What do you think?
Rate this book
Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World
This is a paperback edition of a controversial study of the origins of Islamic civilisation, first published in 1977. By examining non-Muslim sources, the authors point out the intimate link between the Jewish religion and the earliest forms of Islam. As a serious, scholarly attempt to open up a new, exploratory path of Islamic history, the book has already engendered much debate. This paperback edition will make the authors' conclusions widely accessible to teachers and students of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies.
268 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1977
About the author
Patricia Crone
27 books87 followersPatricia Crone was Professor Emerita in the School of Historical Studies, where she served as the Andrew W. Mellon Professor from 1997 until her retirement in 2014. Crone’s insightful work, compellingly conveyed in her adventurous and unconventional style, shed important new light on the critical importance of the Near East—in particular on the cultural, religious and intellectual history of Islam—in historical studies. Her influence is strongly felt at the Institute, where, along with Oleg Grabar (1929–2011), Crone helped to establish the Institute as a recognized center for the pursuit of the study of Islamic culture and history.
https://www.ias.edu/scholars/patricia...
https://www.ias.edu/scholars/patricia...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
April 10, 2023
An alternate version of history is presented that is almost as radical and perhaps as wrong as ancient alien visits from Chariots of the Gods. Authors Patricia Crone and Michael Cook have retracted some of the arguments in this book since it was published in 1977. It had already propelled a sea change, whose aftershocks resonate even now to a lesser extent.
For many Muslims, this book is unacceptable because it questions the basic doctrines shown in the Quran and Hadith. Although it does not diminish the historical role of the Prophet it interprets his life in a way that is heretical to the Islamic faith. For scholars of religion and history it challenged an earlier lack of inquiry on the historicity of Arabic sources.
The main thesis of the book is that Arabs were co-opted by Jews in order to regain Palestine from Roman Christians at the start of the Islamic conquests. To do this they appealed to their desert brethren's shared Abrahamic heritage and set into motion a monotheistic movement by Muhammad and his followers that would start to sweep the world during 634.
The authors observed Muslim texts appeared a century after the events. Limiting their sources to earlier and outside texts, they sought to derive a contemporaneous account of the rise of Islam. These sources are not necessarily more accurate, and perhaps are less so. They are the hostile voices of the conquered, who tried to make sense of a foreign invasion.
***********
Some examples of the texts are:
The Teachings of Jacob -
This early 7th C. Greek-Christian text portrays the Prophet preaching the coming of the Messiah, and reflects a Jewish view that the apocalyptic end to Roman rule was to be delivered by the Arab advances. It shows Muhammad to be alive at the time of the conquest of Palestine, which is in direct opposition to Islamic tradition.
The Secrets of Rabbi Simon ben Yohay -
This 8th C. Jewish writer of an apocalyptic text corroborates the view that the Arabs had brought the end days before the coming of the Messiah. Other contemporaries considered the second caliph Umar, who was called in Arabic al-Faruq (the Redeemer), to have entered Jerusalem on a divine mission to restore the Jewish Temple.
The History of Heraclius -
Sebeos' 7th C. Armenian-Christian text depicts exiled Jews appealing to Arabs to help reclaim the Promised Land. An Arabian merchant named Mahmet (Muhammad) is familiar with the story of Moses and unites his kinsmen to champion the Jewish cause. His teachings forbid fornication, alcohol and eating meat not sanctified by ritual slaughter.
************
Predictably the Roman-Christians did not welcome this Jewish embrace of the Arabs. Some were willing to be put to the sword rather than submit to conversion or to pay for protection. The Arab coalition having gained Jerusalem were loathe to hand the keys to the kingdom to the Israelites. Rather than a third temple on the mount a mosque would appear in its stead.
What was needed and therefore invented, it is argued, was a schism between the Arabs and Jews. In order to split from Judaism, the new faith would side with their Christian subjects on the prophetic role of Jesus. To differentiate themselves from Christianity they would retain Jewish circumcision, ritual animal sacrifice and reject the divinity of Christ.
The trajectory of Islamic development is traced through a series of theoretical transformations which would become codified in the Quran. Moses' revelations on the mountain become Muhammad's epiphanies in the cave. The Roman banishment of the Jews to the desert becomes the Muslims exile from Mecca to Medina. The Jews return to Jerusalem becomes Muhammad's return to Mecca. The focus of the worship is shifted from the Temple Mount to the sanctuary of the Kaaba.
This book is marvelously inventive and a brilliant flight of the imagination. It lies at a crossroads between deep scholarship and creative imagination. While not possible to be proven, nor likely to have happened, it may reveal an inner truth about how myths are made. Much of this book is written in a dense post-modernist academic style making it a challenge to read, a period piece that is easy to discredit yet difficult to discard.
For many Muslims, this book is unacceptable because it questions the basic doctrines shown in the Quran and Hadith. Although it does not diminish the historical role of the Prophet it interprets his life in a way that is heretical to the Islamic faith. For scholars of religion and history it challenged an earlier lack of inquiry on the historicity of Arabic sources.
The main thesis of the book is that Arabs were co-opted by Jews in order to regain Palestine from Roman Christians at the start of the Islamic conquests. To do this they appealed to their desert brethren's shared Abrahamic heritage and set into motion a monotheistic movement by Muhammad and his followers that would start to sweep the world during 634.
The authors observed Muslim texts appeared a century after the events. Limiting their sources to earlier and outside texts, they sought to derive a contemporaneous account of the rise of Islam. These sources are not necessarily more accurate, and perhaps are less so. They are the hostile voices of the conquered, who tried to make sense of a foreign invasion.
***********
Some examples of the texts are:
The Teachings of Jacob -
This early 7th C. Greek-Christian text portrays the Prophet preaching the coming of the Messiah, and reflects a Jewish view that the apocalyptic end to Roman rule was to be delivered by the Arab advances. It shows Muhammad to be alive at the time of the conquest of Palestine, which is in direct opposition to Islamic tradition.
The Secrets of Rabbi Simon ben Yohay -
This 8th C. Jewish writer of an apocalyptic text corroborates the view that the Arabs had brought the end days before the coming of the Messiah. Other contemporaries considered the second caliph Umar, who was called in Arabic al-Faruq (the Redeemer), to have entered Jerusalem on a divine mission to restore the Jewish Temple.
The History of Heraclius -
Sebeos' 7th C. Armenian-Christian text depicts exiled Jews appealing to Arabs to help reclaim the Promised Land. An Arabian merchant named Mahmet (Muhammad) is familiar with the story of Moses and unites his kinsmen to champion the Jewish cause. His teachings forbid fornication, alcohol and eating meat not sanctified by ritual slaughter.
************
Predictably the Roman-Christians did not welcome this Jewish embrace of the Arabs. Some were willing to be put to the sword rather than submit to conversion or to pay for protection. The Arab coalition having gained Jerusalem were loathe to hand the keys to the kingdom to the Israelites. Rather than a third temple on the mount a mosque would appear in its stead.
What was needed and therefore invented, it is argued, was a schism between the Arabs and Jews. In order to split from Judaism, the new faith would side with their Christian subjects on the prophetic role of Jesus. To differentiate themselves from Christianity they would retain Jewish circumcision, ritual animal sacrifice and reject the divinity of Christ.
The trajectory of Islamic development is traced through a series of theoretical transformations which would become codified in the Quran. Moses' revelations on the mountain become Muhammad's epiphanies in the cave. The Roman banishment of the Jews to the desert becomes the Muslims exile from Mecca to Medina. The Jews return to Jerusalem becomes Muhammad's return to Mecca. The focus of the worship is shifted from the Temple Mount to the sanctuary of the Kaaba.
This book is marvelously inventive and a brilliant flight of the imagination. It lies at a crossroads between deep scholarship and creative imagination. While not possible to be proven, nor likely to have happened, it may reveal an inner truth about how myths are made. Much of this book is written in a dense post-modernist academic style making it a challenge to read, a period piece that is easy to discredit yet difficult to discard.
February 1, 2018
This may be the most shoddily researched, baselessly speculative and frankly ridiculous book I have ever read. Some of their evidences for a radical rethinking of Islamic history include two mosques which didn’t point exactly in the direction of Mecca. Because you know in the 7th century geography was such an exacting science.
Based on that, we are supposed to believe Mecca was actually in the Negev. Two mosques. Out of hundreds. I might as well argue George Washington wasn’t America’s first President because some random folks near the Mississippi got the dates of his election wrong. Their purpose isn’t scholarly. It’s to attack Islamic historiography.
I don’t care why. It’s awful argumentation. How did this get past reviewers?
Somehow we are to believe that Islam’s most basic history was manufactured, people all over the Middle East agreed on all this, the Sunni-Shia split was based on something that never happened, but somehow despite fighting with each other they nevertheless agreed to misrepresent half of their history in order to I don’t know what. No wonder pretty much every academic has rejected it.
Because it’s nonsense.
Based on that, we are supposed to believe Mecca was actually in the Negev. Two mosques. Out of hundreds. I might as well argue George Washington wasn’t America’s first President because some random folks near the Mississippi got the dates of his election wrong. Their purpose isn’t scholarly. It’s to attack Islamic historiography.
I don’t care why. It’s awful argumentation. How did this get past reviewers?
Somehow we are to believe that Islam’s most basic history was manufactured, people all over the Middle East agreed on all this, the Sunni-Shia split was based on something that never happened, but somehow despite fighting with each other they nevertheless agreed to misrepresent half of their history in order to I don’t know what. No wonder pretty much every academic has rejected it.
Because it’s nonsense.
October 3, 2016
This book is awesome. Too bad it's out of print and ridiculously expensive ($400) for a used copy now. Cook and Crone was part of my outro-justification from 'later Hagarism' (though the grace of God the Trinity was greater) in to the wide world of ridda and the dar al-harb, and a baptism in to historical criticism in any and all of its forms and uses, though rarely have I seen such a sharp razor applied so thoroughly.
It may be inaccurate in some details, with an overly-broad mandate which is nevertheless still overreached by authors jubilant to be breaking new ground after eight centuries of Western study (from the first translation of the Qur'an in to a Western language - the 12th c. 'Lex Mahomet pseudoprophetae' [the Law of Muhammad the False Prophet] by Robert of Ketton) - but this book - along with 'The Sectarian Milieu' (John Wansbrough [Prometheus, 1978]) - single-handedly opened the door and paved the way for critical study of Islamic history, in the same way in which Christian and Jewish history is studied, and, later, the first steps in analysis of the Qur'an in which kuffar did not themselves internalize Islamic dogma and become mere parrots and apologists for Muhammad (with implicit threat of academic censure or even violence to those who do not toe the line: no other religious studies department, other than the Islamic studies, is allowed and expected to function as a propaganda arm for the religion it ostensibly studies in American universities), working from within a false box of a paradigm, which many from Renan to Noldeke to Goldziher had been struggling to break in fits and starts since the late 19th c.: for being the first, some flaws can be overlooked.
This was the first heave pulling the birth of Hagarism (early 'Islamic' religion, a precursor to what would become the Islam of the Caliphates in the 2-4th (8th-10th) centuries, in to the often-touted (heretofore, incorrectly so) 'full light of history', concluding,
'...the traditional [histories] are best understood, not as historical documents that attest to "what really happened," but as literary texts written more than one hundred years after the facts and heavily influenced by Jewish, and to a lesser extent Christian, interconfessional polemics [situated in the Levant, with the Hijazi cities later coming to be called 'Mecca' and 'Medina' (lit. 'the City') as part of the later process assimilating 'what actually happened' to the traditional historiography]. Thus, Islamic "history" [as it has come down to us in the documents we have is] almost completely a later literary reconstruction, which evolved out of an environment of competing Jewish and Christian sects.'
Still today, 40 years later, 90% of Islamic historiography is traditional hagiography in thin disguise, reciting the legends of the rise of the Arabian religion as set down by Islamic scholars a century or more after, according to that historiography, Uthman compiled the Qur'an and ordered all versions not aligned with his own destoyed (accounting for the dearth of textual witnesses available for study today). May many read this book and of the many, may a few be called and raised up as new Crones, Cooks, and Wansbroughs, to carry on the work valiantly commenced herein.
It may be inaccurate in some details, with an overly-broad mandate which is nevertheless still overreached by authors jubilant to be breaking new ground after eight centuries of Western study (from the first translation of the Qur'an in to a Western language - the 12th c. 'Lex Mahomet pseudoprophetae' [the Law of Muhammad the False Prophet] by Robert of Ketton) - but this book - along with 'The Sectarian Milieu' (John Wansbrough [Prometheus, 1978]) - single-handedly opened the door and paved the way for critical study of Islamic history, in the same way in which Christian and Jewish history is studied, and, later, the first steps in analysis of the Qur'an in which kuffar did not themselves internalize Islamic dogma and become mere parrots and apologists for Muhammad (with implicit threat of academic censure or even violence to those who do not toe the line: no other religious studies department, other than the Islamic studies, is allowed and expected to function as a propaganda arm for the religion it ostensibly studies in American universities), working from within a false box of a paradigm, which many from Renan to Noldeke to Goldziher had been struggling to break in fits and starts since the late 19th c.: for being the first, some flaws can be overlooked.
