Top historian confirms the historical reliability of the Muslim traditions.

A top expert on Arabic and Islamic history confirms the historical reliability of the Muslim dating of the Quran and events in early Islamic history. He cites some fascinating and extremely early historical evidence.


Hugh Nigel Kennedy is a British medieval historian and academic. He specialises in the history of the early Islamic Middle East. From 1997 to 2007, he was Professor of Middle Eastern History at the University of St Andrews. Since 2007, he has been Professor of Arabic at SOAS, University of London.

Tolerance of Muslims

Prophet Muhammad was reported to have said,

 “He who unfairly treats a non-Muslim who keeps a peace treaty with Muslims, or undermines his rights, or burdens him beyond his capacity, or takes something from him without his consent; then I am his opponent on the Day of Judgment” (Abu Dawud and Al-Bayhaqi).

Not only was this the norm of the Prophet on the issue, but the Rightly Guided Caliphs also practiced His footsteps.

 Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, the First Caliph, wrote to the people of Najran:

 'In the Name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful. This is the written statement of God's slave Abu Bakr, the successor of Muhammad, the Prophet and Messenger of God. He affirms for you the rights of a protected neighbor, in yourselves, your lands, your religious community, your wealth, retainers, and servants, those of you who are present or abroad, your bishops and monks, and monasteries, and all that you own, be it great or small. You shall not be deprived of any of it, and shall have full control over it.'

Gustav Le Bon affirmed this historical fact:

"The Arabs could have easily been blinded by their first conquests, and committed the injustices that are usually committed by conquerors. They could have mistreated their defeated opponents or forced them to embrace their religion, which they wished to spread all over the world. But the Arabs avoided that. The early caliphs, who had a political genius that was rare in proponents of new religion, realized that religions and systems are not imposed by force. So they treated the people of Syria, Egypt, Spain, and every country they took over with great kindness, as we have seen. They left their laws, regulations, and beliefs intact and only imposed on them the jizya, which was paltry when compared to what they had been paying in taxes previously, in exchange for maintaining their security. The truth is that nations had never known conquerors more tolerant than the Muslims, or a religion more tolerant than Islam." (Lebon, G, The Civilization Of The Arabs, p. 605)

Reinhart Dozy, the Dutch historian, wrote:

"The Berbers did not have a sacred book. So, It clearly follows that the tolerance was going to a great extent possible, maybe, further than Muhammad had wanted.

In addition the Muslim domination was a relief and a blessing, especially for Christians. Christians in the East belonged mostly to sects that the Officials of Constantinople oppressed and persecuted while Islam, naturally, gave them full freedom to understand Christianity as they saw fit and gave equal protection to all old and new sects.

If we add that the heavy taxes they had to pay to the Roman emperor were not demanded by the new government and that the capitation tax that was posed, was moderate; it is not surprising that they gave much preference to the domination of Muslims over that of the Romans and that they vigorously support the Arabs in their conquests far from working against them."