Journal of World History

If classical Jewish depictions of the past under Christendom were overwhelmingly narratives of suffering, accounts of the relations with Muslims generally depicted a far more tolerable coexistence. Shlomo Dov Goitein, arguably the most accomplished scholar on Muslim-Jewish relations from classical to modern times, coined the term "creative symbiosis" to describe the early interaction between the two communities. ¹ Keenly aware of the changing developments over the course of history, and of the acrimony shortly before, during, and after the establishment of the modern state of Israel, he deemed this post-1900 period as "the new confrontation."² Goitein, however, was the consummate academic—able to read documents in their original Arabic and Hebrew, and rigorously objective in his analyses.

Recently, a new genre of recollections about the Jewish past has emerged. It has the political agenda of establishing the rightfulness of an Israeli state, while at the same time delegitimizing Palestinian claims to the land on which the modern Jewish polity exists. This revisionist approach seeks to debunk the idea of Muslim tolerance, trying to establish that the Arab and Muslim attitude toward Israel has little to do with modern political developments, but is rather simply the manifestation of a hate that comes from the very core of Islam. In Ishmael's House: A History of Jews in Muslim Lands fits neatly into this new category. [End Page 159] Sir Martin Gilbert, a much decorated historian of the Holocaust, has sought to weave a compelling revisionist counterhistory.³

In the very first paragraph of his narrative, he commits an error that manifests his unfamiliarity with the study of Abrahamic religions. He mistakenly claims that the Talmud is more than two thousand years old. In writing of the early history of Muhammad and the Muslims, he claims that the prophet of Islam was the one who adopted the ritual of circumcision for his people from the Jews (p. 1). In fact, Josephus, writing in the first century, had noted that Arabs were known for the practice—predating Muhammad by more than six centuries.⁴

It would stand to reason that if one wishes to debunk the history and scripture of another, one ought to at least read such scripture thoroughly so as not to make mistakes. Gilbert writes that Muslims ridiculed the Jewish institution of the Sabbath—something that is not supported by any verse in the Qur'an or material from hadith. Rather, the Qur'an castigates those who violate the Sabbath, and it is from such violation actually that comes the myth of the transgressors turned into apes (Qur'an 2:65). In an attempt to negatively compare Islamic war ethics against Biblical edicts, the author decides to cite the verses of Deuteronomy that forbid the cutting down of fruit trees (p. 15). Such tendentious citing actually opens the door to polemic that could run against the very idea of Qur'anic brutality that Gilbert is trying to establish. Anyone trying to compare would find nothing in the Qur'an's harshest verses to match the Biblical command to kill, slay, and burn as in Numbers 31:7-18.

The massacre of the Jews of the Banu Qurayzah has become the linchpin of many a propagandist against Islam, and Gilbert accepts the stories without question. Strangely, a nonhistorian and critic of many Muslim traditions, Tarek Fatah, examines the story, drawing upon several aspects of analyses to show that, while it did occur, in no way did he see evidence for the gory details provided by later Muslim propagandists.⁵

In Gilbert's narrative, there is no room for differentiating between the Qur'an and Muslim oral tradition—even though specialists are [End Page 160] very careful to do so. He asserts that Muhammad denies that Isaac was the sacrificial son and that rather it was Ishmael (p. 23). Professor Reuven Firestone—a rabbi and specialist in Islam—and others have shown that in early Islam, there were competing traditions, some showing that Isaac was the son, and that therefore it was not the Qur'an or Muhammad who questioned the biblical story, but that it was rather the politics of later Muslim-Jewish polemic that give rise to the legend of Ishmael being the sacrificial son.⁶

The reliability of sources, however, is apparently of no concern to the author. There is no need for much reliance on the research of Goitein, who writes that, while the Arabs have never suffered an "exile," they have nonetheless, in many respects, fared worse than Jews.⁷ Rather than rely upon the researched works of noted scholars such as Benny Morris or Avi Shlaim, Gilbert finds his own type of chroniclers. He describes Andrew Bostom as a historian (p. 49)—a designation that so far no other academic has deemed appropriate. Bostom is actually a medical doctor whose Islamophobic rantings are not the product of any academic research. Gilbert also includes in his bibliography the books of Bat Ye'or—condemned by most academics, among them Jewish historians, as another Islamophobe.

Yet, while the focus is on Jewish suffering, one can still find evidence in the book that autocratic Muslim leaders oppressed Muslim and Jew alike, as in the case of Gamal Abdel Nasser (p. 290). In terms of its strengths, this book comes with copious footnotes, an appendix of twenty maps, a glossary of Arabic and Hebrew words, and an extensive bibliography. The presentation is rather engaging, unlike the tortuous prose that is characteristic of many books of this genre.

In analyzing my notes on what I deemed to be evidence of errata and bias in Gilbert's book, I was troubled that perhaps, because of my own religious identity, I was judging the book rather harshly and committing the same tendentiousness that I am attributing to the author. I therefore examined several reviews of the book and found a strange occurrence. Scholars—Jewish ones at that—have criticized the book for its selective citations and reliance on debunked sources. Among [End Page 161] such scholars are David Goldberg, Robert Irwin, and Avi Shlaim.⁸ The last reviewer, a professor at Oxford University, contradicts Gilbert's labeling of all the Jews who left Arab lands as "refugees" and points out that, in some cases, Zionist agents actively encouraged many Jews to leave their ancestral Arab homelands because the newly created Israel was badly in need of manpower.⁹ Many nonscholars welcomed the book. And that is precisely the problem of the modern politicizing of historical revisionist narrative—under the guise of academic scholarship, much is purveyed that, in a world that knows terrorism and hate, only foments rancor and incitement to violence. Bona fide scholars question and criticize—but their words are not heard by those outside of the ivory towers of academia. Nonscholars peddle material and have become the pundits for the masses, purveying their hate through television and popular press.

Yosef Yerushalmi wrote that "Memory is always problematic, usually deceptive, and sometimes treacherous."¹⁰ In Ishmael's House brings out the truth of that assertion. Gilbert's book reads like an indictment against Muslims—although one can find instances of Muslim tolerance. The early centuries and what many termed "the Golden age" are skimmed through, and in the modern period the anecdotal evidence comes from only Jewish sources. Gilbert does write of the kindness of Muslims in many places, but their conduct is seen as individual and not reflective of the general trend. On the other hand, most Muslims hold that acts of Muslim extremism are not the norm.

The author dedicates his book to the 13 million Jews and 1.3 billion Muslims. It is difficult to see how this harsh counterhistory that accuses the prophet of Islam of subterfuge can be appreciated by those Muslims (p. 18). It is truly sad that such an outstanding scholar should have sought to so heavily weight his book with one-sided evidence. The fact is that without tendentiousness, he would have had enough evidence to present an academically defensible narrative and yet make [End Page 162] his claim for a Jewish state. Despite my harsh criticism of this book, I still, as other reviewers have done, recommend that it be read. It is fitting that people should compare its material with the findings of other historians and draw their own conclusions.