This was the first heave pulling the birth of Hagarism (early 'Islamic' religion, a precursor to what would become the Islam of the Caliphates in the 2-4th (8th-10th) centuries, in to the often-touted (heretofore, incorrectly so) 'full light of history', concluding,
'...the traditional [histories] are best understood, not as historical documents that attest to "what really happened," but as literary texts written more than one hundred years after the facts and heavily influenced by Jewish, and to a lesser extent Christian, interconfessional polemics [situated in the Levant, with the Hijazi cities later coming to be called 'Mecca' and 'Medina' (lit. 'the City') as part of the later process assimilating 'what actually happened' to the traditional historiography]. Thus, Islamic "history" [as it has come down to us in the documents we have is] almost completely a later literary reconstruction, which evolved out of an environment of competing Jewish and Christian sects.'
Still today, 40 years later, 90% of Islamic historiography is traditional hagiography in thin disguise, reciting the legends of the rise of the Arabian religion as set down by Islamic scholars a century or more after, according to that historiography, Uthman compiled the Qur'an and ordered all versions not aligned with his own destoyed (accounting for the dearth of textual witnesses available for study today). May many read this book and of the many, may a few be called and raised up as new Crones, Cooks, and Wansbroughs, to carry on the work valiantly commenced herein.
January 24, 2013
The book has promoted that its discoveries will "destroy" the essence of Islam and its theology. In fact, the book hasn't come up with anything new. We are told in the Quran and the Hadith about the numerous insults directed towards the Prophet PBUH and his religion from the people of the Book. Islam doesn't reject the idea of being the continuation of Judaism and Christianity. The Quran explicitly declare that Islam has the Judo-Christian heritage to be a part of the religion. The book didn't affect me in anyway nor affected my faith and creed as the authors suggested!.
We must read the book through academic eyes not faithful eyes and try to get the best out of its numerous sources.
It added to me extra knowledge about how non-Muslims portrayed Islam at that early stage and made me aware of the non-muslim sources about Islam.
We must read the book through academic eyes not faithful eyes and try to get the best out of its numerous sources.
It added to me extra knowledge about how non-Muslims portrayed Islam at that early stage and made me aware of the non-muslim sources about Islam.
February 16, 2018
I read the book in its arabic translation. I think the book goes from the realm of history books to the realm of fantazy. The books lakes any clear criteria or interanl coherent logic to start from givens to conclusions.
The book starts with a given to neglect all islamic sources and try to rerite history based on non islamic contemprory materail (only four pasages were provided in the book). I just imagine how to rerite hitory of 100 years based on four paragraphs! any way even starting with the 4 paragraphs given a very starnge and not coherent with these paragraphs was concluded, then the aouthers revisit the islamic materail trying to find evidence here and there to solidify thier thesis. Total discrace to academia.
The book starts with a given to neglect all islamic sources and try to rerite history based on non islamic contemprory materail (only four pasages were provided in the book). I just imagine how to rerite hitory of 100 years based on four paragraphs! any way even starting with the 4 paragraphs given a very starnge and not coherent with these paragraphs was concluded, then the aouthers revisit the islamic materail trying to find evidence here and there to solidify thier thesis. Total discrace to academia.
January 24, 2017
عرض للأفكار التي عرضتها الكاتبة مع ذكر بعض التعليقات على بعضها :
المصادر التي اعتمدت عليها الكاتبة في هذا البحث اعتبرتها الكاتبة أنها قليلة ، فهي تعتمد في المصادر الأثرية و المصادر العبرية و اليونانية الرومانية ، في حين أنها لجأت أيضا وبكثرة في هذا الكتاب لعرض ما ورد في كتب التراث الإسلامي على حد تعبيرها ، مثل كتب مصادر التشريع الإسلامي و التاريخ وكذلك الكتب الأدبية المتضمنة للأشعار العربية ، وحاولت جاهدة تفنيد هذه الروايات الإسلامية ولم تقبل منها إلا القليل .
ومن جانب آخر عرضت الكاتبة الدراسات التي سبقتها في هذا الموضوع خاصة دراسات المستشرقين منهم وات الذي ذكرته في كثير من مواضع كتابها وكذلك لامينز وكيستر ودونر ، حيث ذكرت رأي وات وهو أن مكة لها تأثير على حياة الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم في الجوانب الاجتماعية والأدبية ، وذكرت أيضا لامينز حيث أنه اعتمد على المصادر الثانوية لذلك هي لا تثق به ، ومن الآراء التي طرحتها في البحث أن تجارة مكة لم يكن لها وجود أو أنها كانت تمثل مشكله ، وذكر من جانب آخر مسألة كون مكة تق على الطريق التجاري من الهند إلى أوروبا وهي الفكرة التي عرضها المستشرق بولية ، فتفند هذا الرأي لتذكر أنها أي مكة كانت بعيدة عند الطريق التجاري كونها على حافة شبة الجزيرة العربية وكذلك أن طبيعة مكة لجرداء كانت لا تساعد في جذب التجار إليها على خلاف المدن الخضراء كالطائف وعدن التي تتميز بمينائها البحري ، فالنتيجة هنا أن مكة لم تكن تجارية لعدة أسباب منها أنها منطقة داخلية ، ولها ميناء صغير، وأن البضائع لم تكن تمر بها لبعدها عن خط السير ، فكانت توجه البضائع إلى تدمر وحا��ل ، فمكة على قولها لم تكن على طريق الطيوب فالكاتبة تضع فرضيات أن شهرة مكة وتجارتها تكون بتجارتهم لشيء خفيف الحمل و باهض الثمن ، فتذكر رأي دونر ووات أن مكة كانت نقطة عبور لتجارة الهند إلى أفريقيا ، وهذا ما يتفق مع المصادر العربية ، أما كيستر فيشير إلى أن أهل مكة كانوا يتاجرون بالجلود والملابس التي كانوا يصنعونها ويبيعونها برخص ولم يذكر الطيوب ولا التوابل ويوافقه على هذا الرأي سنجر ، وتذكر رأي بليني (ت79م) صاحب كتاب الطواف دون في (50م) فيذكر أن تجارة مكة كانت انعكاسا طبيعيا لتجارة الطيوب في سبأ القديمة منذ 9 قرون مضت ، ويمكن أن يقال أن تجارة مكة أخذت دورها من سبأ واستمرت بعد اضمحلال الجنوب وواصلت أي مكة تجارتها وصلاتها مع العالم الروماني والهند .
في ظل هذه الآراء المتعددة لعدد من لمستشرقين نرى أن كرون تفند هذه الآراء كلها لتحاول أن تثبت أنه لم يكن أهل مكة يتاجرون بالطيوب وأنه كان دور الأغريق والأغريق لم يسمعوا نهائيا عن أهل مكة ، ونلحظ هنا أن الكاتبة تعتمد في كتابها على رفض فرضية سابقة وإعطاء فرضية جديدة لأسباب منها حينما رفضت تجارة أهل مكة للطيوب لأسباب مثل أن عرب الجنوب لم تكن لم تجارة الطيوب أصلا لترثها مكة ، ومن جانب آخر تربط سبب قيام تجارة مكة بإنهيار تجارة الجنوب بسبب التدخل الأجنبي فيها .
تنتقل بعد ذلك للحديث عن تجارة الطيوب في العصور القديمة فتفسر مفهوم الطيوب بأنها المواد التي تبعث رائحة زكية عند حرقها والمواد المعطرة ذات المذاق اللذيذ الذي يستخدم في الطعام والشراب والمواد التي تجدد الشباب والمواد المضادة للسموم ، والمستشرق رونسون يسميها الطيوب ومارجوليوث و وات يسمونها بضائع الترف الهندي ، وبدأت الكاتبة تعدد أنواع طيوب العرب منها اللبان الذكر والمر المستخدم في البخور ، فتبدأ بشرح مفاهيمهم وكيفية اسستخراجهم والبلدان التي تنتجهم ، واستعانت لعرض هذه المعلومات بزميلها عالم النباتات ، فتثير تساؤلا حول زمن إنتاج العرب للبخور والمر وتجيب علية بأنه لم ينتج قبل القرن السابع الميلادي لأسباب ، فتستشهد بالمصرين القدماء الذين كانوا يستخدمون البخور للآلهة في المعابد وأنهم كانوا يحصلون علية من شرق أفريقيا أما في تحديها لزمن تداول العرب للطيوب فهي تذكر دليل أن العرب كنوا يقدمون الطيوب كضريبة للآشوريين في القرنين الثامن والسابع قبل الميلاد ، في حين أنها تستشهد بالمصادر الأثرية مثل الأختام الطينية العربية التي عثر عليها في بيثل لا تدل على وجود تجارة في القرن التاسع قبل الميلاد ، فتذكر أنه هناك من يرى أنها وصلت لهناك في العصر الحديث وكذلك أنها لم تكن مؤرخه ، وقطع الخزف التي عثر في العقبة عليها تؤرخ في القرن السادس ق.م ، النتيجة التي تريد ايصالها الكاتبه أنه لا يوجد مصادر أثرية تعزز وجود تجارة البخور في المنطقة بين بلاد العرب الجنوب ومنطقة الهلال الخصيب ، وأن التجارة بدأت مع القرن السابع قبل الميلاد وهذا يتناسب مع ما ورد في العهد القديم .
الطريقة التي كانت تنقل فيها الطيوب هو الطريق البري ، إلا أن الكاتبة تحاول اثبات عكس ذلك أنه ظلت تنقل منذ بدايتها حتى نهايتها ، فذكر الأدلة التي تثبت تنقلها عن طرق البر وهي :
1-المؤرخ هيرونيموس الكاردي (323-272ق.م)
2-ايراتوسينيس (275-194ق.م)
3-ارتيميدوروس (100ق.م)
4-جوبا (50ق.م -19م)
5-بيني صاحب كتاب الطواف .
ذكرت كرون أنها جميعها تتحدث عن البضائع العربية وأساسها اللبن الحضرمي ،ولم يرد ذكرالتوابل الهندية أو الحرير باستثناء كلمة الطيوب التي أوردها هيرونيموس .
تحاول أن تثبت أن البضائع الأجنبية لم تكن تنقل عن طريق البر ،فقد ذكرت أن العرب كانوا يفضلون الطرق البرية لأنها أفضل في الشراء فحمولة كل جمل تبلغ 688 دينار ، ويذكر أجاثارخيديس أن الموزعون في الشمال هم الذين كانت عليهم مهمة النقل البحري ، فيخبرنا اسرابون بأنه كان يتم تفريغ الطيوب العربية في ميناء لوكي كومي الذي كان يعد ميناءا للأنباط وسوقا لهم ، فالنتيجة هنا أنه من الصعوبة الإعتقاد بأن الطريق البري قد قاوم المنافسة البحرية لمدة طويلة بل من المرجح أيضا أن تجارة بخور حضرموت هي الأخرى تحولت إلى ميدان النقل البحري مع القرن الأل على الرغم من ذلك لا تستطيع ��ن تؤكد ذلك .
تنفي كرون استمرار استخدام الطريق البري بعد القرن الرابع الميلادي ، وتذكر أن المصادر الإسلامية تذكر أن تجارة الطيوب قبل الإسلام ولدت تجارة بحرية ، الغريب أنها تأخذ في الرواية الإسلامية هنا ولا تأخذ فيها في أماكن أخرى ! أم أنها تأخذ منها ما يتوافق مع فقرها ويعزز آرائها فقط وتفند ما ينافي آرائها ! ، ومن جانب آخر دخلت الكاتبة في قضية إنتاج البخور هل من البلاد العربية الجنوبية أم من أثيوبيا وأوضحت آراء المؤرخين في ذلك ، والنتيجة أن أصبحت تجارة اليمن تنقل جميعها بحرا منذ القرن الأول الميلادي ثم بعد انهيار هذا السوق عند اليونان الرومان في القرن الثاني والثالث الميلادي ، عندها بدأت مكة بالتجارة لم يكن هناك طريق بري لتقوده قريش ولم تكن هناك سوى سوق رومانية يستفيدوا منها .
تجارة المرور ذكرت أن العرب لم يكن لهم صلات مع الهند بحرية قبل أن تبدأ الهند بصلاتها معهم ، وذكرت كرون أنه من المثير للدهشة خلو المصادر من أية إشارات لصلات بين الهند والعالم الغربي حتى القرن الأول الميلادي ، ت��تخدم الكاتبة عبارات استغراب عند الحديث عن العالم العربي ويظهر فيها الذاتية ، ففي التاريخ القديم كان العالم الغربي يعيش في ما يعرف في مجتمع المدينة وكانت صلاتهم بالشرق كلها عن طريق الإمبراطورية الفارسية لماذا الاستغراب ، في المقابل نرى أن أول ذكر للعرب في ابحارهم للهند جاء في كتاب الطواف الذي يرجع للقرن الأول الميلاي ،فقد لعب العرب دورا في التجارة الشرقية في القرن الثالث ق.م لكن لا يوجد دليل على أنهم لعبوه أقدم من ذلك.
تجارة الطيوب المكية منها 24 نوع وهي :
1-اللبان الذكر : كانوا يصدرونه من الجنوب العربي إلى العالم الغربي التجار المكيين وترفض باتريشا احتكار العرب لهذه التجارة .
