A Critique of Professor Arnold G. Toynbee’s Understanding — Page 2
2 In general, the critique has been leveled at his use of myths and metaphors as being of comparable value to factual data and at the soundness of his general argument about the rise and fall of civilizations, which relies to much on a view of religion as a regenerative force. Many critics complained that the conclusions he reached were those of a Christian moralist rather than of a historian. ” (The Encyclopedia Brit an nica, Vol. Il, page 880 ( Chicago, Encyclopedia Brittanica Inc. 1988 )). “ The work provoked criticism from many quarters for its arbitrary hypotheses, factual errors, and over reliance on religion as a regenerative force. ” ( The Encyclopedia Americana Vol. 26, page 889 (Danbury Connecticut, Grolier Inc. 1988 )). These critics have also stated that his comments and criticisms regarding Muhammad, the Holy Prophet of Islam, are hostile, malicious, and contrary to the facts. It is essential for an authoritative and world renowned historian to keep in view, and take in to full account, all the facts when expressing his own views. It appears as if Toynbee did not adequately study the religion of Islam. It also appears that he did not draw from any of the original biographies on the life of the Holy Prophet of Islam. Toynbee’s statements give the impression that his comments are based almost entirely on a book entitled Mohammadanism’ written by a well known and hostile orientalist, D. S. Margoliouth. Toynbee has made references to Margoliouth in his