patricia crone....inspiration of online munafiqs!

[The]

# some munafiqs (non-muslims pretending to be muslims) are trying to re-introduce the failed theories of rejected liars like patricia crone and wansbrough! though the conjectures of the likes of crone have been rejected by most non-muslims (and muslims), the munafiqs are trying to make them the basis of their distortion of quran! below is a wikipedia link to the 1977 work of crone and cook:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagarism:_The_Making_of_the_Islamic_World

extracts from the link:

Synopsis

Hagarism begins with the premise that Western historical scholarship on the beginnings of Islam should only be based on historical, archaeological and philological data rather than Islamic traditions which they find to be dogmatically-based, historically irreconcilable and anachronistic accounts of the community's past of no historic value. Thus, relying exclusively on historical, archaeological and philological evidence the authors attempt to reconstruct and present what they argue is a more historically accurate account of Islam's origins and are summed up as:
Virtually all accounts of the early development of Islam take it as axiomatic that it is possible to elicit at least the outlines of the process from the Islamic sources. It is however well-known that these sources are not demonstrably early. There is no hard evidence for the existence of the Koran in any form before the last decade of the seventh century, and the tradition which places this rather opaque revelation in its historical context is not attested before the middle of the eighth. The historicity of the Islamic tradition is thus to some degree problematic: while there are no cogent internal grounds for rejecting it, there are equally no cogent external grounds for accepting it. In the circumstances it is not unreasonable to proceed in the usual fashion by presenting a sensibly edited version of the tradition as historical fact. But equally, it makes some sense to regard the tradition as without determinate historical content, and to insist that what purport to be accounts of religious events in the seventh century are utilizable only for the study of religious ideas in the eighth.�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¬�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¢ The Islamic sources provide plenty of scope for the implementation of these different approaches, but offer little that can be used in any decisive way to arbitrate between them. The only way out of the dilemma is thus to step outside the Islamic tradition altogether and start again.[1]

According to the authors Hagarism was a heretical branch of Judaism followed by the Hagarenes or Arabs in the early part of the 7th century. To the authors, the surviving records of the period describe the followers of Muhammad as hagarenes, because of the way Muhammad invoked the Jewish god in order to introduce an alien monotheistic faith to the Arabs. He is reported as doing this by claiming biological descent from Abraham through his slave wife Hagar for the Arabs in the same way as the Jews who claimed descent from Abraham through Sarah and thus as their ancestral faith. During this early period the Jews and the Hagarenes united, into a faith the authors loosely describe as Judeo-Hagarism, in order to recover the holy land from the Christian Byzantines. In their analysis, the early manuscripts from eye witnesses suggest that Muhammad was the leader of a military expedition to conquer Jerusalem, and that the original hijra actually referred to a journey from northern Arabia to that city.

As time went on the hagarenes concluded that the adoption of Judaism and Christian Messianism did not provide them with the unique religious identity that they aspired for. They also feared that leaning on Judaism too much, might result in outright conversion and assimilation. Thus the hagarenes contrived to create a religion of their own and decided to splinter off from their Judaic practices and beliefs. Driven by a quest for theological legitimacy they devised a version of Abrahamic monotheism, that evolved from a blend of Judaism, Samaritanism and Christianity, which became what is now Islam. The authors propose that Islam was thus born and fashioned from Judaic mythology and symbology, that is; the creation of a sacred scripture similar to the Jewish Torah - (the Qur�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¬�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¢an), and a Moses like prophet; along with a sacred city of Mecca modeled on the Jewish holy city of Jerusalem adjacent to a holy mountain.

While the full assertions of the book were controversial, the attempts to deconstruct early Islamic history have made this a groundbreaking and important work on early Islamic history.
_____________________________________________________________

Reviews

Generally while acknowledged as raising a few interesting questions and being a fresh approach its reconstruction of early Islamic history has been dismissed as an experiment[22] and criticised for its "...use (or abuse) of its Greek and Syriac sources..."[23] The controversial thesis of Hagarism is not widely accepted.[24]

Josef Van Ess argued that:
"�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¬�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¦a refutation is perhaps unnecessary since the authors make no effort to prove it (the hypothesis of the book) in detail�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¬�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¦Where they are only giving a new interpretation of well-known facts, this is not decisive. But where the accepted facts are consciously put upside down, their approach is disastrous."[22]

R. B. Sergeant informs that:
"Hagarism�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¬�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¦is not only bitterly anti-Islamic in tone, but anti-Arabian. Its superficial fancies are so ridiculous that at first one wonders if it is just a �??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¬�???????leg pull�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¬�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¢, pure �??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¬�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¢spoof�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�¢�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¬�?????�????�???�??�?�¢?�?????�????�???�??�?�¢."[25]

Eric Manheimer concluded his review with the following:
"The research on Hagarism is thorough, but this reviewer feels that the conclusions drawn lack balance. The weights on the scales tip too easily toward the hypercritical side, tending to distract from what might have been an excellent study in comparative religion."[26]

David Waines, Professor of Islamic Studies Lancaster University states:
"The Crone-Cook theory has been almost universally rejected. The evidence offered by the authors is far too tentative and conjectural (and possibly contradictory) to conclude that Arab-Jewish were as intimate as they would wish them to have been."[27]

John Wansbrough, who had mentored the authors, reviewed the book, specifically the first part, in the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. He begins by praising the book claiming, "the authors; erudition is extraordinary their industry everywhere evident, their prose ebullient." However, he later comments that "...most, if not all, [of the sources] have been or can be challenged on suspicion of inauthenticity" and that "the material is upon occasion misleadingly represented...My reservations here, and elsewhere in this first part of the book, turn upon what I take to be the authors' methodological assumptions, of which the principal must be that a vocabulary of motives can be freely extrapolated from a discrete collection of literary stereotypes composed by alien and mostly hostile observers, and thereupon employed to describe, even interpret, not merely the overt behaviour but also intellectual and spiritual development of the helpless and mostly innocent actors. Where even the sociologist fears to tread, the historian ought not with impunity be permitted to go."[28]

Oleg Grabar described the book as "brilliant, fascinating, original, arrogant, highly debatable book" and writes that "...the authors' fascination with lapidary formulas led them to cheap statements or to statements which require unusual intellectual gymnastics to comprehend and which become useless, at best cute." and that "...the whole construction proposed by the authors lacks entirely in truly historical foundations" but also praised the authors for trying to "relate the Muslim phenonemon to broad theories of acculturation and historical change."[29]

Michael G. Morony remarked that "Despite a useful bibliography, this is a thin piece of Kulturgeschichte [cultural history] full of glib generalizations, facile assumptions, and tiresome jargon. More argument than evidence, it suffers all the problems of intellectual history, including reification and logical traps."[30]

Historian Daniel Pipes states:
In Hagarism, a 1977 study by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, the authors completely exclude the Arabic literary sources and reconstruct the early history of Islam only from the information to be found in Arabic papyri, coins, and inscriptions as well as non-Arabic literary sources in a wide array of languages (Aramaic, Armenian, Coptic, Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and Syriac). This approach leads Crone and Cook in wild new directions. In their account, Mecca's role is replaced by a city in northwestern Arabia and Muhammad was elevated "to the role of a scriptural prophet" only about a.d. 700, or seventy years after his death. As for the Qur'an, it was compiled in Iraq at about that same late date."[


# conclusion:
know the inspiration of munafiqs spreading lies about quran and history!