Talk:Hagarism/Archive 1

Anon addition

On April 3, 2006, I had a phone coversation with Professor Michael Cook and talked about the book, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World. He said to me the following, which he later confirmed by means of an email.

"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 consitent enough."

On April 6, 2006, I interviewed Professor Patricia Crone as well to see what she thinks about the book, Hagarism. She was even more candid in repudiating the central thesis of the book. She said that she agrees with the critics that the book was "a graduate essay." "We were young, and we did not know anything." "The book was just a hypothesis, not a conclusive finding," said Professor Crone. "I do no think that the book's thesis is valid."

For a detailed article on the book, see [1]

Professor Ali Khan
Washburn University
=School of Law

Topeka, KS 66621

An anon added this... but, with that's not citable as far as I can tell.... even if it is professor Ali Khan and even if he is a notable source. It'd need to be in a published article somewhere or some easily accessible source and not a personal correspondence. In any case, what was said may very well be true... so, maybe we can find this information in another source? gren グレン 14:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Smells like clever disinformation . The guy quotes his own original research alleging phone conversations and interviews that are not published anywhere by an independent sources.--CltFn 03:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We can't completely ignore it, you know. Firstly, it is not self-published but on a seemingly minor news source with presumably no peer review. I do think it deserves mention as "L. Ali Khan claims Crone and Cook have distanced themselves..." because he is a professor and it is published... and well... there are other sources lacking here. It's not like we're impeding on a well sourced article. I have e-mailed him asking if he can direct me towards a peer reviewed article or one published by Cook and Crone themselves. I do think that as a professor at a decently known university it's probably unlikely that he would just make up a conversation with Crone and Cook. Is it possible and maybe even likely that his view is biased? Yes. His area of expertise is also not early Islamic historiography so once again he is not in the best position to disprove the thesis. But, to say it's disinformation is assuming too much. gren グレン 08:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

CltFn, as per Patricia Crone (for more or our correspondence see Talk:Patricia Crone) the conversation did exist although if you read Liaquat Ali Khan's article he will say it's because they don't want to use their fame built on the book... while she talks about disagreeing with certain points made and that the whole theory hadn't "paid off". Stephen Humphreys had apparently described the book as "a brilliant graduate essay" and she was passing on his sentiments while removing the boast. So, I think that context helps since it wasn't nearly as disparaging. I think we can quote a limited amount of Liquat Ali Khan's article. Although, I think the best way to realize that she has backed off some of the thesis is to be well versed with her later works. So, there we go. gren グレン 15:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Khan's commentary is not notable and it is not an article , all it is , is submitted commentary that anyone can post here. I have yet to read a statement from Crone or Cook saying that they have backed off from their earlier premise , not that it may not exist , I just have not come accross it.--CltFn 04:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is also in the Daily Star. [2] We have no reason not to keep it. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Issues

Here are some issues that should be addressed and well source:

• Updated views by Crone / Cook
• Reviews -- I've read a bunch from JStor... they tend to think "interesting and well cited but overly critical without really knowing"
• "For infidels by infidels" this made a big impression and was in their introduction and has been mentioned in all the reviews I've read.

--gren グレン 08:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have access to a review by Wansbrough (http://www.jstor.org/view/0041977x/ap020088/02a00160/0) which should be very interesting since he is their teacher. I will add some of that... the problem is these are all late 1970s review and new discoveries like the Qur'an grave in Yemen have made a difference to the field. We need updated views on this and I can't find one by the authors themselves. gren グレン 08:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly he has tons of praise at the beginning but questions many of their logical leaps and their use of sources. Basically his conclusion is: "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."

So, Wansbrough, as did others think they assumed too much. --gren グレン 09:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer

I think this page needs a disclaimer. There is not enough being said to show that the book is a point of view, and not fact. This article seems to be more about trying to refute Islam rather than stating information about the book that already tried to do so. --JBull12 22:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to mention exactly what parts of this you think try to refute Islam please list them. The issue here is that the book did try to refute the whole Islamic notion of history. As their preface to their book said no Muslims listened and the reviews from the scholarly community tended to be that they missed the mark proving their thesis... but it is an important book. My experience has been that when you ask what criticial work you should read about early Islamic history they say this. Rudi Matthee was the one who originally told me about this... when I later asked if the thesis had become accepted (before I knew more) he said no but it was just an important basis. While Wansbrough may have trashed the conclusion of this book he didn't trash much of their deconstruction of Islamic piety in the study of Islamic history. So, I'm not sure how we should address this. You can add an NPOV tag if you want to give an explanation of how we should fix this. But, if you add the NPOV tag with no explanation at all then it will be removed. gren グレン 18:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Liaquat Ali Khan article

