Misplaced Pages

Hagarism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:29, 6 August 2006 editBhaiSaab (talk | contribs)6,082 edits Removing relevant sourced material is not a copyedit.← Previous edit Revision as of 17:12, 6 August 2006 edit undoCltFn (talk | contribs)5,944 edits try again , this time if you want to insert your quotes, go ahead just do not delete the other existing quotes which you always seem to get blanked out in the process.Next edit →
Line 75: Line 75:
|- |-
|} |}
== Reactions ==


== Reception ==
* ], who had mentored the authors, reviewed the book, specifically the first part, in the ''Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies''. He begins by praising the book claiming, "the authors; erudition is extraordinary their industry everywhere evident, their prose ebullient." However, he later comments that "...most, if not all, have been or can be challenged on suspicion of inauthenticity" and that "the material is upon occasion misleadingly represented..." ], professor of the authors, reviewed the book, specifically the first part, in the ''Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies''. He begins by praising the book claming, "the authors; erudition is extraordinary their industry everywhere evident, their prose ebullient." However, he later comments that "...most, if not all, have been or can be challenged on suspicion of inauthenticity" and that "the material is upon occasion misleadingly represented..." He concludes that their research, while good, was used by their methodology to make too grandiose an assumption:


:My reservations here, and elsewhere in this first part of the book, turn upon what I take to be the authors' methodological assumptions, of which the principal must be that a vocabulary of motives can be freely extrapolated from a discrete collection of literary stereotypes composed by alien and mostly hostile observers, and thereupon employed to describe, even interpret, not merely the overt behaviour but also intellectual and spiritual development of the helpless and mostly innocent actors. Where even the sociologist fears to tread, the historian ought not with impunity be permitted to go.<ref>]. "". ''Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies'', University of London, Vol. 41, No. 1. (1978), pp. 155-156.</ref> :My reservations here, and elsewhere in this first part of the book, turn upon what I take to be the authors' methodological assumptions, of which the principal must be that a vocabulary of motives can be freely extrapolated from a discrete collection of literary stereotypes composed by alien and mostly hostile observers, and thereupon employed to describe, even interpret, not merely the overt behaviour but also intellectual and spiritual development of the helpless and mostly innocent actors. Where even the sociologist fears to tread, the historian ought not with impunity be permitted to go.<ref>]. "". ''Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies'', University of London, Vol. 41, No. 1. (1978), pp. 155-156.</ref>


* Historian ] states: Historian ] states:
:In ''Hagarism'', a 1977 study by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, the authors completely exclude the Arabic literary sources and reconstruct the early history of Islam only from the information to be found in Arabic papyri, coins, and inscriptions as well as non-Arabic literary sources in a wide array of languages (], ], ], ], ], ], and ]). This approach leads Crone and Cook in wild new directions. In their account, Mecca's role is replaced by a city in northwestern Arabia and Muhammad was elevated "to the role of a scriptural prophet" only about a.d. 700, or seventy years after his death. As for the ], it was compiled in Iraq at about that same late date."<ref>]. "". ''The Middle East Quarterly''. September 1999. Volume VI: Number 3.</ref> :In ''Hagarism'', a 1977 study by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, the authors completely exclude the Arabic literary sources and reconstruct the early history of Islam only from the information to be found in Arabic papyri, coins, and inscriptions as well as non-Arabic literary sources in a wide array of languages (], ], ], ], ], ], and ]). This approach leads Crone and Cook in wild new directions. In their account, Mecca's role is replaced by a city in northwestern Arabia and Muhammad was elevated "to the role of a scriptural prophet" only about a.d. 700, or seventy years after his death. As for the ], it was compiled in Iraq at about that same late date."<ref>]. "". ''The Middle East Quarterly''. September 1999. Volume VI: Number 3.</ref>


Generally while acknowledged as raising a few interesting questions and being a fresh approach it's reconstruction of early Islamic history has been dismissed as an experiment<ref>van Ess, "The Making Of Islam", Times Literary Suppliment, Sep. 8 1978, p. 998</ref> and criticised for its "...use (or abuse) of its Greek and Syriac sources..."<ref>Stephen Humphreys, Islamic History, (Princeton, 1991) pp. 84-85</ref> The controversial thesis of Hagarism is not widely accepted.<ref>{{cite book | title = Political Islam: Essays from Middle East Report | publisher = University of California Press | date = 1997 | location = Los Angeles, California | id = |pages = p. 47}}</ref>
* van Ess criticised the book for its "...use (or abuse) of its Greek and Syriac sources..."<ref>van Ess "The Making Of Islam", Times Literary Supplement, Sep. 8 1978, p. 998</ref>


