Part 5 - Appendix 1

As this paper is based upon the debate, we have included a section relating to the 15 minute rebuttals provided by both speakers. We begin with Smith's main points of disagreement, followed by a response. Smith's main contentions were:

1. That the debate was supposed to be "Is the Qur'an the Word of God"

2. That the inscriptions in the Dome of the Rock, didn't date from the 2nd century Hijra, but were added in later renovations of the mosque.

3. That the manuscript documentation provided had to be attested by experts.

4. That Creswell's testimony was not based on archaeological research, but on 2nd and 3rd century fabricated traditions.

5. That Nabia Abbott had written in 1937 and was therefore too old to use as a source.

6. That the reason Hajjaj had chosen Makkah as a place of pilgrimage was that he had wanted the Arabs to have an identity of their own.

7. That various cube shaped sanctuaries had been discovered around Arabia.

Our response to these extremely weak arguments are the following.

1. About the debate:

Smith should have read the letter he was sent by South Bank University Islamic Society (see below) as well as the tickets, posters and the advertisement material for the debate that he was given, which stated very clearly that the title of the debate was "The Sources of Islam", and on the challenging paper by Smith on this topic. If everyone attending the debate was clear on this, how did he miss this crucial detail?

2. About the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock:

This paper has not claimed for an instance that the inscriptions date from the 2nd century. In fact, it is Smith who brought up the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock. We were simply illustrating what the verses read. If Smith had a problem with the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock, why bring them up in the first place? If the Dome of the Rock has been rebuilt how does Smith contend that the verses that were present originally were different from the Qur'an with us today. Did he travel in time to see them?

3. About the attesting of the manuscripts:

Maybe Smith should buy a copy of the debate and listen to it again, as he obviously was not paying attention the first time. Every piece of manuscript evidence we have provided has been attested by Muslim or non-Muslim experts or both. Read the sections on 'Manuscript evidence' in sections on 'The Qur'an' and 'The Hadith' and 'Jews, Greecos and Doctrinas'. As mentioned earlier it is, in-fact, Smith's evidences that have not been attested by anyone. Crone and Cook tell us regarding the Doctrina Iacobi that it was "in all probability" written in the 7th century.

4. About Creswell:

Smith doesn't seem to realise that it is him, not us that regard the traditions as 2nd and 3rd century fabrications. We (together with many other non-Muslim scholars) are happy to accept Creswell's testimony if he based it on the authentic traditions. However, what does not make sense is that if Smith regards them as 2nd and 3rd century fabrications, then WHY IS HE USING CRESWELL'S TESTIMONY as a basis for his arguments!? Smith doesn't seem to realise that he is refuting himself !!

5. About Nabia Abbott:

It is true that Nabia Abbott wrote in 1937. She also wrote in and up to her death in 1985. The main book we have used in this paper by Abott was one written in 1967. Crone and Cook's book Hagarism was written in 1977. More importantly, we haven't even used Abbott to attest any manuscripts in this paper. We have used Abbott in this study in her expertise of Arabic scripts.

However, even if we had used her to attest manuscripts, there are no methods of scriptural analysis which are known today, that were not employed by Abbott. Manuscript analysis is primarily done through palaeography of which Abbott is a renowned expert, to this day, whether Smith accepts her as such or not.

6. About Hajjaj and Makkah:

Smith still hasn't answered the point. We are asking why Hajjaj chose Makkah, an inhospitable and barren place as a sanctuary and centre for the Islamic world. Taieef, and any of the other surrounding settlements were just as Arabian as Makkah, and as Smith himself contends, it is the most logical site for trade to pass through.

7. About other cube structures:

Smith claims that other cube like structures have been found in the Arabian peninsula. However given Smith's track record of misquoting and inventing quotes, we prefer to take this claim with serious scepticism. Smith needs to prove what he is saying. He has to prove that the structures are dated to the period that Jacob of Odessa was writing, and not prior to this, otherwise his information is useless. Secondly, he needs to prove that the cubes have been found within the region of the Hijaz, something we think is highly unlikely, given the unwillingness of the governors of Arabia, to allow non-Muslims to be present in the sacred land of the true worshippers of Allah.

Text of the Letter sent to J. Smith by the South Bank Islamic Society

Thursday, May 16, 1996

All Praise is due to Allah, Peace and Blessings be upon His Messenger Muhammad.

From: Shabbar Shabbir, Islamic Society of The South Bank University

To: Mr. Joseph Smith

Peace be upon those who accept Right Guidance. To Proceed . . .

Concerning our communication with you regarding the forthcoming debate at 3pm on 29th of May 1996 at the South Bank University, we strongly feel that the topic of the debate should be the issue of your challenging thesis concerning the sources of the Qur'an and Islaam.

The majority of Muslims with whom the society have consulted feel that until now no one has been able from our side to produce a truly convincing refutation of your material. As you yourself have stated in your paper "there is indeed much disturbing material with which the Muslim apologist must contend". This, as you yourself have stated, originates from a new crop of historical experts. Thus we feel that your integrity as a scholar very much depends on your being able to consistently defend these ideas. Additionally, we feel that your primary concern should be to defend your thesis and not to merely capture the public's attention with rhetoric.

In this regard, our challenge is for you to debate your assertions on the sources of the Qur'an. It is necessary for our speaker to have at least 90 minutes in order to cover the issues involved. This is because of the in-depth and technical nature of the subject matter. We feel that you should have no problem in responding to this challenge, without adding further issues, such as the Bible, which in itself needs a similarly lengthy debate. We are more than prepared to debate the Bible on some other, mutually convenient occasion.

In light of these considerations, the debate must be on the aforementioned topic. We challenge you to come and debate on this topic and this topic alone. Since you have already agreed to the date and length of the debate, we feel that your refusal to attend will seem to seriously indicate the weakness of your theories and ideas. This will leave us no option but to proceed to attempt to counter your claims in a lecture format.

Shabbar Shabbir, Islamic Society of The South Bank University.