Okay, we need to agree on this and avoid an edit war. CltFn, firstly stop calling the article a hoax... it's not very helpful and it also makes me question your judgment since I did talk to Patricia Crone about the issue. It is not a hoax. It does, however, not give us context as to how those things were said and through my conversation with Professor Crone I became informed that many of the quotes were taken out of conext. So, let's address the relevant issues. CltFn is right in that it is not a scholarly article and must therefore be questioned. We have no reason or context to believe that there was a complete repudiation of the book. In fact, there was not. Historians in books set out theses for how history worked and through the course of their careers refine that and if some hypothesis didn't turn out to be necessarily correct they propose a new one. Therefore, I think a much more helpful analysis would be the subsequent work of Crone or Cook distancing themselves from this book's hypothesis. However, is an article by Liaquat Ali Khan (not on his area of expertise) notable? That is the issue that must be addressed.

Here is my preliminary response. Yes. It is notable because this is not a good article. This article consists of a summary made by CltFn that doesn't represent the book's thesis very well. Even Crone criticized it and asked me to make some changes to it because it didn't represent the thesis of the book and she thought it was being written to be critical of Islam in ways the book hadn't intended. It is basically original research which represents parts of the book arbitrarily. Not to be too harsh, though, this article was not as bad as Patricia Crone and the quote presented in the article does a good job of representing the methodology of the book. Then there are three reviews. The one by Eric I. Manheimer is completely arbitrary and I used it just because I read his review. The one by Wansbrough makes sense because he is an academic of the same vein as Crone and Cook and therefore what he says is good comparison. Daniel Pipes is a notable conservative columnist and although this time period is not his expertise his viewpoint on this issue is worthwhile. We should have better reviews, though. I analyze the state of the article to show that it isn't very good. If it was a good article then the level of sources we use should be better. However, I don't think we can call for great sources when the article is in such a shape.

I do not mean to say that I would accept the paragraph as it stands. It opens up "Michael Cook and Patricia Crone no longer subscribe to the findings of this work". Well... no... that sentence is an incredibly strong statement that doesn't even mention that the apparent thoughts of Crone and Cook are being siphoned through Liaquat Ali Khan. We must place more emphasis on this not being their words. I think if we cite it we need to first mention that his article is mainly his own personal critique of the book. That later cites "personal correspondence" as a means for finding they have distanced themselves from their thesis. That will give the reader of this article context as to the viewpoint of Liaquat Ali Khan and further distance the quotes so we aren't pretending they are fully in context. Can this be a start for an agreement on how to deal with that article? I also want to stress that we should find better sources for everything (even citing secondary sources for the summary of this book would be a good idea). Thanks. gren グレン 07:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Gren , OK calling it a hoax was a bit strong, but it really is a misrepresentation of an article , because it is meant to look like a legitimate journalism, but all it really is a posting to a website that allows anyone to post to it. Should we all begin to submit articles to that website here so as to deceive the world into believing that these are legitimate sources?

As far as this article on Hagarism, I do not consider this article complete by any means but I did begin the topic which is a first step. There is a lot more to add to it , which I plan on doing as I glean more material from the book which I have read , and continue to read since there is so much to it , with its 120 pages of citations and references , many of which are well deserving of their own article. I humbly began this task with the Doctrina Iacobi article which is still a stub of sorts and that is only one of probably a list of 20 -30 or more primary sources that need articles. And furthermore Hagarism is just one many books which are queued on my to do list. But I hope that Crone or Cook will have some patience , with us wikipedia editors who are doing the best to get their work included in the encyclopedia in a comprehensive manner in the teeth of a lot of opposition.

As far as Ali Khans allegations , or yours for that matter , both of you seem to have private correspondences with the authors, this is fine but it still amounts to WP:OR as far as I can determine. But if you find legitimate published repudiations from the authors go ahead and add them. --CltFn 04:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the site is not very official. He did mention it getting published in the Michigan Law review... if that happens it will have to be dealt with. I honestly don't care very much about its inclusion (as long as it isn't represented as fact); I just don't want to see it become an edit war. I also think from later works that you can tell that Crone and Cook have "refined" (which may be more accurate than changed) their thesis some and that probably should be incorporated in some way... but, I'm not sure how to source it.

