Journal Islam Today N° 14-1417H/1996

A Review of Essays
"Muhammad" (Alayhi Assalat wa al-Salam)
in the Encyclopedia of Islam(1) 

by Prof. Dr. Anis Ahmad*

The articles printed in the Encyclopedia of Islam (1913-36 and 1993 editions) under the title "Muhammad" are important because these are referred to frequently by scholars, students, and researchers. Information provided in these essays also needs careful review in order to understand the approach taken by many western students of Islam, particularly with reference to the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him). These scholarly essays, while reflecting seriousness, do not claim to be the final word on Islam or the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Present review of these essays does not claim infallibility either. These essays though, succeed in creating a desire in other scholars to think, analyse and reflect, they also represent an intellectual approach and a perception of reality. The skepticism of authors of these essays may be considered by some reflective of the age of liberalism in the western cultural tradition. Their selectiveness in reports may not be regarded subjective, it, nevertheless, betrays a western bias toward Islam and the Prophet (peace be upon him). The following brief observations are made with a humble desire to help in the process of an ongoing interaction and intellectual dialogue to understand the meaning and value of the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) for the history and for mankind.

This review begins by first looking into the sources of the writers of these essays in the Encyclopedia of Islam (1913-36 and 1993 editions). Some of the major issues, from the perspective of these writers, are identified and an evaluation of their views is presented in order to develop a better understanding of early Islamic history.

The Sources

The authors of both essays(1) use the Qur'an as their primary source. They also refer to a few early sources, like 'Urwah ibn Zoubayr (d.94 H/716 A.D.). Indeed the blessed Qur'an refers to a number of historical events dealing with the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him), early Islamic community and manners and customs of the pre-Islamic age. Nevertheless the Qur'an never claims to be a book of history. Its subject matter is man, social ethics and social change; how to establish an ethical and just social system is its major concern. It does not contain a chronology or record of historical events, or an account of the life and time of the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Qur'an, for obvious reasons, was not recorded and arranged in its historical sequence either. Some of Makkan revelations were placed together with Madani revelation. Therefore, to treat the Qur'an as a book of history is not appropriate despite direct or indirect reference to certain events during the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Therefore, while the Qur'an provides a new vision of man and society, the purpose of man's creation, his role in the world and his ultimate destiny, it does not explain evolution of the spiritual or religious "ideas" of the Prophet (peace be upon him), nor his mental perceptions.

To say that the Qur'an represents the intellectual journey or reflects the gradual maturity of the Prophet's vision is to attribute to him what the Qur'an explicity rejects as a fact of the matter. The Qur'an claims to be the (kalam) spoken word of Allah. The Prophet is claimed to be its direct recipient entrusted with conveying what he receives. No historical or scientific evidence is provided by the writers of the articles in the Encyclopedia of Islam, and others, for their assumption that the Qur'an is a record of historical events, a biography of the Prophet or a history of the evolution of the early Muslim community.

We are aware of some religious texts like the Analects of Confucius; The Three Barkets of Buddha; The Tao Teh King of Lao-tze or the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John supposed to be authored by their respective writs or scribes. Analogically, some orientalists and western scholars claim that the Qur'an has been authored by the Prophet (peace be upon him). This may be regarded a personal belief of some orientalists. However, this approach is not consistent with the Qur'an, which persistently declares that the Qu'ran or wahy (revelation) is not a creation of a human intellect or the work of the Prophet. The Prophet is mentioned in the Qur'an as no more than its recipient, receiving it directly from Allah through Angel Jibr'il.

The Qur'an, being revelation from Allah, is unique. Comparison may be drawn between the hadith (statements, actions, or endorsements of the Prophet) and literature and sacred books of other world religions [Wilefred Cantwell Smith suggests a comparison between the Qur'an and Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) who, according to Christian belief, is word of God. (Religious Diversity, 1976, p. 24).

It is perplexing that no serious effort is made by either writers to go to Hadith in order to collect historical data and information . The articles under review refer frequently to the Sirah (Biography of the Prophet) and Maghazi (reports on military encounter) and Tarikh (history), but, for unexplained reasons, do not refer to the books of Hadith. Yet, Hadith deals at a more historical level with the events during the life of the Prophet. This is why classics in Sirah, like Sirah an Nabi of Shibli Nu'mani (d. 1914 A.D.), depend heavily on the Hadith.

Both articles on "Muhammad" in the Encyclopedia of Islam provide an insight into various historic events and provide details from books of maghazi. While they talk about their difficulty in search of authentic historical material (E.I.1936,E.I. 1993), they try to find out information needed in the hints, implied meanings and references to historic events in the Qur'an. They do not feel comfortable, for reasons they know best, with reports of explicit and relevant information in the Hadith. Thus, if their reason for this preference is their belief that the Qur'an is a historical record of events or that hadith is less historic, they must provide us with an evidence for their doubt.

A frequent reference is made in these essays to pre-Islamic and post-Islamic poetry (E.I. 1993, p. 361), which is one major source for any philological studies. It is, however, unusual to seek historical information about the Prophet (peace be upon him) or early Islamic community in poetry while more authentic and verifiable sources, particularly books of Hadith are available.

The authors of these articles, in general, prefer books of Maghazi to books of Hadith; "the most widely used sources for the life of Muhammad, in addition to the Qur'an, date from the 3rd and 4th centuries of the Hegira. Among these, the most highly respected is the Maghazi or Sirah of Ibn Ishaq (d. 151/768) whose original text was lost, but has been preserved in at least two versions, one by Ibn Hisham (d. 218/833), which is widely used, and another by Yunus ibn Bakir (d.199/814) which exists only in manuscript form (for a description and summary of the contents of Yunus's recursion. (See Alfred Guillaume), New Light on the Life of Muhammad, Manchester n.d.). " (E.I. 1993, p. 361).

Here, though the author of the article claims that the earliest source on Sirah "date from 3rd or 4th century of Hegira", the references quoted above belong to 2nd-3rd century of the Hegira. Sirat al-Rasul of Ibn Ishaq mentioned above does not belong to 4th century Hegira either. Second, the writer, for some reasons, is unable to differentiate between Maghazi and Sirah literature. While Muhammad Ibn Ishaq's Kitab al-Maghazi was a major source for Abdul Malik Ibn Hisham's (d.213 H.) Sirat al-Rasul, there are other contemporary sources like Ibn Sa'd's (d. 230 H.) Tabaqat, in twelve volumes, two of them on the Sirah. There are also several earlier treatises on Sirah not adequately utilized in these essays.

