The many unsupported tales chosen by Watt were strung together in a politically correct fashion that was obviously designed to be pleasing to the Muslim eye. Trying to dig out the author’s thesis is an exercise in futility. Any modicum of critical analysis on Watt’s part is absorbed and devoured by the intellectually spineless nature of the book. Watt makes no attempt to establish his own stance, rather he seeks only to offer the standard Muslim biography of Islam’s “seal of the Prophets,” Rasulullah Muhammad.
While Watt is obviously very knowledgeable about Islam, and is a highly regarded authority in the field of Orientalism, this book becomes somewhat of a paradox when one considers that the author himself is not a Muslim. It seems odd that a kaafir would be so willing to present such an unflinchingly pro-Islamic piece of literature.
When one takes into account the beliefs of the author, the book becomes somewhat worthless. If such spurious tales are going to be accepted at face value, readers might as well get their information directly from Muslim missionary sources. Surely we do not need non-Muslims to propagate Islamic dawaganda2.
Watt’s biography begins with the absurd tale of a Christian monk named Bahira, who, through various methods, and a knowledge of scripture, realizes that Muhammad is destined for prophethood when latter is just a boy3. While Watt acknowledges that the story is a legend4, he still uses the spurious tale to set the foundation of his book. This unfortunate willingness to use the tendentious ahadith to support the story is found on every page.
Watt will only refer to the most strikingly absurd stories, such as the above, as being legends. He makes a conscious effort not to step on any Muslim toes. However, he does not avoid criticizing the tales out of some fear of incurring a Rushdie-esque fatwa, rather he does so to maintain his high standing.
In the world of Journalism, Barbara Walters rises to the top, and gets the best interviews simply because she asks all the easy questions. This reality is analogous to the higherarchy within the world of Orientalism, where the most highly regarded historians are the ones who are the most politically correct. The goal is to avoid writing anything that might fall under the category of "Islamophobic," and Watt does this to such a degree that he comes off as the historian’s Uncle Tom. Such a venomous criticism may seem unjustified to many, but when compared to the writings of more skeptical historians, Watt’s shortcomings become more obvious.
Patricia Crone’s writings on Muhammad and the origins of Islam were so radical, that it is somewhat surprising that she never caught the eye of Ayatollah Khomeini, or some other champion of the deen. Had she been a Muslim living in an Islamic nation, she surely would have got her hijaab handed to her by now.
Michael Cook, Crone’s partner in the duo’s brilliant work Hagarism, has also developed some radical theories on Muhammad and the origins of Islam. Cook totally rejected the various Islamic traditions on the grounds that they were highly unreliable. He cited non-Muslim sources, and came to many conclusions that were very much in opposition to standard Islamic dogma (such as the insinuation that the qibla was once in the complete opposite direction of Mecca).
One recent addition to the ranks of the more skeptical, radical fold of Islamic scholarship is the apostate Ibn Warraq. He has heaped a heavy amount of criticism upon Watt “for his protective and ultimately patronizing and insincere stance [towards] Islam and Muslims, a position that goes beyond dispassionate scholarship and veers between Islamic apologetics on the one hand and condescension on the other.5”
Warraq’s criticism is quite accurate. Watt’s seemingly blind acceptance of the tales found in Islamic traditions is highly insincere, and being that he does not actually believe the stories in their entirety, his biography seems to patronize Muslims.
Unfortunately, Cook, Crone and Warraq are the minority. The vast majority of historians on Islam resemble Watt, adhering to an absurd political correctness that forces them to totally sacrifice their intellectual integrity. To make things worse, Cook, Crone, Warraq, and the like are sometimes criticized and discredited by their fellow historians. This unfortunate trend, in the long run, slows the process of critical analysis of Islam, which is still in its infancy.
However, scornful comments aside, it is somewhat understandable how someone might actually come to accept the various traditions as reliable. Muslims make a firm, and sometimes fanatical case in defense of ahadith. So much of orthodox Islam is based on these traditions, that to criticize them is to criticize the very foundation of mainstream Islam.
Muslims assure the public that highly regarded scholars have studied these traditions, and have verified their authenticity. This sort of preaching is quite common, and is often very convincing, but it is not proof of the hadith’s validity in any way. An increase in blind devotion towards a particular hadith does not necessarily make that hadith any more valid.
Unfortunately in Islam, most Muslims fail to grasp such realities. The intellectual - and thereby the rational - foundation of Islam does not coincide with logic whatsoever. The dawagandists will try and convince others of the authority of their spurious "isnad science," using one fallacy after another to try and support their claims. Supporters of hadith will claim that certain ahadith are sound based on the reliability and authority of the people named within the chain of recitation. They fail to realize that argumentum ad verecundiam6 does not help to validate their claims.
The basic premise put forth by the adherent of the "isnad science" hyperbole is that highly regarded members of the sahaba related this information, and they would not propagate lies about their beloved Rasulullah. Furthermore, they will note that numerous highly regarded Islamic "scholars," with a pristine understanding of Arabic, have studied over these traditions for years, and verify their authenticity. The argument, in a nutshell, is "just take their word for it."
The reality is, these traditions were written and compiled more than a century after the events they attempt to discuss. While Muslims will assure us of the alleged flawlessness of Arab oral tradition, the average historian should be somewhat skeptical. Unfortunately Watt is one of the people who have become convinced that you cannot have Islam without the ahadith.