As for original research you'll note that I don't add any of it to the article. I mention it on the talk page because if the summary of the book in the article contradicts how Crone sees her thesis then I am going to mandate that it be well sourced. Also, as she said to Liaquat Ali Khan and to me... historians don't typically publish repudiations of their books... they release more books that refine their research... so, the issue is that we won't have any discrete sources about her change in opinion... but, if we were a good academic journal we would analyze her later works to note the changes. The problem is that borders on WP:OR even though it is the proper academic approach. But, I don't think any of us are truly qualified to analyze her work in the first place (not yet at least) so... I guess we'll just have to wait. gren グレン 11:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is not just on the website that you mentioned CltFn - I put it in another source and I don't think it's fair that you're censoring it. Liaquat Ali Khan is a Professor of Law. He can't just go around publishing statements that people never made. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This is just a post to a web site and it looks like an article but it isn't. The other source is the same replicated post from the sister web site.--CltFn 05:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you had reverted and I was editing Bhai's version... see what you think of what I did... I know this doesn't count as a source but Crone said "Re the phrase 'Michael Cook and Patricia Crone no longer subscribe to the findings of this work', it would be perfectly acceptable to me if you replaced 'the findings' with 'the central tenets'". She later e-mailed me laughing and saying that by tenets meant "hypothesis" or "thesis" and she had just written tenets because she was infected by the religious climate. In any case, I removed the sentence that made it say "they were young and didn't know anything" and they have changed the thesis as other books attest to.... could we possibly agree on that? CltFn, you could add to the end something about how her new works while differing don't by any means support the traditional Muslim account... 05:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this is that we are generalizing with " the hypothesis of the book" . What specifically would Crone refer to? The book covers many aspects of early Islam , so we need to be specific. Has she changed her mind that Muhammed even existed? Is she subscribing to the line of thinking that he was a manufactured myth? As some scholars have alluded? .Until we get more specifics or a clarification as a published statetment from Crone, I am taking this section out as original research.--CltFn 11:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How is it original research and how do you know the websites are sister websites? BhaiSaab ^talk 17:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Look this guy Khan was a wikipedia editor who submitted the posting to that web site. Then he tried to use the posted commentary on the web site as his own citation. We took this out as original research. Now you are insisting on re-inserting it. That is why we are taking it out. The guy even mentions the wikipedia reverting dispute he got into , in his posting. Maybe you too can do the same thing and post to that web site and then you could use yourself as the source for your wikipedia edits, how about it?--CltFn 03:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't do that because I'm not qualified to write articles. He on the other hand is. He's a professor - why can't we use his research? If you have a personal dissatisfaction with the statements, then I suggest you contact Liaquat Ali Khan and at least one of the authors of the book to verify the quotes. Obviously, that's personal research, but at least you'll be satisfied. I can give you the email address of one of the authors if you contact me privately. I did some research of my own with both Ali Khan and one of the authors, and that makes me satisfied with the article, but even without that research, there's no reason to be doubt the validity of these claims. Like I said, contact me privately if you want. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If response is to be characterized as Muslim, is it unfair to characterize reception as Jewish and Christian?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.255.169.161 (talk • contribs) .

This user makes a good point. CltFn, how can you assume that it's a Muslim response - and how do you know Liaquat Ali Khan is Muslim? BhaiSaab ^talk 16:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Because I read it in in his own writings, but that is not so much the point as the response described is one characteristic of traditionalists who reject such research as Hagarism. Let not take things personally Ok--CltFn 22:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it's simply not acceptable to characterize it as a Muslim response. Both "Muslim" and "response" make put a certain bias on Liaquat Ali Khan's article, especially when one of the professors told me that their quote in the article was accurate. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps , if you would take the time to read the book yourself , you might see the relevance in this as this is discussed in the book itself. As for your other comments , that would still be original research.--CltFn 00:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The way you currently portray Liaquat Ali Khan's work seems like an attempt to discredit it. And of course my other comment is original research - but it's not a problem because it's not as if I'm presenting it in the article. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're gonna postulate over Liaquat Ali Khan's religion why don't you do the same for the other commentators? BhaiSaab ^talk 02:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean postulate over his religion? He said it himself that he is a Muslim and you are presenting another wikipedia editor's original research ( Akhan10206 contribs)

--CltFn 02:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No_original_research says "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. It includes unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation.""

