Early Islam and Hagarism and Meccan Trade and the problem of the early islamic sources

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Nov 21, 2010 at 09:32

Hi byzantinist

>"As for the book Hagarism, I agree with reviews that this is a racist book, as she offers to give a new name to Islam (Hagarism) and Muslims (Hagarenes)! And, both of these books that you choose to continuously refer to are based on nothing. They were written by non-Muslims, and completely disregard any Islamic sources."

Bill's girl is more likely than not an Indian Muslim or a Pakistani and he is a man and his command of Arabic or any of the languages of the late antique period is big zero and he has no clue about the historical method. And you can see that he had no clue that Meccan Trade by Crone was not about if Muhammad did exist or not but it was about exploring the literary sources about the so called Meccan trade and if it was the really spark for the rise of Islam. As for "Hagarism" you must be aware that Muslims from India and Pakistan (Arabic speaking Muslims do not know or care about Hagarsim) read reviews by other ignorant Muslims on the web and the most notorious source is islamicawarness.org et voila Crone becomes a racist. But did the likes of Bill's girl read the book? and can he tell the difference between both books? and the naswer is no. And it is indeed strange that he mixed both books or as his Arab masters would say; bel taqrib or close enough

And as you will see below there is harldy any early islamic sources that can help us to reconstruct what really happened

>Obviously "Bill's girl" has indeed NOT read Crone and Cook's "Hagarism" for she is completely wrong that they "completely disregard any Islamic sources." C & C disregard the "Islamic literary traditions"

You are half correct. Crone in Hagarism examines the extant literary sources external to the Islamic literary sources be it Greek, Coptic, Armenian or Syriac and the reason is we do not even have enough extant Islamic sources that early

>because they were written down very late in Abbasid times, and so may have been changed in various ways to reflect the Islam of Abbasid times rather than the Islam of pre-Abbasid times.

Very correct and it really means that the islamic sources were very late and they reflected the way al-3abasiyuun viewed the history of what was to become Islam or in the words of Wansbrough it is all salvation history and that Wansbrough had doubts that we will ever know what really happened. There is no doubt that Crone is very critical of the early Islamic sources and she is very correct. However, her reconstruction of what really happened and as was pointed out again by Wansbrough that there was no reason for us to believe the non Muslim sources either and in the words of Doner "it means that to look elsewhere is futile."

>"Hagarism", and other SCHOLARLY treatments of early Islam DO in fact look at EARLY Islamic sources,

I disagree with you here. There is no extant literary evidence be it papyri, ostraca, monuments or epigraphy that existed in the Hijaz prior to 632CE not a single word and all we have is literary sources written in distant Mesopotamia 300 years after the death of Muhammad

>which are archeological i.e. epigraphic and papyrological: inscriptions and official documents written by early Muslim rulers.

Well the so called al-khulafa' al-rashisduun more likely than not never existed and the umayyads were more likely than not Christian Arabs that followed a Pre-Nicene Syrian Christianity and that Mecca was an invention of the Abbassids that had no like or use for the Umayyads and their religion

>They also look at some early non-Muslim literary sources not because C &C are "racist" (Bill's girl is quite happy to insult others when it suits her purpose, but gets furious at "dhimmi no more's" supposed insults)

I did address the word "racist" as Muslims are not a race and I gave the likes of Bill's girl a mega dose of sarcasm and if it is viewed as insults then so be it

>but because those non-Muslim literary sources (such as Sebeos' history written c. 661, John of Nikiu's chronicle written c. 645, Doctrina Jacobi written c. 640. etc) are very, very early: MUCH earlier than any Islamic literary history of the conquests, none of which was written down before c. 800 AD.

You are very correct but I urge you to read Wansbrough's Sectartian Milieu where he makes it very clear that such sources cannot, by their very sectarian nature, reconstruct what really happened

>And no, using Christian sources written down in the seventh century, along with seventh century Islamic archeological sources is certainly NOT racist.

Wait: The earliest monument in islam is al-masjad al-aqsa (692CE) or 72 years after the death of Muhammad and why is it in Jerusalem and not in Mecca and I believe it was because there was no Mecca that early on and it was an invention of al-3abasiyuun and Abd al-Malik as well as the other Umayyads were local Syrian Arabs and if you read Luexenberg's new reading of the epigraphy it becomes very clear that Abd al-Malik's religion was indeed not islam but a form of Syriac Christianity that is Pre-Nicene

>It is in fact the only PROPER historical method to use to understand the seventh century Muslim conquests: i.e. to use seventh century sources by those who experienced the early Muslim conquests, like John of Nikiu, Sebeos, etc.: .

Sorry I disagree with you here I believe that Wansbrough is very correct that we will never know what really happened and that the extant non Muslim sources are just as unreliable as the very late Muslim sources

>A critical historian does NOT use ninth century sources like al-Baladhuri or tenth century sources like al-Tabari to illuminate the 7th century,

Very true but this is beyond the muslim mind and if you read Tabari's Futuh Masr he had no clue about who is really al-Muqawqas and he had no clue about the geography of the land in the 7th century

>EXCEPT insofar as they agree with the seventh century literary and archeological sources (both Muslim and non-Muslim).

There is hardly any islamic sources that predates 750CE and for all the literary sources prior to 750CE see Hoyland Survey where he divides such sources as between 632CE and 692CE and from 692CE until the Abbassids revolution in 750CE

>This proper historical method has been followed with regard to early Christianity for a long time: you don't use Saint Augustine or late antique patristic writers to understand the New Testament or early Christianity: you use first and early second century sources, both Christian AND non-Christian. Saint Augustine can only tell you what late fourth and early fifth century Latin Christians thought the New Testament meant, not necessarily what it originally meant, or what primitive Christianity was like. And no, it isn't "racist" to use Josephus and Pliny the Younger or Tacitus to help illuminate what first century Palestine or early Christianity were like simply because those writers weren't Christians.

Very true

>Muslims like "Bill's girl" have a LOT to learn about historical method, as it has NOT been followed by Muslims at all to illuminate early Islamic history.

Well the answer here is that their history is only salvation history and if you read Noth then you will realize that it is all topoi and schemata that lead us no where.

>C &C did not use the word "Hagarene" because they were racist, but because they wanted to use a word for "early Muslims" in the period before the word Islam or Muslim were used, or used to mean what they mean today.

Very true (see Hoyland) as those invaders did not call themselves al-Muslimeen but called themselves al-Muhajiruun which in Greek Moagaritoi and in Syriac it is Mhgraye but again Bill's girl is ignorant

>This is no more "racist" than scholars of early Christianity using words like the "Jesus movement" or "Jesus followers" --which is common--instead of "early Christianity" or "Chistians" for the primitive church and its members.

Very true

---

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".