Carimokam's argument

Sahaja Carimokam, a pseudonym, attempted in on the "counterjihad" with Muhammad and the People of the Book. Xlibris "published" this book, which I assume is a Createspacelike from the early 2010s. This explains its solecisms and minor errors: it didn't get edited.

I don't see that the book got very far. Other books resemble it as confront the Sîra / Maghâzî through its own words. Anyway now David Cashin has posted the whole thing on academia.edu.

Since I start as a skeptic of the sources, the chapter of value to me is the penultimate one, exactly on the historical reliability of the sources. Carimokam here argues from Tertullian's ancient standpoint that the Hadith generally was seen as ineptus (citing Waqidi); therefore, is trustworthy. He brings in (pre-2010) Harald Motzki to buttress certain anedotes as authentic.

In particular: the Prophet's reliance upon what Ismailis might term "assassinations". One wonders what Carimokam would have made of Roohi. I assume Carimokam knows the Astinameh malarkey and righteously dismisses all that.

Outside sources are deemed equally as polemic and problematic as the inside sources, if not more so. These weren't separated from Islamic origins by time and 'Abbâsî-era orthodoxy... but they were so separated by space, and although Christian orthodoxy doesn't come up much until John Damascene, there was instead a Christian haeresiology, which had trouble figuring out what Islam even was: a subset of Judaism? Arianism? - anyway, this is perhaps Carimokam's strongest point, that attempting the history of a movement just from reading its enemies' propaganda is, at best, a wash.

Carimokam owns more dissonance about the Quran: the powers of the Rashidoon state are assumed mighty and undivided, which enforced an orthodox text, against its rivals which rivals Carimokam also concedes. I don't know how Carimokam digs himself out of this hole but, if I were to present his argument for him, I would say something like "the canon of suwar is rarely disputed in Islam, and their internals are not disputed sufficiently against my moral concerns".

Carimokam argues that Islam was an experiment in cobbling together an antiChristianity and an antiJudaism, intended to rule over both, from an Arabian base. This comes close to Durie's voodoo-theory. Unlike Durie and more like Hawting (acknowledged - Carimokan is very wellread) Carimokam sees Arabian paganism as basically dead. By the way this suggests that Carimokam might come around to Gibson and, yes, to Crone that the whole "Meccan period", featuring those pagans, was a phantasy, a town of sand as Rushdie so-memorably composed it.

This chapter's pro-Sîra argument depends mainly on the "Madinan" suwar (2-5, 9, 24, 33, 48, 57-66 etc) where they attack Judaism. If these suwar were composed during the great invasions, why would they even bother with The Jooos - Carimokam asks. Later suwar outside Arabia should oppose Christianity; pretty-much alone, given how far Magianism had collapsed. Sure: I might be able to respond to this chapter's argument, but it would take me some effort to confront said argument, because it is a good argument.

I am not Carimokam and, personally, I would not have attempted a project like this. If commissioned to write an antiIslam book, as opposed to a research/critical book, I would have started with Casanova's avertissement upon the overall Sîra and Qurân as problematic. Having so guarded my flank I would explicate such morally-problematic ahadith as Motzki and Roohi would accept. I would discuss / dismiss the "Madinan" texts in an aside, as outgrowths of those ahadith; perhaps incorporating elements of Muhammadan law in postMuhammadan revelations.