Furthermore it states: ""No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes experts. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia." BhaiSaab ^talk 03:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify.Exactly and we cannot verify his claim of what the authors told him, can we?--CltFn 03:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It refers to "unpublished knowledge." That has nothing to do with it, considering this "knowledge" is published. You've also violated 3rr. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

My Comrpomise

Okay... I hope I have found something that makes you two both agree. CltFn, you wanted him to be called a Muslim because it shows his bias towards the situation... most Muslims will not believe this work. However, it is not really relevant since there are Muslims who will accept scholarly evidence, etc... and... well, we don't use religious labels as if they will define his stance on an issue. However, I do think that the reader needs to know two things. 1) He is a professor or law and not an expert on Islamic historiography. 2) He does call the book an attack on Islamic history (well, it was indirect... but, that was the point he was making). My version has incorporated these two aspects. I also linked opinion piece (since that is what the article on whole was) to distance it from scholarly work on the subject. Because, it is not a scholarly review of Hagarism, although it does quote scholarly reviews. This way "Muslim" isn't being used to discredit the author but his inexperience in Islamic historiography is noted and the fact that he rejects the book (a major part of the article) is mentioned. Then we can get to the point that he says that Crone and Cook have repudiated their thesis. It is under the heading of reception now and not repudiation so it is relevant to mention how he received the book. I hope this will stop the edit wars? I think it's fair... please weigh in ... and please agree :) gren グレン 04:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course he just happens to be Muslim (from Pakistan) who has vision of the eradication of national borders and the global implementation of ,oh surprise, principles that by the stangest of coincidences happens to be or at least look to me as Islamic law (sharia) , and keeps putting out opinions along the lines that Western civilization is irrelevant and bad but on the other hand Islam is just wonderful. But of course that would have no connection at all with the 2 opinions he wrote on the Infidels's book --CltFn 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You're so suspicious that he wrote lies in his article. You should really contact the authors. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

CltFn, the problem is that the word Muslim was being used to imply that he may have misled us. It's also a vague term and to make it have any meaning you'd have to describe how he practices (or, if he doesn't) Islam. I mean, we wouldn't say "Secular scholars Patricia Crone and Michael Cook... (or Atheist or Christian or whatever their identification might be). But, his opinions and expertise are relevant. So, that's why I added them and I think it's better. gren グレン 20:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to identify Washburn University with Khan's comments. Khan is a legal scholar. Amilsum 13:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The quote from the preface must be used to fully bring out the distinction that the authors make between Muslims with faith and Muslims without faith reading and reacting to the book. Amilsum 20:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wasburn University law professor is more clear than "legal scholar"... firstly... Washburn is not Harvard and it gives it some context... it shows he is an academic professor and not a think tank legal scholar or a CAIR legal scholar... both of which would have big implications. gren グレン 03:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thesis

I have a problem with the thesis section. It says "Thus, relying exclusively on historical, archeological and philological evidence"... which... isn't true. They use sectarian non-Muslim accounts as evidence for their theory. That isn't to belittle it, but the theory is that Arabs rewrote their history in an effort to split themselves from the Jews thus forming the identity of Muslims. That statement makes it seem like the Muslim sectaruab account = lies but the Jewish and Pagan sectarian accounts = historical, archaelogical, etc... The point of their work is that the non-Muslim sources shed doubt on the possibility that the Arab traditions are true and leads one to believe that there was the Messianic aspect... the important break wasn't that they were using these methods... the important break was that they were ignoring the "Muslim" sources which in most other studies had been relatively accepted as truth with some bias. They hadn't been thought of as complete fabrication of history. That is what is so important about this work. Previous authors had read Islamic traditions and thought of them as the most authentic because they were the "closest" to the action... the Muslim texts claim to be passed down from people who were actually there for these events while the non-Muslim texts were looking at it from a distance. Crone and Cook try to shake up that idea by saying just because they appear to be more direct account of the events doesn't mean that they are any more true. gren グレン 03:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are no Muslim sources before the fragments of the biography of the prophet which corroborate any thing about the beginning of Islam as you have probably heard a zillion times by now. As you know all we have for a source for Islam is Ibn Ishaq, who was born about 717 and died in 767 well over 100 years after Muhammad died. On the other hand we have quite a bit of non-muslim sources from the the time of Muhammad's life which outline a whole different life story. The arab traditions are simply not backed up by any historicity, only folklore. C & C did do not use only sectarian sources, take a look at the 120 pages of sources catalogued in the second half of the book. And these were not from a distance but a lot were eye witness accounts of events. The big problem with the Muslim traditions is there is no historical trace to support them , which is very very odd for something that has been claimed as being of such importance to that region. You would think that there would be be some dateable evidence somewhere that backs up the claims, but alas , there appears to be none. Why is that? --CltFn 04:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I meant... the problem is that Muslim sources aren't early enough. But, I completely disagree... Crone and Cook's sources are sectarian... because there are only sectarian sources. They may be early and they may be right--sectarian doesn't mean they're wrong--but they were specifically non-Muslim (as we think about Muslim in the modern sense) sources. I don't believe there was any archaelogical evidence used except for when trying to support that a written source could be dated to a specific era. It's not a scientific thing like carbon dating... their use of sources are still subject to personal and group bias and their case has not been accepted by anyone as a crystal clear telling of what happened. It's a representation of what they see to be a more plausible story. But, it doesn't matter who accepted it because we're trying to write about their thesis. Your paragraph said the main point was that they used historical and archaeological facts and that is what is innovative... I'm trying to point out that that isn't the case. Other scholars have accepted that the Muslim sources are late but have found no reason to doubt them and therefore accepted them as a guideline for history. My point is that the real innovation in Crone and Cook is the rejection of the Muslim sources as an acceptable basis. That is the innovation. It is not that the sources they ended up favouring are "true", even though they are earlier (but they are from more distant points of view, typically. Doesn't that sound right to you? gren グレン 04:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope that you are reading the book or the others by Crone like Slaves on horses or God's caliph, because you would not saying this . They do examine archeological evidence, such as coins and all kinds of other artifacts, not just writings, for any trace of historical corroboration to the traditional versions. There are a lot of questions raised by things such as why is Muhammad or Islam not mentioned on coins of that period, but lesser individuals are? I think you may be underestimating Cook and Crone cause their historiography is quite extensive in my opinion. Its ironic all the evidence even points in the same direction be it Muslim or Non Muslim , after all the Qu'ran is filled with stories borrowed from the Judeo Christian traditions and scriptures , yet for some reason the traditionalist keep insisting that that we pay not attention to that. --CltFn 05:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that they're wrong. I personally think they do a good job in deconstructing Islamic traditions even though their attempts to paint a new picture is not so successful (that was what most critics said--for instance see the Wansbrough review). My point about writings and archaeology is that it is all subject to human biases and interpretation. It is not like carbon dating which give you a quantitative answer. Do you see what I'm saying? There is no X source proves there is no Muhammad. It's the confluence of these sources makes it unlikely that the Islamic history is true. The archaeological sources like the coins are just another link in the chain of their argument like the writings. It is not something that changes this from induction to deduction. gren グレン 05:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

