Talk:Hagarism/Archive 2

Quotes and Other Stuff

Who the hell is Daniel Pipes?

He is not a historian, as far as I now, as long as we are talking about the famous polemicist and anti-Islam propagandist Daniel Pipes.

Impact First Section

"The ground breaking impact of the book upon academic circles is demonstrated by the amount of discussion it has and continues to generate among many contemporary historiographers and historians of early Islam, such as: Bernard Lewis, Robert G. Hoyland, Reza Aslan, G. R. Hawting, Herbert Berg, Francis Edwards Peters, S. N. Eisenstadt, Ziauddin Sardar, Malise Ruthven,Richard Landes, Ibn Warraq and John Wansbrough. It is on the suggested reading list of the School of Oriental and African Studies of London [1] and other various major universities' Middle East studies reading lists [2][3]."

I think this section is quite misleading and seems to be original research. I prefer the following, as does Tigeroo:

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

BhaiSaab ^talk 20:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael G. Morony Quotes

CltFn wants:

Muhammad is presented as a messianic leader who used Abrahamic descent to combine Arab ethnicity and fighting ability with Judaic religious values and led an ideologically irredentist exodus to Palestine. There the religion of the emigré descendents of Hagar (muhäjirün) evolved into Islam by borrowing from Christians (recognition of Jesus as Messiah) and Samaritans (acceptance of the Torah alone, replication of the sanctuary of Shechem in the Makkan cult, and of the high-priesthood in the imãmate). When the center of power shifted to Iraq, classical Islam, combining a holy law with a learned laity, emerged under the influence of Babylonian rabbinic Judaism. The cultural intransigence their initial cohesion gave the conquerors interacted with provincial cultures made vulnerable by their alienation from the cosmopolitan culture of late antiquity to create a new Islamic civilization that was the victim of its own syncretism, of the inconsistency between its Arab identity and the universal potential of monotheism, and of its incomplete combination of religion with politics. .

BhaiSaab wants:

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.

Comments: CltFn's quote is more appropriate for the synopsis section. The quote I chose was the conclusion of the review. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oleg Grabar quotes

CltFn wants:

THIS iS a brilliant, fascinating, original, arrogant, highly debatable book. To some, Muslims in particular, it will be downright unacceptable. ..Irritating though it is at times, it is also a disquieting book which does conjure up the uneasy feeling that much in our traditional understanding of the formation of Islamic culture is so utterly wrong that only a dramatically revolutionary statement such as this one can shake the truth loose.

BhaiSaab wants:

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" but also praised the authors for trying to "relate the Muslim phenonemon to broad theories of acculturation and historical change."

Comments: From what I remember of Grabar's review, he had four criticisms and two praises, so I chose two criticisms and one praise. CltFn's quote is the first sentence of the review. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Eric Manheimer Quotes

CltFn wants:

Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World is truly a unique approach to the study of the transfusion of religious concepts to Islam from other varied religions of the Middle East and adjacent areas.

BhaiSaab wants:

The research on Hagarism is thorough, but this reviewer feels that the conclusions drawn lack balance. The weights on the scales tip too easily toward the hypercritical side, tending to distract from what might have been an excellent study in comparative religion.

Comments: Again, I chose the conclusion; CltFn chose the first sentence of the review. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of Liaquat Ali Khan's quotes

I think everyone except CltFn supports a shortened version of what CltFn wants. Using three whole paragraphs and more of his writing is not fair use or really necessary. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is within the bounds of fair use and it is necessary to see a context that is lacking when you just quote selective sentence fragments aimed at misleading the reader.--CltFn 13:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What does it mislead the reader into believing? The shortened section is not misleading at all. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph is a good summary of the book by a notable reviewer. It belongs in the article.--CltFn 04:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're being honest, but since you believe it's a good summary I moved it up to synopsis. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Liaquat Khan quotes are being way overemphasised and misued, they fit the purpose well in a shortened form in thesis update, or book update. Maybe what you need is a new section that that covers his and other muslim reactions summarized in the concept of a book for infidels by infidels. P.S is there any way we can use the quotes section more effectively rather than a) duplicating and reiterating information covered earlier in the article b) occupying excessive space and me more succintly referenced and summarized it just looks really terrible.--Tigeroo 08:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

