<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Balanced and informitive work
Review: In a small Indian village, someone was once given the task of preparing a wreath of good smelling flowers to be used by a bridegroom later in the evening in a wedding party. But he lacked the necessary amount of flowers to complete the wreath. In his yard he could find some dry cow dung which were commonly used as a substitute for fuel in cooking. Finding nothing else, he used those to complete the wreath. The wreath was brought to the bridegroom during the wedding party. You could well imagine the discomfort in the faces of the groom, the bridal hosts and the guests. The groom angrily walked out of the wedding party vowing not to marry. Wilfred Madelung follows the typical Orientalist path of rewriting Islamic history by collecting garbage, similar to our crafty florist in the above story, and slyly hemming such with bits and pieces of authentic information, much to the discomfort of ordinary Muslims. While the florist could be excused for not finding the necessary flowers to complete the floral wreath, Madelung cannot be excused for his preference for garbage, while he had all the access to finding good-smelling flowers. So, in the end, the reader walks away with a rotten, foul-smelling garland that is detrimental to his or her well-being! While any individual with interest to further his or her knowledge of Islamic history, especially the period of succession to the Prophet Muhammad sal-lal-lahu alayhi wa sal-lam (SAWS: meaning - Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him), will be bombarded by the plethora of citations made by the author, a closer scrutiny of most of these sources would show their unreliability. There is no denying that the author sometimes cites reference from such traditional sources as those of Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, Tabari, Baladhuri and Ibn Hajr, but the way he narrates the events by selectively drawing from these sources is very disturbing. Any earnest student of Islamic history knows it very well that Imam Tabari's style includes citing all the pros and cons of any event. He never shied away from citing any story or narration that was known to him despite its being weak or bizarre in isnad (chain of narration) and/or matn (text). But a discerning reader of Tabari's Tarikh al-Rusul wa l-Muluk or Jami al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an could easily decipher between a narrative story that was strong in its isnad compared to others that were weak. However, when someone like Madelung selectively chooses the ones that are unreliable and yet fit well with his aim of discrediting the early history of Islam, commonly known as the Golden Age of Islam, it only unmasks the ulterior, deceitful motif of the author. This is quite in contrast to his purported or declared aim of presenting a more reliable and accurate portrait of the period (see Preface). For drawing on the subject matter, Madelung quotes profusely from an Arabic book of poetry and songs, Kitab al-Aghani, written by Abul Faraj al-Ispahani (c. 897-967 CE). No one in the last eleven centuries gave much credence to such epic stories, molded after the likes of Mahabharata, Ramayana and Iliad. To fill up the holes in his revisionist history, the author also uses two other Muslim sources - Ibn al-Hadid and Minqari - who are discredited for their bias, prejudice and partiality. If that is Madelung's judicious way of drawing from narrative sources, one cannot but entertain suspicion about his intent. Similarly, Madelung's selection of western sources is very peculiar, to say the least, and criminal and irresponsible to the core. He uses such discredited sources like L. Caetani (Annali dell' Islam) and M. Sharon who are in a league of their own to malign Islamic history. To M. Sharon, for example, the term Ahl al-Bayt (people of the household) did not exist in the time of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS), but was only concocted after his demise and applied to the families of the Caliphs (p. 2). The Qur'an and sahih hadith (authentic narratives of the Prophetic sayings) are sufficient to prove the ludicrousness of such nonsensical discoveries of Sharon. As an example, I quote the following hadith from Sahih Muslim: 'A'isha reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) went out one morning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel's hair and that there came Hassan b. 'Ali. He wrapped him under it, then came Husayn and he wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hassan). Then came Fatima and he took her under it, then came 'Ali and he also took him under it and then said: Allah only desires to take away any impurity from you, O people of the household, and purify you. A reference can also be made to the Qur'anic verse 3:61 where Muhammad (SAWS) was commanded by Allah to issue a challenge (mubahala) to a Christian delegation from Najran who was disputing with him regarding the nature of Jesus Christ. The Qur'anic revelation was: "Then whoever disputes with you concerning him [Jesus] after the knowledge that has come to you, say: `Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves, then we pray and we invoke Allah's curse upon the liars.'" The Prophet (SAWS) brought Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Husayn for the mubahala, once again proving who his ahl were. The Christian delegation, seeing Muhammad (SAWS) being accompanied by his close blood relations, decided to pay jizya instead. (See Sirah Ibn Hisham and Ibn Ishaq, and Tafsir Ibn Kathir for details.) To Caetani, Fatima, the beloved