On numerous occasions, Watt gives specific years, and sometimes, even months. How does Watt come to these dates? He actually offers, most of the time, the standard dates usually corresponding to those events as found in Islamic literature. We have no proof that these rough dates correspond to those events, or if those events really happened at all.
While it is forgivable to accept hadiths in these types of situations, it still does not justify Watt’s biography of Muhammad as being a good source from which to receive information. Watt's writings are simply a rehash of the claims of the Muslims. In regards to dates (and other issues) this becomes a problem. Watt does not make any attempt to justify the citing of those specific dates, rather he just offers them as if they were common knowledge, and given fact.
In all this vicious criticism, there are things for which Watt should be given credit. Watt, for the most part, does not mention any miracles. While he is working almost exclusively from the hadith, he managed to weed out the more absurd tales that are found in many hadith collections. While Watt is taken to task for essentially compiling another combination of ahadith, and writing another pointless sira, he has, for the most part, avoided the stories about miracles. It is through this intentional failure to mention some of Muhammad’s alleged miracles that some skepticism can be found.
Throughout the whole book, it is in the discussion of Muhammad’s break with the Jews that Watt seems the most opinionated. Watt sides with the popular theory that Islam was influenced by the Jews, although he does so in a bit more subtle way than others. Watt’s tone gives the impression that he is unimpressed with the Islamic idea that the Jews tried to conceal the alleged fact that Muhammad is predicted in the previous scriptures.
Watt’s small increase in passion for the chapter on the break with the Jews may be related to the fact that the story hits closer to home for the author. Watt points out that some Muslims feel that the Bible has been changed, but he portrays this doctrine as being just a modern interpretation of a verse that originally meant something else. Watt, being a Christian, would definitely have an interest in the claim that the Bible has been changed.
While in the above mentioned chapter, Watt’s “voice” has more of a presence, from there on, the book again begins to become a simple restating of common Islamic traditions. As the book goes on, Watt has less and less of a voice, and the book seems more and more like a piece of Islamic apologetic literature.
When the reader reaches the ninth chapter (the various assessments), Watt’s critical voice, which was always weak, is totally gone. At this point Watt is simply an honorary Muslim, defending Muhammad against the criticisms of the jahilun. Watt’s line “of all the world’s great men, none has been so much maligned as Muhammad” is a line that is very popular amongst Western Muslims. Watt attempts to justify Muhammad’s moral failures by invoking a type of cultural relativism.
Watt tries to convince the reader that judging Muhammad by 20th century values is fallacious. Unfortunately, Watt could not be more wrong. When we are discussing the life of the founder of one of the world’s largest religions (be it Jesus for Christianity, or Muhammad for Islam), any alleged moral shortcomings should be exposed, and analyzed. A man, who is looked up to by millions, if not billions, of people, should be placed under a microscope and picked apart.
The overall goal of Watt’s book was simply to portray Muhammad in a human light. Watt’s Muhammad is a brilliant statesman, who wholly and honestly believed in his own claims of prophethood; a man who was guided by trade, and the cultural norms of Arabian tribal life.
Watt tries to make his biography as pleasing to the Muslim eye as possible. As Hussein Amin put it, “Watt defends Islam and her prophet better than the most zealous Muslims.7” As was stated at the beginning, to have such a book written by a non-Muslim is somewhat of a waste of paper. If one were going to accept such stories, and accept the traditions unconditionally, it would make more sense to go directly to the Islamic sources. Watt’s method, while a display of his scholarly expertise, does not offer much in the way of historical information.
Watt's biography is rendered totally unreliable by his shaky foundation built with tendentious folklore. If we are going to accept Watt's semi-apologetic literature, we might as well recite the shahadah, and spend our time listening to the ranting of some rabid neo-Salafi, who foams at the mouth while delivering his venom-laced khutbas in the masjid. While such remarks are admittedly sarcastic (and even sophomoric), the point is Watt's biography reads more like a piece of Islamic missionary propaganda than something you would expect from a non-Muslim.
The major problem with books written by the likes of Watt is the fact that
the author is himself a believer. While he is not a Muslim, he is a Christian,
and such a theological background can severely hamper one’s ability to offer a
sturdy criticism. It seems that most of the Christian critics of Islam have no
desire to confront the tough issues. As Ibn al-Rawandi has pointed out in the
past, Christian critics of Islam are more than willing to compare Muhammad in an
unfavorable light compared to Jesus, or argue that Abraham never went to Mecca,
but they are totally unwilling to confront the non-historical issues, such as
whether or not Jesus and Abraham really existed. Their reluctance to do so is
due to the fact that these issues can be used against their own cherished
beliefs as well. Instead, the Christian seeks to establish an atmosphere of
intellectual dishonesty, where the more glaring curiosities are swept under the
proverbial carpet.
Notes
(1) Ibn Warraq, The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2000), p.91
(2) A term coined by the apostate Sadiqi az-Zindiki (pseudonym). Muslims refer to proselytizing as “giving dawah.” Az-Zindiki combined the words “dawah” and “propaganda” to come up with a word that properly describes Islamic missionary work.
(3) Mongomery Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, (Oxford, 1966), pp. 1-2
(4) Ibid., pp. 2-3
(5) Warraq, Historical Muhammad, p. 20
(6) The "Appeal to Authority," a fallacy which uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion.
(7) Quoted in Warraq, Historical Muhammad, p. 20