CltFn's "contribs" was just another veiled revert. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tigeroo regarding the overuse of Liaquat Ali Khan - the summary is just repetitive. Please do not insert it. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope they should stay , as they put his views in context.--CltFn 03:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What "context"? Before you said they were a good summary. Please clarify your intent. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab

This user has been trying to emphasize only the negative portions of sources he has added to this page , despite the positive portions which the sources contain. When I attempt to remedy this by including both , BhaiSaab , quickly reverts. It is noted that this user has never read the book, probably never even seen it in real life, yet he is dedicated at trying to portray it in a bad light. --CltFn 16:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You've been trying to remove the criticisms ever since this article started. You only add the positive or neutral portions of the reviews you are able to find. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually no I put both on, which is the minimum standard of Wikipedia. You know very well that you have been picking bits and pieces that you could dredge up from the internet , not even full sentences , but fragments of statements to try to mislead the reader into believing something which is not wholly true, but which is apparantly the propaganda you which to portray--CltFn 16:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to you see you back up your statement that I mislead the reader so everyone can evaluate the evidence. You do not put both on - you leave the reviews that you do not have access to. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone please re-insert in the Impact section , I'm all out of RRs

Hagarims is widely cited by many contemporary historiographers and historians of early Islam, such as: Bernard Lewis, Robert G. Hoyland, Reza Aslan, G. R. Hawting, Herbert Berg, Francis Edwards Peters, S. N. Eisenstadt, Ziauddin Sardar, Malise Ruthven,Richard Landes, Ibn Warraq and John Wansbrough.[1]. --CltFn 05:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone but you thinks that this is at all noteworthy. There are many other books cited by the same people. Hagarism is not the most notable of them. Zora 06:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The statements makes a point and the point is supported by the google scholar list.--CltFn 12:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

To what end?? Mentioning they are cited is pointless without contextualizing it. Can you do that without OR?? Many astronomy books will carry a reference or cite Ptolemy but just what does that really mean?--Tigeroo 07:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is a good point, thanks, .--CltFn 12:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Scholar.google.com is listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources as a reliable source thus I have re-inserted this paragraph--Amenra 23:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The search result is not useful in itself as a reference. WP:RS states "Useful access points include: scholar.google.com..." BhaiSaab ^talk 02:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A google search is research, not published material by an authority or material verified by peer review. It is original research done by the person doing the search. If you see it elsewhere it should also be removed.--Tigeroo 08:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

CtlFn's stance on Liaquat Ali Khan

First CltFn goes on a deleting spree when Khan was intitially used a source: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]

He later states: "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?" [9].

Now he makes an edit removing all of his quotes with an edit summary that states "Khan is an islamist advocate not citeable." [10]

I suspect he only wanted to unnecesarily insert Khan's summary of the book to weaken the quotes of the authors disavowing their work. Considering all this, I find it particularly odd that he's accused others here of "poisoning the well." BhaiSaab ^talk 02:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have since read more material by Ali Khan and they are consistently Islamo-centrist, apologetic for radical islam and anti west. He is entitled to of course , but if we include his point of view then we also have to include those of reviewers on the other side of the spectrum . --CltFn 12:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I slapped him into another section not for his reviews which are not really notable, but because of his claim attributed to the authors, which is the only notable thing about him. It would be a significant further development on the book if the authors made the statements he claims they did. Hope that helps formulate how to deal with him.--Tigeroo 17:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have an email from Michael Cook in which he said the quotes attributed to him are accurate. Obviously we can't use the email as a source but, personally, it makes me satisfied with Ali Khan's article. CltFn, I'd be interested in knowing what works you've "since read." BhaiSaab ^talk 22:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Impact

I removed the link to google scholar search because--well, it's not really a source that gives an explanation of impact at all. It's like linking to google and shouldn't be done. Or, if it is done it needs to be done in a better manner (such as an explanation in a footnote)

