dost

Hello Normal. You wrote:

"Warraq's work" basically consists of his compilation of various essays authored by some revisionist scholars and Christian writers. Detailed reviews of the essays are to be found in a number of publications such as Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (BSOAS), Journal of Semetic studeis (JSS), Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (JRAS) etc, and books such as Humphreys 'Islamic History', Van Ess' "The Making of Islam", "An Introduction To Islam" by David Waines and N Robinson's "Discovering the Qur'an" etc.

dost

Hi Sodium.

Thank you very much for your comments.

I will have to disagree with you on this one. If Prof Doner, who is a non-Muslim scholar btw, is opposed to the book because it throws "doubt on the supernatural origins of Islam", then why would he say the following concerning the essay's of the revisionist scholars:

"It is a collection of basically sound articles, framed by a seriously flawed introduction, and put in the service of anti-Islamic polemic dedicated to the proposition that Islam is a sham and that honest scholarship on Islam requires gratuitous rudeness to Muslim sensibilities."

The "sound articles" he is referring to are the ones authored by the revionist scholars, who basically reject the supernatural origins of the Quran. Prof Doner's main qualm, as is obvious from the above, is concerning the character "Ibn Warraq", who is no scholar but a vehement polemicist and a rude and insultive hatemonger. When such individuals make use of scholarly material, (putting aside the fact that the material has been a long time ago rejected by the masses of scholarship) in a polemical manner, how do you think Muslims will react? They will obviously feel insulted, and rightfully so. Why does one need to attack Muslims and their religion is such a manner in order to be "critical"? Is it not possible to be critical while also being respectful and calm at the same time?

He refers to Ibn Warraq's agenda as intolerant and not that of the revisionist scholars.

"By associating these articles with "Ibn Warraq's" polemical agenda, The Quest for the Historical Muhammad will raise suspicions among some Muslims that all revisionist scholarship is motivated by such intolerance. "

So he is stating that all revisionist scholarship is not motivated by the type of intolerance we find within Ibn Warraq.

Prof Dutton is a recognized and well known professor at Edinburgh University in the UK. His review is of course written from an Islamic perspective and perhaps I should have stated this before presenting the link.

Agreed this is circular reasoning, but the fact that Muhammed was honest, truthful, a man of good behaviour whom people loved is not denied by mainstream western scholarship itself. For example, get hold of W M Watt & R Bell, Introduction To The Qur'an, 1994, Edinburgh at University Press. I read this book a long time ago obtaining it through my local library. Although I do not have it with me now, and therefore cannot pass the precise page number, Watt, who is (died?) a well known orientalist, no Muslim but a Christian, clearly states that scholars today recognize and accept that Muhammed was an honest man, that he believed he was God's Prophet, that he did not decieve or lie etc. Of course, this by itself does not imply that he was the Prophet of God. During the colonial era, when many Muslim lands were colonised by the Britain and other western powers, the general orientalist view (who were mostly practising Christians) was that Muhammed was an impoter, a liar etc etc. However this view was later rejected by Western scholars themselves when they carried out detailed studies, and it is today accepted that he, Muhammed, was basically an honest individual and there can be no doubt concerning this. But I agree, as stated previously, this by itself does not mean he was the Prophet of God.

Religious and ideological positions aside, Prof Dutton is a recognized scholar in the field of paleography, mss studies etc. His religious and ideological views do not disprove this fact.

sodium

To Dost (quotes in bold),

I will have to disagree with you on this one. If Prof Doner, who is a non-Muslim scholar btw, is opposed to the book because it throws "doubt on the supernatural origins of Islam", then why would he say the following concerning the essay's of the revisionist scholars:

It may be a fine distinction, but I didn't say that Doner objected to a book because it throws doubt on Islam. Presumably, he wouldn't condemn a book or article that happens to throw doubt on Islam, as long as that isn't its purpose. He does seem to object to the book on the grounds that this is its purpose. I'm not sure that that is the purpose of the book, but then, I haven't read it.