2-الصبر (المر) : هو محصول عربي يستورد بكثرة من شرق أفريقيا.
3-الصمغ الجاوي ونبات الصبار.
4-زهرة الصبار هيرودوت يعتقد أنها محاصيل جنوب العرب فقط .
5-السمار الحلو.
6-الصبار : كان يصدر عبر البحر الأحمر .
7-الزنجفر .
8-القرفة والقرفة البرية .
9-قصب الطيب : كان يستورد من شرق أفريقيا ولم يرد ذكر أنه من مكة .
10-البلسم : موطنه جنوب شبه الجزيرة العربية .
11-السنا : أوراق صغيرة جافة .
12- المقل :مادة حمضية تستخدم في العطور والأدوية .
13- الجبهان : موطنه الهند .
14 -القمقم : يستخدم كعطرللمراهم النفيسة .
التوابل الهندية منه :
15-الناردين.
16-الكوستوم
17-عود الند خشب الصبار
18-الزنجبيل
19- الفلفل.
بضائع الشرق الأفريقي :
تكونت بضائع مثل القرفة و اللبان والمر والقمقم والصمغ الجاوي وجوز الهند والزنجبيل ، ولم يكن لأهل مكة دور في تسويقها ، بل كان العالم الغربي يستوردها بنفسه .
20-سن الفيل (العاج)
21-الذهب .
22-العبيد ترفض أن العبيد بعضهم من الحبشة ولا تعتقد أن مكة فقد تكون اليمن هي التي تصدرهم للشمال واحتمال أن المكيين كنوا يصدرون عبيد عرب !.
بضائع الترف الأخرى :
23-الحرير .
24- العطور:المسك العنبر .
بلاد العرب بدون الطيوب ماذا كان يصدر تجار مكة ؟
أن الروايات تقول أنهم كانوا يتاجرون بالذهب والفضة والعطور وهي غالية الثمن ولا تصدق فيها بتريشا كرون لأنها ستكون سب في ازدهار مكة ، بل تعتقد هي أنهم كانوا يتاجرون بالملابس والجلود والحيانات والمواد الغذائية .
1-الفضة: كانت تستخرج من قردة وهي منطقة في نجد وكان الإستخراج لصالح الفرس ، ازدهار مكة لم يكن يعتمد على تصدير هذه السلعة لأن فيها مخاطرة ، تعرض هنا الروايات الإسلامية وتحاول دراستها .
2-الذهب :ذكرت قول الواقدي أن قافلة لم تكن محمله بالفضة فقط بل بالذهب أيضا ، وتذكر حقيقة أن الذهب موجود في ناجم الشمال والجنوب ومكة كان يوجد فيها ذهب ، فهي ترى أن المصادر لاتثبت اشتغال قريش بمناجم الذهب ، بل حصولهم عليها من جيرانها ، فتقول أن الذهب الذي كان يحمل عبارة عن عملة سبائك ذهبيه ، وليس تصدير الذهب ، ولا يوجد أي تسجيل لواردات الذهب والفضة للعالم الغربي لذلك لايمكن أن نصنف أهل مكة انهم كانت لهم تجارة الذهب .
3-العطور :تعدن عدن مركز صناعة العطور ، على قول المرزوقي وذلك قبل الاسلام ، وذكرت أن العباس بن عبدالمطلب كان يبيع العطور اليمنية في منى موسم الحج .
4- الجلود :هي التجارة الوحيدة التي ارتبطت دائما بقريش فقد قدموها للنجاشي .
5-الملابس :رواية الكلبي عن قصة الايلاف أنشأ هاشم تجارة المكيين الدولية بحصوله على الاذن ببيع إلى سوريا .
6- الحيونات : الجاحظ والثعالبي ذكروا أنهم لديهم سوق للجمال إلى سوريا ، استشهدت بشعر أن أهل مكة يبيعون الحمير لقبائل دوس ومراد .
7- مواد غذائية : مثل السمن والجبن الحالوم في سوريا ، والزبيب والنبيذ .
أين كان تجار مكة يمارسون نشاطهم ؟ تجيب عليه بروايات ابن الكلبي أن تجارة مكة الدولية انتهت بظهور الاسلام ، من المدن سوريا ومصر والعراق والحبشة .
ألم يكن هناك وجود لتجارة مكة ؟تجيب أنها لم تكن تجارة ترانزيت ، أن بضاعتها لم تكن تغري، أنها لم تكن من النوعية التي تفرض سيطرتها على السوق .
وتذكر أن تجارة مكة تجارة محلية لكل العرب .
بشكل عام تحدثت كرون عن فرضيات من أفكاره وكانت تهدف أن تثبت تشوه العقيدة الاسلامية بغطاء التجارة و أنها تقدم حجج وفرضيات قائمة على عدم وجود أدلة تؤكدها .
المصادر التي اعتمدت عليها الكاتبة في هذا البحث اعتبرتها الكاتبة أنها قليلة ، فهي تعتمد في المصادر الأثرية و المصادر العبرية و اليونانية الرومانية ، في حين أنها لجأت أيضا وبكثرة في هذا الكتاب لعرض ما ورد في كتب التراث الإسلامي على حد تعبيرها ، مثل كتب مصادر التشريع الإسلامي و التاريخ وكذلك الكتب الأدبية المتضمنة للأشعار العربية ، وحاولت جاهدة تفنيد هذه الروايات الإسلامية ولم تقبل منها إلا القليل .
ومن جانب آخر عرضت الكاتبة الدراسات التي سبقتها في هذا الموضوع خاصة دراسات المستشرقين منهم وات الذي ذكرته في كثير من مواضع كتابها وكذلك لامينز وكيستر ودونر ، حيث ذكرت رأي وات وهو أن مكة لها تأثير على حياة الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم في الجوانب الاجتماعية والأدبية ، وذكرت أيضا لامينز حيث أنه اعتمد على المصادر الثانوية لذلك هي لا تثق به ، ومن الآراء التي طرحتها في البحث أن تجارة مكة لم يكن لها وجود أو أنها كانت تمثل مشكله ، وذكر من جانب آخر مسألة كون مكة تق على الطريق التجاري من الهند إلى أوروبا وهي الفكرة التي عرضها المستشرق بولية ، فتفند هذا الرأي لتذكر أنها أي مكة كانت بعيدة عند الطريق التجاري كونها على حافة شبة الجزيرة العربية وكذلك أن طبيعة مكة لجرداء كانت لا تساعد في جذب التجار إليها على خلاف المدن الخضراء كالطائف وعدن التي تتميز بمينائها البحري ، فالنتيجة هنا أن مكة لم تكن تجارية لعدة أسباب منها أنها منطقة داخلية ، ولها ميناء صغير، وأن البضائع لم تكن تمر بها لبعدها عن خط السير ، فكانت توجه البضائع إلى تدمر وحا��ل ، فمكة على قولها لم تكن على طريق الطيوب فالكاتبة تضع فرضيات أن شهرة مكة وتجارتها تكون بتجارتهم لشيء خفيف الحمل و باهض الثمن ، فتذكر رأي دونر ووات أن مكة كانت نقطة عبور لتجارة الهند إلى أفريقيا ، وهذا ما يتفق مع المصادر العربية ، أما كيستر فيشير إلى أن أهل مكة كانوا يتاجرون بالجلود والملابس التي كانوا يصنعونها ويبيعونها برخص ولم يذكر الطيوب ولا التوابل ويوافقه على هذا الرأي سنجر ، وتذكر رأي بليني (ت79م) صاحب كتاب الطواف دون في (50م) فيذكر أن تجارة مكة كانت انعكاسا طبيعيا لتجارة الطيوب في سبأ القديمة منذ 9 قرون مضت ، ويمكن أن يقال أن تجارة مكة أخذت دورها من سبأ واستمرت بعد اضمحلال الجنوب وواصلت أي مكة تجارتها وصلاتها مع العالم الروماني والهند .
في ظل هذه الآراء المتعددة لعدد من لمستشرقين نرى أن كرون تفند هذه الآراء كلها لتحاول أن تثبت أنه لم يكن أهل مكة يتاجرون بالطيوب وأنه كان دور الأغريق والأغريق لم يسمعوا نهائيا عن أهل مكة ، ونلحظ هنا أن الكاتبة تعتمد في كتابها على رفض فرضية سابقة وإعطاء فرضية جديدة لأسباب منها حينما رفضت تجارة أهل مكة للطيوب لأسباب مثل أن عرب الجنوب لم تكن لم تجارة الطيوب أصلا لترثها مكة ، ومن جانب آخر تربط سبب قيام تجارة مكة بإنهيار تجارة الجنوب بسبب التدخل الأجنبي فيها .
تنتقل بعد ذلك للحديث عن تجارة الطيوب في العصور القديمة فتفسر مفهوم الطيوب بأنها المواد التي تبعث رائحة زكية عند حرقها والمواد المعطرة ذات المذاق اللذيذ الذي يستخدم في الطعام والشراب والمواد التي تجدد الشباب والمواد المضادة للسموم ، والمستشرق رونسون يسميها الطيوب ومارجوليوث و وات يسمونها بضائع الترف الهندي ، وبدأت الكاتبة تعدد أنواع طيوب العرب منها اللبان الذكر والمر المستخدم في البخور ، فتبدأ بشرح مفاهيمهم وكيفية اسستخراجهم والبلدان التي تنتجهم ، واستعانت لعرض هذه المعلومات بزميلها عالم النباتات ، فتثير تساؤلا حول زمن إنتاج العرب للبخور والمر وتجيب علية بأنه لم ينتج قبل القرن السابع الميلادي لأسباب ، فتستشهد بالمصرين القدماء الذين كانوا يستخدمون البخور للآلهة في المعابد وأنهم كانوا يحصلون علية من شرق أفريقيا أما في تحديها لزمن تداول العرب للطيوب فهي تذكر دليل أن العرب كنوا يقدمون الطيوب كضريبة للآشوريين في القرنين الثامن والسابع قبل الميلاد ، في حين أنها تستشهد بالمصادر الأثرية مثل الأختام الطينية العربية التي عثر عليها في بيثل لا تدل على وجود تجارة في القرن التاسع قبل الميلاد ، فتذكر أنه هناك من يرى أنها وصلت لهناك في العصر الحديث وكذلك أنها لم تكن مؤرخه ، وقطع الخزف التي عثر في العقبة عليها تؤرخ في القرن السادس ق.م ، النتيجة التي تريد ايصالها الكاتبه أنه لا يوجد مصادر أثرية تعزز وجود تجارة البخور في المنطقة بين بلاد العرب الجنوب ومنطقة الهلال الخصيب ، وأن التجارة بدأت مع القرن السابع قبل الميلاد وهذا يتناسب مع ما ورد في العهد القديم .
الطريقة التي كانت تنقل فيها الطيوب هو الطريق البري ، إلا أن الكاتبة تحاول اثبات عكس ذلك أنه ظلت تنقل منذ بدايتها حتى نهايتها ، فذكر الأدلة التي تثبت تنقلها عن طرق البر وهي :
1-المؤرخ هيرونيموس الكاردي (323-272ق.م)
2-ايراتوسينيس (275-194ق.م)
3-ارتيميدوروس (100ق.م)
4-جوبا (50ق.م -19م)
5-بيني صاحب كتاب الطواف .
ذكرت كرون أنها جميعها تتحدث عن البضائع العربية وأساسها اللبن الحضرمي ،ولم يرد ذكرالتوابل الهندية أو الحرير باستثناء كلمة الطيوب التي أوردها هيرونيموس .
تحاول أن تثبت أن البضائع الأجنبية لم تكن تنقل عن طريق البر ،فقد ذكرت أن العرب كانوا يفضلون الطرق البرية لأنها أفضل في الشراء فحمولة كل جمل تبلغ 688 دينار ، ويذكر أجاثارخيديس أن الموزعون في الشمال هم الذين كانت عليهم مهمة النقل البحري ، فيخبرنا اسرابون بأنه كان يتم تفريغ الطيوب العربية في ميناء لوكي كومي الذي كان يعد ميناءا للأنباط وسوقا لهم ، فالنتيجة هنا أنه من الصعوبة الإعتقاد بأن الطريق البري قد قاوم المنافسة البحرية لمدة طويلة بل من المرجح أيضا أن تجارة بخور حضرموت هي الأخرى تحولت إلى ميدان النقل البحري مع القرن الأل على الرغم من ذلك لا تستطيع ��ن تؤكد ذلك .
تنفي كرون استمرار استخدام الطريق البري بعد القرن الرابع الميلادي ، وتذكر أن المصادر الإسلامية تذكر أن تجارة الطيوب قبل الإسلام ولدت تجارة بحرية ، الغريب أنها تأخذ في الرواية الإسلامية هنا ولا تأخذ فيها في أماكن أخرى ! أم أنها تأخذ منها ما يتوافق مع فقرها ويعزز آرائها فقط وتفند ما ينافي آرائها ! ، ومن جانب آخر دخلت الكاتبة في قضية إنتاج البخور هل من البلاد العربية الجنوبية أم من أثيوبيا وأوضحت آراء المؤرخين في ذلك ، والنتيجة أن أصبحت تجارة اليمن تنقل جميعها بحرا منذ القرن الأول الميلادي ثم بعد انهيار هذا السوق عند اليونان الرومان في القرن الثاني والثالث الميلادي ، عندها بدأت مكة بالتجارة لم يكن هناك طريق بري لتقوده قريش ولم تكن هناك سوى سوق رومانية يستفيدوا منها .