*Eric Manheimer in ''The American Historical Review'' said he found the research to be thorough even if some terminology was confusing and concluded that "the conclusions drawn lack balance". The review was by no means all negative. He complimented their scrutiny of the source and agrees that most Western Islamic scholars believe that Islam borrowed from Jewish, Christian, and other traditions.<ref>Eric I. Manheimer. "". ''The American Historical Review'', Vol. 83, No. 1. (Feb., 1978), pp. 240-241</ref>
* Stephen Humphreys, Islamic History, (Princeton, 1991) pp. 84-85, writes: "The controversial thesis of Hagarism is not widely accepted."<ref>{{cite book | title = Political Islam: Essays from Middle East Report | publisher = University of California Press | date = 1997 | location = Los Angeles, California | id = |pages = p. 47}}</ref>


*David Waines, Professor of Islamic Studies Lancaster University states:
* Eric Manheimer in ''The American Historical Review'' said he found the research to be thorough even if some terminology was confusing; he concluded that "the conclusions drawn lack balance". The review was by no means all negative. He complimented their scrutiny of the source and agrees that most Western Islamic scholars believe that Islam borrowed from Jewish, Christian, and other traditions.<ref>Eric I. Manheimer. "". ''The American Historical Review'', Vol. 83, No. 1. (Feb., 1978), pp. 240-241</ref>


:"The Crone-Cook theory has been almost universally rejected. The evidence offered by the authors is far too tentative and conjectural (and possibilly contradictory) to conclude that Arab-Jewish were as intimate as they would wish them to have been."<ref> Introduction to Islam, Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1995. ISBN 0-521-42929-3, pp 273-274</ref>
* David Waines, Professor of Islamic Studies Lancaster University states:
:"The Crone-Cook theory has been almost universally rejected. The evidence offered by the authors is far too tentative and conjectural (and possibly contradictory) to conclude that Arab-Jewish were as intimate as they would wish them to have been."<ref> Introduction to Islam, Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1995. ISBN 0-521-42929-3, pp 273-274</ref>


Legal scholar Liaquat Ali Khan posted an ] on the ''Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel'' website whose title "Hagarism: The Story of a Book Written by Infidels for Infidels" is based of a claim to the same in the book <ref> P Crone & M Cook, Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World, 1977, Cambridge University Press, pg. 8</ref> claimed
*] writes that "...the authors' fascination with lapidary formulas led them to cheap statements or to statements which require unusual intellectual gymnastics to comprehend and which become useless, at best cute." and that "...the whole construction proposed by the authors lacks entirely in truly historical foundations."<ref>Grabar, Oleg. , Vol. 53, No. 4. (Oct., 1978), pp. 795-799.</ref>
:The book titled "Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World," questions just about everything Muslims believe as historical truths. It challenges the common belief that the Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad over a period of 22 years (610-632) in Mecca and Medina. Instead, the book contends that the Quran was composed, possibly in Syria or Iraq, more than fifty years after the Prophet's death, projected back in time, and attributed to the Prophet.
:The Quran, according to the book, was fabricated during the reign of Caliph Abdul Malik (685-705) to legitimize an expanding empire. The book also contends that the word Muslim was invented in the 8th century to replace the word Muhajirun (immigrants), which was the original name of the Arab community that conquered Palestine and built the Dome of the Rock.
:The book itself prescribes a new name for early Muslims. It calls them Hagarenes, that is, the biological descendants of Abraham by Hagar. This racial naming of early Muslims is employed to distinguish them from Jews, who are the descendants of Abraham by Sarah. Hagarism, the book's title, is a quasi-pejorative, and possibly a racist, label to describe the historical phenomenon of early Muslims.


