Responses to Revisionist Of Islamic History

[Solo_Ta72]

Salam alaikum brothers and sisters

The Revisionist do no need any introduction as they have made some claims that are problematic for many Muslims. some i have met myself 

Some of them are Patricia Crone, tom holland David thomas etc 

I personally have faced problematic Doubts after going through some of their articles about Islamic History

I wanted to know what can be the possible answers to their claims or so called revisionist POV

Quran was not compiled until late 7th century

NO mention of Quran in Early christian, Byzantine sources means that Quran didn't exist at that time period 

some sources of Christians don't even talk about religion of Arabs 

 

Here is something i copied from Wikipedia

The accounts of non-Muslim conquered peoples also conflict with the accounts of traditional Islamic literature. Examining 7th century Byzantine Christian sources commentary on the Arab "immigrants" (Mhaggraye) who were invading and settling in formerly Byzantine territory at that time, historian Abdul-Massih Saadi found the Christians never mentioned the terms "Quran" nor "Islam" nor that the immigrants were of a new religion.[61][Note 2] They referred to the immigrants in ethnic terms -- "among them (Arabs) there are many Christians...".[67] The Christians used secular or political, not religious terms (kings, princes, rulers) to refer to the Arab leaders. Muhammad was "the first king of the Mhaggraye", also guide, teacher, leader or great ruler. They did however mention the religion of the Arabs. The immigrants' religion was described as monotheist "in accordance with the Old Law (Old Testament)".[61] When the Emir of the immigrants and Patriarch of the local Christians did have a religious colloquium there was much discussion of the scriptures but no mention of the Quran, "a possible indication that the Quran was not yet in circulation."[61] The Christians reported the Emir was accompanied by "learned Jews", that the immigrants "accepted the Torah just as the Jews and Samaritans", though none of the sources described the immigrants as Jews.[61]

 

what can be the answers to such claims

 

JazakAllah khair 

 

[Muslim2010]

2 hours ago, Solo_Ta72 said:

 

what can be the answers to such claims

 

The simple answer to the such questions is that we cannot open the eyes of the people that are blind by their hearts and they do not intend to use their intellect. 

 

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

13 hours ago, Solo_Ta72 said:

Examining 7th century Byzantine Christian sources commentary on the Arab "immigrants" (Mhaggraye) who were invading and settling in formerly Byzantine territory at that time,

Salam everyone knew that Christians specially Byzantine Christian have been from enemies of Muslims even during lifetime of prophet Muhammad (pbu) which Battle of Mu'tahMutta between Muslims & eastern Christians has been happened during lifetime of prophet Muhammad (pbu) which his majesty ordered gathering another army under leadership of Usam ibn Zayd (رضي الله عنه) for fighting with Christians right before his demise so it's rational that  Christian sources of that era due to enmity deny him as last prophet & existance of holy Quran  or even not talking aout religion of Arabs .

13 hours ago, Solo_Ta72 said:

he accounts of non-Muslim conquered peoples also conflict with the accounts of traditional Islamic literature. Examining 7th century Byzantine Christian sources commentary on the Arab "immigrants" (Mhaggraye) who were invading and settling in formerly Byzantine territory at that time,

conquered territories have been conquered by cursed Umayyads which their intention has not been spreading Islam but on the other hand they only have wanted to receive jizyah from people of conquered areas so Islam has not been spread between new conquered areas which majority of muslims in those regions have been Arab migrants who have been considering Islam as Arabic heritage which  due to their pan Arabism , native Chritians in conquered area   have not allowed to know about it even read holy Quran . 

13 hours ago, Solo_Ta72 said:

The Christians used secular or political, not religious terms (kings, princes, rulers) to refer to the Arab leaders. Muhammad was "the first king of the Mhaggraye", also guide, teacher, leader or great ruler.

This is waht has been introduced by cursed Umayyads  which cursed Yazid after martyrdom of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) clearly has stated that nauzubillah "prophet & his tribe have created Islam in order to become kings of Arabs " which now he has taken out kingship from tribe of Hashim so then moved it to cursed Umayyads tribe which majority of orientalists & researchers about Islam have considered false statements of cursed Umayyads so then Abbasids as basis of their claims about Islam without searching about true origing of Islam which unfortunately majority of Muslam due to forced isolation from Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) have not been aware about true origing of Islam & guardians of it as infallible Imams which in similar fashion majority of orientalists & researchers about Islam have not been aware about it too.