It might be appropriate to mention here some of the sources which preceded Ibn Hisham and have been incorporated in Tabaqat of Ibn Sa'd and Tarikh al-Kabir of Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310 H.) and others. Most of these sources belong to second century of Hegira and provide historical material on early Muslim community. Among these sources, a mention may be made of a grandson of Abubakr, 'Uruah ibn Zubayr ibn al-Awwam (d. 94 H.), Shu'bi (d. 109 H.), Wabab ibn Munabbyh (d. 114 H.), Muhammad ibn Shahab al-Zuhri (d. 124 H.), Yaqub ibn 'Atbah (d. 128 H.), Musa ibn 'Uqbah al-Asadi (d. 141 H.), Hisham ibn 'Urwah ibn Zubayr (146 H.), Umar ibn Rashid al-Azdi (d. 152 H.), Abdul Rahman ibn Abdul Aziz al-Awsi (d. 162 H.), Muhammad ibn Salih Dinar (d. 168 H.), Abdullah ibn Ja'far ibn Abdurahman al-Makhzumi (d. 170 H.), Abdulmalik ibn Muhammad ibn Abibakr ibn Umar ibn Hazm al-Ansari (d. 176 H.), Ali ibn Mujahid al-Razi al-Kindi (d.180 H.), Ziyad ibn Abdullah ibn Tufail al-Bakkai (d. 195 H.), Yunus ibn Bakir (d. 199 H.).

All the above authors of books on Sirah and/or Maghazi precede Kitab al-Sirah and al-Tarikh wa l-Maghazi wal Mab'ath of Muhammad ibn Umar al-Waqidi al-Aslami (d. 207H) and belong mostly to second century of Hegira. The authors of article "Muhammad" in Encyclopedia of Islam, for some reason, did not make use of the above rich historical resource, which precedes the often quoted work of Ibn Sa'd. This may not make their research fully unauthentic, though one may question the purpose and intent of avoiding these sources.

The article on the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in E.I.1993 refers to three possible earlier sources of the Sirah as (a) Maghazi (b) Tafsir and (c) Hadith. However, the writer comments that "none of these types of books, including the Maghazi and Sirah works had as its purpose the recording of the life of Muhammad "(E.I. 1993, p. 361). While the above statement carries element of truth, that the purpose of the three categories was not, specifically, to record in a historical sequence of the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him), but they remain to be the early sources of valuable information in aspects of Sirah. Though mention of tafsir, the Qur'anic exgesis, by the author of the article, is a bit out of place, nevertheless, treatment of Asbab al-Nuzul, the context of a Quranic revelation does reflect information relevant to life of early Muslim community.

Pre-Prophetic Period

 The treatment of the Pre-Prophetic life, particularly birth, childhood and youth of the Prophet, in the articles, gives an impression that most of such information was a later development, improvised to fill the vacuum in historical account of the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him). That exact date of birth of the Prophet (peace be upon him), which was disputed by some historians, leads the writer to conclude that an ambiguity exists with reference to his birth and to the historicity of his father. "His father, who is said to have died before the Prophet's birth is quite a colourless figure in the sources" (E.I. 1993, p. 362). One wonders what does it mean to call him a colourless figure? Should historians of religions take a note of only those persons whose parents are famous artists, philosophers, kings, or high priests ? Should we also raise similar doubts about the historicity of Prophets Jesus, Noah, Moses and so on because their fathers were not "colourful"?

The writer of the article also feels uncomfortable with the name of the Prophet's father. "His name Abd Allah is perhaps only a later improvement on a polytheist name" (E.I. 1993, p. 362). To begin with, the term Allah was known to the Arabs. Ka'ba was known as bait-Allah, the house of Allah. They were used to names like Abd Shams (Slave of the Sun); similarly, they had a history of using names like Abdullah. It is not necessary that later historians used this name to the Prophet's father. If they did not bother to "Islamize"  the name of his grandfather, Abd al-Muttalib, or his real uncle, Abu-Talib, why should they bother to call his father Abd Allah, if it was not his real name?. It is important to verify and research events, but it is not necessary to make facts appear ambiguous without a reason.

The problem is not only how to look on matters of fact but also methodological. The Quranic revelation, to begin with, is neither a biography of the Prophet (peace be upon him) nor a historical account of his personal and intellectual development. Consequently, a search for material and information on these otherwise important aspects in a wrong place must create a feeling of historical lacuna, paucity of facts and scantiness of information in the Quranic revelation. Not only the Qur'an but any revelation claiming to carry guidance on social, ethical, political, legal and doctrinal issues, should deal necessarily with personal life of its carrier. It must, on the contrary, provide details and chronological development if it was a book authored by the Prophet as his autobiography, or an account of his achievements.

A major obvious methodological shortcoming of these essays is the under-utilization rather than lack of trust in the Hadith. Assuming Hadith is a third century Hegira development, the writers hardly try to look into it for direct or indirect references to aspects of the Sirah. That muhaddithun (scholars of Hadith) use more rigorous, scientific, and objective criteria than the historians or people of Maghazi is not a secret for a student of early Islamic history. Alluding on Hadith as a major source of Sirah is a great historian of the nineteenth century, from Pakistan, namely, Shibli Nu'mani (d. 1914). He holds that while a historian should turn to the Qur'an to verify a historical event, he must turn to the books of authenticated Hadith, then to other Hadith, and lastly to books of Sirah and Maghazi (Sirat an-Nabi, Vol.I, 1946, p. 83-84). Consequently, giving first priority to the books al-Maghazi, for details on matters referred to briefly in the Qur'an can hardly help a reseacher in the proper understanding of a historical situation.

The Madani Period

A methodological disregard for the Hadith or referring to the Qur'an without seeking its elaboration in Hadith leads, quite often, to wrong historical judgments. One major example of this methodological error is the treatment of the battle of  Badr in these articles. It is claimed in the essays that the success of the Muslim "campaign" at Nakhla motivated the Prophet, the Muhajirun and the Ansar to "abush" a trade caravan of the Makkans being heeded by Abu Sufyan. The cautious and careful Abu Sufyan got a wind of this plan and rushed an S.O.S. to the Makkans. He also diverted the route of the caravan as reported in E.I. "By the time the Makkan forces arrived and camped near Badr, the caravan had reached Mecca safely by following a diversion route along the coast" (E.I. 1993, p. 369).