While I might disagree from your conclusions about the critics , because I find the evidence presented by the authors to be quite compelling , especially after taking time to read some of the primary sources, but yes I see what you are saying. The interpretation of what has happened in the past is prone to human bias which of course would be true of all history, that is why western historians are so carefull with their sources and evidence before drawing a general conclusion from them. The Islamic traditionalist are the exact reverse, they seem to have already made up their mind as to Islamic history and and they are not going to let any historical facts or evidence change that, thus they disregard all evidence and actually try to destroy and erase any inconveninient truths they come accross in order to fabricate a glorious albeit fictional account of Islamic events. --CltFn 12:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

But that's not true. It is natural to privilege revelation that you believe in. Saying they fabricate it assume malice on their part. And look at the reviews: "[w]here even the sociologist fears to tread, the historian ought not with impunity be permitted to go"! That was Wansbrough calling their assertion about Messianic Hagarism to be a faith-based one. Western scholarship does not have a cohesive view on how to address Islamic history--that's my point. It's not Western scholarship (aka Crone and Cook) is good and rational and Islamic traditions are irrational. The traditions admit their faith assumptions while Crone and Cook do not. And that is what Wansbrough was calling them out on. It doesn't make Crone and Cook any less right... I mean, their book is incredibly interesting and invaluable... but it's not Truth just like the Islamic traditions aren't Truth. It's an attempt to understand the past. I don't like the dichotomy you lay out because Western methodology differs so much (as does Islamic methodology) and Western historians don't all accept the more recent iconoclast views. But, I guess at this point we aren't even talking about Hagarism anymore. gren グレン 13:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My revert, I reverted because 1) if you wish to use the other version continue using the reference system. Don't undo productive work in a revert. 2) Keep the accuracy tag... I think we still have debate about whether that statement represents accurately their thesis. 3) I removed the text because it is completely irrelevant. It is the authors saying that Muslims will not accept the work. It has no bearing on the work, it is much better summed up in the oft quoted "for infidels by infidels" which is included later... and don't quote the passages... because it could easily be summed up in two sentences. (also, you must give a citation for it and for the other quotes). It also has nothing to do with their thesis. It has to do with how they think people will react to their work. It just hold no encyclopedic value because it doesn't educate us in any meaningful way about the book. gren グレン 05:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources Table

What exactly is the purpose of the sources table? BhaiSaab ^talk 18:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Lists the non-muslim sources used in the book to arrive at the thesis--CltFn 18:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thesis (Part 2)

