In the Shadow of the Sword (book)

Dan Jones, writing for the Telegraph, praised Holland for his impressive scholarship, penned in similarly impressive prose.[7] In the end, he broached — "Is this Satanic Verses territory?" — something Holland himself referenced to at the very beginning of the book about Salman Rushdie who received death threats from leading Islamic politicians after writing a revisionist take on Islam’s origin.[7]

Anthony Sattin, writing in The Guardian, admired Holland for his provocative work which boldly re-examined the earliest spans of Islam; he went on to assert that the historicity of Prophet Muhammad and Qur'an shall be rigorously investigated without being held hostage to any fanaticism.[4] Malise Ruthven, reviewing for The Wall Street Journal noted it as a magisterial tour-de-force wherein Holland convincingly connected the end of imperial empires with the rise of Islam.[3]

Barnaby Rogerson, writing for The Independent, noted the work to be extraordinarily rich, detailed and enchanting; his writing was praised in particular.[1] He however noted that the sources offered by Holland, even from the non-Muslim world, supported the mainstream scholarship at large and appear to have been misused by Holland in pursuit of his point; Holland's repositioning of Islam's place of origin to be Syria-Palestine and doubts about Mecca's position were held as wild and unconvincing.[1]

Richard Miles noted it to be an exhilarating read which was ultra-skeptical of Islamic sources and highly confrontational; at the end, he poses, "And if much of the history of early Islam is fabricated, then how to explain the consensus that exists across a range of texts from bitterly opposed sectarian communities (Sunni, Shia, etc)? Do we really believe that an entire community invested in this vast lie about the prophet, and that somehow some shadowy force was able to control all dissenting opinion within Arab circles?"[6]

Historian Glen Bowersock, wrote a scathing review in The Guardian, holding the work as titillating yet grossly irresponsible and unreliable.[2] Holland's lack of linguistic proficiency in any of the oriental tongues leading to linguistic errors and complete dependence on translations and secondary sources, ignorance of decades of research on pre-Islamic Arabia, and failure to account for the recent discoveries of late-antique South Arabian inscriptions as well as early Qur'an manuscripts were pointed out specifically.[2] Holland had provided a rebut to his review over the same publication.[8]

Ziauddin Sardar, writing for the New Statesman, noted that the book seemed to be tailored to suit the rise in Islamophobic sentiments around the globe, and presented a grand narrative based on works of a "largely discredited group of orientalists" whose ample criticisms, Holland seemed to be ignorant about.[5] He finished his critique with "I find Holland’s total dismissal of Muslim scholarship arrogant (which I know he is not), insulting (which I know he does not mean to be) and based on spurious scholarship (though his scholarship is usually sound)."[5]

Nebil Husayn, formerly of Princeton University, was sharply critical in his evaluation, as well and noted of the work to be an epitome of orientalist history which was set upon to prove the intellectual and cultural aridity of 7th c. Arabia.[9]