Bhaii, I think (although I can't give you a decent source) that it's pretty clear that it has been widely referenced. Maybe you should think of it like this. Realist theory in IR is probably the most quoted theory around because it's old. This work is relatively old and it makes a very strong claim and therefore has been cited by detractors and supporters a like. I think it's clear that impact is not a truth judgment. It's saying it is important--it is. However, it is not saying it is correct. I think you should recognize its importance even if you fail to believe it is true. I'm sure many others have taken that route. gren グレン 05:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You removed it--I'm not going to get into this edit war. But I think you should realize this is a problem of Wikipedia and WP:NOR. Not many places for many academic texts explicitly analyze impact. Wednt's article on constructivism is considered greatly important but you can only find anecdotal sources using it and saying it's important. To give a picture of its importance without OR you'd have to link the hundreds of articles that use it. The section may border on original research... but, for some things it's hard to importance. gren グレン 05:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would anyone take out the statement that the book is widely cited after looking at the google scholar link? Seems like suppresion of evidence--Amenra 11:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Little Red Riding Hood is cited and referenced by the greatest scholars of all time. [11] BhaiSaab ^talk 00:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

I seriously disagree with removing them. Contextualizing them? Yes... however as it stands we have removed reference to Wansbrough but have a section dealing with Liaquat Ali Khan? I had no problem including him... but he is no Wansbrough and is not an expert of this subject. I invite you to re-add some of the important stuff to help rebalance the Khan article. We can only understand the importance of a book like this in relation to its scholarly reception and when we remove the journal articles (although if we were real experts we'd know which journals to look into for rebuttals/synthesis rather than merely reviews) we are removing much useful reference. Yes, it was a laundry list and had repetition that could have been boiled down but removal and not referencing the names is a mistake. Especially with Wansbrough since he works on this exact same subject.

If someone doesn't rework this I probably will... or I'll forget because I visit the Islam articles less and less as I realize they're not very good... but, can we come to an agreement on this? gren グレン 06:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree , a lot has been said about the book by respected academics, and we should include a sample or summary of them in the article in an impartial fashion. --Amenra 11:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am all for a couple of new contributors to try their hand at this, it seems to have come to a standstill with the current problems. I vote the old one sit back for a little bit and see what can be done and just post comments, atleast for a while.--Tigeroo 16:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I made a change as a suggestion, and is in line with most of the informatino I have come across in reviews and impact of the book Islamic of historiography. A good write up can be found in scholary discussions, here is a link from a seminar at the University of Chicago which also sums up this assesment [12]. While it was an important first step it was hardly defintive. Note what that it is notable for its approach, not really it's findings.--Tigeroo 21:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss each review before adding it so we don't have countless reverts. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made my suggestion and will take my own advice and sit back for a bit and see if the others step in and where they take it.--Tigeroo 02:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is this is a relatively obscure subject and you don't get too many passer-by-types who are going to work with the article. I also think if we are going to wait for others to edit then we should revert to the version with all of the reviews so they have content to work with / trim. gren グレン 04:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant you, or Amenra vs. CltFn, bhaiSaab and myself.--Tigeroo 11:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been established that Amenra is a sockpuppet of CltFn. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that almost all works cited in the "rewiews" section are negative, and significant ones have been left out. Most of the authors who cited the book (in the "Impact" section), had something to say about "Hagarism". I am surprised that Robert G. Hoyland's positive review in "Seeing Islam as Others Saw It" of Hagarism and the work of Crone & Cook in general, was left out. Hoyland makes the claim that Crone & Cook had established a whole school of thought, with many scholars following in their footsteps. The "Impact" list leaves out John C. Reeves in "Trajectories in Near Eastern Apocalyptic" and by Michael Lecker of Hebrew University. --Historian2 10:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please add those references, and the relevant quotes? I am severely handicapped in that I don't have access to an academic library with good Islam-related holdings, or to JSTOR or MUSE. I believe that right now I have more Islamic history books than the University of Hawai'i library does! It would be nice to arrange any reviews or comments chronologically, so that we can see how scholarly opinion re Hagarisms thesis developed. I have the impression that in many cases, initial excitement was replaced with disillusionment -- but I could be wrong.