The thesis is described like so: "Crone's first book, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), argues that originally Islam was a Judaic heresy dedicated to reclaiming Palestine for the Arabs and that Muhammad was not its major prophet but just a messenger who announced the appearance of the Messiah ('Umar ibn al-Khattab). This controversial thesis did not win wide acceptance, but it did gain respect for her erudition and lucid analysis. Crone's more recent writings have won much wider support; see R. Steven Humphreys, Islamic History: A Framework for Inquiry (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), pp 84-85." (1997) Political Islam: Essays from Middle East Report. Los Angeles: University of California Press, p. 47. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we get a citation for the paragraph that's in the thesis section? BhaiSaab ^talk 17:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Acceptance of the book

There is evidently a great deal of acceptance and traction with the book's thesis since it is widely cited in nearly all contempary works in historiography of early Islam including the works of Bernard Lewis , Robert G. Hoyland,Reza Aslan , G. R. Hawting, Herbert Berg, Francis Edwards Peters, S. N. Eisenstadt,Ziauddin Sardar,Malise Ruthven,Richard Landes not to mention Ibn Warraq,John Wansbrough to name a few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.64.178 (talk • contribs)

Wouldn't that be your research? BhaiSaab ^talk 16:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be more elucidating to here their synopsis of the theory because I don't beleive they necessarily agree with the results of the book just with the concept and the questions that were involved in the selection of the thesis. Which also raises the questions of the reading lists, being on the reading list is not necessarily mean it is accepted as fact, but could be serving the serving the purpose of demonstrating the new approach to islamic history. If we can't say either way for sure I think we are reaching to make the facts fit. The way I see it from the books and quotes I have placed in there historians don't agree with the books conclusions, but applaud the approach so lets be a bit more specific when we say they are quoted or are on reading lists to identify what they are doing there.--Tigeroo 12:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

recent changes by user:BhaiSaab

Your changes have been reverted as you are blanking out sections , evidently to fit to your POV . You are welcome to add information , but do not remove the edits of other wikipedia editors , especially if they have been property sourced. --Amenra 21:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I gave a reason for each of my edits. Some of the statements I removed were original research. Assume good faith. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In reverting my edits, you removed new quotes. Quite ironic. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes Quote

"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."

Is this quote necessary? It's more of a summary than his reception of the book. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a summary but there should probably be a section summarising the book anyway.--Tigeroo 12:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought the article did that already in the introduction and thesis sections, but I've moved the Daniel Pipes quote up anyway because it wasn't "reception." BhaiSaab ^talk 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I completely revised the article, which was somewhat confused and repetitive. I removed CltFn's misleading list of "references", which is no such thing, and I excised the large section someone had devoted to a 2006 newspaper article. Khan is not a widely known "legal scholar" and a newspaper article has little standing in scholarly discourse.

I should probably add something about the Sana'a manuscripts, but ... later. Zora 18:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well done. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No offense but the edits you both made have seriously degraded this article , I have thus restored to the last good version. Zora, Khan's credentials have already been established, he is a scholar and an author of many books as well as a University professor if you would care to look him up, not that I agree with everything he says but he is a notable source. As far as the references , they are absolutely valid material for the article, hard to believe that you would blank those out.--CltFn 02:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

CltFn, those are not references, those are handwaving. We need a reference to specific written material, not just a name. The Islamic sources list categories of texts. If you want to list categories of sources (Byzantine diplomatic documents, Syrian church archives, etc.) in the same way, you can. The dates attached to the supposed sources are also suspicious. Many manuscripts can't be exactly dated, but you give exact dates for everything. If you're going to engage in scholarly discourse, you have to play by scholarly rules. That includes citations. Zora 03:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

These are primary sources used in the book , and are thus relevant to this article. The dates used are the dates given in Hagarism and in Islam as others saw it. You have evidently not studied either of these 2 books , and you ought to before making any further comments. What part of this sentence do you not get: I am currently working on articles for each of these sources.? I have these primary sources in hand in front of me , and it takes time to put it all together. Savvy???--CltFn 03:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know, bibliographies can't be copyrighted. Therefore all you have to do is copy the citations exactly as they are given by Crone and Cook, or Hoyland. Certainly they must give references to publications or to archives. They don't just say "Sophronius" and leave it at that.