تجارة المرور ذكرت أن العرب لم يكن لهم صلات مع الهند بحرية قبل أن تبدأ الهند بصلاتها معهم ، وذكرت كرون أنه من المثير للدهشة خلو المصادر من أية إشارات لصلات بين الهند والعالم الغربي حتى القرن الأول الميلادي ، ت��تخدم الكاتبة عبارات استغراب عند الحديث عن العالم العربي ويظهر فيها الذاتية ، ففي التاريخ القديم كان العالم الغربي يعيش في ما يعرف في مجتمع المدينة وكانت صلاتهم بالشرق كلها عن طريق الإمبراطورية الفارسية لماذا الاستغراب ، في المقابل نرى أن أول ذكر للعرب في ابحارهم للهند جاء في كتاب الطواف الذي يرجع للقرن الأول الميلاي ،فقد لعب العرب دورا في التجارة الشرقية في القرن الثالث ق.م لكن لا يوجد دليل على أنهم لعبوه أقدم من ذلك.
تجارة الطيوب المكية منها 24 نوع وهي :
1-اللبان الذكر : كانوا يصدرونه من الجنوب العربي إلى العالم الغربي التجار المكيين وترفض باتريشا احتكار العرب لهذه التجارة .
2-الصبر (المر) : هو محصول عربي يستورد بكثرة من شرق أفريقيا.
3-الصمغ الجاوي ونبات الصبار.
4-زهرة الصبار هيرودوت يعتقد أنها محاصيل جنوب العرب فقط .
5-السمار الحلو.
6-الصبار : كان يصدر عبر البحر الأحمر .
7-الزنجفر .
8-القرفة والقرفة البرية .
9-قصب الطيب : كان يستورد من شرق أفريقيا ولم يرد ذكر أنه من مكة .
10-البلسم : موطنه جنوب شبه الجزيرة العربية .
11-السنا : أوراق صغيرة جافة .
12- المقل :مادة حمضية تستخدم في العطور والأدوية .
13- الجبهان : موطنه الهند .
14 -القمقم : يستخدم كعطرللمراهم النفيسة .
التوابل الهندية منه :
15-الناردين.
16-الكوستوم
17-عود الند خشب الصبار
18-الزنجبيل
19- الفلفل.
بضائع الشرق الأفريقي :
تكونت بضائع مثل القرفة و اللبان والمر والقمقم والصمغ الجاوي وجوز الهند والزنجبيل ، ولم يكن لأهل مكة دور في تسويقها ، بل كان العالم الغربي يستوردها بنفسه .
20-سن الفيل (العاج)
21-الذهب .
22-العبيد ترفض أن العبيد بعضهم من الحبشة ولا تعتقد أن مكة فقد تكون اليمن هي التي تصدرهم للشمال واحتمال أن المكيين كنوا يصدرون عبيد عرب !.
بضائع الترف الأخرى :
23-الحرير .
24- العطور:المسك العنبر .
بلاد العرب بدون الطيوب ماذا كان يصدر تجار مكة ؟
أن الروايات تقول أنهم كانوا يتاجرون بالذهب والفضة والعطور وهي غالية الثمن ولا تصدق فيها بتريشا كرون لأنها ستكون سب في ازدهار مكة ، بل تعتقد هي أنهم كانوا يتاجرون بالملابس والجلود والحيانات والمواد الغذائية .
1-الفضة: كانت تستخرج من قردة وهي منطقة في نجد وكان الإستخراج لصالح الفرس ، ازدهار مكة لم يكن يعتمد على تصدير هذه السلعة لأن فيها مخاطرة ، تعرض هنا الروايات الإسلامية وتحاول دراستها .
2-الذهب :ذكرت قول الواقدي أن قافلة لم تكن محمله بالفضة فقط بل بالذهب أيضا ، وتذكر حقيقة أن الذهب موجود في ناجم الشمال والجنوب ومكة كان يوجد فيها ذهب ، فهي ترى أن المصادر لاتثبت اشتغال قريش بمناجم الذهب ، بل حصولهم عليها من جيرانها ، فتقول أن الذهب الذي كان يحمل عبارة عن عملة سبائك ذهبيه ، وليس تصدير الذهب ، ولا يوجد أي تسجيل لواردات الذهب والفضة للعالم الغربي لذلك لايمكن أن نصنف أهل مكة انهم كانت لهم تجارة الذهب .
3-العطور :تعدن عدن مركز صناعة العطور ، على قول المرزوقي وذلك قبل الاسلام ، وذكرت أن العباس بن عبدالمطلب كان يبيع العطور اليمنية في منى موسم الحج .
4- الجلود :هي التجارة الوحيدة التي ارتبطت دائما بقريش فقد قدموها للنجاشي .
5-الملابس :رواية الكلبي عن قصة الايلاف أنشأ هاشم تجارة المكيين الدولية بحصوله على الاذن ببيع إلى سوريا .
6- الحيونات : الجاحظ والثعالبي ذكروا أنهم لديهم سوق للجمال إلى سوريا ، استشهدت بشعر أن أهل مكة يبيعون الحمير لقبائل دوس ومراد .
7- مواد غذائية : مثل السمن والجبن الحالوم في سوريا ، والزبيب والنبيذ .
أين كان تجار مكة يمارسون نشاطهم ؟ تجيب عليه بروايات ابن الكلبي أن تجارة مكة الدولية انتهت بظهور الاسلام ، من المدن سوريا ومصر والعراق والحبشة .
ألم يكن هناك وجود لتجارة مكة ؟تجيب أنها لم تكن تجارة ترانزيت ، أن بضاعتها لم تكن تغري، أنها لم تكن من النوعية التي تفرض سيطرتها على السوق .
وتذكر أن تجارة مكة تجارة محلية لكل العرب .
بشكل عام تحدثت كرون عن فرضيات من أفكاره وكانت تهدف أن تثبت تشوه العقيدة الاسلامية بغطاء التجارة و أنها تقدم حجج وفرضيات قائمة على عدم وجود أدلة تؤكدها .
November 1, 2017
As, generally speaking, is the case with every child who was born and raised in a Muslim country, I am more or less familiar with the life of Prophet Muhammad and with the main events in the story of the rise of Islam. This story generally follows a pattern which, it seems, is universally accepted by Muslims, and given that Quran does not give much information about the contexts of the Revelations, it is interesting to see the similarity of the contextual information different Islamic sources (which were written in different places and times in a long period of time and in a vast geography) offer about the events of the Prophet’s time. Though they have some differences on specific details of the story, they all follow a general pattern, and this pattern is the reason for the universal agreement about the main lines of the beginnings of the Islamic history, until Rashidun period at least. Given the consistency of the accounts about the rise of Islam, it seems that there is not much reason to doubt the authenticity of these narratives, except one crucial feature of the Islamic sources: the works from which we know the rise of Islam, namely (apart from Quran) Sira, Tafsir, Hadith and historical works were written at a later time, the earliest ones are from the late seventh or the early eighth century at the best.
The lack of contemporary Islamic sources for the study of this period determines the strategy of Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World. Patricia Crone and Michael Cook aim in this book to rewrite the early Islamic history by almost totally disregarding these later Islamic sources and by using only contemporary ones produced by the adherents of the monotheist religions present in the Near East, therefore consisting mainly of the material written in Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Armenian and Aramaic. The result is almost revolutionary. Crone and Cook argue that at the very beginning, the community which we call today as Muslims had not a distinct confessional identity, but rather they were believers in some sort of Judaic messianism. To support this argument, they use the contemporary religious polemical works in which “a Saracen, a false prophet" who prophesizes the advent of the “anointed one”, and claims that he has “the keys of the paradise” is mentioned. The attribution of messianic beliefs to early community of Believers (Mu’minûn), as Crone and Cook claim, is further supported by a Jewish tract which sees the conquests of these “Ishmaelites” as the fulfilment of the prophecy, finally bringing to an end the sufferings of Jewish people in the hand of Romans, and ensuring, hopefully, the rebirth of the Jewish kingdom in Jerusalem. In this vein, the title al-Faruq of ‘Umar, the second caliph, is nothing but a messianic designation acquired by him after the conquest of Jerusalem, which the Islamic tradition is anxious to cleanse of its original Aramaic meaning as “Redeemer" and to attribute it to the perception of ‘Umar among “the people of book”. Furthermore, based on an Armenian chronicle written in 660’s (so it cannot be counted as much “contemporary”), the writers imply that the Arab conquest of Palestine was not in fact an invasion, or a military campaign of ghazis against infidels, but rather a reenactment of the Mosaic Exodus by the early believer community to reclaim the Promised Land, this time from the Romans as the birthright of the sons of Abraham. To legitimatize Arab involvement in this “enactment of Judaic messianism”, the writers regard the Prophet as responsible for creating a genealogy which endows Arab people with Abrahamic descent, therefore accomplishing a double aim, on the one hand to prove that the Holy Land also the birthright of Arabs, and on the other hand, to demonstrate that monotheism is not an “alien truth” but a “property” inherited from Arab ancestors. The last development, making possible to create a line of Arab prophets sent to Arab people, paves the way for the future divide between Jews and the Believers, thus leading to the formation of Islam as a confessional religious identity. In light of these observations, Crone and Cook read the name that contemporary sources give to this community of believers, that is Magaritai in Greek or Mahgraye in Syriac, as an adaptation not of the Arabic term muhajirun, but of Hagarene, the descendants of Abraham by Hagar. Thus, as a sensational concluding remark, the writers argue that the early Muslim community did not define themselves as Muslims as we attribute it to them today, but as Hagarenes, who were participating in an enactment of the Exodus (hijra) to the Palestine.
In spite of this religious affinity between Jews and the Believers at the early stages of rise of Islam, as the writers propose, there was a sudden change in this relationship after the major success of Arab conquests in Palestine and Syria, which caused the collapse of the Eastern Roman order in this area. Now holding the Promised Land, the Believers no longer needed Jewish messianism as an impetus to make Jews as well as the Believers participate in this venture. Given that, however, their messianism was the defining attribute of their religion and it was deeply connected to the quest for Canaan, which made this messianism Jewish, the Believers needed now to break this connection. In the writers’ view, their solution was the recognition of Jesus as messiah and borrowing some tenets from Samaritanism. The writers argue that especially the latter provided a model for the Believers in that Samaritans had disassociated themselves from Judaism by accepting only Pentateuch and thus by rejecting “Davidic monarchy and the sanctity of Jerusalem” (15). At this point, Crone and Cook’s alternative historical reconstruction seems rather weak in that they speak as if one’s religious identity had not been an essential aspect of his/her existence in a pre-modern context, but a toy that a believer could play with. Even though Crone and Cook accept that such a solution was not sustainable in that it would have resulted with the conversion of the believer to the Christianity, it still does not seem reasonable to accept that the Believers exhibited such openness or, rather, pragmatism in giving away or embracing some essential tenets of other monotheist religions.
One of the consistent emphases in the book is on the Believers’ struggle in making “the alien religious truth their own”. Abrahamic genealogy and the absorption of some cultic beliefs and rituals found in pre-Islamic Arabia such as sacrifice and circumcision, now under the title of “the religion of Abraham”, were the answers for this dilemma according to the writers; but, in their view, they were not so effective in challenging the universal monotheistic religions prevalent at that time. Now deprived of its messianic fervour, the Believer community found a solution in making an image of Muhammed as not a mere parochial warner sent to restore the religion of Abraham in line with the Arab non-Scriptural prophets such as Salih and Hud in Quran, but a Mosaic prophet who has a Scripture. Crone and Cook formulate this shift as a move “from redemption to revelation”, that is replacing the messianic paradigm with a Mosaic one. This formulation forms the basis for the second controversial claim in the book, which is that a figure of a Prophet who individually received the Revelations from God was only a later projection among the Believers. Originally, as the writers argue, there were multiple “Hagarene religious works”, they were put together in the form of single book which we know today as the Quran, in much later times, especially by Hajjaj. Crone and Cook support this claim by referring to the loose structure, “obscure and inconsequential content” and the “repetition of whole passages" in the Quran.
Now seeing their prophet in the mirror of Moses, the Believers also needed a context, a sacred geography in which Quran was revealed to Muhammad, in other words, they needed to create their own Mount Sinai. Muslims today do not have any doubt about the location of this geography; but the authors of our book do not think that this was also the case with early Believers; in their view, the selection of Makka as a scene for the Prophetic play happened in later times, and the original sanctuary of the Believers must be searched in far north of the Makka, where the Biblical events were said to have occurred as reflected in Jewish/Samaritan sources, as in the Jewish Targums. Though I find the authors’ skepticism about Makka as an initial sanctuary of the Believers compelling when I consider this argument along with another study of Crone’s which challenges the widespread idea that Makka was a trade center, I still do not understand why we should accept "the fact” that northwestern Arabia had long been made a scene by Jews in which Biblical events were enacted was also the reason behind the Believers’ initial choice to locate their sanctuary in this place. Crone and Cook play the pragmatism card again when they say it was much “easier” for the Believers to make use of this geography, but I think they again do not seem to take into account the questions arising from their own arguments, e.g. how could the early Believers manage to create a coherent religious worldview by easily adopting such contradictory elements from other monotheisms and also from pagan beliefs?