Myself, I'm don't think that C&C improved the situation by replacing one bias with another. Relying on the victims of Muslim conquest to explicate Islam is like relying on the fulminations at the Free Republic blog (inhabited by bloodthirsty right-wing patriots) to explain US government policies. Zora 10:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been following this page or the discussions back & forth. Wikipedia should rely on verifiable sources. I will post the quotes when I get some time. I have corresponded with several of these authors and it is true that Crone & Cook have disavowed their book, at least Cook told me the thesis was wrong, but would say nothing more. I fear that the problem is that the historiographical evidence is weak and unreliable, and the political pushback is not. However the theory is far from being exhausted by disillusionment, it has undergone change. The "SUNY Series in Near Eastern Studies" has a collection of authors who are continuing in a modified form of this theory. --Historian2 10:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Crone's new article

CltFn you said that the essay reaffirms her position in Hagarism. I saw no mention of Hagarism in the essay, nor did I see anything about the Prophet (pbuh) being a herald of Umar rather than being a prophet. She does not reaffirm her position in Hagarism. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It re-affirms the various points she makes in Hagarism. Read the book .--CltFn 16:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read some parts of the book - but it does not at all reaffirm her thesis. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does . And furthermore , you can let the readers form their own opinions.--CltFn 16:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well if you want the readers to form their own opinions you can delete the part where it states it reaffirms her thesis and leave the link in this article. I would be fine with that. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't have the link if it doesn't have a relationship to Hagarism--and one more strong than her subsequent books do. We don't just randomly mention articles by her and much of her work relates to Muhammad. gren グレン 04:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're right; I've removed it. It's more suitable on her page, and it's already there. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to assume bad faith here...

As I detailed here CltFn has persistently removed criticisms from this article; he either outright removes them or replaces quotes from reviews with other quotes that mislead the reader into believing that the author of the review has had no criticisms. Then he makes this request above and uses own sockpuppet, who has also previously edited this article, to fulfill his own request. As per WP:AGF, which states "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, sockpuppetry, and lying" the last two of which CltFn has done on this article for a considerable amount of time, I am allowed to assume bad faith on CltFn's part. He is purposely misrepresenting this work and deleting criticisms and personally, I think he should be banned from editing this article. I will consider any further attempts by CltFn to remove criticisms as vandalism. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section is blatant POV pick and chose of the sentence fragments designed to paint hagarism in a negative light. This is totlally evident when you actually read the text of the reviews, which I have obtained. I will be correcting these in the near future as time allows, but if anyone wants to start cleaning this section up , you would be welcome.--CltFn 12:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you take it one review at a time. You have previously removed criticisms replacing them with quotes from the same reviewer that have little to do with how the reviewer feels about the book, or replaced them quotes that are somewhat misleading. If you do the same thing again, I will consider your edits in bad faith. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove Grabar's statements with his introduction. He dedicates entire paragraphs to those statements and it is not misleading at all. I've kept the description he used in his introduction. Also, please do not remove material you intend to mislead the reader with such as replacing "Subsequent histories of early Islam have usually referred to Hagarism, if only to refute it." with "Subsequent histories of early Islam have usually referred to Hagarism." Finally you wrote that the book "has been praised by some and dismissed as an experiment by others." There is no single review that merely praises it while failing to mention its criticisms. This statement makes it appear as if there are two diametrically opposed views of the book, which is false. All the reviewers tend to have the same opinions. Even Daniel Pipes called the findings "wild." BhaiSaab ^talk 19:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Patricia Crone's new article

Having read the new article , it is clear that she is simply re-stating the case of Hagarism in perhaps a judicious and PC fashion as she states herself "the field has become highly charged politically." Note , Hagarism never denied the existence of MHM, what it did do is describe him as an Judeao Arab Messiah. The new article does not change that. Further more it is not a "thesis update" of Hagarism .

• In the case of Mohammed, Muslim literary sources for his life only begin around 750-800 CE (common era), some four to five generations after his death, and few Islamicists (specialists in the history and study of Islam) these days assume them to be straightforward historical accounts.
• a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between 632 and 634 mentions that "a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens" and dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come "with sword and chariot". It thus conveys the impression that he was actually leading the invasions.
• Mohammed's death is normally placed in 632, but the possibility that it should be placed two or three years later cannot be completely excluded.
• an Armenian document probably written shortly after 661 identifies him by name and gives a recognisable account of his monotheist preaching. ( the monotheistic preaching is Judaism )
• on Arabic coins and inscriptions, and in papyri and other documentary evidence in the language, Mohammed only appears in the 690s, some sixty years after his death (whatever its exact date). This is the ground on which some, notably Yehuda D Nevo and Judith Koren, have questioned his existence
• The evidence that a prophet was active among the Arabs in the early decades of the 7th century, on the eve of the Arab conquest of the middle east, must be said to be exceptionally good. (note- The evidence listed in Hagarism shows him to be a prophet , yes but a prophet of Judaic Messianism)