13 hours ago, Solo_Ta72 said:

The Christians reported the Emir was accompanied by "learned Jews", that the immigrants "accepted the Torah just as the Jews and Samaritans", though none of the sources described the immigrants as Jews.[61]

it's about cursed Emir of cursed Umayydas who have been accompanied by  "learned Jews" likewise Ka'b al-Ahbar & his successors from crypto jews who becmae teachers & mentors of cursed Umayydas even Abbasids who have defined this wrong definition from Emir which it has been taken as facts by Chritian reports due to their enmity with Islam.

[Haji 2003]

18 hours ago, Solo_Ta72 said:

The accounts of non-Muslim conquered peoples also conflict with the accounts of traditional Islamic literature.

Either you trust those non-Muslim historical sources to tell you about Islam and Muslims with a greater degree of accuracy than the Muslim accounts themselves or you don't. 

[Haji 2003]

4 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Either you trust those non-Muslim historical sources to tell you about Islam and Muslims with a greater degree of accuracy than the Muslim accounts themselves or you don't. 

 

Always reassuring when an initial reaction of mine (based on first principles and on a subject where I know relatively little) is backed up by more informed sources. In this case my point is substantiated by a review of Crone's book written in the Jewish Quarterly Review, (so unlikely to be criticised as a chauvinistic Muslim critique). Relevant text I have put into bold.

 

Quote

But is it more credible that the 7th century Arabs, or even their most astute leaders-the Prophet him- self and the first two caliphs. Abu Bakr and Umar thought up and put into brilliant execution a Machiavellian tour de force worthy of a Talleyrand, a Bismarck, or a Hitler ? And why should the 7th century Greek and Syriac authors, to whom Islam was an abomination and the Muslims the spawn of Antichrist, be regarded as better informed of the actual facts and more accurate in recounting them ?

Nemoy, L. (1978). Crone-Cook’s “Hagarism” [Review of Hagarism, the Making of the Islamic World, by P. Crone & M. Cook]. The Jewish Quarterly Review, 68(3), 179–181. https://doi.org/10.2307/145429

 

Oh look, here's another:

Quote

The many problems with this interpretation begin with the method of the authors whose appeal to non- Islamic sources is deceptive since the argument turns on polemic, apocalyptic and messianic literature which should be used with at least as much caution as Islamic sources. Yet they appear to be as credulous of this material as they are scepti-cal of Islamic literature, assuming that what the hostile members of one religion say about another religion is more trustworthy than what the members of a religion say about themselves.

Morony, M. G. (1982). [Review of Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World, by P. Crone & M. Cook]. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 41(2), 157–159. http://www.jstor.org/stable/544677

 

The above review identifies other weaknesses:

Quote

In addition, apart from a theory of the suppression of early Hagarene doctrines in later Islamic literature that verges on the conspiratorial, the arguments advanced in recent decades in favor of the historicity of Islamic sources as well as the entire literature on the internal criticism of the Qurän have been simply ignored without even an attempt at refutation. Lastly, the argument is presented in elusive, allusive, symbolic language using intentional malapropisms ("Ottoman rabbis") for their shock value which seems to obscure their points deliberately.

 

and

 

Quote

A great deal in the non-Islamic sources that failed to contribute to the authors thesis has been selectively ignored.

 

Morony goes on to make the additional criticisms (my bullets):

• Quote

   

  • the conclusions are drawn from a series of controversial assertions.
  • Assumptions about cultural nationalism underlie a tendency to associate ethnic identities with geographical regions, to use national cultural stereotypes as bases for comparison, and to contrast "national" religious solidarities with cosmopolitan culture.
  • The authors appear to believe that only Judaism and Christianity are viable forms of monotheism.
  • Similarities and cross-influences between Islam and other religions are presented as intentional, one-way, post-conquest borrowings.

   

   

Given the above, the following is premature, surely?

23 hours ago, Solo_Ta72 said:

I personally have faced problematic Doubts after going through some of their articles about Islamic History

[Solo_Ta72]

On 3/18/2023 at 9:47 AM, Haji 2003 said:

Always reassuring when an initial reaction of mine (based on first principles and on a subject where I know relatively little) is backed up by more informed sources. In this case my point is substantiated by a review of Crone's book written in the Jewish Quarterly Review, (so unlikely to be criticised as a chauvinistic Muslim critique). Relevant text I have put into bold.