As we go on reading the book, an interesting change happens in the authors’ treatment of the early Islamic history. After the attempts I mentioned above to reconstruct this history from a completely different point of view, the writers’ attention seems to shift away from the aim to create a historiographical work to writing a somewhat metaphysical or a philosophical study, aiming rather at the interpretation of the meaning of some crucial events, such as the transportation of religious and political capital of the Believers to “Babylonia”. I must admit that some of these discussions are very enjoyable to read. For instance, one of these discussions is about the religious implications of the rise of the Abbasids, which the authors try to interpret by comparing the forced exile of Jews and the self-imposed transportation of the Believers’ capital to Babylonia. However, the writers’ arguments in these chapters do seem rather like speculations or say, philosophical readings (calling to mind Levinas’ readings of the Talmud), which is in contrast with the previous chapters’ focus in retelling an “accurate” history, if such a thing is possible of course.
In sum, it seems as if Hagarism was written to redefine the meaning of the word “path-breaking”. The authors’ philological competence which they show when they are dealing with the sources written in the archaic languages deserves respect and admiration. Even though most of their arguments are disputable, the order of their account of early history of the Believers is well structured, and in some points the arguments are well documented. Though it is very likely that Cook and Crone’s revisionism in recounting this history is in vain in that they will not be able to change the pattern of the story, still Hagarism is definitely worth reading, maybe not as a book of history, but just as a story, like the Islamic sources that the authors disregarded.
The lack of contemporary Islamic sources for the study of this period determines the strategy of Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World. Patricia Crone and Michael Cook aim in this book to rewrite the early Islamic history by almost totally disregarding these later Islamic sources and by using only contemporary ones produced by the adherents of the monotheist religions present in the Near East, therefore consisting mainly of the material written in Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Armenian and Aramaic. The result is almost revolutionary. Crone and Cook argue that at the very beginning, the community which we call today as Muslims had not a distinct confessional identity, but rather they were believers in some sort of Judaic messianism. To support this argument, they use the contemporary religious polemical works in which “a Saracen, a false prophet" who prophesizes the advent of the “anointed one”, and claims that he has “the keys of the paradise” is mentioned. The attribution of messianic beliefs to early community of Believers (Mu’minûn), as Crone and Cook claim, is further supported by a Jewish tract which sees the conquests of these “Ishmaelites” as the fulfilment of the prophecy, finally bringing to an end the sufferings of Jewish people in the hand of Romans, and ensuring, hopefully, the rebirth of the Jewish kingdom in Jerusalem. In this vein, the title al-Faruq of ‘Umar, the second caliph, is nothing but a messianic designation acquired by him after the conquest of Jerusalem, which the Islamic tradition is anxious to cleanse of its original Aramaic meaning as “Redeemer" and to attribute it to the perception of ‘Umar among “the people of book”. Furthermore, based on an Armenian chronicle written in 660’s (so it cannot be counted as much “contemporary”), the writers imply that the Arab conquest of Palestine was not in fact an invasion, or a military campaign of ghazis against infidels, but rather a reenactment of the Mosaic Exodus by the early believer community to reclaim the Promised Land, this time from the Romans as the birthright of the sons of Abraham. To legitimatize Arab involvement in this “enactment of Judaic messianism”, the writers regard the Prophet as responsible for creating a genealogy which endows Arab people with Abrahamic descent, therefore accomplishing a double aim, on the one hand to prove that the Holy Land also the birthright of Arabs, and on the other hand, to demonstrate that monotheism is not an “alien truth” but a “property” inherited from Arab ancestors. The last development, making possible to create a line of Arab prophets sent to Arab people, paves the way for the future divide between Jews and the Believers, thus leading to the formation of Islam as a confessional religious identity. In light of these observations, Crone and Cook read the name that contemporary sources give to this community of believers, that is Magaritai in Greek or Mahgraye in Syriac, as an adaptation not of the Arabic term muhajirun, but of Hagarene, the descendants of Abraham by Hagar. Thus, as a sensational concluding remark, the writers argue that the early Muslim community did not define themselves as Muslims as we attribute it to them today, but as Hagarenes, who were participating in an enactment of the Exodus (hijra) to the Palestine.
In spite of this religious affinity between Jews and the Believers at the early stages of rise of Islam, as the writers propose, there was a sudden change in this relationship after the major success of Arab conquests in Palestine and Syria, which caused the collapse of the Eastern Roman order in this area. Now holding the Promised Land, the Believers no longer needed Jewish messianism as an impetus to make Jews as well as the Believers participate in this venture. Given that, however, their messianism was the defining attribute of their religion and it was deeply connected to the quest for Canaan, which made this messianism Jewish, the Believers needed now to break this connection. In the writers’ view, their solution was the recognition of Jesus as messiah and borrowing some tenets from Samaritanism. The writers argue that especially the latter provided a model for the Believers in that Samaritans had disassociated themselves from Judaism by accepting only Pentateuch and thus by rejecting “Davidic monarchy and the sanctity of Jerusalem” (15). At this point, Crone and Cook’s alternative historical reconstruction seems rather weak in that they speak as if one’s religious identity had not been an essential aspect of his/her existence in a pre-modern context, but a toy that a believer could play with. Even though Crone and Cook accept that such a solution was not sustainable in that it would have resulted with the conversion of the believer to the Christianity, it still does not seem reasonable to accept that the Believers exhibited such openness or, rather, pragmatism in giving away or embracing some essential tenets of other monotheist religions.
One of the consistent emphases in the book is on the Believers’ struggle in making “the alien religious truth their own”. Abrahamic genealogy and the absorption of some cultic beliefs and rituals found in pre-Islamic Arabia such as sacrifice and circumcision, now under the title of “the religion of Abraham”, were the answers for this dilemma according to the writers; but, in their view, they were not so effective in challenging the universal monotheistic religions prevalent at that time. Now deprived of its messianic fervour, the Believer community found a solution in making an image of Muhammed as not a mere parochial warner sent to restore the religion of Abraham in line with the Arab non-Scriptural prophets such as Salih and Hud in Quran, but a Mosaic prophet who has a Scripture. Crone and Cook formulate this shift as a move “from redemption to revelation”, that is replacing the messianic paradigm with a Mosaic one. This formulation forms the basis for the second controversial claim in the book, which is that a figure of a Prophet who individually received the Revelations from God was only a later projection among the Believers. Originally, as the writers argue, there were multiple “Hagarene religious works”, they were put together in the form of single book which we know today as the Quran, in much later times, especially by Hajjaj. Crone and Cook support this claim by referring to the loose structure, “obscure and inconsequential content” and the “repetition of whole passages" in the Quran.
Now seeing their prophet in the mirror of Moses, the Believers also needed a context, a sacred geography in which Quran was revealed to Muhammad, in other words, they needed to create their own Mount Sinai. Muslims today do not have any doubt about the location of this geography; but the authors of our book do not think that this was also the case with early Believers; in their view, the selection of Makka as a scene for the Prophetic play happened in later times, and the original sanctuary of the Believers must be searched in far north of the Makka, where the Biblical events were said to have occurred as reflected in Jewish/Samaritan sources, as in the Jewish Targums. Though I find the authors’ skepticism about Makka as an initial sanctuary of the Believers compelling when I consider this argument along with another study of Crone’s which challenges the widespread idea that Makka was a trade center, I still do not understand why we should accept "the fact” that northwestern Arabia had long been made a scene by Jews in which Biblical events were enacted was also the reason behind the Believers’ initial choice to locate their sanctuary in this place. Crone and Cook play the pragmatism card again when they say it was much “easier” for the Believers to make use of this geography, but I think they again do not seem to take into account the questions arising from their own arguments, e.g. how could the early Believers manage to create a coherent religious worldview by easily adopting such contradictory elements from other monotheisms and also from pagan beliefs?
As we go on reading the book, an interesting change happens in the authors’ treatment of the early Islamic history. After the attempts I mentioned above to reconstruct this history from a completely different point of view, the writers’ attention seems to shift away from the aim to create a historiographical work to writing a somewhat metaphysical or a philosophical study, aiming rather at the interpretation of the meaning of some crucial events, such as the transportation of religious and political capital of the Believers to “Babylonia”. I must admit that some of these discussions are very enjoyable to read. For instance, one of these discussions is about the religious implications of the rise of the Abbasids, which the authors try to interpret by comparing the forced exile of Jews and the self-imposed transportation of the Believers’ capital to Babylonia. However, the writers’ arguments in these chapters do seem rather like speculations or say, philosophical readings (calling to mind Levinas’ readings of the Talmud), which is in contrast with the previous chapters’ focus in retelling an “accurate” history, if such a thing is possible of course.
In sum, it seems as if Hagarism was written to redefine the meaning of the word “path-breaking”. The authors’ philological competence which they show when they are dealing with the sources written in the archaic languages deserves respect and admiration. Even though most of their arguments are disputable, the order of their account of early history of the Believers is well structured, and in some points the arguments are well documented. Though it is very likely that Cook and Crone’s revisionism in recounting this history is in vain in that they will not be able to change the pattern of the story, still Hagarism is definitely worth reading, maybe not as a book of history, but just as a story, like the Islamic sources that the authors disregarded.
January 9, 2022
5.5/10.
Crone and Cook have written a historical-critical overview of the origins and transformation of Islam, showing discrepancies between the religion and historical documents, as well as looking at similarities between it and other religions at the time. For example, it is shown that the Samaritans at the time of Islamic growth had a political-theological hierarchy (just as does Islam) and had thrown out the religious use of the prophetic books from the Old Testament. It is also shown that many early Mosques are pointing in the wrong direction, which means that Mecca was not the supposed holy site until later. Furthermore, the first 100 years of Islamic documents were all thrown down the memory hole by a certain leader in the late 700s who did not want anyone finding historical discrepancies.
Unlike today, there was an initially cordial relationship between Jews and Muslims. In fact, the Jews of Jerusalem first believed that the Islamic Arabian horsemen were a sign of the Messiah coming. We also have records of Muslims praying to Mary, the mother of Jesus, along with one external writer, Jacob of Edessa, who writes this in 708 AD: "The Mahgraye [Islamic Arabs] too ... all confess firmly that he [Jesus] is the true messiah who was to come and who was foretold by the prophets; on this subject they have no dispute with us, but rather with the Jews .. They reproachfully maintain against them ... that the messiah was to be born of David, and further that this messiah who has come was born of Mary. This is firmly professed by the Mahgraye, and not one of them will dispute it, for they say always and to everyone that Jesus son of Mary is in truth the messiah". Something is up here.
The next part in the book compares different religious structures. There are two axises on which religions fit: universalism/particularism and elitist/mass. Judaism and Zoroastrianism (essentially Judaism for Indo-Europeans) are particularist mass religions, Christianity is a universalist mass religion, but Buddhism and Hellenism (essentially Greek philosophy) are elitist and universalist. In the latter two, there is an esoteric religion which the aristocracy practices with much self-discipline and rational structure, but the masses are given a watered down, mythological version of what the aristocrats practice.
Then the book transforms into an utterly confusing, labyrinthine maze of Near Eastern culture, religion, history, and personages — of which 99.9% of people do not know of. Crone and Cook review the religions and societies of Assyria, Hellenic Egypt, Babylon, Syria, and Persia, and then show how they contributed/transformed when they contacted with Islam. The problem is that the authors' writing style is extremely agile, and assumes that you are a master at Arabic history. I am not. As an example of how they write: "The rapprochement between Shi'ism and Iran was nonetheless a very limited one. To a certain extent, this was a matter of historical accident: the Buyids having missed their chance, it was not until the rise of the Safawids that Shi'ism was superimposed on the after-image of Sasanid Iran". It is not explained who the Safawids or Buyids are, and without my expert knowledge of Shi'ism (I barely know what it is) and Sasanid Iran, I have no idea what to make out of the phrase, "it was not until the rise of the Safawids that Shi'ism was superimposed on the after-image of Sasanid Iran". Going through this type of sentence for 70 pages in a row is a Herculean effort, but, despite that effort, I barely got anything out of the latter part of the book. I am one to just read through a book, instead of stopping every sentence to search more about the facts laid out, so I got tired quickly of the perennial deluge of Islamic names thrown at me.
Overall, I would not recommend this to anyone not well versed in Islamic history. If you know 80% of the major events, figures, movements, sects, places, and cultures, then you're good to go. Unfortunately, that does not include me as my historical knowledge is centered around the West. Perhaps someone could recommend me a good starter historical-critical book on Islam which does not assume much knowledge on Islamic history, but for now I rest my case.
Crone and Cook have written a historical-critical overview of the origins and transformation of Islam, showing discrepancies between the religion and historical documents, as well as looking at similarities between it and other religions at the time. For example, it is shown that the Samaritans at the time of Islamic growth had a political-theological hierarchy (just as does Islam) and had thrown out the religious use of the prophetic books from the Old Testament. It is also shown that many early Mosques are pointing in the wrong direction, which means that Mecca was not the supposed holy site until later. Furthermore, the first 100 years of Islamic documents were all thrown down the memory hole by a certain leader in the late 700s who did not want anyone finding historical discrepancies.