• The earliest versions of the Qur'an offer only the consonantal skeleton of the text. No vowels are marked, and worse, there are no diacritical marks, so that many consonants can also be read in a number of ways.
• the Qur'an is often highly obscure. Sometimes it uses expressions that were unknown even to the earliest exegetes, or words that do not seem to fit entirely, though they can be made to fit more or less; sometimes it seems to give us fragments detached from a long-lost context; and the style is highly allusive.
• One explanation for these features would be that the prophet formulated his message in the liturgical language current in the religious community in which he grew up, adapting and/or imitating ancient texts such as hymns, recitations, and prayers, which had been translated or adapted from another Semitic language in their turn. This idea has been explored in two German works, by Günter Lüling and Christoph Luxenberg, and there is much to be said for it

• The attempt to relate the linguistic and stylistic features of the Qur'an to those of earlier religious texts calls for a mastery of Semitic languages and literature that few today possess, and those who do so tend to work on other things. This is sensible, perhaps, given that the field has become highly charged politically.

• some kind of combination of Biblical-type monotheism and Arabian paganism is indeed what one encounters in the Qur'an.

• The fact that the Qur'an seems to record a split in a monotheist community in Arabia can be expected to transform our understanding of how the new religion arose.
• The prophet responds by repeatedly rehearsing arguments in favour of the resurrection of the type familiar from the Christian tradition, insisting that people will be raised up for judgment.

--CltFn 11:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's start with what are the objections to the way it stand right now, it represents a shift in positition from what i have read in it vs. what i read from the synopsis and appears to be generally consistent with most mainstream thoughts on Islam, and agreing with them that a) Muhammad was the prophet, preaching the basic concepts of Islam, no Omar etc. though the question of mecca remains b) he is much more of an involved figure in the judaic-christian debates in his formulations, c) the Quran is not a late composition, d) oral tradition is mostly correct but contextual problems are the real issue. The problems she raises and you itemize are common issues nothing special which even muslim accounts factor in: i.e historical evalutaion of texts, the concept of continuity of a judaic-christian theology, the consonantal changes in the Quran are well documented, even the language and its meaning in relation to events are commented upon, or the resurrection or even concepts of heaven and hell. I was under the impression that the primary highlight of the book was its removal of muslim accounts as an acceptable source, while the article suggests the opposite. No one, not even muslim theologians or historians use the primary sources without care or treatment so I only mentioned items form the article that seemed to "contradict" assertions in the article. If you say the article does not contradict the book, then I must assume that my reading of the articles representation of the book is at fault.--Tigeroo 13:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Tigeroo. BhaiSaab ^talk 15:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Why

Why does this article even exist? The book was really bad reading and made little sense, hopping from one thing to the other without making strong connections and conclusions. Azrak 03:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the subject of keeping this article. On the one hand, the book was highly controversial and thus, like The Satanic Verses (novel), might be considered sufficiently notable to have its own topic. On the other hand, it didn't give rise to angry demonstrations, bookburnings, fatwas, and assassinations.

The book does have an argument. It's just badly written, by a couple of graduate students (or were they freshly minted PhDs?) who were imitating an especially irritating style of academic writing and considered themselves much more clever than anyone else. No wonder the two scholars don't want it reprinted.

If you want to put it up for AfD, I'll submit a fence-sitting vote. I'd be happy either way. Zora 07:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What is "AfD"? Azrak 23:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD stands for articles for deletion. Relative to many of the other books on Wikipedia this is important. It didn't get the attention of the Satanic Verses because it's academic and therefore not as prominent. It was two graduate students writing with a little bravado and seemingly feeling the pride of tearing down traditional thinking about Islamic history. In that sense it's an important work although, clearly the field has progressed since the writing of this book. I don't think it would ever be deleted, especially by today's notability standards. gren グレン 20:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

New Published Review - add to Ext. Links

• Excerpt is taken from his forthcoming law article, "The Externalist Scholarship on Islamic Law", which will be published in Michigan State Law Review. -Dr. Ali Khan is a professor of law at Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kansas.

