Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, No. 14)

Fred Donner teaches in the department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at the University of Chicago. He is one of the world's foremost scholars of early Islamic history, and he has published three controversial books on the subject: "The Early Islamic Conquests" (1981), "Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing" (1998), and "Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam" (2010).In "Narratives of Islamic Origins", Donner advances a number of important claims: (1) the Qur'an (in large part, if not in whole) can be confidently dated to the time of Muhammad; (2) while some hadith traditions may derive from the time of Muhammad, many such traditions (including those collected in hadith manuals widely accepted by Sunni Muslims) post-date the time of Muhammad by decades or more; (3) Muhammad and his early followers were largely if not primarily motivated by piety (ethical monotheism), rather than social, economic, or (non-nationalist) political considerations, though such worldly motives may have played some role in the early conquests (see pp. 217-20 of "Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam" for an argument that Arab nationalism was a product - not a cause - of the initial expansion of Islam); (4) the earliest Muslims did not sharply distinguish themselves from Jews, Christians, and perhaps even Zoroastrians; (5) Muslims did not develop an historical consciousness until they began to draw hard confessional lines between themselves and other monotheists, a process which was perhaps well underway by 660-80 CE and likely strongly supported (if not largely initiated) by the early Umayyads; (6) Muslims were originally motivated to write history exclusively out of a (more or less conscious) desire to provide legitimation for their faith (i.e., Islam, now viewed as a distinct confession), sect (e.g., proto-Sunni or proto-Shi'a), or tribe; (7) although the tradition of early Islamic historical writing is rife with scribal errors, contradictions, fabrications, and distortions, the tradition is generally reliable when it comes to major events that are widely reported at least from the time of the death of Muhammad, and perhaps even from the time of the hijra, though not before the hijra; (8) and, while admittedly difficult, it is possible in many cases to arrive at confident judgments about even minor events and solitary reports in the early Islamic historical tradition.All of these claims are controversial. For example, many scholars have rejected the traditional Islamic view that the Qur'an dates to the life of Muhammad, arguing instead that it dates to either the time before Muhammad or long after (or perhaps both, with different parts of the Qur'an dating to different periods). On a related note, many scholars have argued that early Islamic historical writing is either completely fictitious or that it is so riddled with errors that it is impossible for modern scholars to tell fact from fiction. In these and other regards, Donner is fairly conservative in his views of early Islamic history and historiography, though of course traditional Muslims will strongly disagree with a number of his claims, including his claim that Muhammad and the first generation of Muslims did not understand themselves to follow a religion distinct from Judaism and Christianity.I found many of Donner's claims to be strongly supported by his arguments. In particular, I was persuaded by his case for (1)-(3) and (7)-(8). However, I was not convinced by his case for (4)-(6). I am open to the idea that Muhammad did not view himself as the founder of a new religion, but rather the leader of a monotheistic movement that welcomed Jews and Christians as full members. Still, I am not yet convinced by Donner's arguments for this claim. (I should note that Donner presents a more extensive case for the claim in his recent book Muhammad and the Believers than he does in Narratives of Islamic Origins, but I've read the latter book as well, and I'm still not convinced.) At any rate, I believe that many of Donner's arguments for (1)-(3) and (7)-(8) are still extremely plausible - and in some cases even compelling - despite the fact that his arguments for (4)-(6) are not fully convincing. Moreover, given the importance of (1)-(3) and (7)-(8), I think it is clear that Donner's book is incredibly important even if he is wrong about (4)-(6) - and I do not claim that he is wrong about the latter, only that he has not yet convinced me of them. Also, I want to add that while I am not convinced that Muslims were originally motivated to write history exclusively out of concern for legitimation, I believe that Donner has made a strong case that at least a large portion of early Islamic history was so motivated, and I suspect that Donner could agree to a slightly weaker version of this claim without undermining his other arguments, though perhaps he could not accept a significantly weaker version without such a result.This is not the place to conduct a thorough evaluation of (6), but I would like to register at least one complaint here. Donner claims on pp. 153-54 that the sira literature was likely motivated in large part as a response to Jewish and Christian doubts about Muhammad's prophetic status, with Umayyad concerns for legitimation also playing a significant role. His claim is certainly plausible, but I don't see why it should be any more likely than the hypothesis that the sira literature was motivated largely, if not entirely, by pietistic considerations. It is instructive here to compare the sira literature with the New Testament. Paul's early letters may have been written within thirty years of the death of Jesus, but it took several more decades for the first gospel (Mark) to appear. Are we to suppose that the gospel accounts were largely motivated by a concern to legitimate Christianity as a confessional movement distinct from Judaism, rather than a pietistic concern to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ? I think not, and I expect that many non-Christian scholars of the New Testament will agree with me here. But then why assume that matters were any different when it comes to the sira literature? Granted, parts of the sira literature may have been motivated by various purposes of legitimation, such as a desire to advance sectarian causes, but I see no reason to attribute such motives to the literature as a whole.There is one more concern about the book that I would like to voice. Although I am inclined to agree with Donner on (7) and (8), I think that the challenges involved in arriving at confident judgments about many events in early Islamic history may be so severe that the game is not worth the effort. Then again, the challenges involved here may be less severe in many cases than those encountered in reconstructing reliable historical narratives from the Old Testament, but I would be strongly hesitant to say that scholars of the Old Testament should consider giving up on their reconstructions of Old Testament history. And I have similar attitudes about historical Jesus studies. So, perhaps the game is worth the effort. Still, I cannot help having some reservations about the pay-off from scholarly debates about who participated in the Battle of Badr, the outcome of the Battle of Siffin, or the leadership qualities of `Uthman ibn `Affan.Before closing, I should mention that Donner's book contains a wealth of interesting information, as well as some brilliant analysis, about the sources, themes, motives, social contexts, and historical development of early Islamic historical writing. In short, Donner's book is an invaluable resource for early Islamic history and historiography. No reader will be convinced by everything that Donner says, but I found myself agreeing with him more often than not. Finally, I would like to add that Donner is one of the finest academic writers that I have encountered - that his prose is a pleasure to read, that the book is well organized.