Unlike today, there was an initially cordial relationship between Jews and Muslims. In fact, the Jews of Jerusalem first believed that the Islamic Arabian horsemen were a sign of the Messiah coming. We also have records of Muslims praying to Mary, the mother of Jesus, along with one external writer, Jacob of Edessa, who writes this in 708 AD: "The Mahgraye [Islamic Arabs] too ... all confess firmly that he [Jesus] is the true messiah who was to come and who was foretold by the prophets; on this subject they have no dispute with us, but rather with the Jews .. They reproachfully maintain against them ... that the messiah was to be born of David, and further that this messiah who has come was born of Mary. This is firmly professed by the Mahgraye, and not one of them will dispute it, for they say always and to everyone that Jesus son of Mary is in truth the messiah". Something is up here.
The next part in the book compares different religious structures. There are two axises on which religions fit: universalism/particularism and elitist/mass. Judaism and Zoroastrianism (essentially Judaism for Indo-Europeans) are particularist mass religions, Christianity is a universalist mass religion, but Buddhism and Hellenism (essentially Greek philosophy) are elitist and universalist. In the latter two, there is an esoteric religion which the aristocracy practices with much self-discipline and rational structure, but the masses are given a watered down, mythological version of what the aristocrats practice.
Then the book transforms into an utterly confusing, labyrinthine maze of Near Eastern culture, religion, history, and personages — of which 99.9% of people do not know of. Crone and Cook review the religions and societies of Assyria, Hellenic Egypt, Babylon, Syria, and Persia, and then show how they contributed/transformed when they contacted with Islam. The problem is that the authors' writing style is extremely agile, and assumes that you are a master at Arabic history. I am not. As an example of how they write: "The rapprochement between Shi'ism and Iran was nonetheless a very limited one. To a certain extent, this was a matter of historical accident: the Buyids having missed their chance, it was not until the rise of the Safawids that Shi'ism was superimposed on the after-image of Sasanid Iran". It is not explained who the Safawids or Buyids are, and without my expert knowledge of Shi'ism (I barely know what it is) and Sasanid Iran, I have no idea what to make out of the phrase, "it was not until the rise of the Safawids that Shi'ism was superimposed on the after-image of Sasanid Iran". Going through this type of sentence for 70 pages in a row is a Herculean effort, but, despite that effort, I barely got anything out of the latter part of the book. I am one to just read through a book, instead of stopping every sentence to search more about the facts laid out, so I got tired quickly of the perennial deluge of Islamic names thrown at me.
Overall, I would not recommend this to anyone not well versed in Islamic history. If you know 80% of the major events, figures, movements, sects, places, and cultures, then you're good to go. Unfortunately, that does not include me as my historical knowledge is centered around the West. Perhaps someone could recommend me a good starter historical-critical book on Islam which does not assume much knowledge on Islamic history, but for now I rest my case.
Read
May 4, 2023A revisionist history which relies heavily on sources hostile to the traditional Islamic historical accounts. Their theories are tentative arguments and generalisations and conjectural interpretations based on false assumptions. Crone and Cook have actually disavowed much of their own work, as their theories have been universally rejected by mainstream scholars.
Read
May 29, 2023عصي على الفهم
August 30, 2017
In Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World, Michael Cook and Patricia Crone provide an alternative interpretation of the rise of Islam and the circumstances leading to it. In doing so, they have attracted some controversy due to their methodology, and the conclusions that flow from this. Their basic premise is that of scepticism: The traditional Islamic sources cannot be trusted, and early Islamic history has to be rewritten from to other sources. To this end, the authors have researched quite extensively on the topic, as indicated by the fact that of the 268 pages comprising the book, 75 pages are dedicated to endnotes, and 22 pages are dedicated to the bibliography. The main text of the book is comprised of fourteen chapters that are divided neatly into three main parts: “Whence Islam?,” “Whither Antiquity?” and “The Collision,” each of which probing a different aspect of middle eastern history, both before and after the rise of Islam.
The first part, “Whence Islam?,” comprises five chapters, and concerns the topic of where Islam originated and how it arrived at its current form. It is here that the authors present their thesis that there are no cogent grounds for accepting the historicity of the Islamic tradition, and that because of the unreliability of these traditions, it is necessary to step outside of them and start over with non-Islamic sources, such as the writings of Jews and Christians living around the time of the conquests (pg. 3). In the first chapter, “Judeo-Hagarism,” these outside sources are used to build a picture of how the Jews perceived the “Hagarenes” who poured out of Arabia and into the Mediterranean world. What is notable here is that the Jews and Arabs are presented as having a close kinship and are not yet regarded as having two distinct religions. The second chapter, “Hagarism without Judaism,” continues the narrative and discusses how the Hagarenes break with the Jews and begin to lean towards Christianity, accepting the belief that Jesus is the Messiah (but not the Son of God or Saviour), and thus go through “[an] exchange of a Judaic for a Christian messianism” (pgs. 11-12). However, due to danger of being assimilated into Christianity, they attempt to create an autonomous religion of Abraham with its own scripture and prophet. The third chapter “The Prophet Like Moses,” further explores this development, showing how Old testament descriptions of a coming prophet are reinterpreted to fit the picture of the Arabian prophet. At this point, the Qur’an also begins to take shape, with sources such as various seventh century Christian writings being used to show that ‘Uthman had compiled it from numerous earlier writings (pg. 17). Then, in the fourth chapter, “The Samaritan Calques,” it is hypothesized that it is through the influence of Samaritanism that the concept of a special sanctuary develops, and it is after some time that Mecca is settled upon as that sanctuary. Finally, the fifth chapter, “Babylonia,” details how all of these concepts are brought together to form Islamic law and theology as it exists today.
After “Whence Islam?,” the second part, “Whither Antiquity?,” is much shorter, comprising only two chapters. These two chapters are a survey of the near eastern world prior to the rise of Islam, including the various cultural, philosophical religious aspects of the lands that would eventually become part of the Islamic world. The sixth chapter, “The Imperial Civilizations,” surveys the Sassanian and Byzantine empires, and includes a discussion of the intellectual climate of each nation (The Sassanians being dominated by Zoroastrianism and the Byzantines by a combination of Christian belief, Hellenic philosophy and Roman polity). The seventh chapter, “The Near-Eastern Provinces,” does a similar survey of various lands that were under the control of these two empires prior to the rise of Islam, including Syria, Egypt and Iraq. These two chapters serve to provide a brief background on these lands and their intellectual and religious climates prior to the Islamic conquest. Part two is relatively straightforward and uncomplicated, although it is not always clear how some of the ideas connect to the making of the Islamic world.
Finally, the third part, “The Collision,” brings together the ideas that were developed in the first two parts, and as the title implies, discusses the coming together of the various ideas that had developed with the rise of Islam with the ideas that were already extant, and what the results of this collision were. This is a fascinating section of the book, as it depicts the struggles that took place (and continue to take place) within the Muslim world over what to do with the pre-existing ideas that were present in the lands they conquered. The eight chapter, “The Preconditions for the Formation of Islamic Civilisation,” discusses the conditions under which Islam spread, as well as contrasts the spread of other ideas (especially the Christian religion) with the spread of Islam. The authors here state that Islam “is the outcome of a barbarian conquest of lands of very ancient cultural traditions” and as such, is “unique in history” (pg. 73). The next three chapters, collectively titled “The Fate of Antiquity,” discuss the results of the Islamic contact with extant religious, philosophical and political ideas. A wide variety of results come about, which range from an outright rejection of certain pre-Islamic ideas to an absorption of others into Islamic thought (as seen for example in the case of Iranian political ideas). The twelfth chapter, “The Fate of Hagarism,” describes the impact of this synthesis, as well as the resulting development of conflicting schools of thought. This theme is continued in the thirteenth chapter, “Sadduccee Islam,” wherein special emphasis is placed on the various strands of Shi’ism, and how they were shaped by Samaritan concepts of priesthood, as well as their assimilation of Hellenistic philosophical concepts. And in the fourteenth and final chapter, “The austerity of Islamic history,” comparisons are made between Islam and more contemporary religious ideas (such as Puritanism), showing the differing attitudes towards the influence of foreign concepts, as well as highlighting the different reactions towards these concepts within Islam, ranging from Ibn Hanbal’s strong resistance to Greek philosophical ideas (such as Neoplatonism and Epicureanism) in favour of ideas developed from within the Islamic tradition, to the Muslim philosophers’ acceptance of the aforementioned Greek ideas, as well as their adaptation into Islamic thought.
Of the three parts that comprise the book, it is the first part that receives the most attention and controversy from reviewers of the book. The description of Islamic origins presented therein is completely different from every other narrative of the same origins because of the authors’ premise that the Islamic sources are, for the most part, unreliable. According to their description, Islam is actually the result of “Hagarene” invaders from Arabia adopting Judeo-Messianism, which they then replace with Christian Messianism by accepting the messiahship of Jesus, and then using Samaritan influences to come up with a distinctly Arabian prophet and sanctuary, thus sanctifying their Ishmaelite heritage. The authors even go to the point of using Judaic language for Islamic concepts, such as referring to the ulama as “rabbis.” Certainly there is merit to the view that Islam developed into what it is today as a result of influences from pre-existing religious ideas, especially from the earlier Abrahamic faiths. However, there is always the risk of placing too much emphasis upon influences from earlier sources, which makes it seem that Islam is nothing more than a mixture of old ideas, and has not contributed anything original. After all, when ideas from different places are brought together, new doctrines and practices must necessarily be developed to hold all of these beliefs together. Furthermore, it must be admitted that something original (whatever it may have been) must have developed in the Arabian peninsula; something which would meld with existing ideas to form Islam as it is known today.
Also, much could be said regarding Cook and Crone’s choice of primary source material from which they build their narratives. Their rationale for rejecting the Islamic sources is that they come in during the eight century, at a time when religious ideas are emerging in the Islamic world which required historical sources to buttress them. Hence they are biased towards ideas that developed after the events described (cf. pg. 3). However, this explanation does not take into account two facts: 1) That there are many basic historical concepts that are held in common by all Muslim factions regardless of ideology, and 2) There are also many narratives in the Islamic sources that do not fit easily with Islamic beliefs and require a certain amount of reinterpretation in order to be harmonized with these beliefs (one can easily see this today in modern Muslim polemics in their attempts to explain their beliefs according to their own sources). These are hardly the kinds of traditions that would be created in an atmosphere that required traditions that can neatly justify existing viewpoints over and against other views.
Furthermore, it is interesting to note the kinds of sources that they do prefer. In most discussions of early Islamic history, not much attention is given to outsiders’ view of the emerging events, which is why it is refreshing to see a work that gives these sources their due. That being said, however, it must be remembered that these are sources written by outsiders peering in, which will always inevitably introduce a level of misapprehension of what exactly is going on. Also, while the authors may claim bias for the Islamic sources, this is true of all documents, including the non-Muslim sources that the authors rely so heavily upon. For this reason, it is necessary to balance out what the Jews, Christians and Pagans have to say about early Islam with what the early Muslims have to say about themselves. True, most of these narratives do not crystallize until at least the eighth centuries. However, the Islamic tradition has ways of preserving what was passed on from previous generations, and whatever flaws these systems may have, they are to a certain degree effective in ensuring that genuine traditions get passed on.
Overall, Hagarism provides an interesting (albeit somewhat skewed) interpretation of the events surrounding the making of the Islamic world. Granted, the conclusions of this book are also totally unacceptable to any Muslim who values their traditions and beliefs. Also, there are few historians who would accept their thesis today, and even the authors themselves have had to revise their views in later years as new research becomes available. Nonetheless, this book is good to read in order to get a glimpse of this chapter in the development of Islamic historiography. Also, the authors are evidently well acquainted with the relevant works that were available at that time, as evidenced by the extensive bibliography and citations in the book. It is always helpful in determining what primary sources to use in studying early Islamic history. It should just be remembered that one need not agree with Cook and Crone in their analysis of the aforementioned primary sources. Finally, there has been much development in the area of historiography in the three and a half decades that have elapsed since the publication of this work, and it would be helpful to balance this work out against more recent publications that deal with the same areas, as such publications would have more up to date research and are built upon the foundations laid by earlier works in the field. For those who have the time and resources, it would also be helpful to look into the sources listed in this book’s bibliography and analyze the sources for oneself, taking whatever statements are written in non-Muslim primary sources with a grain of salt, rather than accepting them at face value.