Explanation for article title ("Hagarism: The Story of a Book Written by Infidels for Infidels"):

The book also contends that the word "Muslim" was invented in the 8th century to replace the word Muhajirun (immigrants), which was the original name of the Arab community that conquered Palestine and built the Dome of the Rock. The book itself prescribes a new name for early Muslims. It calls them Hagarenes, that is, the biological descendants of Abraham by Hagar. This racial naming of early Muslims is employed to distinguish them from Jews, who are the descendants of Abraham by Sarah. Hagarism, the book’s title, is a quasi-pejorative, and possibly a racist, label to describe the historical phenomenon of early Muslims.

In the authors’ own words, the book is written "by infidels for infidels."

--71.227.191.140 20:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thesis Update

I see the edit war going on about Patricia Crone's these update between CltFn and Tigeroo. IMHO, I think the text by CltFn more accurately reflects, and provides more information about, the current position of Patricia Crone than the previous wikitext. --Historian2 08:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not really about whats said, the article is quite clear there, I do not believe I have rewritten it substantially. The footnote quotes are simply unnecessary, paraphrasing will do. Also the comparison of the article with the thesis of the book is not WP:OR compliant; to be so it needs to be made by a tertiary source beyond that I wouldn't mind hearing what edits I have made do not reflect Crones position. Those can easily be discussed and sorted out.--Tigeroo 10:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo, at this point your actions may be considered vandalism as you are purposfully removing footnotes and references. THe footnotes are there to provide the exact statement Crone made to support the statements made in the article. I doubt that you have read Hagarism since if you had you would see how absurd your statement is about Muhammad. For your info, Hagarism does not deny that Muhammad existed , it simply is a book that documents how non muslims sources have portrayed early Islsm and Muhammad. So you insistance that Crone acknowledges that Muhammad existed makes no sense within the context of this article.--CltFn 11:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

i think Tigeroo's edits have been productive. to conclude anywhere that Crone "... re-affirmed part of the thesis of Hagarism ..." or "... restates part of the thesis of Hagarism ..." is original research in the absense of a reliable secondary source confirming those assertions. ITAQALLAH 11:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotes in footnotes are rather unnecessary and stylistic incorrect. We trust you to paraphrase the article or we can look up the provided link to get a gist of what you are paraphrasing if we have a disagreement. As for the Muhammad statement we can strike it or you may propose a variation if you feel it's inclusion is strange. On my part I was attempting to draw attention to what she appears to stress in her article, that we can be sure existed as a prophet in the 7th century but the details are less certain...because of issues she preceded to highlight i.e. the quran, the hadith etc. Pretty much summed up in the quote in her conclusion.--Tigeroo 20:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually suggest that you get ahold of the book and read it, then you will be able to make edits that are in within the scope of its content.--CltFn 12:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you review WP:OR, then you will be able to make edits that are appropriate. I actually see no rationale within wikipedia policy for that article or its contents to even be mentioned as it makes no mention of the book and drawing parallels between the two works is actually OR on the part of both of us. It could be included as a link.--Tigeroo 19:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree , no need for the thesis update section , since the article is not a thesis update.--CltFn 02:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not commenting on the legitimacy of edits, I find Tigeroo's edits to be quite accurate. Again, I'm basing this of what I already know of Patricia Crone.Vice regent 17:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think we have come to realize that unfortunately our knowledge and interpretation of the work won't cut it under WP:OR. If you do happen to know a tertiary assessment of the same that is available somewhere we can use sure use that to give a proper closing that this article currently lacks.--Tigeroo 18:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Proper citations