I don't have Hagarism because the only copy available through ABEbooks costs $420. It's out of print and rare. There are no copies in Hawai'i. I will have to get it through interlibrary loan, which will take months. I can then scan and OCR it. However, the point at issue isn't the description of Hagarism -- it's the reliance to be placed on it. You seem to think that it's reliable and well-respected, which I just don't understand. It's nearly 30 years old and rejected even by its authors. You keep saying that you've read it and I haven't -- fair enough. But I've read a great deal of the literature LATER than Hagarism, which it seems that you haven't. There is no one in academia defending Hagarism. It's been influential, but it hasn't been accepted. For a very cogent refutation, try Fred Donner's Narratives of Islamic Origins, 1998, which IS in print and easily available. Or try Crone's God's Caliph, which actually puts scepticism to good use. You need to broaden your reading! Zora 07:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The book is reliable and is highly respected in scholastic circles, as I told you before it is cited in nearly all works of modern historiography of early Islamic history. The question as to why it has not been re-published is controversial , I wonder why Campbridge press would not republish a book which effectively refutes and disintegrates the very core assumptions of Islam after Ruhollah Khomeini's enthusiastic reception of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, hum let me think about that. I have many of Crone's other books, though I have have not gotten around yet to read them in detail. As you may have noticed , they are not a quick read with all the interspersed citations and arabic terms which often require further reading but I plan to get to them when I finished current projects--CltFn 15:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The book is not reliable - as you can see from it's various reactions. As I said before, I would like to you get in touch with Michael Cook, but we need to do that through email. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The book is reliable, if you read the book you would see why . In a nutshell the reason is the book simply revolves around existing primary sources and historical evidence. It simply follows the trail of evidence , and lets the reader make up their own mind. For instance , it says that there is hardly a mention of Islam until the end of the 7th century . You can believe that or not , its up to you , if you find evidence to the contrary good, if not then make up your own mind.--CltFn 19:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Go here to see his email address. Ask him if his quotes in the Liaquat Ali Khan article are accurate. (I've already done this.) BhaiSaab ^talk 19:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not challenge ali Khan's quotes , thus I welcome their insertion , what puzzles me is why you keep removing the 2 paragraphs from his quotes? Are you the one who doubts Ali Khan?--CltFn 19:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No I don't doubt his quotes - but I don't see anything wrong with summarizing them either, as Zora did. In the beginning you seemed quite hesitant to allow his article to be mentioned here. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Bibliographies contain references to materials discussed in the text. They are not an endorsement of those materials. Books can appear on suggested reading lists BECAUSE they have been controversial, not because they are widely accepted. If I were compiling a bibliography of texts relevant to 19th-century Jewish history, I'd include The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That does not mean I believe that book is true. Zora 19:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In traditional scholarship , one was required to study a book in depth before providing an appraisal of its content. These days, it would appear that the standard is to google around the internet to see what anyone may have said about the book.--CltFn 19:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not "traditional scholarship" - we're not supposed to do original research. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not about original research its about minimal research , as in reading the book you that you are writing an article on .--CltFn 20:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I never wrote anything. :) BhaiSaab ^talk 21:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

CltFn, I'm not arguing with you about what's IN the book; I'm telling you what other academics think of it. We have numerous quotes saying that it's mistaken, and not one saying that it's true. I don't have to read the book to know that its theses aren't taken seriously. The sceptical approach, now that's alive and well. Subsequent, separate publications by Crone and Cook have been well-received. If your intent is to challenge some pious Muslim versions of history, the later skeptical books are surer ground than Hagarism. You're not going to shake anyone's faith by insisting on things that are manifestly untrue. Zora 22:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I disagree with your assertions , and it is unfortunate that you persist in blindly (and you have company in this) editing this article without any serious research or understanding of the material contained in the book. I have yet to see any contributions to this article that are actually accurate about the book. May I remind you that this particular wiki article is about the book and its content , and is not an ideological debate as to the origins of Islam. --CltFn 06:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Please take this survery , thanks.--CltFn 02:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read Hagarism ?

1. I have read it--CltFn 02:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you own the book?

1. Yes I do --CltFn 02:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure this is relevant to the discussion going on, because it is not about the contents of the book at all, but the after affects of the book. The books review, acceptance, validity, level of impact etc. In this case it is more important to have an update of the Authors own assessments on their conclusions in the book to argue their vision which could still really be construed as WP:OR. Also I would suggest that the sources be split off into a new article, right now it just looks like a table inserted to get links in, I don't beleive any other book articles follow the format nor has been necessary to list the bibliography of a book in the article. Please read the caveats on Primary sources and why wikipedia doesn't like them.--Tigeroo 10:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Former Reaction section

I have cleaned this section up , because a bunch of quotes were selective parts of sentences , presenting statements out of context which is not encyclopedic.If you want to insert those comments , then show the context please.--CltFn 07:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Specify which comments you have a problem with. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

OK here are the quotes , which are mostly partial sentences, without any context used to poison the well or insert a Biased sample.

van Ess criticised the book for its "...use (or abuse) of its Greek and Syriac sources

Stephen Humphreys, Islamic History, (Princeton, 1991) pp. 84-85, writes: "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; 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

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

Oleg Grabar 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

Michael G. Morony remarked that "Despite a useful bibliography, this is a thin piece of Kulturgeschichte [cultural history] 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

Please fix these into complete sentences and provide the context before re-inserting them. --CltFn 17:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll fix as much as I have access to. The context for Oleg Grabars quotes are useless and would not add anything to this article, but I did insert a positive comment he made (which is what you want, I'm assuming). BhaiSaab ^talk 17:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly , I simply requested that your insert be full sentences that provide context. I do not care whether they are positive or negative, only that they are accurate and reflect the context in which they are made.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CltFn (talk • contribs) .

