The author of the blog entry goes
by the name vaughanbell and he makes the claim that Muhammad’s epilepsy is
merely a myth and in support the author cites a book titled, “The Falling
Sickness: A History of Epilepsy from the Greeks to the Beginnings of Modern
Neurology” authored by a
historian of medicine named Owsei Temkin.
This post will be a critical
examination of the claims made in “Did
Mohammed have epilepsy?” Most importantly, this post will seek to answer the
question of whether there are any reasons to think Muhammad, the founder of
Islam, was not an epileptic. It is important to note that that the aim her is not to establish whether Muhammad had epilepsy or any other mental disorder but rather to examine the evidence provided for the claim that Muhammad had no mental disorders.
The question will be answered in
two ways. First, the arguments made in the blog entry will be reconstructed and
evaluated for its soundness. Second, the evidences and reasons presented by
Owsei Temkin in his book will be examined to see if they provide any reasons to
think Muhammad was not an epileptic.
1) VaughanBell’s Blog
Entry
The argument presented by “Vaughanbell”
is fairly simple. He states,
“Mohammed, founder of Islam, is often described as having epilepsy...The
historical basis for such claims are almost certainly false, however, and first
stem from a historian writing almost 200 years after the Prophet’s death.
The myth has been most comprehensively debunked by the respected
American historian of medicine Owsei Temkin in his book”
“Vaughanbell”
then quotes three paragraphs from Owsei Temkin’s book in which Temkin states
that the claim of Muhammad being an epileptic was first suggested by a
Christian historian named Theophanes from the 8thth century and that
his motives could have been biased to portray Muhammad as a lunatic.“Vaughanbell” may have reassured himself that Temkin believes Muhammad was not an epileptic because of his third paragraph which states the following,
This is the story which was accepted by Western
historians, theologians and physicians. The story has all the earmarks of
religious and political propoganda. Hence it was repudiated by Gibbon as “an
absurd calumny of the Greeks”. (Temkin, pg 153)
It is not clear whether the
misrepresentation was intentional or not but the “story” that Temkin refers to
is the specific “story” told by Theophanes which is also quoted by Temkin and
is as follows,
According to
Theophanes, Mohammed had the disease of epilepsy. And when his wife noticed it,
she was very much grieved that she, being of noble descent, was tied to such a
man, who was not only poor but epileptic as well. Now he attempts to soothe her
with the following words: “I see a vision of an angel called Gabriel and not
being able to bear the sight of him, I feel weak and fall down.” But she had a
certain monk for a friend who had been exiled because of his false faith and
who was living there, so she reported everything to him, including the name of
the angel. And this man, wanting to reassure her, said to her: “He has spoken
true, for this angel is sent forth to all prophets”. And she, having received
the word of the pseudo-prophet, believed him and announced to the other women
of her tribe that he was a prophet. (Temkin, pg
153)
Theophanes account includes many details that are either not found or are elaborated from what is found in the original Islamic sources. For example, there is no record of Muhammad’s wife Khadija recognizing him as an epileptic or stating that she was sad to have married him. An example of the elaboration includes the detail about the monk. While Islamic sources state that Khadija had a cousin named Waraqa bin Naufal who was said to be a Christian scholar and that it was Waraqa who assured Khadija that Muhammad was a prophet, there is, however, nothing in the original Islamic sources to suggest that Waraqa was merely consoling Khadija as Theophanes has stated. There is also no indication in the original Islamic sources that Khadija went around to other women claiming Muhammad was a prophet. This is the “story” that Temkin quite rightfully claims has “all the earmarks of religious and political propaganda”.
“Vaughanbell” gives the impression that Owsei Temkin himself rejects the idea that Muhammad was an epileptic because of his rejection of the account provided by Theophanes. However, it will soon be demonstrated that Owsei Temkin does not reject the idea that Muhammad was an epileptic.
Nevertheless, it would be interesting to give “Vaughanbell” the benefit of the doubt and let us assume that Temkin infact states emphatically that Muhammad was not an epileptic based on the fact that Theophanes was the first person to make this claim and he was a biased Christian historian. Is this a good argument for the position that Muhammad was not an epileptic? Of course not.
The
argument can reconstructed in the following manner,
1) The claim of Muhammad’s epilepsy originated due to
religious and political propaganda
2) Therefore, Muhammad was not an epileptic.