 

Nemoy, L. (1978). Crone-Cook’s “Hagarism” [Review of Hagarism, the Making of the Islamic World, by P. Crone & M. Cook]. The Jewish Quarterly Review, 68(3), 179–181. https://doi.org/10.2307/145429

 

Oh look, here's another:

Morony, M. G. (1982). [Review of Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World, by P. Crone & M. Cook]. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 41(2), 157–159. http://www.jstor.org/stable/544677

 

The above review identifies other weaknesses:

 

and

 

 

Morony goes on to make the additional criticisms (my bullets):

•  

Given the above, the following is premature, surely?

It is.. actually i am thankful to you for this data/information.....

Actually the Muslims refute everything but they tend to remain silent on this matter for some reason but JazakAllah khair shukria for your response 

[Ibn Al-Ja'abi]

On 3/18/2023 at 6:30 AM, Haji 2003 said:

Either you trust those non-Muslim historical sources to tell you about Islam and Muslims with a greater degree of accuracy than the Muslim accounts themselves or you don't. 

I think conflict is not as helpful as the historiographical methodologies of reading these two traditions, one with a relatively set historiography that crystallized over two centuries, the other chronicling very recent events. For example, this Syriac account about Imam Ali's (عليه السلام) martyrdom states he was assassinated in Hirah. How is that possible when we know he died in Kufah? This account is, I believe, late seventh century and hence a few decades after the martyrdom. However, the same critical scholarship we believe will destroy our faith is useful in showing how this isn't a problem. Historical-critical scholarship aims at asking certain questions of its sources, our primary one is who wrote it and what was his relationship to the Umawis? Being a work composed in Sham in all probability, it is likely to hold a much more positive view of Mu'awiya because we know that Syriac historiography was influenced by Umawi propaganda. Another thing historical-critical does is that it tries to compound the facts we know about society then with our analysis in order to assist us. We know that prior to Islam the major Arab regional city in southern Iraq was Hirah, the seat of the Lakhmid capital which became abandoned slowly after Islam, while Kufah was a garrison city recently built to administer Islamic rule after the conquest and populated by immigrant tribes and warriors who took part in the conquests, hence in the seventh century it would have been less important to a Syriac writer than the near by city of Hirah. This is not unlike how in the middle ages the important city in the area was not Tehran, which was a little village, but Rayy, now swallowed up by Tehran. Or how an when talking to an outsider one might not say they are from Streamwood, Illinois, but from Chicago, Illinois. This is just an example about how the situation isn't as dire as stated in terms of the conflict of these sources. We very much need to determine how to read our Arabic and non Arabic sources to yield the best possible history.

[AbdusSibtayn]

On 3/17/2023 at 9:12 PM, Solo_Ta72 said:

Salam alaikum brothers and sisters

The Revisionist do no need any introduction as they have made some claims that are problematic for many Muslims. some i have met myself 

Some of them are Patricia Crone, tom holland David thomas etc 

I personally have faced problematic Doubts after going through some of their articles about Islamic History

I wanted to know what can be the possible answers to their claims or so called revisionist POV

Quran was not compiled until late 7th century

NO mention of Quran in Early christian, Byzantine sources means that Quran didn't exist at that time period 

some sources of Christians don't even talk about religion of Arabs 

 

Here is something i copied from Wikipedia

The accounts of non-Muslim conquered peoples also conflict with the accounts of traditional Islamic literature. Examining 7th century Byzantine Christian sources commentary on the Arab "immigrants" (Mhaggraye) who were invading and settling in formerly Byzantine territory at that time, historian Abdul-Massih Saadi found the Christians never mentioned the terms "Quran" nor "Islam" nor that the immigrants were of a new religion.[61][Note 2] They referred to the immigrants in ethnic terms -- "among them (Arabs) there are many Christians...".[67] The Christians used secular or political, not religious terms (kings, princes, rulers) to refer to the Arab leaders. Muhammad was "the first king of the Mhaggraye", also guide, teacher, leader or great ruler. They did however mention the religion of the Arabs. The immigrants' religion was described as monotheist "in accordance with the Old Law (Old Testament)".[61] When the Emir of the immigrants and Patriarch of the local Christians did have a religious colloquium there was much discussion of the scriptures but no mention of the Quran, "a possible indication that the Quran was not yet in circulation."[61] The Christians reported the Emir was accompanied by "learned Jews", that the immigrants "accepted the Torah just as the Jews and Samaritans", though none of the sources described the immigrants as Jews.[61]

 

what can be the answers to such claims

 

JazakAllah khair 

 

Read the works of Fred M. Donner. He offers a good critique of the revisionist approach. 

Wassalam, wa iyyakum khair al-jaza. 

Edited March 22 by AbdusSibtayn