OK. I "fixed" Manheimer's quote. Morony's quote is his conclusion and is a full sentence. Oleg's full sentences go like this, but inserting the full sentences does nothing:

"The second technical criticism is one that I only put forward with some regret. Even though we all long for brilliantly written books, 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 my second conceptual criticism is that the whole construction by the authors lacks entirely in truly historical foundations. In other words, Islam appears as a sort of rabbinical discussion, without political, military, social, or economic bases."

I can't do anything about the other sources. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the quotes is that when they added to the article they were provided in context, you will have to back through its history and see it, they way they stand now in isolation with the preceding and post context of the sentences that they were part of, they are indeed pointless. I think we also need to refrain from having this excessively bloated reaction section. A better example to work with as a starting point of the editing would be the as of 17:09, 26 July 2006; SmackBot where the quotes are in context and more accurately portrayed.--Tigeroo 11:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Providing more depth for this article

I have began developing the article with a greater level of depth, in an effort to increase the accuracy of the article.--CltFn 08:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

CltFn restores HIS version

CltFn, you restored YOUR treasured version again. Refusing to allow anyone but yourself to edit the article is not playing by the rules. Zora 08:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not "my version", I have simply added material that accurately reflects the content of the book that I have open in front of me. I welcome your or anyone elses contributions yet reserve the right, as you do, to dispute insertions which are flawed.--CltFn 13:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It was basically your version with a few additions. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What are the content-based, not personal, objections to "CltFn's version"? Pecher ^Talk 20:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

See above. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Double Khan references

Why is BhaiSaab inserting a double reference ( ref 10 and 11) to the same article published in 2 branches of the same media outlet? They are identical thus they do not need to be listed twice as coming from 2 separate sources.--CltFn 17:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Because of this: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Because of what? Pecher ^Talk 15:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to me, at any rate. Pecher ^Talk 19:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Also an Anon inserted that huge quote. Why do we have to keep it? BhaiSaab ^talk 17:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, who is Liaquat Ali Khan, why he has any authority to speak on this subject, and why his posting on a minot media outlet belongs to Wikipedia? Pecher ^Talk 15:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Replacing quotes

CltFn, please stop replacing nearly all of the criticisms from this article with quotes that add little value to this article. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added sourced material , I am sorry if you object to this , but these are valid additions to the article . Your little game of trying to discredit everything in this article is getting old.--CltFn 03:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You've also removed sourced material. Your little game of trying to prove everything in this book is right is getting old. I thought you said you believed what Liaquat Ali Khan said. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Your removal of the criticisms has compromised the neutrality of this article. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not take out anything from ALi Khan , on the contrary I reinserted what had been taken out. I suggest that you take a break , since it looks like you are taking this a bit too seriously . My objections to some of the quotes was that there were just sentence fragments , selectively used to make the book sound bad , when the actual review article was taken out of context--CltFn 03:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read the entire reviews, they make the book look bad. You used the few quotes that stated no opinions on the validity of assertions in the book. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I did read all the reviews and for the most part you misrepresented the reviews by selectively using sentences fragments that most suited your POV.I have not taken out full sentences that are made in context. If you want to play spin and disinformation games , this is not the place--CltFn 03:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I intend to reinsert the criticisms you deleted. I did not at all play any "disinformation" game. The quotes I inserted were nearly the same quotes that had been inserted by another user earlier on, which you decided to suppress. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I told you before , you are welcome to insert what you want as long as it is in context and full sentences that are not used to mislead the reader as to what the reviewer's position actually is. Look at Oleg's quote that you had compared to the whole page of positive commentary about Hagarism in his review. What I see is that you pick little bits that you find that you figure can be used to discredit this article , which you evidently object to for personal reasons. There is a fine line between editing and developing articles and playing the Mutaween patrol.--CltFn 03:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already shown Oleg's full sentences on this talk page - exactly what would using full sentences add to this article? BhaiSaab ^talk 03:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

CltFn, perhaps you would like to ask for a consensus here before you use other quotes that blanket out many of this book's criticisms, as you have been seem to been wanting to do since this article's creation. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)