When such individuals make use of scholarly material, (putting aside the fact that the material has been a long time ago rejected by the masses of scholarship) in a polemical manner, how do you think Muslims will react?


Do the "masses of scholarship" reject them? Prof Donner characterizes them as "basically sound". I haven't taken a poll of scholars, but 50% of those in the sample you provide, don't seem to agree with your assessment.

They will obviously feel insulted, and rightfully so. Why does one need to attack Muslims and their religion is such a manner in order to be "critical"? Is it not possible to be critical while also being respectful and calm at the same time?


Perhaps, but if you say that a religion is wrong, that pretty much everything it says is untrue, then you are basically attacking the religion. And if you go so far to say that it has had a profound negative influence on the societies in which it is dominant, you will likely be viewed as intolerant. And yet, I don't think either argument should really be dismissed on these grounds alone.

It's interesting that the writers of the Enlightenment got called a lot of things for their harsh (and often mocking) critiques of Christianity, but I don't think they ever had to deal with being called intolerant.

Religious and ideological positions aside, Prof Dutton is a recognized scholar in the field of paleography, mss studies etc. His religious and ideological views do not disprove this fact.

Of course not. But when I take an expert opinion, I'm basically letting someone else do my thinking for me. So, for example, because I am not a Communist, I would not tend to follow the recommendations of an economist who was, even if he was recognized in his field. If I read that a scholar believes that Jesus was God, and that the Bible is inerrant in its original form, then I'm not too interested in his dating of the Gospel of Mark. Of course, I would still listen to arguments if offered. But I wouldn't accept these hypothetical scholars as authorities for my own purposes.

lpetrich

I'd already started a thread on this subject elsewhere; It contains what I consider a plausible scenario for the origin of Islam.

In it, the Koran is largely a translation from earlier documents written in Aramaic, a.k.a. Syriac, something that explains many of its linguistic oddities. And along the way, something got gained in translation -- Ephrem the Syrian's white raisins became houris, those lovely ladies each good Muslim man gets a harem of in the next world.

And the historical Mohammed, if there was one, lived in northern Arabia, not near Mecca and Medina. The Mecca bit and the Koran's Arabic translation were a way of seeking an Arabic identity; imaginative storytellers filled in many of Mohammed's biographical details.

emotional

Did you know? The Qur'an teaches a flat earth:

http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/platyquran.htm
http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/platyquran.pdf

dost

Hello again sodium and thanks for your second reply.

Fair enough, my misunderstanding. Ibn Warraq though did not write a "book". What he did was simply compile, or bring together, between two covers the essay's authored by some Christian and revisionist scholars.

Yes they do and I already presented a citation that stated quite clearly that the views of Crone and Cook have been almost universally rejected by all. The same goes for Wansbrough as well, who actually admits that his analysis are "conjectural", "provisional" and "tentative and emphatically provisional". Refer to (this paper is available online at islamic-awareness.org): Estella Whelan, "Forgotten
Witness: Evidence for the Early Codification of the Qur'an", 1998, Journal Of The American Oriental Society, Volume 118, No. 1, pp. 1-14. Another source you can get hold of is [I have this paper with me right now]:

H. Motzki, "The Collection Of The Qur'an: A Reconsideration Of The Western Views In Light Of Recent Methodological Developments." p. 31. Der Islam, 2001, Vol. 78

In this paper Motzki analysis the methodologies and theories of a number of orientalists such as Mingana and Wansbrough. Motzki concludes:

"...Muslims account are much earlier and thus much nearer to the time of the events than hitherto assumed in Western scholarship. Admittedly, these accounts contain some details which seem to be implausible or, to put it more cautiously, await explanation, but the Western views which claim to replace them by more plausible and historically more reliable accounts are obviously far away from what they make themselves out to be."

[H. Motzki, "The Collection Of The Qur'an: A Reconsideration Of The Western Views In Light Of Recent Methodological Developments" p. 31. Der Islam, 2001, Vol. 78.]