The first part, “Whence Islam?,” comprises five chapters, and concerns the topic of where Islam originated and how it arrived at its current form. It is here that the authors present their thesis that there are no cogent grounds for accepting the historicity of the Islamic tradition, and that because of the unreliability of these traditions, it is necessary to step outside of them and start over with non-Islamic sources, such as the writings of Jews and Christians living around the time of the conquests (pg. 3). In the first chapter, “Judeo-Hagarism,” these outside sources are used to build a picture of how the Jews perceived the “Hagarenes” who poured out of Arabia and into the Mediterranean world. What is notable here is that the Jews and Arabs are presented as having a close kinship and are not yet regarded as having two distinct religions. The second chapter, “Hagarism without Judaism,” continues the narrative and discusses how the Hagarenes break with the Jews and begin to lean towards Christianity, accepting the belief that Jesus is the Messiah (but not the Son of God or Saviour), and thus go through “[an] exchange of a Judaic for a Christian messianism” (pgs. 11-12). However, due to danger of being assimilated into Christianity, they attempt to create an autonomous religion of Abraham with its own scripture and prophet. The third chapter “The Prophet Like Moses,” further explores this development, showing how Old testament descriptions of a coming prophet are reinterpreted to fit the picture of the Arabian prophet. At this point, the Qur’an also begins to take shape, with sources such as various seventh century Christian writings being used to show that ‘Uthman had compiled it from numerous earlier writings (pg. 17). Then, in the fourth chapter, “The Samaritan Calques,” it is hypothesized that it is through the influence of Samaritanism that the concept of a special sanctuary develops, and it is after some time that Mecca is settled upon as that sanctuary. Finally, the fifth chapter, “Babylonia,” details how all of these concepts are brought together to form Islamic law and theology as it exists today.
After “Whence Islam?,” the second part, “Whither Antiquity?,” is much shorter, comprising only two chapters. These two chapters are a survey of the near eastern world prior to the rise of Islam, including the various cultural, philosophical religious aspects of the lands that would eventually become part of the Islamic world. The sixth chapter, “The Imperial Civilizations,” surveys the Sassanian and Byzantine empires, and includes a discussion of the intellectual climate of each nation (The Sassanians being dominated by Zoroastrianism and the Byzantines by a combination of Christian belief, Hellenic philosophy and Roman polity). The seventh chapter, “The Near-Eastern Provinces,” does a similar survey of various lands that were under the control of these two empires prior to the rise of Islam, including Syria, Egypt and Iraq. These two chapters serve to provide a brief background on these lands and their intellectual and religious climates prior to the Islamic conquest. Part two is relatively straightforward and uncomplicated, although it is not always clear how some of the ideas connect to the making of the Islamic world.
Finally, the third part, “The Collision,” brings together the ideas that were developed in the first two parts, and as the title implies, discusses the coming together of the various ideas that had developed with the rise of Islam with the ideas that were already extant, and what the results of this collision were. This is a fascinating section of the book, as it depicts the struggles that took place (and continue to take place) within the Muslim world over what to do with the pre-existing ideas that were present in the lands they conquered. The eight chapter, “The Preconditions for the Formation of Islamic Civilisation,” discusses the conditions under which Islam spread, as well as contrasts the spread of other ideas (especially the Christian religion) with the spread of Islam. The authors here state that Islam “is the outcome of a barbarian conquest of lands of very ancient cultural traditions” and as such, is “unique in history” (pg. 73). The next three chapters, collectively titled “The Fate of Antiquity,” discuss the results of the Islamic contact with extant religious, philosophical and political ideas. A wide variety of results come about, which range from an outright rejection of certain pre-Islamic ideas to an absorption of others into Islamic thought (as seen for example in the case of Iranian political ideas). The twelfth chapter, “The Fate of Hagarism,” describes the impact of this synthesis, as well as the resulting development of conflicting schools of thought. This theme is continued in the thirteenth chapter, “Sadduccee Islam,” wherein special emphasis is placed on the various strands of Shi’ism, and how they were shaped by Samaritan concepts of priesthood, as well as their assimilation of Hellenistic philosophical concepts. And in the fourteenth and final chapter, “The austerity of Islamic history,” comparisons are made between Islam and more contemporary religious ideas (such as Puritanism), showing the differing attitudes towards the influence of foreign concepts, as well as highlighting the different reactions towards these concepts within Islam, ranging from Ibn Hanbal’s strong resistance to Greek philosophical ideas (such as Neoplatonism and Epicureanism) in favour of ideas developed from within the Islamic tradition, to the Muslim philosophers’ acceptance of the aforementioned Greek ideas, as well as their adaptation into Islamic thought.
Of the three parts that comprise the book, it is the first part that receives the most attention and controversy from reviewers of the book. The description of Islamic origins presented therein is completely different from every other narrative of the same origins because of the authors’ premise that the Islamic sources are, for the most part, unreliable. According to their description, Islam is actually the result of “Hagarene” invaders from Arabia adopting Judeo-Messianism, which they then replace with Christian Messianism by accepting the messiahship of Jesus, and then using Samaritan influences to come up with a distinctly Arabian prophet and sanctuary, thus sanctifying their Ishmaelite heritage. The authors even go to the point of using Judaic language for Islamic concepts, such as referring to the ulama as “rabbis.” Certainly there is merit to the view that Islam developed into what it is today as a result of influences from pre-existing religious ideas, especially from the earlier Abrahamic faiths. However, there is always the risk of placing too much emphasis upon influences from earlier sources, which makes it seem that Islam is nothing more than a mixture of old ideas, and has not contributed anything original. After all, when ideas from different places are brought together, new doctrines and practices must necessarily be developed to hold all of these beliefs together. Furthermore, it must be admitted that something original (whatever it may have been) must have developed in the Arabian peninsula; something which would meld with existing ideas to form Islam as it is known today.
Also, much could be said regarding Cook and Crone’s choice of primary source material from which they build their narratives. Their rationale for rejecting the Islamic sources is that they come in during the eight century, at a time when religious ideas are emerging in the Islamic world which required historical sources to buttress them. Hence they are biased towards ideas that developed after the events described (cf. pg. 3). However, this explanation does not take into account two facts: 1) That there are many basic historical concepts that are held in common by all Muslim factions regardless of ideology, and 2) There are also many narratives in the Islamic sources that do not fit easily with Islamic beliefs and require a certain amount of reinterpretation in order to be harmonized with these beliefs (one can easily see this today in modern Muslim polemics in their attempts to explain their beliefs according to their own sources). These are hardly the kinds of traditions that would be created in an atmosphere that required traditions that can neatly justify existing viewpoints over and against other views.
Furthermore, it is interesting to note the kinds of sources that they do prefer. In most discussions of early Islamic history, not much attention is given to outsiders’ view of the emerging events, which is why it is refreshing to see a work that gives these sources their due. That being said, however, it must be remembered that these are sources written by outsiders peering in, which will always inevitably introduce a level of misapprehension of what exactly is going on. Also, while the authors may claim bias for the Islamic sources, this is true of all documents, including the non-Muslim sources that the authors rely so heavily upon. For this reason, it is necessary to balance out what the Jews, Christians and Pagans have to say about early Islam with what the early Muslims have to say about themselves. True, most of these narratives do not crystallize until at least the eighth centuries. However, the Islamic tradition has ways of preserving what was passed on from previous generations, and whatever flaws these systems may have, they are to a certain degree effective in ensuring that genuine traditions get passed on.
Overall, Hagarism provides an interesting (albeit somewhat skewed) interpretation of the events surrounding the making of the Islamic world. Granted, the conclusions of this book are also totally unacceptable to any Muslim who values their traditions and beliefs. Also, there are few historians who would accept their thesis today, and even the authors themselves have had to revise their views in later years as new research becomes available. Nonetheless, this book is good to read in order to get a glimpse of this chapter in the development of Islamic historiography. Also, the authors are evidently well acquainted with the relevant works that were available at that time, as evidenced by the extensive bibliography and citations in the book. It is always helpful in determining what primary sources to use in studying early Islamic history. It should just be remembered that one need not agree with Cook and Crone in their analysis of the aforementioned primary sources. Finally, there has been much development in the area of historiography in the three and a half decades that have elapsed since the publication of this work, and it would be helpful to balance this work out against more recent publications that deal with the same areas, as such publications would have more up to date research and are built upon the foundations laid by earlier works in the field. For those who have the time and resources, it would also be helpful to look into the sources listed in this book’s bibliography and analyze the sources for oneself, taking whatever statements are written in non-Muslim primary sources with a grain of salt, rather than accepting them at face value.
August 14, 2021
كتاب يستحق الإطّلاع . سأعلق عليه بعد مراجعته مره أخرى
---
كتاب للمستشرقين باتريشيا كرون مع مايكل كوك يتحدّث عن الفترة التي سبقت تكوّن الإسلام ومصادره الرئيسة ويقدّم قراءة أخرى لنشوء الدين الإسلامي والحضارة الإسلامية بحسب مصادر أخرى غير عربية وغير إسلامية واعتمادا على الحفريات.
يبدأ الكتاب بعرض أوّل وثيقة ذُكر فيه محمّد كنبي وهي في نص عقيدة يعقوب وهي رسالة يونانية معادية لليهودية بتاريخ 634م ونبي الإسلام توفّي 632م بحسب مروياتنا وتشير الوثيقة إلى فتح فلسطين وقد تم وصفه بأنّه (نبي كاذب ويصف نفسه بأنه الممسوح) ومن خلال هذه الوثيقة خارج التراث الاسلامي يظهر أن جوهر رسالة النبي باعتباره مسيانية يهودية أي يهود متنصرين ويحمل نفس اللقب كذلك (الفاروق) وهو الذي يعني المخلّص.
المسيحيين المعاصرين للمسلمين في تلك الفترة كانوا يرون أنّهم كفار(=المسلمين) بينما كان هناك حفاوة من المسيانيين.
والمسيانيّة مبدأ حاخامي وهو يعتبر أن المخلّص الأخير يجب أن يكون كالمخلّص الأول موسى وليس عيسى
ويشير مصدري آرمني أن فاتح(=حاكم) القُدس يهودي ويقصد النبي.
وأوّل دليل مادي لمصطلح المسلمين كان على قبّة الصخرة 691م وتشير الأدلة المادية إلى تسمية المسلمين بـالماغاريتاي في بردية يونانية 643م وتظهر في السريانية بالمهغاريه 640م وهولاء الهاجريون منحدرون من هاجر زوج إبراهيم أم إسماعيل.
ويتخذ المسلمين موقف السامرية تجاه الكتاب المقدس وهو الإيمان بالأسفار وأنها حق.
في نهاية الفصلين الأول والثاني نخلص إلى أن المسلمين كانوا متحالفين مع المسيانية وبعد النزاع استفادوا من السامرية وكوّنوا بذلك دينًا.
وفكرة التوحيد هي فكرة مسيانية ماقبل اسلامية موجودة في ميمار مراقاه والاختلاف في كلمة الشهادة الأخيرة. ص61
ويعتمد الباحثون على الترغوم السامري لإثبات أن مكة في شمال غرب الجزيرة العربية. ص65
يسوق الباحث أدلة عدّه على التأثير السامري ومنها الثقافة الحاخامية(=العلمائيّة) وكذا في مسائل الشريعة ومفهوم القياس وأيضا الإسناد عن الحاخامات (ويسمّى عندهم الغمارا) لكي ينسبوا تقليدهم لموسى. وأشار إلى المعتزلة في هذا السياق وكأن مشروعهم في رفض التقليد الشفهي شبيه بما هو عند اليهودية المسيانية الغمرانية.
"محمد مؤسس متأخر لملّة موازية لملّتي موسى ويسوع" ص262
أمّا بالنسبة لنشوء مكة الحالية فهو يشير في الهوامش وبعض الفقرات في الفصول الأولى للكتاب 71ص 42هـ وقد بناها عبدالله بن الزبير
من خلال قراءتي للكتاب وتجاوز كثير مما لم أفهمه لسبب الترجمة أو لأسباب أخرى أستطيع أن أقول بحسب الكتاب:
أن محمد قائد عسكري وهو المسيا أو قل يسوع اليهود ولم يؤثر كثيرا في عصره وعند تأسيس الإمبراطوريتين تم استدعاء ماضيه وترويجه كبطل قومي لمنافسة الروم وتم بعد ذلك التدوين .. فالإسلام نتيجة اليهودية والمسيحية والسامريّة وقد تم ابراز جهات الاستفادة من كل واحدة منهم في أثناء البحث فالسامريّة النسب والحاخاميّة في اليهودية.
---
كتاب للمستشرقين باتريشيا كرون مع مايكل كوك يتحدّث عن الفترة التي سبقت تكوّن الإسلام ومصادره الرئيسة ويقدّم قراءة أخرى لنشوء الدين الإسلامي والحضارة الإسلامية بحسب مصادر أخرى غير عربية وغير إسلامية واعتمادا على الحفريات.
يبدأ الكتاب بعرض أوّل وثيقة ذُكر فيه محمّد كنبي وهي في نص عقيدة يعقوب وهي رسالة يونانية معادية لليهودية بتاريخ 634م ونبي الإسلام توفّي 632م بحسب مروياتنا وتشير الوثيقة إلى فتح فلسطين وقد تم وصفه بأنّه (نبي كاذب ويصف نفسه بأنه الممسوح) ومن خلال هذه الوثيقة خارج التراث الاسلامي يظهر أن جوهر رسالة النبي باعتباره مسيانية يهودية أي يهود متنصرين ويحمل نفس اللقب كذلك (الفاروق) وهو الذي يعني المخلّص.
المسيحيين المعاصرين للمسلمين في تلك الفترة كانوا يرون أنّهم كفار(=المسلمين) بينما كان هناك حفاوة من المسيانيين.