''Hagarism'' is "another book in the large dump of attack literature" and an attack on "the Quran’s authenticity, the Prophet’s integrity, Islamic history". He stated that he has had private correspondence with the authors and stating that Michael Cook had said, "The central thesis of that book was, I now think, mistaken. Over the years, I have gradually come to think that the evidence we had to support the thesis was not sufficient or internally consistent enough" and that Patricia Crone had said, "The book was just a hypothesis, not a conclusive finding," and "I do not think that the book's thesis is valid." Ali Khan also states, "Part of the confusion arises from the fact that Cook and Crone have made no manifest effort to repudiate their juvenile findings in the book. The authors admitted to me that they had not done it and cater no plans to do so." <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/04/28/d60428020635.htm|title=Hagarism: The Story of a Book Written by Infidels for Infidels|accessdate=2006-06-12}}</ref>
*Michael G. Morony remarked that "Despite a useful bibliography, this is a thin piece of ''Kulturgeschichte'' full of glib generalizations, facile assumptions, and tiresome jargon. More argument than evidence, it suffers all the problems of intellectual history, including reification and logical traps."<ref>Morony, Michael G. , Vol. 41, No. 2. (Apr., 1982), pp. 157-159.</ref>
==Impact==

Nevertheless the ground breaking impact of the book upon academic circles is demonstrated by the amount of discussion it has and continues to generate among many contemporary historiographers and historians of early Islam, such as: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ],], ] and ]. It is on the suggested reading list of the ] of London and other various major universities' Middle East studies reading lists .
* In 2006, Liaquat Ali Khan claimed that Crone and Cook have explicitly disavowed their earlier book<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/04/28/d60428020635.htm|title=Hagarism: The Story of a Book Written by Infidels for Infidels|accessdate=2006-06-12|author=Liaquat Ali Khan}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/042606AliKhan.shtml|title=Hagarism: The Story of a Book Written by Infidels for Infidels|accessdate=2006-06-09|author=Liaquat Ali Khan}}</ref>. However, neither scholar has publicly confirmed his assertions.

Despite the generally negative reception given the specific assertions in the book, the authors' criticism of what they saw as credulous reliance upon biased Islam histories has been widely influential. Subsequent histories of early Islam have usually referred to ''Hagarism'', if only to refute it. Even though the book is out-of-print and no longer widely available, it still features in many academic bibliographies and reading lists.


== References == == References ==

Revision as of 17:12, 6 August 2006

Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World, 1977, is a controversial book on the early history of Islam authored by historians Patricia Crone and Michael Cook with contributions from a number of notable historiographers of Islam such as G. R. Hawting and Bernard Lewis.

In Hagarism the authors make a detailed examination of the archeological , Arabic, Armenian , Coptic, Greek , Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin and Syriac records of the early 7th century and present their findings along with corresponding primary sources.

According to the findings of the the authors the historical documents presented in the book seem to suggest that the Arab conquests and the formation of the caliphate was a movement of peninsular Arabs who had been inspired by Jewish messianism and allied with the Jews to try to reclaim the Promised Land from the Byzantines. The authors present historical documentation that supports the thesis that the Qur'an was the product of 8th century editings of materials taken from a multitude of Judeo-Christian and Middle-Eastern sources and Muhammad is recorded as the herald of Umar "the redeemer" as a Judeaic messiah.

Thesis

According to the authors Hagarism was a heretical branch of Judaism followed by the Hagarenes or Arabs in the in the early part of the 7th century. The surviving records of the period describe the followers of Muhammad as hagarenes based on the way Muhammad invoked the God of the Jews in order to present an alien monotheism to the Arabs as their ancestral faith by claiming biological descendancy from Abraham through his slave wife Hagar in the same way as the Jews who claimed descendancy from Abraham through Sarah. During this early period , the Jews and the Hagarenes united into a faith losely described as Judeo-Hagarism in order to recover the holy land, (modern day Israel and the Palestinian territories) from the Christian Byzantines who had expelled the Jews from those lands. Eventually the Hagarenes splintered off from the Jews, and went on to devise a version of Abrahamic monotheism which would evolve into what is now Islam drawing from a blend of Judaism, Samaritanism and Christianity. Islam was thus born and fashioned after the Judaic mythology and symbology with the creation of a sacred scripture similar to the Jewish Torah - (the Qur’an), and a Mose like prophet along with a sacred city of (Medina) modeled on the Jewish holy city adjacent to a holy mountain .

Hagarism begins with the premise that Western historical scholarship on the beginnings of Islam should be based on historical, archeological and philological data rather than Islamic traditions which they find to weave dogmatically-based historically irreconcilable and anachronistic accounts of the community's past. Thus, relying exclusively on historical, archeological and philological evidence the authors reconstructs and present what they argue is a historically accurate and supported account of Islam's origins.