As this article has been in the past the subject of editorial disputes, it would be helpful if all citations are verifiable , include full source references and are specific without out of context sentence fragments which could otherwise be used to misrepresent the sources being presented. For example one citation listed was "As cited in ibid, from Journal of Royal Asiatic Society" . So how is that verifiable?? I took that out as well as other similar cases.--CltFn (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

in what way were the citations provided for van Ess or Humphries etc. inadequate? they seem fine to me. these are very obscure pretexts for deleting academic critiques of a discredited work. instead of deleting well-sourced and relevant information under misleading sentences (like "cleanup"), why don't you tag them accordingly, or why don't you contact the editor who inserted the material if you are so concerned about verification? i am not convinced. ITAQALLAH 17:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The citations you added originally are mostly sentence fragments taken out of context which winds up misrepresenting the gist of the reviews presented. In anycase I am now verifying those citations for context and accuracy and will be correcting the section concerned accordingly. --CltFn (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

CltFn, which citations did i add "originally"? i have added none of the quotes to this article, i have only seen yourself removing appropriately sourced passages using misleading edit summaries and interchangable rationales. taken out of context? you don't think Sergeant genuinely believes what has been attributed to him? you don't think van Ess truly considers the approach used in the book was "disastrous"? ITAQALLAH 20:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As I alluded to before, the citations used are out of context sentence fragments as you can see with the dots in fron of the words that are presented. The rest of the sentence and the content of the reviews are omitted in the citation and that needs to be addressed, so that readers have the benefit of the full context of what is cited. --CltFn (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

there is no reason to believe any of the quotes misrepresent the opinions of their authors or that they are out of context. please provide a reason to believe otherwise. also see WP:AGF. ITAQALLAH 23:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe this topic is adequately explained in this wikipedia article: Fallacy of quoting out of context --CltFn (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

the presumption of that fallacy is that Sergeant et al have been terribly misrepresented. this presumption is currently baseless. the quotes are extensive enough for us to know that these are their views about the book. as such, there is no reason to believe any of the quotes misrepresent the opinions of their authors or that they are out of context. ITAQALLAH 23:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Referencing

Because the topic of this article is controversial, it is necessary to provide the refered texts' quotes in the citations to provide support for the text in the article. This helps readers assess the accuracy of what is being stated in the body of the article. This is a standard practice in many referencing systems as you can see by opening any scholarly book you may have and looking at the citations.--CltFn (talk) 12:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Patricia Crone's Position on Hagarism (Circa 2002)

In 2002, Patricia Crone made explicit statements to the New York Times about her retrospective appraisal of Hagarism. The quote from the article is - "Mr. Cook and Ms. Crone have revised some of their early hypotheses while sticking to others. 'We were certainly wrong about quite a lot of things,' Ms. Crone said. 'But I stick to the basic point we made: that Islamic history did not arise as the classic tradition says it does.'" The citation is - Alexander Stille, 'Radical New Views of Islam and the Origins of Koran'. New York Times. March 2, 2002. It is available online at http://www.rim.org/muslim/qurancrit.htm I see there has been some previous discussion in this forum about how to treat Prof. Crone's current position on Hagarism, so I've posted this here before adding it to the article to get some feedback as to where to put it. My preference is to delete the hear-say sentence currently in the text (i.e. "In 2006, legal scholar Liaquat Ali Khan claimed that Crone and Cook have explicitly disavowed their earlier book") and replace it with Crone's own words from the New York Times. Calypygian (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the two comments are necessarily contradictory. It does seem like Crone revised many of the previous assertions - which may itself constitute a disavowal of the Hagarism theory specifically. That she still believes the classical narrative is suspect in some way, is not as extreme a stance (and not as uncommon either). So I think we could probably include both statements alongside eachother. Secondly, is there any direct link to the NYT article itself? ITAQALLAH 22:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Itqallah. There is a link to the original article, and the earlier citation I gave was wrong. The actual title of Stille's article is 'Scholars Are Quietly Offering New Theories of the Koran'. It is available at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E0DE1E31F931A35750C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 I take your point that the two comments are not necessarily contradictory, but I would really value your reading of Crone's other statements in the article. To just say that she has "explicitly disavowed her earlier book" seems way too strong for the position she outlines in the article. The Ali Khan statement is not about the Hagarism Thesis per se, it's about the whole "book". I'd always accepted the Ali Khan statement at face-value before reading the New York Times article, and I certainly feel it led me astray. Calypygian (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I'd be interested in seeing if these are the precise words Ali Khan uses, and if he offers to elaborate at all. I'll see if I can get a hold of the source and get back to you on that :-) Thanks for the link too. ITAQALLAH 23:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)