The main reason for the above narrative in E.I. is reliance of its writers on Kutub al-Maghazi and their disregard for Hadith. Though quite often they refer to Qur'anic verses, not much effort is made to read into the meaning of the Qur'anic treatment of the battle of Badr. Let us turn to the Qur'an for a more meaningful understanding.

The Qur'an begins by saying "Just as thy Lord ordered thee out of thy house in truth, even though a party among the Believers disliked it. Disputing with thee concerning the truth after it was made manifest, as if they were being driven to death and they (actually) saw it." (Al-Anfal, 8 : 5-7). The simple and direct question not considered by the said writers is why the Qur'an says some companions were feeling as if they are being driven to death ? Should three hundred and thirteen persons or so, led by the Prophet (peace be upon him) to plunder a caravan, with no armed contingent to protect it feel as if they are driven to death ? Or they should be jubilant on expected booty to come to them once the trade caravan ever "ambushed". It simply means that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not take the Ansar and the Muhajireen out, with him, to attack the Makkan trade caravan but simply to meet a thousand armed Makkans mobilized to invade Madinah. If the Qur'an is a more authentic source for our friends, authors of article in E.I., the Qur'an contradicts what he claims to be a fact of the matter.

A review of Hadith literature, tells us of many incidents when the Prophet used to send small patrols of the Muslims to monitor the movement of Makkans in the area. Abdullah bin Jahash was sent to Nakhlah in 2nd year of Hegira. Inadvertently Abdullah clashed with a small caravan of Quraish, killing Amr bin Al Hadrami. When Abdullah returned to the Madinah with two captives and the booty, the Prophet denounced his action, and the companions also criticized Abdullah for his unauthorized action. Those killed and arrested belonged to the Quraish nobility. This was enough to arouse Quraish. This event also gave Muslims a signal to prepare themselves for expected retaliation from the Quraish.

Consequently, the Prophet discussed at length with his companions, and asked them to prepare for expected attack. In such a situation, only a person with no wisdom would ambush trade caravan of the Makkans. Since the books of Maghazi present a confused statement of the reasons for the battle of Badr, most of the orientalists and western students of Islam find those stories more reliable than a simple and direct reference to the Qur'an and the Hadith to verify the matter.

The Makkan Roots of Tawhid

In these articles, it is also projected that Islam and the teachings of the Prophet (peace be upon him) were inspired and rooted in the Makkan polytheism. Sociologists of religion generally trace the origin of a religious tradition in the native, local, and primal experiences of a given community. They assume a social evolution in which more simpler forms of worship, ceremonies, rituals, and theological assertions develop and grow into more complex, elaborate and systematic processes and procedures. Western students of Islam, including the writers of articles on the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in the E.I. (1936 and 1993), approach the Makki and Madani periods in no different a manner. While in social science research we are informed that though certain similarities may exist between modern or in pre-industrial societies and ancient cultures, one single hypothesis may not necessarily explain the historical development, problems and solutions offered by various traditions.

First, it is assumed that, like the hebrew Prophets, the Prophet (peace be upon him) too presented himself as "God's Prophet to the Arabic speaking people" (E.I. 1993, p. 373). It is also inferred that this position changed in later Madani period. This calls for an analysis. For argument sake, let us assume that Prophet's self understanding was of an Arab hero, who came to redeem the Arabs on the analogy of the Hebrew claim that Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) was a Hebrew hero who stood for the liberation of the Israelis from the bondage of the Egyptians. An important question not asked by the writers is why the Prophet needed to change his position from Arab nationalism to Islamic universalism.

A logical question at this point will be to ask the Qur'an : Who are its addressees, the Arabs or the whole of humanity ? Talking about the event of its own revelation, the Qur'an says : "Ramadan is the month in which we sent down the Qur'an, as a guide to mankind, also clear (signs) for guidance and judgement (between right and wrong)." (Al-Baqarah, 2 : 185). Earlier, it calls the Muslim Ummah a people responsible to share this world view and way of life with all human beings : "Thus we have made of you an Ummah justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations and the Apostle a witness over yourselves." (Al-Baqarah, 2 : 143). While in Makkah, on several occasions, the Prophet, when calling Quraish or the chieves of Taif told them, point blank, that Islam was going to be the system of the day and if they became Muslims they would be the leaders of mankind. Arabs or Arabia as such was never the ultimate objective of the Prophet's mission or, at least, the Qur'an and hadith never called Islam an ideology for the Arabs. It was a universal message for the whole of humanity and were never presented as religion of the Arabs.

The fact of the matter is that Islam in Makka began as a revolutionary force against Urubah, the superiority of the Arabs over the others. One major intellectual obstacle Quraish of the Makkah faced was Islam's expectation of them to mix and live at par with others. Their common criticism of the Prophet was his association with persons like Bilal from Africa, Suhaib from Rome and Salman from Persia, who were some of his early companions in Makkah.

Islamic call (Da'wah) and its universal approach and orientation was eminently opposed to the Arab mentality, which never tried to rise above tribal pride, dignity and superiority. The Qur'anic principle was gloriously stated in Surat al-Hujurat,"O mankind, we created you from a single (pair) of a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily, the most honoured of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)." (49 : 13).

It is generally understood that the style, structure and literary excellence of the Qur'anic revelation being sui generis, was a miracle in itself, nevertheless, the Qur'an, not for once, claimed itself a book sent to Arabs, because it was in Arabic. It, on the contrary, often criticized Arabs, bedouins, for their narrow and particularistic approach against the universalistic approach of Islam or of the Qur'an.

While the Qur'an recognizes that it is revealed in explicit Arabic in order to let the people ponder, understand and be enlightened (16 : 103, 26 : 195, 12 : 2), it, at the same time, offers a rigorous criticism of the Arab mind (9 : 98- 101, 33 : 20, 48 : 16, 49 : 14). Consequently, to say that in Makkah the Qur'an focused on Arabism, will be contrary to the basic teachings of the Qur'an.

Second,we may look into the Makki revelations in the Qur'an and the very first revelation "Proclaim (or read) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, who created man out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood. Proclaim ! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful, he who taught (the use of) the Pen, taught man that which he knew not." (96 : 1-5).

The revelation calls upon the Prophet to begin his education with the name of the creator, Lord, who created man, i.e. humanity. Here, the creator is not addressed as "God of the Arabs". This first revelation makes it clear that Makki Qur'an/Islam and the Madani Qur'an/Islam are not two unrelated traditions with a shift from "a national God" to "a universal God". To read in Islam what may exist in the history of other religious traditions like Judaïsm with reference to the original Islamic sources, and without trying to understand meaning of tawhid is rather unfair.