Virtually all accounts of the early development of Islam take it as axiomatic that it is possible to elicit at least the outlines of the process from the Islamic sources. It is however well-known that these sources are not demonstrably early. There is no hard evidence for the existence of the Koran in any form before the last decade of the seventh century, and the tradition which places this rather opaque revelation in its historical context is not attested before the middle of the eighth. The historicity of the Islamic tradition is thus to some degree problematic: while there are no cogent internal grounds for rejecting it, there are equally no cogent external grounds for accepting it. In the circumstances it is not unreasonable to proceed in the usual fashion by presenting a sensibly edited version of the tradition as historical fact. But equally, it makes some sense to regard the tradition as without determinate historical content, and to insist that what purport to be accounts of religious events in the seventh century are utilizable only for the study of religious ideas in the eighth.’ The Islamic sources provide plenty of scope for the implementation of these different approaches, but offer little that can be used in any decisive way to arbitrate between them. The only way out of the dilemma is thus to step outside the Islamic tradition altogether and start again.

While the full assertions of the book were controversial, the attempts to deconstruct early Islamic history make this a groundbreaking and important work in early Islamic history.

Sources

Drawing from early non-Muslim historical sources such as the Doctrina Iacobi AD 634 and numerous others listed in the table below, the authors document their thesis that Muhammad was preaching a heretical form of Judaism around 634AD and was proclaiming the advent of a Jewish Messiah. Early manuscripts from eye witnesses suggest that Muhammad was the leader of a military expedition to conquer Jerusalem, and that the original Hijra actually referred to a journey from northern Arabia to that city.

634 Doctrina Iacobi 650 Fredegar 676 The Synod of 676 692 Syriac Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraem 717 The Vision of Enoch the Just
636 Fragment on the Arab Conquests 655 Pope Martin I 680 George of Resh'aina 697 Anti-Jewish Polemicists 717 A Monk of Beth Hale and an Arab Notable
639 Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem 659 Isho'yahb III of Adiabene 680 The Secrets of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai 700 Anastasius of Sinai 720 Greek Interpolation of the Syriac Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius
640 Thomas the Presbyter 660 Sebeos, Bishop of the Bagratunis 680 Bundahishn 700 Hnanisho' the Exegete 720 Willibald
640 Homily on the Child Saints of Babylon 660 A Chronicler of Khuzistan 681 Trophies of Damascus 705 Ad Annum 705 730 Patriarch Germanus
640 John of Nikiu 662 Maximus the Confessor 687 Athanasius of Balad, Patriarch of Antioch 708 Jacob of Edessa 730 John of Damascus
644 Coptic Apocalypse of Pseudo-Shenute 665 Benjamin I 687 John bar Penkaye 715 Coptic Apocalpyse of Pseudo-Athanasius 770 A Maronite Chronicler
648 Life of Gabriel of Qartmin 670 Arculf, a Pilgrim 690 Syriac Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius 717 Greek Daniel,First Vision 780 Isho'bokht, Metropolitan of Fars
785 Stephen of Alexandria 785 Theophilus of Edessa 801 T'ung tien

Reception

John Wansbrough, professor of the authors, reviewed the book, specifically the first part, in the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. He begins by praising the book claming, "the authors; erudition is extraordinary their industry everywhere evident, their prose ebullient." However, he later comments that "...most, if not all, have been or can be challenged on suspicion of inauthenticity" and that "the material is upon occasion misleadingly represented..." He concludes that their research, while good, was used by their methodology to make too grandiose an assumption:

My reservations here, and elsewhere in this first part of the book, turn upon what I take to be the authors' methodological assumptions, of which the principal must be that a vocabulary of motives can be freely extrapolated from a discrete collection of literary stereotypes composed by alien and mostly hostile observers, and thereupon employed to describe, even interpret, not merely the overt behaviour but also intellectual and spiritual development of the helpless and mostly innocent actors. Where even the sociologist fears to tread, the historian ought not with impunity be permitted to go.

Historian Daniel Pipes states:

In Hagarism, a 1977 study by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, the authors completely exclude the Arabic literary sources and reconstruct the early history of Islam only from the information to be found in Arabic papyri, coins, and inscriptions as well as non-Arabic literary sources in a wide array of languages (Aramaic, Armenian, Coptic, Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and Syriac). This approach leads Crone and Cook in wild new directions. In their account, Mecca's role is replaced by a city in northwestern Arabia and Muhammad was elevated "to the role of a scriptural prophet" only about a.d. 700, or seventy years after his death. As for the Qur'an, it was compiled in Iraq at about that same late date."

