Talk:Hagarism/Archive 1

message: 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 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The article is also in the Daily Star.  We have no reason not to keep it.  BhaiSaab  talk 20:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon addition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Disclaimer

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  My Comrpomise 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Thesis 

message: What exactly is the purpose of the sources table? BhaiSaab talk 18:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lists the non-muslim sources used in the book to arrive at the thesis--CltFn 18:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources Table

message: 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)
thread_title: Thesis (Part 2)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Acceptance of the book 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: In reverting my edits, you removed new quotes. Quite ironic. BhaiSaab talk 22:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: recent changes by user:BhaiSaab 

message: "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)
replies: text: It is a summary but there should probably be a section summarising the book anyway.--Tigeroo 12:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Daniel Pipes Quote 

message: Please take this survery , thanks.--CltFn 02:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Survey

message: 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)
thread_title: Providing more depth for this article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It was basically your version with a few additions. BhaiSaab talk 15:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the content-based, not personal, objections to "CltFn's version"? Pecher Talk 20:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. BhaiSaab talk 22:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CltFn restores HIS version 

message: 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)
replies: text: Because of this: , , , , , , . BhaiSaab talk 17:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of what? Pecher Talk 15:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's pretty clear. BhaiSaab talk 18:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to me, at any rate. Pecher Talk 19:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. BhaiSaab talk 20:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Double Khan references 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Replacing quotes