Anyone can see that this is a
logically invalid argument. Vaughanbell commits the logical fallacy known as
the genetic fallacy. An appeal to the origin of a claim does not have any
relevance to the veracity of the claim. (For more info on the Genetic fallacy,
visit http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Genetic)
By this logic, one could also say
that Muhammad is an epileptic because the claim that he was not an epileptic
originated due to Islamic dogma and bias. However, that too would be a bad
argument for the same reason VaughanBell’s argument is bad. Thus, Vaughanbell’s
words that the claim of Muhammad’s epilepsy “has been most comprehensively debunked by the respected American
historian of medicine Owsei Temkin,” remain as an unjustified hyperbole.
Since VaughanBell’s post does not
give any logical or historical reasons to think Muhammad was not an epileptic,
one could proceed to examining the medical historian, Owsei Temkin’s book
titled, “The Falling Sickness: A History of Epilepsy from the Greeks to
the Beginnings of Modern Neurology.”
2) Owsei Temkin on Epilepsy and Muhammad
Owsei Temkin is an eminent historian of medicine from John Hopkins University. Unfortunately, his name has been used naively by many Islamic apologists to claim that Muhammad was not an epileptic. The Islamic apologists selectively quote a few paragraphs, much like VaughanBell, to claim that Muhammad was not an epileptic. However, it can be easily demonstrated that Temkins actual position on the issue is not as favorable as the Islamic apologists uncritically imagined. It can be seen that Temkin does not argue for either position; i.e. he does not attempt to show whether Muhammad was or was not an epileptic. This is perhaps the most sensible approach for a historian. In one of the key passages, Temkin states,
In fact, Temkin, on pages 371-373, discusses the newer attitudes towards life of Muhammad where there was a general interest among the academics of the time in presenting Muhammad as a hero or a reformer. At such a time, Muhammad was one again diagnosed by various academics with various disorders. Yet in contrast to the earlier Christian polemicists whose goal was to portray Muhammad as a fraud, the newer academics was trying to present a case for Muhammad's sincerity. They concluded that Muhammad mistook his hallucinations with reality and that this was done out of sincerity and was used for the good of the people.
The relevant paragraphs appear on pages 153-154 and 371-373. The pages have been reproduced below for the readers to come to their own conclusions.
2) Owsei Temkin on Epilepsy and Muhammad
Owsei Temkin is an eminent historian of medicine from John Hopkins University. Unfortunately, his name has been used naively by many Islamic apologists to claim that Muhammad was not an epileptic. The Islamic apologists selectively quote a few paragraphs, much like VaughanBell, to claim that Muhammad was not an epileptic. However, it can be easily demonstrated that Temkins actual position on the issue is not as favorable as the Islamic apologists uncritically imagined. It can be seen that Temkin does not argue for either position; i.e. he does not attempt to show whether Muhammad was or was not an epileptic. This is perhaps the most sensible approach for a historian. In one of the key passages, Temkin states,
"The [biographical] material [of Muhammad] was presented with the eyes of believers. We are not dealing with entries in a medical case history, and all sifting of "what really happened" from "what was believed" is tinged by the interpreter's bias" (Temkin, pg. 153)
In fact, Temkin, on pages 371-373, discusses the newer attitudes towards life of Muhammad where there was a general interest among the academics of the time in presenting Muhammad as a hero or a reformer. At such a time, Muhammad was one again diagnosed by various academics with various disorders. Yet in contrast to the earlier Christian polemicists whose goal was to portray Muhammad as a fraud, the newer academics was trying to present a case for Muhammad's sincerity. They concluded that Muhammad mistook his hallucinations with reality and that this was done out of sincerity and was used for the good of the people.
The relevant paragraphs appear on pages 153-154 and 371-373. The pages have been reproduced below for the readers to come to their own conclusions.
____________________________________________________________________
Conclusion
The debate over Muhammad's mental state cannot be solved by resorting to evidence as such historical data does not exist. Thus one can neither affirm or deny Muhammad's epilepsy or any related mental disorder on the authority of historical evidence. Muslims may choose to deny such accusations in accordance with their religion. Others may choose to believe Muhammad was an epileptic on the basis of comparisons to other cases of epileptics who often had visions of interacting with God.
_______________________________________________________________________
Temkin, Owsei. 1971. The falling sickness: a history of epilepsy from the Greeks to the beginnings of modern neurology. Johns Hopkins Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=SoFtZg0DhI8C