It must be emphasized at this point that if Islam was initially a national religion of the Arabs, after the migration to al-Madinah, where Jewish tribes had visible influence, this call for nationalism should have been intensified in order to forge an Arab unity against the Hebrew. The shift from a national God to an international God in such a situation would have been neither logical nor desirable.

Implications of Tawhid

The Islamic call in Makka could be summarized in the statement of Bilal, one of the early companions, an African from Ethiopia. In the early Makki period, when he was harassed, persecuted and tortured by his slave master he uttered only one word "Ahad" (He is one and only one). There is no god but Allah, constituted not only the core of the message in Makka but also constituted the confession of faith "I bear witness there is no god but Allah and I bear witness Muhammad is servant and Prophet of Allah".

The fact of the matter is, it is this confession of faith, the first pillar of Islam, which makes Islam distinct and unique. To say that the Prophet began his mission as an Arabian Prophet and reformer fundamentally conflicts with this basic Islamic teaching. While Islamic sources, the Qur'an, the Hadith, and even the books of Maghazi carry no single assertion that the Prophet's initial call was for the Arabs to unite and rule, we have enormous evidence from within the Qur'an, Hadith, and the Maghazi literature to establish that the call for Tawhid, and rejection of Shirk (polytheism) al-jahiliyyah (customs and traditions of the old) was systematic jihad against the tribal, ethnic, and linguistic nationalisms.

It is obvious from the Quranic assertions that Islam in Makka was for a universal and comprehensive change as it was in al-Madinah; none of its Makki ayat (verses) claim a tribal or linguistic concern. Indeed, the Qur'an was revealed in Arabic, which does not imply it was only for Arabic-speaking persons. To claim that since the Qur'an was revealed in Arabic, it is meant for the Arabs alone will be no different than claiming that teachings of Jesus (Peace be upon him) were only for those who converse in cyrillic language or that Buddhism is relevant only for Pali speaking or Sanskrit speaking people.

The Jewish-Christian Roots

Similarly, the universal principle of Tawhid, outstandingly manifested in the Makki revelations, does not leave any room for regarding Islam a further evolution of Jewish or Christian view of the ultimate Truth and reality. Similarly, the term Allah, the proper and personal name for God in Islam is not synonym to God in Christianity or Brahman in Hinduism. The Makki revelations like 112 : 1-5, "Say : He is God, the One and Only; God the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten, and there is none unto Him" and many other statements make explicit that Islam did not call for an accommodation or extention of the polytheistic, henotheistic, or pluralistic views of God.

If Allah was only the name of another deity in a family of over 365 idols houses in the Ka'ba, the central mosque built by Prophet Ibrahim and Ismail around 1800 B.C, it would have never bothered the Makkans. The Makkan pluralism and the Arabian tolerance for divine multiplicity had accepted gods of various tribes and nations and they were allowed to respect and worship their respective gods in the house of Ka'ba. Adding Allah to this variety of gods was no threat to the Makkans. The real issue, however, was Islamic teaching of Tawhid, which did not allow any form of associationism (Shirk).

The principle of Tawhid, Oneness and Uniqueness of Allah, that Allah alone has authority and power, does not allow any room for compromise on such a vital aspect of Islam. However, while recognizing that Ibn Hisham and Ibn Ishaq, two of the early writers on Sirah do not report, the author of article on the Prophet in E.I. (1993, p. 365) refers to a story in which the Prophet is alleged to have glorified the favourable idols of the Makkans while he was praying in the mosque of Ka'ba. These idols were al-lat, al-'uzza and manat. The story claims that while reciting Surat Al-Najm the Prophet glorified Makkan idols because satan (devil) put on his tongue those words. The news of reconciliation with the mushrikin, the idol worshippers, it is claimed, reached Abyssinia and some of the companions who had migrated to Abyssinia, after hearing these news, returned to Makkah. By that time, Jibril informed the Prophet that what he recited was not part of the Quranic revelation. (E.I.1993, p, 365).

A few relevant but very simple questions can be raised at this point. Surat al-Najm, the fifty-third Surah of the Qur'an begins with the statement "By the star when it goes down, your companion neither astray nor being misled. Nor does he say (naught) of (his own) desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him" (53 : 1-4). In other words, Allah himself has taken responsibility to make sure that revelation is securely received by the Prophet and is fully preserved. It also makes it clear that the Prophet cannot add or introduce a single idea of his own to the body of the Qur'an.

For arguments sake, let us assume that Satan wanted the Prophet to utter words of praise to glorify idols of the polytheists. An important question one needs to ask at this point is while Satan was making his plan, and was prevailing over the Prophet, did Allah know about it ? Why Jibril had to wait till the Prophet completed his glorification of idols, and then asked him for correction ? If the Prophet could be so easily "misguided" and "misled" by Satan, what is the guarantee that Satan could succeed only once in causing confusion in the revealed message of Allah and why Satan could not do it more frequently. Further, why has the Qur'an kept silent on this important issue while the same Qur'an on other occasions such as the incident of Ibn Ummi Maktum or self-imposed prohibition on eating of honey, did not hesitate in taking a note of situation which were not even public.

Objectively speaking, glorification of idols is difficult to be called a "compromise". It can best be regarded a one hundred and eighty degree turn from the original Islamic message. Critically speaking, if this story carries any truth, such an event cannot go unnoticed by the Qur'an. If Allah takes a note of a private personal matter of the Prophet when he simply tells his wife that he will no more take honey, how can the Qur'an disregard a public violation of Tawhid or the first  Islamic principle ?

One may also ask what kind of short-term benefits or favours the Prophet expected from the Makkan polytheists through this alleged "compromise" ? Moreover, did it help the Makkans in changing their oppressive attitude towards the Muslims ? Also, if Satan could easily interrupt or intercept revelation and make the Prophet praise the idols of the Makkah, what is the meaning of the Quranic statement "We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and we will assuredly guard it (from corruption)." (Al-Hajr, 15 : 9). A similar statement is made in the very first ayat of Surat Al-Najm where the Qur'an says : "Nor does he say (naught) of (his own) desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him." (53 : 3-4).

The story referred to in the article appears to have no historic validity. Inclusion of such unfounded information in a research article may make it less objective and less informed.