The book has two parts. The first chapter argues for "the date of the Qur'anic text" as the date of Muhammad's death. The rest of the book lays out "Early Islamic Piety" and its effect on Islamic narrative-of-origin.The first chapter is useless. By that I mean not useless to the reader - it's useless to the rest of the book. Leaving aside whether the chapter succeeds (I don't think it does): nothing that comes afterward requires that chapter to exist. All that is required is to make the case for Islamic piety from the non-Qur'anic sources, and to assume that the relevant suras existed as of the time of the first transmitters - generally a late first century / second century lot. For that the second chapter works fine, with only a few provisos needed; it is the real introduction to the book. Personally I felt distracted by having the first chapter in there. If Donner insisted on having the chapter in *this* book, then he should have exiled it to the appendix.I agree with the other reviewer on what the book was trying to do. I disagree that this work is a "key contribution in the debate over the historicity and reliability of the early Islamic tradition" against those three shayatin Crone, Cook, and Wansbrough. I don't think that the book contributes anything to that debate (excepting maybe taking Wansbrough down a few notches). Where it got involved in the debate, at the beginning, it didn't succeed in its aim (and it hobbled the rest of the book). I do think the book is a contribution to the *analysis* of Islamic tradition which, as the previous reviewer notes, is "the main aim of the work".What I'm trying to get my head around is to what degree this book is a contribution. Pages 98-202 outline the "themes of..." Islamic piety and historiography, and the next 90 or so pages extrapolate therefrom. It's nice that someone took the time to outline those themes. I appreciated that it was all set out in contents of time and place. It has an index, so you can look up keywords; and it has (good) footnotes, so you can relate those keywords to other literature written before 1998. If you're a critic of formative Islamic literature, you'll want at least to take this book into account. But what are *you*, visitor within Amazon, going to get out of this? How does a detailed awareness of Islamic themes help us to understand ta'rikh?I don't think it matters, honestly. For that redundancy as well as for its first chapter, I don't recommend this book.

The book was received as advertised, and I am happy with it's condition. I am also very pleased at the timely manner in which I received the book. I am very satisfied.