daughter of the Prophet (SAWS), who was announced to be the leader of women of Paradise, was of suspect legitimacy, lacked any physical and moral attractions, and was not desired by anyone. By giving Fatima in marriage to Ali, the Prophet (SAWS) simply liberated himself from the annoyance of a daughter for whom he did not feel any sympathy (p. 3, footnote). One wonders what was the source of Caetani for making such preposterous claims! Caetani did not stop there but claimed that Muhammad (SAWS) was not a Hashimite or even a Qurayshite, but rather an orphan of unknown origin who had been taken into the family of Abu Talib. His fake genealogy was invented by Abdullah ibn Abbas and Hisham al-Kalbi (p.4). It is curious to note that in the 23 years of his prophetic mission, Muhammad was never accused by his most zealous of the enemies of anything similar to what Caetani would have us believe. [See, for example, Sahih Bukhari, vol. 1, Book 1, Number 6, where Imam Bukhari cites an encounter that Abu Sufiyan ibn Harb, the leader of the pagan Quraish, had with Heraclius, the Byzantine emperor, where Abu Sufiyan tells of the nobility of the Prophet, despite being an arch-enemy then of the Prophet (SAWS).] Unlike all other great prophets or sages of the old (esp., Zoroaster, Siddhartha Gautam Buddha and Jesus Christ), Muhammad's (SAWS) life was not hemmed on mystery. He lived in the spotlight of history. Caetani's claims are simply so ridiculous and ludicrous that it is probably not worth our time to divulge all his newly found discoveries! Madelung also cites from H. Lammens. To Lammens, Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet (SAWS), was a dull-witted, incapable person, married to the pitiful figure of the Prophet's daughter (p. 3). These comments are so opposite of everything that we know about these great characters of Islam that one cannot but be disgusted with such revisionist history. The well-known hadith, recorded by Imam al-Tabarani, states, "I [Muhammad] am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate (lit. bab)." Arabic literature is indebted to Ali for grammar and a superb literary style in his speeches and writings. His maxims are considered by many to be superior to those of Aesop's. The famous Egyptian philosopher, Prof. Muhammad Mustafa Najeeb wrote in his book, Hima'ethul Islam, "He [Ali] was the most learned person, the most brave man and the most eloquent speaker and orator.... On account of his sagacity and thorough knowledge of human mind he always arrived at correct conclusions and never changed his opinions." The famous western historian Gibbon wrote in his book "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire": "He [Ali] united the qualification of a poet, a soldier and a saint. His wisdom still breaths in a collection of moral and religious sayings; and every antagonist in the combats of tongue or of sword was subdued by his eloquence and valor." To call such a person as dull-witted and incapable, one can only question the depth or rather the lack of intellectual wit of Lammens himself. With such a line of pseudo-scholars whose ridiculous claims and stories that Madelung chooses to draw from to arrive "judiciously" at his revisionist history, one cannot but doubt the veracity of the arguments he puts forth. He discredits his book by further inventing some new tales that were never heard of before. For example, in page 78, he states that Umar had to call on God and rely on the help of Jinn to get rid of his political enemy, Sa'd b. Ubada. I could go on pointing out such irresponsible nuisances that are hemmed on this book. At the end, one could only feel betrayed by another pseudo-scholar of Islami
Rating:
Summary: Thorough
Review: Madelung starts off in the introduction with how a lot of things regarding the Shia-sunni conflict have been taken for granted, citing the major works in the area, such as Lammens and Caetani. He then gradually works his way from the time of the death of the Prophet till the martyrdom of Ali. No where in his book would you find him forcing his opinion on you. The sources and the references he gives are thorough, very well established and agreed by all. He usually tries to quote directly from the book he is refering to before he comments on the information, hence you are left free to disagree with any conclusion that Madelung may have drawn. A truly scholarly work. This book was definitely needed. I don't think any one should now hold opinions regarding the Shia sunni debate without going through this book first!Reading this book together (or after) the book Origins and Early development of Shia Islam by H M Jafri, would help greatly in understanding the book, since Madelung does not discuss the life of the Prophet and hence the readers will miss out on a number of events which occured during the life of the Prophet which the Shia claim indicate his nomination of Ali as his successor. Most notable of these events being that of Ghadir Khumm.
Rating: 
Summary: eye-opening
Review: Mr Siddique has, instead of writing an unbiased review, has given a story which clearly explains his "beliefs" and does not encourage open minded research. To get to the "truth" one has to keep his mind open and be sincere to his intentions. If the intentions are to justify the forefathers then even God will not help as He Himself has stated in Qur'an that man does not get anything except what he strives for. This is an excellent research even though I personally may not agree with many of its conclusions. Human progress lies in open and fair scholarship and the author of the book should be congratulated for taking a step in this direction.