Jewish and Christian Influences

An important theme in Western Orientalism and other writings on early Islam has been a search for Jewish or Christian sources or roots of Islam. The essay on the life of the Prophet in E.I. is no exception to it. The author of article "Muhammad" (E.I. 1936) thinks that teachings of heretical Christian sects was the main source of the Prophet revelation. "On the other hand, the fact that Jesus and John the Baptist are the last links in the chain of Prophets clearly suggests a Christian origin, and certain parallels in more or less heretical early Christian literature can be demonstrated" (E.I. 1936, p. 645). "...... he was filled with the idea of the moral responsibility of man created by Allah and with the idea of the judgement to take place in the day of resurrection, which again points undoubtedly more to Christian than Jewish influence... To this are added vivid descriptions of the tortures of the damned and seduction pictures of the joys of paradise. These gained more importance as they reveal Muhammad's strongly sensual temperament." (E.I. 1936, p. 645).

The author of article "Muhammad" (E.I. 1993), on the other hand, is of the view  that "The Jewish practice of having three daily prayers appears to have been a factor in the introduction of the Islamic midday salat. (prayer). The Islamic weekly community worship service in the early afternoon on Friday, which may have been instituted before Muhammad's arrival in Medina was most likely influenced indirectly by the Jewish "day of preparation" for the sabbath, which begins on Friday evening at sundown (E.I. 1993, p. 368).

Methodologically, presence of an apparent similarity in the practice of religious rituals or traditions of various nations does not prove that the practice was borrowed or adopted from the other tradition. The possibility of parallel developments can not be eliminated. Since Hinduism believes in the incarnation of God, and it also happens to precede Christianity in time, this does not prove that God's incarnation in the person of Jesus (peace be upon him), as Christianity believes, has its roots in the Hindu theology and mythology.

Similarly, while enormous similarity and resemblance may exist in some Christian and Jewish religious practices, Christianity remains a distinct, independent, and unique religious tradition due to its own version of monotheism.

Apparently Judaism, Christianity and Islam talk about a creator God as YAHWH, God, and Allah. But can we say, with fairness, that all three are names for one ultimate reality ? While the three traditions may have a common concern for the ultimate, the ultimate in all the three is substantially different. Therefore, at a systematic level, presence of certain similarities does not amount to claim origin of one from the other.

Realistically, the situation is more serious. While Christian monotheism means a unity of three dimensions of God : the Holy Spirit, the Son, and God; Islamic Tawhid, from day one, totally rejects the idea of a trial and insist on ultimate uniqueness and unity of Allah (SWA). Tawhid, total rejection of polytheism, is the first vital Islamic principle. Most of the Makki revelations focused on Tawhid and other two Islamic foundations, al-akhirah (life after death), and the truthfulness of Prophet Muhammad or Nubuwah. Obviously, these were anti-thetical to the Makkan religious tradition and other traditions opposed to Absolute Unity and uniqueness of Allah.

Presence of obstensible similarities can be interpreted differently. One may call it a borrowing from an earlier historical model. One at the same time may interpret it as "universals" in religious traditions (Joachin Wach, 1951, Types of Religious Experience or Micrea Eliade, Patterns in Comparative Religion, 1958). One may also explain, in terms of history of religion, a common source of all such seemingly familiar traditions. The Qur'an claims that the original religion of Man is Islam. The first man on earth, according to the Qur'an, came down with a purpose and objective to serve Allah alone. His descendants were supposed to follow the same path and way of life. However, due to various historic reasons, the purity of the message could not be maintained. Allah, the Creator, Sustainer of the universe periodically sent messengers to correct this situation. Therefore, certain universals or apparent similarities are bound to be present in these revealed religions.

Islam, in that sense, never claims to have appeared, for the first time, in the history of mankind in 7th century. It claims to be the original religion of man. The Qur'an calls Tawhid to be the original religion of mankind : Jewish or Christian types of monotheism, according to the Qur'an are a deviance from the original and absolute monotheism introduced by Prophet Ibrahim or Abraham who also happens to be the great grandfather of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Nevertheless, ostensible similarity as claimed by the author of article in E.I. on "Muhammad" (1993, p. 368) appears confusing when we go for an indepth comparison between prayer and its timings in Islam and Judaism. We find several major differences between the two. First and foremost, in Makkah where the Prophet asked his followers to pray at least three times, we know that the Prophet had no direct contacts with Jews of Madina. If presence of three daily prayers in Jewish and Islamic traditions is a conclusive evidence of one borrowing from the other, the presence of similar phenomenon in Zoroastrianism may also be interpreted as the source for both Jewish and Islamic prayers!

That weekly congregational prayer (Salat al-Jumu'ah) may have its origin in the Jewish sabbath (E.I., 1993, p. 368) also needs a critical look. Philosophically, sabbath in Judaism is the day for rest during which no labor or trade can be done.  The Quranic instructions regarding the Jumu'ah, on the other hand, call for excelling in trade, industrial work, creativity and productivity. It dispels the myth that the day for weekly congregation is a "holy" day, to rest and to worship only. It rejects the idea of separation between the so-called sacred and the profane, the holy and the secular. It reads, "O ye who believe! When the call is proclaimed to prayer on Friday (the Day of Assembly) hasten earnestly to the Remembrance of God, and leave off your business (and traffic) that is best for you. And when the prayer is finished, then may ye disperse through the land and seek the Bounty of God and celebrate the Praises of God often (and without stint) that ye may prosper." (Al-Jumu'ah, 62 : 9-10).

The Quranic instruction or command to rush to Jumu'ah congregation when the call of prayer is made, to stop transactions, and to return to economic activity as soon as the prayer is over, sets once and for all a new approach of integration of the "sacred" and the "profane", the "holy" and the "secular". The truth of the matter is that there is no separation between the sacred and the profane space-time in Islam. How can this approach be called a derivation from Judaism or Christianity ? A direct and objective study of Islam's sources do not lead us to this conclusion. However, the author of the article "Muhammad" in the E.I. believes Jumu'ah congregation is similar or rather inspired by the Jewish practice of sabbath!