والمسيانيّة مبدأ حاخامي وهو يعتبر أن المخلّص الأخير يجب أن يكون كالمخلّص الأول موسى وليس عيسى
ويشير مصدري آرمني أن فاتح(=حاكم) القُدس يهودي ويقصد النبي.
وأوّل دليل مادي لمصطلح المسلمين كان على قبّة الصخرة 691م وتشير الأدلة المادية إلى تسمية المسلمين بـالماغاريتاي في بردية يونانية 643م وتظهر في السريانية بالمهغاريه 640م وهولاء الهاجريون منحدرون من هاجر زوج إبراهيم أم إسماعيل.
ويتخذ المسلمين موقف السامرية تجاه الكتاب المقدس وهو الإيمان بالأسفار وأنها حق.
في نهاية الفصلين الأول والثاني نخلص إلى أن المسلمين كانوا متحالفين مع المسيانية وبعد النزاع استفادوا من السامرية وكوّنوا بذلك دينًا.
وفكرة التوحيد هي فكرة مسيانية ماقبل اسلامية موجودة في ميمار مراقاه والاختلاف في كلمة الشهادة الأخيرة. ص61
ويعتمد الباحثون على الترغوم السامري لإثبات أن مكة في شمال غرب الجزيرة العربية. ص65
يسوق الباحث أدلة عدّه على التأثير السامري ومنها الثقافة الحاخامية(=العلمائيّة) وكذا في مسائل الشريعة ومفهوم القياس وأيضا الإسناد عن الحاخامات (ويسمّى عندهم الغمارا) لكي ينسبوا تقليدهم لموسى. وأشار إلى المعتزلة في هذا السياق وكأن مشروعهم في رفض التقليد الشفهي شبيه بما هو عند اليهودية المسيانية الغمرانية.
"محمد مؤسس متأخر لملّة موازية لملّتي موسى ويسوع" ص262
أمّا بالنسبة لنشوء مكة الحالية فهو يشير في الهوامش وبعض الفقرات في الفصول الأولى للكتاب 71ص 42هـ وقد بناها عبدالله بن الزبير
من خلال قراءتي للكتاب وتجاوز كثير مما لم أفهمه لسبب الترجمة أو لأسباب أخرى أستطيع أن أقول بحسب الكتاب:
أن محمد قائد عسكري وهو المسيا أو قل يسوع اليهود ولم يؤثر كثيرا في عصره وعند تأسيس الإمبراطوريتين تم استدعاء ماضيه وترويجه كبطل قومي لمنافسة الروم وتم بعد ذلك التدوين .. فالإسلام نتيجة اليهودية والمسيحية والسامريّة وقد تم ابراز جهات الاستفادة من كل واحدة منهم في أثناء البحث فالسامريّة النسب والحاخاميّة في اليهودية.
January 2, 2023
basically garbage.
March 11, 2016
بحث مميز خاصة للمهتمين بأصول الديانات ،فالكاتبة تعرض وجهة نظر جديدة ،طبعا مع ادلة و براهين على ما تفترض .يكمن افتراضها بجمع أصول الأديان السماوية و تتطرق بعد ذالك إلى كيفية افتراقهم و من ثم عدائهم .بحث مفيد للمهتمين .
Read
January 19, 2021The authors views are considered an extreme minority view within historians.
October 21, 2021
The authors put it simply and clearly in the preface of the book: "This book is written by infidels for infidels" (viii)
June 17, 2017
This is a dense book with lots of intriguing arguments about the origins of Islam. I wish I knew more about early Islam, Byzantium rule over the middle east, and Samaritanism so as to evaluate Patrica Crone's arguments more critically, but I what I understood of the arguments made here resonated with me. That said, I am can see reasons for concern about the arguments made here. It seems entirely possible that critics of Islam could use Crone's arguments to push for a static view of Islam that is inherently parochial that hinders its ability to truly participate in modernity. I give it on three stars because Crone has written more clearly elsewhere, and I think an extra 25-50 pages of text to develop and explain arguments she makes here in ways that a layman could have understood more easily.
April 4, 2022
What a weird little book. I had heard about it a lot and finally got to read it. A more pompous style than what I initially expected, and quite orientalist of course (this does not take away its merits). I might have appreciated it more if I had read it before reading more up to date academic things on islam and historical criticism of religions in general.
It is full of interesting insights (although nothing new today), massive erudition, but also sweeping generalisations (if not downright clichés) about everything and anything that quite undermines the premise of the book… Very difficult to rate, but Crone’s other writings (especially the later ones compiled by Brill) are far more interesting to read.
It is full of interesting insights (although nothing new today), massive erudition, but also sweeping generalisations (if not downright clichés) about everything and anything that quite undermines the premise of the book… Very difficult to rate, but Crone’s other writings (especially the later ones compiled by Brill) are far more interesting to read.
October 9, 2018
A very difficult read. I think there was a certain assumption that the reader knew already much of the complicated situation in Persia in Islamic times. I was lost with such frequent unfamiliar terms and politics. It was probably aimed at the academic reader, so my criticism may be unfair.
May 24, 2022
لقد كان للغزو الاسلامي البربري القوة لقلب حضارة الاراضي التي قاموا بغزوها لكن لم يكن لديهم القيم لاستبدالها
كما شكل وجود اليهود الموجودين ضمن حدودها ادانة اخلاقية للحضارة بمعنى ان لديهم قيمهم الخاصة التي يرفضون بها الثقافة السائدة وكانت تنقصهم القوة لقلبها
كما شكل وجود اليهود الموجودين ضمن حدودها ادانة اخلاقية للحضارة بمعنى ان لديهم قيمهم الخاصة التي يرفضون بها الثقافة السائدة وكانت تنقصهم القوة لقلبها
September 18, 2024
The book is hard to read!!
seems very rushed and incoherent at times and just presents a simplified and somewhat idealized view of early Islamic history.
If I must say something nice... the book does have an index and bibliography that point to more authentic literature so theres that.
seems very rushed and incoherent at times and just presents a simplified and somewhat idealized view of early Islamic history.
If I must say something nice... the book does have an index and bibliography that point to more authentic literature so theres that.
August 8, 2021
I don't agree with much in this book, but it did make me re-examine my own theories about Islam's origins and check the sources for my own beliefs
November 8, 2021
The hypotheses of this academic work became heavily criticized among historians upon release in 1977 and was also finally refuted to some extent by the authors themselves. Still, it’s been considered somewhat praiseworthy because of the historical critical approach to the traditional Muslim sources.
Crone and Cook used the Methodology of Biblical Criticism when confronting the traditonal sources in order to support their thesis. Nothing new here, but they had not enough to prove their thesis and we still don’t know much how, when and why Islam started.
There are still much that’s needed to be discovered by Historians, philologists and other fields of academic research such as Archeaololgy. Historians must not hasten the way Crone and Cook did to prove a thesis. The book is more of a ”guess-work” and cannot be recommended as a first book of Introduction on the history of Islam. Still, both Crone and Cook survived the mishaps and had excellent academic careers.
And what was the thesis?
Here is a short synopsis from wikipedia on the book Hagarism....
Cook and Crone postulate that "Hagarism" started as a "Jewish messianic movement" to "reestablish Judaism" in the Jewish Holyland (Palestine) and known at first as muhajirun, not Muslims, their hijra (migration) was to Jerusalem not Medina. Its members were both Jewish and Arab to begin with but "with the Arabs' increasing success" that group broke with the Jews (culminating around the time of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan). They first flirted with Christianity and adopted a respect for Jesus as prophet and Mary as Virgin, before asserting a new independent Abrahamic monotheist identity. This borrowed from the Jewish breakaway sect of Samaritanism "the idea of a scripture limited to the Pentateuch, a prophet like Moses (Muhammad), a holy book revealed like the Torah (the Quran), a sacred city (Mecca) with a nearby mountain (Jabal an-Nour) and shrine (the Kaaba) of an appropriate patriarch (Abraham), plus a caliphate modeled on an Aaronid priesthood."
My short comment: In the wiki-synopsis above you can notice how Cook & Crone give in to Westernization by moving away the historical events from what today is known as Saudi Arabia to Jerusalem.
I hope to continue this review at another time.
Crone and Cook used the Methodology of Biblical Criticism when confronting the traditonal sources in order to support their thesis. Nothing new here, but they had not enough to prove their thesis and we still don’t know much how, when and why Islam started.
There are still much that’s needed to be discovered by Historians, philologists and other fields of academic research such as Archeaololgy. Historians must not hasten the way Crone and Cook did to prove a thesis. The book is more of a ”guess-work” and cannot be recommended as a first book of Introduction on the history of Islam. Still, both Crone and Cook survived the mishaps and had excellent academic careers.
And what was the thesis?
Here is a short synopsis from wikipedia on the book Hagarism....
Cook and Crone postulate that "Hagarism" started as a "Jewish messianic movement" to "reestablish Judaism" in the Jewish Holyland (Palestine) and known at first as muhajirun, not Muslims, their hijra (migration) was to Jerusalem not Medina. Its members were both Jewish and Arab to begin with but "with the Arabs' increasing success" that group broke with the Jews (culminating around the time of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan). They first flirted with Christianity and adopted a respect for Jesus as prophet and Mary as Virgin, before asserting a new independent Abrahamic monotheist identity. This borrowed from the Jewish breakaway sect of Samaritanism "the idea of a scripture limited to the Pentateuch, a prophet like Moses (Muhammad), a holy book revealed like the Torah (the Quran), a sacred city (Mecca) with a nearby mountain (Jabal an-Nour) and shrine (the Kaaba) of an appropriate patriarch (Abraham), plus a caliphate modeled on an Aaronid priesthood."
My short comment: In the wiki-synopsis above you can notice how Cook & Crone give in to Westernization by moving away the historical events from what today is known as Saudi Arabia to Jerusalem.
I hope to continue this review at another time.
April 24, 2020
Being as imperceptible as it is I know it as it sees me.. It is even the last possibility I have of being seen now that I no longer exist.. It is that glance which continues to see me in my absence.. It is the eye that my disappearance requires more and more as it becomes more complete to perpetuate me as an object of vision.. an undreaming insect eye to which I deny all images.. a complete image with reference to a world devoid of image which imagines me in the absence of any imaginable figure.. Saint Patricia's (Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic world) is elegantly something else.. Not accuracy here what should've been seeked or admired.. In a way more than just a passionate crime what has been performed miraculously here is what Patricia and her co-author developed and can only be described as (Explicit Freak Show: an inhuman starvation for cancerous protocols)
February 2, 2024
This book is a thought-provoking scholarly work that challenges conventional historical narratives.
Its exploration of the origins of Islam presents a unique perspective that encourages readers to question established beliefs. The authors meticulously dissect early Islamic history, unearthing layers of complexity and ambiguity. While their theories have sparked debate and controversy, the book's contribution to reevaluating the foundations of Islamic history cannot be denied. A testament to the power of critical inquiry, "Hagarism" invites us to reconsider the past in order to gain deeper insights into the formation of the Islamic world.
We need more of such books - smart, bold, challenging, brining a new perspective to the table.
Its exploration of the origins of Islam presents a unique perspective that encourages readers to question established beliefs. The authors meticulously dissect early Islamic history, unearthing layers of complexity and ambiguity. While their theories have sparked debate and controversy, the book's contribution to reevaluating the foundations of Islamic history cannot be denied. A testament to the power of critical inquiry, "Hagarism" invites us to reconsider the past in order to gain deeper insights into the formation of the Islamic world.
We need more of such books - smart, bold, challenging, brining a new perspective to the table.
May 14, 2015
sebagai buku, kitab suci pun buatan orang. hanya manusia saja yang membuat bahasa, mengisahkan pemikirannya dan merasa perlu mendokumentasikannya dalam bentuk buku.
kitab suci pun ada konteks pembuatannya, peredaksiannya.
buku patricia crone ini menempatkan munculnya islam dengan menggunakan sumber-sumber sejaman tapi yang di luar al quran dan hadis.
telah disadari penulisnya, bahwa ini pasti tidak diterima oleh kaum muslim, tapi kebutuhan akademik tidak mengindahkan itu.
buat saya ini menarik dan amat berguna supaya kita gak banget-banget dalam memperlakukan buku.
sesuci apa pun buku, ia adalah buatan manusia dan untuk manusia.
kitab suci pun ada konteks pembuatannya, peredaksiannya.
buku patricia crone ini menempatkan munculnya islam dengan menggunakan sumber-sumber sejaman tapi yang di luar al quran dan hadis.
telah disadari penulisnya, bahwa ini pasti tidak diterima oleh kaum muslim, tapi kebutuhan akademik tidak mengindahkan itu.
buat saya ini menarik dan amat berguna supaya kita gak banget-banget dalam memperlakukan buku.
sesuci apa pun buku, ia adalah buatan manusia dan untuk manusia.
January 26, 2018
At times nearly incomprehensible. Seems like one needs to be an expert in her field to understand this work. Decided to read this after reading Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (highly recommended) and could hardly have been more disappointed.
September 9, 2007
Fascinating look at the context of the early history of Islam.
April 8, 2015
Another maze , but the last few chapters are so good ...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews