Reflections of a Western Muslim Student upon the Christian Usage of Muhammad Sven Kalisch.

Yahya Hayder Seymour.

Revised on 27/01/09

 

It would appear that recently over the past month, certain Islamophobes[1] as well as Christian Missionaries[2] and Apologists[3] (and yes I definitely distinguish between the approach and method, as well as aims of the two) have been ever so happy to bring to the attention of the Muslims, the recent case of a German Academic, one that believes that the existence of Muhammad is something which in all likeliness cannot be proven and was never true.

Muhammad Sven Kalisch as the Professor is named has gained a now found fame, not because of his research having brought to us any conclusive evidence, in fact; to be honest evidence nor even his very thesis have even been brought to our attention (being something which only those with access to the German Language can really have access to currently), Rather we are being bombarded with his conclusion: Namely, Muhammad ibn Abdullah the Prophet of Islam, he most likely is not a historical figure rather a construct of the collective imagination of the Muslims.

Whilst Muslims are no strangers to the concept of radically revisionist hypothesis' regarding the truth claims of Muhammad, how much we know of Islamic History being factually correct, as well as several new revisionist theories upon the codification and compilation of the Qur'an (Hagarism of Crone and Cook rings familiarly in the collective memory of most of us, as well as the attempt to apply Wellhausen's higher criticism to the Qur'anic Text applied by John Wansborough) Kalisch is an interesting new case for one reason and that reason alone.

Namely, Kalisch claims to be a Muslim[4] and is a German convert supposedly extremely sympathetic to Islam.

(After some research, we have actually been able to investigate further the extent of Dr. Sven Kalisch's views, there are several interesting points which give us some insight into exactly the extent of Kalisch's views, elaboration is required and will be given!)

In an exchange between an eminent Scholar of Judaism, Alon Goshen Gottstein and the Scholar we have been discussing, namely Dr. Kalisch, some of Kalisch's publicized views are developed in more explanation, we quote Dr. Kalisch as saying:

"I start from the traditional Zaidite and Mu'tazilite viewpoint that reason (?aql) is superior to revelation"

In regards to the Bible, Dr. Kalisch has stated:

"Modern Archaeological research has shown to us that stories told in the Bible and the Qur'an are not History. Personally I think that the approach known as Biblical Minimalism represented by scholars such as Niels Peter Lemche[5], Thomas Thompson[6] and Philip Davies[7] is the best approach to deal with all such problems."

Even more fascinating..

"In my opinion the obvious result of modern research is that the patriarchs, Moses and even David and Solomon are not historical persons. They never existed."

(Thanks for the opinions Dr. Kalisch, guess we'll have to wait to see the rationale behind them.)

(All Cited from his initial first exchange with Dr. Gottstein in the Gerald Weisfield Lectures of 2006[8])

 Whilst this may very well be the case, it is not our concern here to decide who or not is within the boundaries of Islam and therefore I shall not be attacking Mr. Muhammad Sven Kalisch in any form of Ad Hominem or personal insult, rather here I am concerned only with ideas and thoughts.

It was a surprise to hear that Dr. Kalisch had been subscribing to such a view for indeed, it would not be unfair nor unbalanced of us as Students of Islamic Studies to indeed be quick on the ball in calling this theory nothing but extremely revisionist as well as nothing more than a conspiracy theory. However, we can only hope that Dr. Kalisch's book shall be released shortly so that his peers in Academia as well as we who have been so keen in following the trend in Islamic Studies of theories relating to Muhammad's existence can see for ourselves what exactly has lead to this conclusion.

Returning to my whole purpose in writing this reflection/piece of contemplation however, I had merely wanted to remind our friends within the World of Christian-Muslim Apologetics that responding to Muslims with the tu quoque of

"Well if you're going to apply that criteria to the New Testament and the Historical Jesus, would you like it if we were to use such a criteria on the Qur'an?" (Those of you familiar with Dr. James White's polemical responses to Islam shall be familiar with such a oft-repeated manta.)

and

"Well what about Muhammad Sven Kalisch, do you consider him a Muslim? If you're going to refer to people like Raymond Brown." (Again, something which Dr. White (ad verbatim) had said to Shabir Ally). 

 Well, whilst this might seem like a good opportunity to play the role of Character assassination of the source, and poisoning the well by drawing a false analogy between a highly respected authority on the New Testament Text, on Christology and the Johannine Gospel[9] and Dr. Kalisch, who has been relatively unknown in the circle of Islamic Studies until recently[10]. This unfortunately will not stop or pressure those of us who are serious in our endeavor to arrive at the truth, and to ultimately reach a conclusion upon the historicity of both Islam and Christianity, in fact if we are truly serious, we should view this as an opportunity. It will allow us to prove or disprove once and for all that Muhammad is the only Historical Prophet.

So my position is that I eagerly await the release of Dr. Kalisch's book and his published research, for I am genuinely interested in where he derived his entirely unique hypothesis from, I am interested to see whether it actually has any basis and I am interested to know for what reasons Dr. Kalisch still has for affiliating himself with Islam.

Many of us who are currently students in the Islamic Studies setting are no strangers to revisionist thesis' for there was a point in the 1970s and 1980s when Islamic Studies in Academia went through the crucial transition into a more balanced and nuanced period, where we saw the extremely skeptical theories of Wansborough being honestly questioned by Academics who recognized that there was a degree of hyper-skepticism. These scholars were not Super-naturalist, nor were they Muslims, rather Scholars like Harald Motzki, Nadia Abott, Neil Robinson and I.K.A Howard.

We even saw the rejection of what is now considered outdated and unprovable hypothesis' such as Hagarism.

With books like "In the Eye of the Beholder." Written and compiled by the Islamicist and Historian Uri Rubin, it seemed like it was famously established that Muhammad did indeed exist, for had he not existed how would there have been non-Muslim Sources on the man?

Finally we could be intrigued by the statement made by none other than the Scholar behind the Skeptical Work (Hagarism) herself in which she has stated:

 "There is no doubt that Mohammed existed, occasional attempts to deny it notwithstanding. His neighbours in Byzantine Syria got to hear of him within two years of his death at the latest; a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between 632 and 634 mentions that "a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens" and dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come "with sword and chariot". It thus conveys the impression that he was actually leading the invasions."[11]

Her Partner in Crime (Metaphorically Speaking) Dr. Cook[12] has also left us with some interesting thoughts to ponder over:

(Continuing from an earlier discussion)."What does this material tell us? We may begin with the major points on which it agrees with the Islamic tradition. It precludes any doubts as to whether Muhammad was a real person: he is named in a Syriac source that is likely to date from the time of the conquests, and there is a account of him in a Greek Source of the same period."  (Cook, 1996,Oxford Press, p.74)

Should it not come as a shock to most that whilst our most harshest of critics are coming out with clear cut admissions of the absolute abundance of evidence to support the existence of Muhammad as a Historical figure, we're being told by Christians that Muhammad did not exist and that the proof of this is the "opinion" of a Muslim who hasn't given any justification for it what so ever?!

I have one request for the Christian Apologist who raised this Professor up in a Dialogue between himself and Shabir Ally: "Show some respect for the audience, Please Sir!!!" for the issue is entirely irrelevant.

 In Conclusion, I plead with my Muslim Colleagues and Christian friends not to blow this drastically out of proportion by expecting us to join in with the "Liberal Modernist" Bogeyman approach or mere denouncing without engaging with or reading their work. For merely denouncing one as Liberal or as Modernist has never ever held any ground within the framework of academic research and criticism. What must be done however is to analyse one's thesis, particularly hypothesis and conclusion, then we can weigh up the evidence and decide whether or not one has adequately proven or at least put forward a strong case for their claims.

All Praise is due to Allah, and only the mistakes have been my own.

 

Yahya Hayder Seymour.