That facing towards al-Quds (Jerusalem) was a part of a Prophet's (peace be upon him) campaign to win the Madinan Jews "to Islam" or that "it is unlikely that Muhammad and his followers faced towards the Ka'ba in Mecca' (E.I. 1993, p. 368), indicates lack of awareness on the part of authors of the article, of the Qur'an and Hadith literature on the subject. If the authors of the article accept the Quranic instructions on change of Qibla (2 : 143, 150) by the same logic, they should not hesitate to accept the treatment of the subject in tafasir (exegesis) and the canonical ahadith informing us about Prophet's practice of prayers in Makkah while facing al-Quds and Masjid al-Haram at the same time. According to these reports, al-Quds was towards north west from Makkah while Makkah in the south of al-Madinah. While Muslims were in Makkah, they could face towards al-Quds and the ka'bah together. The assumption that the Prophet intended to please the Jews by facing al-Quds, after he moved to al-Madinah, needs to be examined in the light of his practice in Makkah, for around thirteen years, when we have no evidence of any Jewish community in or around Makkah.

It is one thing to assume what may be one's wild guess, it is something different to critically examine historical materials and facts. To say that, "The Qur'an is silent on this crucial point in the life of Muhammad and the rise of Islam. The balance of probability is in favour of the assumption that the Muslim use of the Jerusalem Kibla during Muhammad's first year in Medina was just one among several temporary practices that appear to have been adopted as part of the Prophet's attempt to win over the flourishing Jewish community then" (E.I. 1993, p. 368), betrays unawareness on the part of the writer that this was not a temporary measure taken in al-Madinah, it was continuation of a thirteen years long practice when the Prophet and the companions were in Makkah.

Second, the argument that "The Qur'an is silent" on this issue calls for a fresh look on methodology in historical investigation. As stated earlier, while the Qur'an was revealed in a historic context, yet it is not a historical record of events. Therefore, to look into it for material which is not its subject matter or concern is a serious methodological confusion. Nevertheless, there is no need for the Muslim critics of the west to offer apologies for the steps, if there are any, taken by the Prophet (peace be upon him) to interact with the Jews. The universal teachings of Islam are not for a specific race, colour, or ethnic group. While in Makkah, the Prophet attracted Bilal from Africa, Suhaib from Rome, Salman from Persia and others from a variety of tribes and backgrounds. To approach Jews and to bring them closer was, therefore, natural. There was no reason to exclude them from da'wah and discriminate against them. The Qur'an, on that count, repeatedly invites People of the Book, specially the Jews and the Christians and the Zoroastrians to adopt Tawhid as the way of life. This approach is not "temporary". It is an Islamic requirement and obligation. But to claim that change of Kibla was part of this strategy shows lack of proper knowledge and information on the part of writers of the said article.

If Islamic message (da'wah) is for the whole of humanity, it will be but inethical to exclude Jews and not to be friendly with them. The universalism of Islam does not accept division of humankind on ethnic or racial considerations. Since the Jewish claim of an identity was based on ethnicity or carrying the seed of Prophet David (Dawood), peace be upon him, the Qur'an used a qualitative categorization by calling them People of the Book or those who received an earlier revelation (Wahy) or guidance from their God.

This categorization of the humans on an epistemic level is, as it were, a revolutionary approach of Islam. The Qur'an, not for once, claims to be a book sent to Arabs or any other linguistic or ethnic group. The Hebrews, on the contrary, took pride in calling themselves a pure ethnic community. A Jew was defined in terms of a person born from a jewish mother of the Hebrew origin. The Qur'an declared, qualitatively, a black, a slave, a young person or a female may have moral, ethnic and valuational superiority over a person claiming to come from "pure blood", and high social status.

By calling them People of the Book, the Qur'an did not marginalize their social presence, on the contrary, it gave them recognition and respect in the society. The constitution of Madinah (Mithaq al-Madinah) declared for them legal, human, political, economic, and religious rights and obligations in clear and candid terms. This distinct social place and role was hardly ever allowed to religious minorities, particularly the Jews in Europe or elsewhere. It is not appropriate to think that the Jews or the Christians were alienated. The Qur'an, by allowing the Muslims to marry from the Jewish and Christian women, opens a social level of interaction, acceptance, and recognition for the People of the Book.

Misconception about the Black Stone

It is often claimed by western writers that the House of Allah, Ka'ba, was constructed to house the black stone and, therefore, the Ka'ba was essentially "the ancient sanctuary of the black stone" (E.I. 1936, p. 650) some others go a step further in saying that Muslims actually worship the Black stone and that it is a continuation of the Makkans polytheism in the Islamic rituals. This misconception should be corrected at a historical as well as a systematic level. Historically, the Qur'an or the Hadith do not assign any sanctity or sacredness to the Black stone. We are told that Umar, the second khalifah, while making his Tawaf , circling around Ka'ba, touched the Black stone with his stick and said, you indeed are no more than a stone, I would have gotten you thrown out of the Ka'ba if the Prophet had not kissed you.

This historic statement of Umar reflects the true Islamic spirit and understanding in which the stone as such carries no sacredness. It only indicates the corner from where to start making seven rounds around the Ka'ba. It is not required from the pilgrims or those who make Tawaf (circumumbulation), to bow down or "worship the stone". They, on the contrary, are required to declare "there is no God but Allah, indeed he is greatest" each time they complete the round and face the Black stone. This educates and tells a pilgrim that no stone, no finite creation of Allah can deserve any salutation. It is Allah alone to be glorified, saluted, and with most beautiful names.

Systematically, a faith which opposes all forms of Shirk  associationism and polytheism should be the last one to allow its followers to worship a Black stone, not even secretly, but publicly in Umrah or Hajj, and yet claim to believe in Absolute monotheism, Tawhid or Unity and Uniqueness of Allah.

While the Qur'an and hadith record objections  raised by the Quraysh and their criticism on the message and the person of the Prophet, as high quality poetry, or a kind of "magic", none of them ever called the conduct of the Prophet conflicting and contradictory, claiming tawhid, declaring all devotion, worship, and service for Allah alone yet worshipping a Black stone! Makkans were at least sensible enough to point out such a glaring conflicts in the Prophet's conduct, if what is conjectured by the author of articles on "Muhammad" in Encyclopedia of Islam  is valid and true.

The Psychology of Belief

 It is often contended by western writers that the Prophet developed a belief in himself as being true Prophet, which gave him confidence in fighting against his opponents. "But the consciousness of being a chosen instrument of Allah had gradually become so powerful within him that he was no longer able to sink back into an inglorious existence with his object unachieved" (E.I. 1936, p. 648).