Generally while acknowledged as raising a few interesting questions and being a fresh approach it's reconstruction of early Islamic history has been dismissed as an experiment and criticised for its "...use (or abuse) of its Greek and Syriac sources..." The controversial thesis of Hagarism is not widely accepted.

  • Eric Manheimer in The American Historical Review said he found the research to be thorough even if some terminology was confusing and concluded that "the conclusions drawn lack balance". The review was by no means all negative. He complimented their scrutiny of the source and agrees that most Western Islamic scholars believe that Islam borrowed from Jewish, Christian, and other traditions.
  • David Waines, Professor of Islamic Studies Lancaster University states:
"The Crone-Cook theory has been almost universally rejected. The evidence offered by the authors is far too tentative and conjectural (and possibilly contradictory) to conclude that Arab-Jewish were as intimate as they would wish them to have been."

Legal scholar Liaquat Ali Khan posted an opinion piece on the Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel website whose title "Hagarism: The Story of a Book Written by Infidels for Infidels" is based of a claim to the same in the book claimed

The book titled "Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World," questions just about everything Muslims believe as historical truths. It challenges the common belief that the Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad over a period of 22 years (610-632) in Mecca and Medina. Instead, the book contends that the Quran was composed, possibly in Syria or Iraq, more than fifty years after the Prophet's death, projected back in time, and attributed to the Prophet.
The Quran, according to the book, was fabricated during the reign of Caliph Abdul Malik (685-705) to legitimize an expanding empire. The book also contends that the word Muslim was invented in the 8th century to replace the word Muhajirun (immigrants), which was the original name of the Arab community that conquered Palestine and built the Dome of the Rock.
The book itself prescribes a new name for early Muslims. It calls them Hagarenes, that is, the biological descendants of Abraham by Hagar. This racial naming of early Muslims is employed to distinguish them from Jews, who are the descendants of Abraham by Sarah. Hagarism, the book's title, is a quasi-pejorative, and possibly a racist, label to describe the historical phenomenon of early Muslims.

Hagarism is "another book in the large dump of attack literature" and an attack on "the Quran’s authenticity, the Prophet’s integrity, Islamic history". He stated that he has had private correspondence with the authors and stating that Michael Cook had said, "The central thesis of that book was, I now think, mistaken. Over the years, I have gradually come to think that the evidence we had to support the thesis was not sufficient or internally consistent enough" and that Patricia Crone had said, "The book was just a hypothesis, not a conclusive finding," and "I do not think that the book's thesis is valid." Ali Khan also states, "Part of the confusion arises from the fact that Cook and Crone have made no manifest effort to repudiate their juvenile findings in the book. The authors admitted to me that they had not done it and cater no plans to do so."

Impact

Nevertheless the ground breaking impact of the book upon academic circles is demonstrated by the amount of discussion it has and continues to generate among many contemporary historiographers and historians of early Islam, such as: Bernard Lewis, Robert G. Hoyland, Reza Aslan, G. R. Hawting, Herbert Berg, Francis Edwards Peters, S. N. Eisenstadt, Ziauddin Sardar, Malise Ruthven,Richard Landes, Ibn Warraq and John Wansbrough. It is on the suggested reading list of the School of Oriental and African Studies of London and other various major universities' Middle East studies reading lists .

References

  1. J. Wansbrough. "Review". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 41, No. 1. (1978), pp. 155-156.
  2. Daniel Pipes. "Lessons from the Prophet Muhammad's Diplomacy". The Middle East Quarterly. September 1999. Volume VI: Number 3.
  3. van Ess, "The Making Of Islam", Times Literary Suppliment, Sep. 8 1978, p. 998
  4. Stephen Humphreys, Islamic History, (Princeton, 1991) pp. 84-85
  5. Political Islam: Essays from Middle East Report. Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. 1997. pp. p. 47. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  6. Eric I. Manheimer. "Review". The American Historical Review, Vol. 83, No. 1. (Feb., 1978), pp. 240-241
  7. Introduction to Islam, Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1995. ISBN 0-521-42929-3, pp 273-274
  8. P Crone & M Cook, Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World, 1977, Cambridge University Press, pg. 8
  9. "Hagarism: The Story of a Book Written by Infidels for Infidels". Retrieved 2006-06-12.

See also

Further reading

Categories: