Our dear so called Salah Ali and the Islamic sources

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Sep 14, 2009 at 08:04

Our dear so called Salah Ali who tells us that he is from al-Mosul but he does not seem to know any Arabic, then he tells us that he translated the Qur'an but he has no clue about Arabic then he tellls us the he graduated from some university in England but he does not give us a name and he tells us that he had articles pubished in Karachi about islam and his idol is some Soharwardi and you know what? I do not believe him and i think that he is no more than another tablighee who has time on his hands while living among infidels

>with a book like that of Hagerism among many others references that questioned the truth of the Qur'an.

Did you really read Hagarism? I do not think so. So why do you make things up? and where does Crone and Cook question the truth of the Qur'an in Hagarism what ever that is? Let me help you they do not.

Mr demagogue: Hagarism does not question the truth of the Qur'an what ever that is. And do you know why? because historians like Crone and Cook are after "what really happened" and the Qur'an is a text and no more and to be able to tell us what really happened you go after the sources and their reliability. And that is the real problem with the history of early islam as transmitted by the biggest historical and literary fraud in the history of mankind and that is the Islamic Historical Tradition and the problem is that the sources are not reliable because they are very late and very tendentious and if you examine the sources external (Syriac, Greek, Coptic, Armenian etc...) to the tradition a very different picture emerges about the history of early islam and if you get that much from Hagarism then this is what it is all about and no more. I do not agree with their reconstruction of the history of early islam (I believe we really do not know what happened) but their stress about the lack of reliability of the Islamic sources is correct

The real problem with hagarism as a book was explained by Wansbrough and it goes as follows: If the islamic literary sources are not reliable and if they are not then why should we believe the sources external to the tradtion to tell us "what really happened" but again this is beyond you and your poor education

So what is the turth of the Qur'an for a historian? Is it that an Arab claims that an Arabian deity spoke to him via an angel and a book was revealed to him? Well this is history as claimed by the Islamic Historical Tradtion which is not reliable but is it the truth? historians would tell us that this is no more than a claim and no one can prove that it did or did not happen and this is where it should be left unless we find a cave some where

Now Crone and Cook are not theologians and they do not pretend to be so do me a favor and read a real book like Hagarsim for a change. For the historian of early islam it is literary criticism (of the islamic Historical tradtion and the Qur'an included) is what matters and the master of it must be john wansbrough but you know what? his books are beyond a lost tablighee like you

I urge you to stop your delusions and read a real book

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".