Rating:
Summary: Controversial and Erudite
Review: This book has been a flashpoint of controversy between Shi'i and Sunni Muslims since this has turned out to be a rare instance where a non-Muslim scholar [a status that ostensibly gives him an objective position wherewith the sectarian divided can be breached for the sake of historical truth] arrives at a conclusion somewhat in harmony with the Shi'i view of things. Unfortunately, the flurry of sectarian debate has overshadowed a work of great scholarly importance [exhibit a: the reviews written prior to this one] by an author who himself-as far as anyone can know for certain at least-had no intentions of propagating one tradition over the other. The virulent Sunni opposition of the Sunni Muslims to this book relates mostly to the portrayal of Abu Bakr as a schemer, Umar as a bullying hothead, and Uthman as a rich fat-cat with a taste for nepotism while Ali is the rightful heir to the prophetic office. That is what the offended would get from the book. Actually, Madelung has a much more nuanced opinion of all the Caliphs which is the product of a mixture of deep admiration and criticism. Most frustrating to the Sunni Muslim, I would imagine, is how Madelung version of the events makes such ideas as ta'diil al-SaHabah wa-l-taba'iin, al-fitrah, etc. seem absurd and untenable [which many more progressive would admit are]. Most problematic within the work is the use of sources throughout. I don't mean this in the sense conveyed in the ramblings of one reviewer ["Dr. Siddiqui"] who seems to lack any coherent understanding of textual dynamics involved within Madelung's various texts. For example, just citing a text does not equal an endorsement thereof; rather, what is important is how the text is integrated into the larger structure of the argument and how controversial texts are placed within a hierarchy of certitude and historical criticism. Madelung here is about as meticulous as one could be. Moreover, he has to be for he write *against* the pro-Sunni grain of almost all of what has been written in the entire corpus of Western scholarship hitherto. Madelung, in reality, is a rather conservative scholar. His approach is optimistic-meaning that he doesn't side with the skeptical branch of scholarship that rejects all the details and accepts reluctantly, often with extensive revision, the general outlines of the Muslim historical record. After all, ALL of the sources we have today on these events were written/compiled hundreds of years after the events they claim to record while simultaneously be the result of considerable political tumult. Whatever side of these debates you fall, one has to admit that Madelung has written the most authoritative and interesting interpretation of the sources hitherto committed to writing. The case he makes from the Qur'an for Muhammad having intended Ali to follow him as the leader of the community is very crafty. His portraits of the intricacies of tribal conflicts and personal ambitions are masterful and stunningly lucid. Under his pen, these complex events regain a certain new-life. By the end of the book, Madelung makes one realize how astonishing it was that Muslim history actually took the direction it did, albeit while slaughtering many 'sacred cows' in the process...
Rating:
Summary: eye-opening
Review: This book is a very valuable work, and Dr. Siddiqui's review really puzzles me. Generally, to review a book, one should READ the book. Dr. Siddiqui's review indicates that either didnt read the book or perhaps flipped a few pages. For example: 1. Dr. Siddiqui claims that Madelung "uses such discredited sources like L. Caetani", however Madelung's whole book is a rebuttel to Caetani. He only cites Caetani to show how he was completely wrong! This is absolutely clear in the book: Madelung disagreed with Caetani's claims. Either Dr. Siddiqui didnt read the book, didnt understand it, or wrote something intentionally misleading. 2. Madelung mainly uses 'Sunni' sources, Tabari and Hadith, there are no stories or incidents that he uses that cannot be found in accepted Sunni texts. 3. The conclusions made by Madelung are not shia alone. He makes the point that many of the early sunni muslims did not agree w/much of what present sunnis bevlive. For example many sunnis did not consider Muawaiya a blessed companion. It can be said that all of Madelung's conclusions have been made by muslims (Sunni and Shia) before. 4. In no way does Madelung insult Islam, the Prophet Muhammad (S) or the other companions. He writes about Islam in a respectful manner, contrary to Dr. Siddiquis misleading review.
Dr. Siddiqui writes Madelung uses sources 'discredited for their bias, prejudice and partiality', however after reading his review, one is left with the feeling that Dr. Siddiuqi writes with as much bias, prejudice and partiality toward Madelung Caetani writes about Islam.
Great book, not perfect (but only the QURAN is anyways), but well worth a dispassionate read.
Rating:
Summary: Scholarly and authoritative
Review: This is a well-researched, well-written book on the history of the early caliphate. I realize that some (sunni muslims) will find the analysis in this book to be somehow unflattering, but I think it is very hard to refute Madelung's arguments (other than by adopting the rigid, orthodox view that the Companions of Prophet Muhammad were infaillible), which are based on a deep knowledge of the original sources (unparalleled even in the muslim world) and overall are very logical and make a lot of sense (the Companions were, after all, human beings, capable of great deeds, but not all of them were above having personal ambitions - as the inter-muslim wars after the death of Uthman show too well). As for Muawiyah, the author does a very good job of debunking the evil, rotten seeds of his personality. Highly recommended !
<< 1 >>
|