If we look into Hadith literature, we find several authentic reports that during early Makki period of his Prophethood, the Prophet (peace be upon him) quite often was not sure that he has been selected and deputed as Prophet by Allah. This indicates first and foremost his passivity in achieving Prophethood. That the purpose of his pre-prophetic "meditations", when he spent some time secluding himself in a nearby cave (hira) was not to yearn and desire to be a Prophet. It all came on him as an unexpected favour. Second, it also indicates that revelation was not a subjective, psychological or mystical type of experience in which self-realization and self-satisfaction was achieved by the Prophet through his Prophethood. Third, while in Makkah, and during early period of his Prophethood, once he was convinced that Allah appointed him as his messenger, not for a moment he doubted this fact of the matter.

For argument sake, let us consider an artist, a scientist or a medical doctor who is not sure of his capacities, can such a person make any difference or contribution in society ? In other words, it is not a matter of a Prophet who is convinced of his responsibility without total confidence in one's measurable capabilities. One thing, though, must be said with reference to the Prophet (peace be upon him) that it is not he but the Qur'an which repeatedly addresses him as Allah's rasul (messenger). Therefore, it is the Qur'an and not the innerself of the Prophet which assures and convinces him of his enormous responsibility as the final messenger of Allah (the seal of the Prophets).

Double Personality

The secularized western historians of religion often appear to have serious problems in appreciating the uniqueness of Islam, in conquerring the dichotomy and duality which exists at conceptional, emotional and historical levels between the "sacred" and the "secular". The well-known Christian philosopher of history Arnold J. Toynbee interprets this phenomenon as "schism in the soul". The public concern of Prophet Muhammad falls into two sharply distinct and seemingly contradictory chapters. In the first, he is occupied in preaching a religious revelation by methods of pacific evangelization; in the second chapter, he is occupied in building up a political and military power and is using this power in the very beginning which, in other cases, has turned out to be disastrous for a religion that takes to it… "On this showing, the Hegira ought to mark the date of the ruin of Islam not the date since consecrated as that of its foundation." (Toynbee, 1965, p. 555-556).

That an ideal Prophet, a prototype, presents his message of pacifism, passiveness, withdrawal and self-mortification and ultimately gets persecuted by climbing his own cross appears a deep-rooted mental construct with many a historian of religion. The author of Encyclopedia of Islam's article on "Muhammad" interprets the holistic approach of Islam as a manifestation of "double personality" of the Prophet (peace be upon him) : "With this, we are faced with one of the most difficult problems in the biography of Muhammad, the double personality which he presents to us. The inspired religious enthusiast whose ideas mainly centered around the coming last judgment, who had borne all insults and attacks, who only timidly touched on the possibility of active resistance (XVI : 127) and preferred to leave everything to Allah's intervention, with the migration to Madina enters upon a secular stage and at one stroke shows himself a brillant political genius" (E.I. 1936, p. 648). He is also projected as one who "fought without mercy" (E.I. 1993, p. 374) if the non-Muslims did not agree to pay jizya.

Added to it is another stereotype of the western scholarship on Islam. The Prophet did not perform miracles as was done by Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him). This is often interpreted as "limitation of his human strength and knowledge" (E.I. 1993, p. 375, also E.I. 1936, p. 657).

Needless to say that dignity of man, sanctity and value of human life is one of the basic principles of Islamic system and teachings in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. However, social justice (adala al-Ijtima'iyyah) and protection of human rights of the Muslims as well as the non-Muslims is no less an obligation on the Islamic community.

Therefore, Islam in Makkah as well as in al-Madinah did not offer any apologies for its concern for social change. Islam never came as a "personal salvation" for man. It wanted the society and polity to be reconstructed on the principles of Tawhid, Adl, and observance of human rights in socio-economic, political, and legal institutions in society. The Prophet, to begin with, whether in Makka or in al-Madinah was never a monk, a spiritualist, or a mystic. When he called people to Tawhid, it was clear to the polytheist of Makka that acceptance of Allah Alone means economic, political, social, legal, and ethical change in society. It was not a matter of reducing number of gods to one; it was a declaration of invalidity of all other authorities except Allah (SWT).

The claim that the Prophet who has been called by the Qur'an as mercy for all creatures (21 : 107), was a "Merciless warrior" also needs to be studied at a historic and systematic level. If we look statistically in around nine encounters, during ten years of the Madani period with the non-Muslims, total loss of lives was less than death toll in one month in Bosnia or Kashmir.

That these expeditions and battles were to convert people to Islam is another misunderstanding with many western scholars. It is not necessary to go into details to show that millions of people embraced Islam during past several centuries not through use of force. On the contrary, the personal conduct and character of the Muslims had more deep and serious influence and impact on others. The Qur'an has declared clearly : "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (Al-Baqarah, 2 : 256). However, Islam does not allow oppression and exploitation of the have nots by those in authority. Islamic jihad is essentially a struggle against the oppression, exploitation, injustice and corruption in society. Islam did spread with a fast speed but not necessarily due to marshal superiority.

Use of force and violence may bring short lived periods of sectarianism on the part of the poor and the oppressed but faith, one's way of life, cannot be changed with the use of naked force. While Muslim armies did reach Spain, China, India and Central Asia,but in many other situations, for example in South East Asia spread of Islam took place, not under the threat of "jihad" but due to voluntary efforts of traders, visitors, administrators and even soldiers who settled in various parts of the world. The one single majority, living in Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, and Philippines, over 150 million Muslims, were never "conquered" by an army of Tariq ibn Ziyad or Muhammad ibn Qasim. Connection of generalization such as use of force for conversion, will, however, take a long time and persistent effort on the part of scholars with an objective and historical approach.

The "threat of holy war" (E.I. 1936, p. 655), by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and by implication from Muslims in general, also needs to be analyzed at a historical level. The Qur'an talks about jihad (organized struggle) as a legitimate and ethical activity. It does not allow Muslims to use jihad as a weapon for conversion because the Qur'an recognizes rights to religious freedom and liberty. It allows religious minorities same human rights as allowed to the Muslims. However, if certain universal ethical values are violated by the Muslims or the non-Muslims, Islam takes a serious note of such violations. Islam, for instance, assumes that human dignity, modesty, and honor must be observed, and maintained in a sane society. If obsenity, vulgarity and nudity and exploitation take place in a society involving Muslims or non-Muslims, Islam considers it an ethical issue,  irrespective of religious belief of a people and insists that human dignity must be maintained. Similarly, the right to security of life, conservation and preservation of life is regarded a universal ethical value of Islam. This value must be preserved. Its violation by a Muslim or a non-Muslim must be checked. If life, honour, property, dignity, liberty of a people is in danger and people are exploited and oppressed, Islam feels ethically obliged to stand for their liberty even when force needs to be used in order to restore their freedom and liberty.