So yes, the views of the revisionist scholars, particularly Crone, Cook and Wansbrough have failed to win wide support even among Western scholars let alone Muslims. Furthermore, the theories and views of polemical Christian writers such as Tisdall, Geiger (was a Jew) and Mingana are not supported by any scholar worth the name as their writings are polemical written through the view of Jesus-is-god-Bible-is-the-word-of-God-Islam-is-from-satan etc.

Donner's charecterization of them as "basically" sound does not contradict the above reality. His primary qualm is the person of Ibn Warraq, a non-scholar, who presents selective essays in a polemical manner that would further damage relations between Muslims and orientalists.

I do not recall anyone referring to the scholars themselves (with the exception of the Christian writers) as "intolerant." However, Ibn Warraq is intolerant. I have not come across any Muslim who is opposed to critiques of Islam, there have been many critiques of Islam and Muslims in the past and in the present, but there is a difference between critique and prejudice. For example, if you state that all Muslims are barbarians, terrorists, they kill people, hate women, are backward, they stink, they kill their children, hate filled etc etc., how should you expect a Muslim to react? Is this "critique"? No, its racism, prejudice and hate towards an entire people in order to demonise them and sterotype them time and time again to portray them as a sub human animal type species. This is precisely the attitude and belief of Ibn Warraq. To be critical does not neccessarily mean you have to insult and abuse others.

However, if you truly believe a religion is wrong, and state the reason for those beliefs arguing in a respectable manner, then I do not think you will get much complaints from Muslims. Therefore one major problem is the attitude problem of individuals like Warraq. And as far as the "negative impact" of Islam upon the societies it is dominant is concerned, then this sounds like a silly and overly simplistic argument. How do you explain the fact that when the dominance was at its peak, the Muslim civilization was far ahead of all other civilizations? Sure there were ups and downs, but overall they were amongst the most civilized and advanced societies of their time. Of course that by itself does not mean that Islam is true, but neither does the opposite situation demonstrate or prove otherwise.

I agree with you. But the same should also be applied upon individuals like Warraq and the Christian authors he makes use of, such as Tisdall, Mingana etc. This criteria should not be applied only upon one group of people because you've already made up your mind that whatever they state has got to be false. But all these issues aside, what Dutton states concerning the nature of Ibn Warraq's choice of essay collection does not eminate due to his religious beliefs. Meaning what he states concernign issues such as manuscripts and the christian and revisionist scholars are basically not much contested. You can verify this for yourself by referring to the references I've mentioned in this and other messages. Of course, I understand very well the reasons for you to reject his other comments as they are circular. Also, the work that he has done on manuscript studies and analysis is not governed or shaped by his religious beliefs but strictly scientific and critical study. I doubt you would reject what Bruce Metzger has to say concerning the transmission and manuscripts of the New Testament simply because he happens to be a conservative practising Christian scholar.

Thanks again for your reply.

lpetrich

Dost, what's your opinon of the Syriac/Aramaic theory of the origin of the Koran? According to this theory, much of the contents of the Koran were originally in Aramaic, and were translated -- and sometimes mistranslated -- into Arabic.

The best-known feature of this theory is that the Koran's houris are mistranslated white raisins from Ephrem the Syrian's hymns of Paradise. Which may be a letdown for many male Muslims.

But this was not the first time a mistranslation had acquired great theological significance. Consider the famous case of the Isaiah prophecy of a "young woman" who will give birth to some important child; she got mistranslated as a "virgin", making this prophecy an alleged Virgin-Birth prophecy.

sodium

I agree that that would be intolerance, and would make me question the author's emotional stability. But has Ibn Warraq really said such things? I admit I haven't read much by him.

River

Mindless Zombies and People who cannot think for themselves have always been dependent on Ibn Warraq ( who was never a Muslim to begin with) , the ubiquitous website called answering-islam as well as the Anti-"Islamist" warmonger known as Daniel Pipes. May G-d unveil their true intentions.

River

I don't see how a Syriac rendering of the Quran would pose any problems for believers. In fact that " white raisins" interpretation comes in quite handy when I am in debate with non-Mushlam .