The Misuse of the Criterion of Embarrassment by Christian Polemicists Against Islam

Deleted L · Feb 21, 2022

The Misuse of the Criterion of Embarrassment by Christian Polemicists Against Islam

By Bassam Zawadi

We often see that Christian polemicists employ the criterion of embarrassment to bolster the veracity of specific ‘embarrassing’ stories about the Prophet (peace be upon him). They would argue, “why on earth would Muslims have narrated this story about Muhammad, which is clearly incriminating unless it were true? There is no motive to make it up.”

Keeping aside the fact that there are limitations and misuses of this criterion,[1] the actual implementation of this criterion against Muslims has significantly been misplaced by Christian polemicists. Due to my experience, here are the common shortcomings:

1) Christian polemicists assume that a certain story is ‘embarrassing’ to begin with according to the time it was relayed in. For example, they relay a particular story about how the Prophet and Muslims killed so and so people. There is no reason to believe that this story was “embarrassing” or “incriminating” to the early Muslims to begin with. It is just modern-day Christians and others who make these matters a big moral deal. One could have easily fabricated such a story or relayed it without verifying it, without thinking twice that the story was incriminating.

Sometimes, Christians do not even realize how self-contradictory they could be. They would say that such and such a story about Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was recorded in several history books with several isnads and at the same time appeal to the criterion of embarrassment. However, if the story were truly “embarrassing,” why do we observe several Muslim historians recording it and spreading it with no issues? Does that not at the very least demonstrate that they were honest transmitters of knowledge who did not intentionally distort the facts to suit any personal agendas?

2) Christian polemicists assume that we know who the narrators are. For example, they would narrate certain versions of a story, which contain many unknown narrators in the chain of transmission. Yet, the criterion of embarrassment should only be applied in a scenario where we know for a certainty who the person is. However, if we do not know who these missing people in the chain of transmission are and whether they are Muslims, non-Muslims, people with unreliable memories, hypocrites acting as Muslims and purposely spreading lies, etc., then how can we apply the principle of embarrassment?

We can only apply this principle if we know that the person is a trustworthy and reliable Muslim who would have no motive to lie and make up something derogatory about the Prophet (peace be upon him). However, the people in the missing link could be people known for fabricating narrations for all we know. Thus, you cannot apply this principle to these people.

3) Christian polemicists forget that this criterion is only a supportive circumstantial argument; not a definitive and independently sufficient one. It is as if these Christian polemicists treat any “embarrassing” story found in the history of books of Muslims as “authentic.” They forget that the criterion of embarrassment does not teach that each and any embarrassing story is reliable. Rather, it is only used as a supporting argument in conjunction with other factors (e.g., reliable witnesses/narrators, multiple and independent attestation/tawatur, etc.)

4) Christian polemicists ignore other potential motives of fabrications. They fail to consider other potential motives for fabricating such stories, whether they be sectarian, material gain, etc. Maybe those who made up these stories thought that the stories advanced their preferred narrative of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and were not considered “embarrassing” to them, though they are to everybody else?

5) Christian polemicists ignore the historical verification methodologies of Muslim historians vs. Muslim hadith scholars. They fail to consider that early Muslim historians did not apply the same level of rigor when it came to historical verification as the scholars of hadith. Their purpose of collecting and narrating these stories differs from what the hadith scholars intended with the hadith collection project. They are not afforded the same level of verifiable certitude and consideration in juristic and theological rulings. So many of these so-called “embarassing” stories were relayed by historians merely for the sake of documentation with the understanding that they were to undergo more stringent verification before any consideration was made to utilize them for any juristic or theological purposes.

[1] For example, see here . Also, Dr. Rafael Rodriguez’s article is a must-read for those interested in historical Jesus studies. He demonstrates how his fellow Christian peers misuse this principle.