Jihad in this sense is not a "threat" but a hope for the people who are oppressed, exploited, subjugated, enslaved or colonized. The Qur'an and hadith do not call jihad as holy but as an ethical imperative. It is an ethical obligation on all those who want to see peace, freedom and liberty in human societies and cultures.

Lack of Assertiveness

A general observation on the articles on "Muhammad" (peace be upon him) in both editions of Encyclopedia of Islam may be the lack of assertiveness on the part of authors. They do not make a judgment, condemn or endorse certain positions and views held by Islam. However, this lack of assertiveness creates  doubt, uncertainty, ambiguity and confusion in the mind of the reader. For example, the construction of masjid (Mosque) in al-Madinah, by the Prophet (peace be upon him) is mentioned as perhaps an imitation of the Jewish synagogues, attributing this doubt to a known Muslim historian (Ibn Hisham). The statement also refers to some non-muslim writers who hold that masjid was not confined to prayer or worship, some others are mentioned to report that within the four walls of Masjid, the Prophet has his living quarters.

Suddenly, this whole discussion is linked with Masjid al-dirar claimed to be built like a  Jewish sinagogue. "If some writers have seen in the immediate construction of a place of a prayer (Ibn Hisham, 336) an imitation of a Jewish synagogue, Caitaine has with weights reasons argued that this was not a building definitely assigned to the worship of God, since the alleged masjid was also used for all kinds of secular purposes, because in reality it was simply the courtyard (dar) occupied by Muhammad and his family, while the assemblies for regular worship were held on the musallah (q.v. and al-Madina). On the other hand, the so-called "mosque of opposition" (masjid dirar) mentioned in sura 11 : 107 (see below) does seem to have been an actual building recalling the Jewish synagogue (E.I. 1993, p. 368).

This treatment of a simple matter in a rather circular, ambiguous, and suggestive manner, while it creates confusion in the mind of a reader, does not appear to be self-contained. Referring to Caetani and its claim that since masjid was used for secular purposes including residential quarters for the Prophet's family, it was not to be taken as a place of worship, that it uses a term for masjid which is not used for it by the Qur'an or hadith as synonymous to masjid. Musallah refers to any space used for making prayer, whether within the masjid or outside the masjid. While a masjid is a space declared as a house of Allah where regular prayer is to be established. Masjid al- Nabawi was constructed for this later purpose, i.e. designated as masjid and not simply a musallah, which could be established in a home, in a shop, in an office or even on a sidewalk or in a garden.

After creating, successfully, this confusion, the author refers to masjid al-dirar as an "opposition's mosque" while, in his view, it was like a synagogue! He does not elaborate what  he means by this statements. Does he mean a synagogue provides room for a professional opposition, while a masjid does not allow it ? Secondly, he does not tell us what is the source of his information that a masjid is supposed to be a place where only five time prayers or Jumu'ah prayer is to be offered and no discussions on economic, political, social and legal issues of the Muslim community should take place. We wish the author could provide one single support from the example of the Prophet or from the Qur'an on this issue.

The whole discussion of whether masjid is secular or sacred has no relevance in the context of Islam, which does not recognize this distinction as such. A religious vision which does not regard even sexual activity as secular cannot be blamed for expecting social, national, and international issues discussed in the Masjid. This does not make it resemble a synagogue either because a synagogue does not have such a wider use as the masjid has.

The above analysis of only one topic is an indication of the way some simple issues are treated in some western writings, particularly on the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him). It is amazing to see one and same approach, even similar way of creating doubt and confusion in articles of both editions of E.I. (1936 and 1993). It could be interpreted as a coincidence if same approach was not observed in other articles in the said reference work. Since it is not in the scope of this review to examine other topics, we have confined our discussion to treatment of the life of the Prophet in the two editions of the said Encyclopedia.

In conclusion, perhaps, while appreciating the research done by these writers, it is difficult to call it unbiased. Often a researcher does not realize his indebtedness, to a cultural tradition. With all sincerity, one may not be in a position to see facts of the matter as others see them. A methodological problem too exists, mainly liberal application of assumptions relevant for one historic context on an otherwise historically different phenomenon. To illustrate, we refer to the understanding to the term Wahy in Islam. The Qur'an claims to be the direct and objective revelation of the spoken word (Kalam) of Allah, while the mind of the western researcher looks on the objective phenomenon of revelation (Wahy) as a subjective inspiration, contemplation, thinking process of the mind of the Prophet (peace be upon him). This application of mental categories of a researcher rather subjectively, at the same time not realizing the presence of this subjectivity, leads to totally misplaced judgments, views and ideas.

This misjudgement, generally, is taken as a calculated effort on the part of the orientalist western writers, particularly the orientalist western writers on Islam by their Muslim counterparts. They even doubt the intent and purpose of western scholarship when they notice a stereotype view of Islam in the western writings.

We think this approach should give way to a sympathetic approach towards the western writers, particularly the orientalists. We need to understand their methodological, cultural and personal limitations. Not many of them apply a comparative phenomenological approach either. They rather take the path of an anthropologist, sociologist and psychologist and reduce the totality of Islam to an anthropology, sociology or psychology of Islam.

This reductionist fallacy is done not only with Islam, with a desire to "distort" or "misguide" others, but also with many other religious and cultural traditions. Hence, it is time to think on these issues openly, critically and directly. We hope if a frank, direct and personal dialogue takes place, it will benefit both the western writers on Islam and the Muslim scholars. It will also help in clearing the dust and allowing the modern students of Islam to see the real features, image and vision of Islam and Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

End Notes

Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History, abridged by D.C. Somervell, New York. Dell Publishing Co. Inc., 1965. Vol. I.

Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Religious Diversity, ed. William G.

(1) Muhammad" in Encyclopedia of Islam, E.J.Brill, Leiden, 1936, Vol.

III, pp 641-657; and Encyclopedia of Islam, 1993, Vol. VII, p. 360-387.

*Senior Professor of Comparative Religion and Director General, Da'wah Academy, International Islamic University, Islamabad, former Dean, Faculty of Islamic Revealed Knowledge & Human Sciences, International Islamic University, Malaysia.

(1) The Article"Muhammad" in Encyclopedia of Islam (1913 edition) is referred to in this essay as (E.I. 1936), while articles in 1993 edition is referred to as (E.I. 1993).