearly repeated in the works of prominent contemporary Shi‘i scholars and jurists—has “severed his connection with the heavens,” apparently means that all Muslims, ancient and modern, and their scholars, apart from this group of contemporary new-thinkers, have had an understanding of the Prophet that has been incompatible with being a Muslim. Truly, if this image has been put forward so widely, why have the critics become so agitated by Soroush’s words, and how are they certain that the real image of the Prophet is other than this? And how are they certain that that image is attainable? From which credible research does this certainty arise? I suspect that if this group of Muslim new-thinkers does not consider such a Prophet to be the “proof” of Islam, they need a serious rethinking of Islam or their other intellectual foundations, and not a willful, unsupported alteration of history. Yes, reconciling Islam and modern reason is “difficult.” This very difficulty is the reason for the necessity and importance of religious intellectualism. And this “reconciliation” is not achieved by creating wishful and selective images of past texts, or by substituting hagiography for history, or by the one-sided and arbitrary application of rigorous and skeptical criteria to the texts.

5. A word also about the Qur’an. If the later sources of hadith, sira, and so forth are distorted to this extent, why not take the Qur’an as the criterion and consider the Muhammad of the Qur’an to be the real Muhammad? There are also serious points about this.

First, there is considerable doubt as to whether one can fundamentally understand the meaning of the Qur’an’s verses—especially matters related to the events of the Prophet’s life—without the Sunna and the Sira, that is, whether one can pursue the exegesis of the Qur’an independently of the sira texts. We know that the Qur’an’s references in this regard are very concise and allusive, and without placing them alongside ancillary texts, they do not convey clear historical information. (On this, see, among others, Rippin’s article on Sira and the Qur’an in Motzki, The Biography of the Prophet Muhammad, Astan Quds Razavi). Second, the claim that the Qur’anic image of Muhammad would be a non-authoritarian image is truly debatable. Kadivar has accepted that such an image of the Prophet did not exist in Qur’anic commentaries, and for reassurance, one can refer to Al-Mizan to see what image of Islam and Muhammad our exegetes have previously presented on these very subjects (see, among others, the material that Torkashvand has recently published on this matter). The critics, in negating the authoritarianism of the Prophet and the Qur’an, point to the verses of mercy, but is authoritarianism in conflict with these verses? The issue, at its most superficial and obvious layer, is the existence of the verses of wrath, punishment, chastisement, jihad, and combat. How are they to be understood?

Third; the more important point is that if we can speak with such clarity, force, and breadth about the “successful” role of caliphs, rulers, and heretical and scheming groups in forging, distorting, and altering “sira” and “hadith,” and consequently jurisprudence, exegesis, and the religious sciences, why do we not extend this discussion to the text of the Quran itself? Between that event which we call the Prophet’s revelatory experience and the writing down of the revelation and the canonization of the “mushaf,” there is a gap of which scholars are aware. Why should power have only codified “sira” and “hadith,” while the codification of the “mushaf” is exempted here? The verses of revelation are an inexhaustible source of power and legitimacy in the community of believers, and there could have been serious motives for their appropriation among interested groups. The various accounts of the collection of the Quran, the issue of the book not being compiled during the Prophet’s time, the story of how the mushaf was canonized in Uthman’s era and all other mushafs were destroyed, or the efforts to render verses outside the mushaf obsolete, and the various conflicting reports related to this subject throughout the early centuries, are well-known discussions in the world of Quranic studies, and even in very old and traditional discussions, including Shi‘i discussions, opinions on this matter can be seen. The formation of the “mushaf,” “qira’at,” and even the “writing” of the mushaf in its various forms are not outside the subject of the exercise of power. (See Yasser Tabbaa and his articles on the writing of the Quran.)

It must be accepted that we have no reason (even relying on traditional materials and methods) to search for traces of human interventions solely outside the fortress of the sacred text. Thus, the authority and understanding of the Quran itself are, in a very serious way, dependent on later writings, and any judgment and approach toward them will also extend to the Quran itself.

6_ The final word is that new methods and approaches in the historiography of early Islam have been widely applied in the literature of “new Islamic studies,” but the body of traditional Islamic sciences and even reformist writings have not paid serious attention to these works and simply bypass them under the title of “Orientalist Islamic studies” or “Jewish, Christian Islamic studies.” This approach is in dire need of correction. It must be accepted that the relationship of traditional sciences to modern knowledge is like the relationship of “traditional medicine” to “modern medicine.” Many reformist scholars still seek to treat the history of early Islam with the methods of old medicine, heedless of or ignoring what has happened in the new scientific literature on this matter. Suspicion toward the results of this research is no different from a negative view of “new, Western humanities.”

It must be accepted that it is thanks to many prohibitions imposed by censorship institutions in Iran that the results of research on the history of early Islam are not published at the level of our society, and traditional and new Muslim scholars do not see a serious need to respond to them. It is not far-fetched that, with the possibility of publishing these materials, what happened in the affair of the publication of the scholarly book “The School in the Process of Evolution”—which turned “extremist Shi‘ism” into the “theory of the righteous scholars”—will this time occur regarding our image of the Prophet, Ali ibn Abi Talib, and, most importantly, the Quran itself. Are our scholars prepared for this confrontation, and have they thought about that day and those problems, or have they, in the safe fortress of political prohibitions, almost entirely ignored those research and historical texts and articles?

.

---

.

References:

Torkashvand, Amir Hossein, Whose Sentence Is This? (eleven parts), Telegram, Baznegari Channel

Kadivar, Mohsen, The Challenge of Islam and Power, full text of the first session, author's website, 1399

Kadivar, Mohsen, Haqq al-Nas, Islam and Human Rights, Kavir Publications, 1385

Kadivar, Mohsen, The Punishment for Apostasy and Freedom of Religion, author's website, 1393

Motzki, Harald, The Biography of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH): Examining the Sources, translated by Mohammad Taghi Akbari and Abdullah Azimaei, Mashhad, Islamic Research Foundation of Astan Quds Razavi, 1386

Motzki, Harald, Islamic Hadith: Origin and Development, edited by Morteza Karimi-Nia, Qom, Dar al-Hadith, 1389

Yasser Tabba, "Canonicity and Control: The Sociopolitical Underpinnings of Ibn Muqla's Reform," Ars Orientalis, Vol. 29 (1999), pp. 91-100

15 Jan 2021

.

---

.