Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Religions and Gods → Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Gaza assault
by zeca
June 30, 2024, 10:43 PM
France Muslims were in d...
June 30, 2024, 08:06 PM
New Britain
June 26, 2024, 07:57 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
June 26, 2024, 11:07 AM
Lights on the way
by akay
June 26, 2024, 03:53 AM
Eid Al-Adha
by akay
June 26, 2024, 03:50 AM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
June 24, 2024, 02:38 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
June 24, 2024, 07:45 AM
Qur'anic studies today
June 20, 2024, 06:24 PM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
June 17, 2024, 03:58 PM
ماذا يحدث هذه الايام؟؟؟.
by akay
June 17, 2024, 01:00 PM
Jesus mythicism
by zeca
June 15, 2024, 10:14 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone

 (Read 14967 times)
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone
     Reply #30 - October 16, 2014, 10:05 PM
    Quote from: Zaotar on October 16, 2014, 05:05 PM
    My view is that Islam formed via a process remarkably similar to Christianity in terms of the composition and codification of its core narratives.  Almost every objection to the revisionist account of Islam's formation can be answered by simply pointing to Christianity and Judaism, Zoroastrianism, etc.  The burden of proof lies with those who would argue that Islam is a radical exception to the normal laws of history and religion, and that burden has been failed in my view.

    This is, I think, the biggest difference between the new generation of scholars and the older.  The new generation starts from such a critical perspective, while the old generation starts from accepting the basic Muslim narrative as historical truth and then trying to improve it.  It's akin to how Christianity and Judaism were analyzed 200 years ago, before critical analysis began in the mid 19th century.  For example, the older theological approach would just assume that Abraham was a genuine historical figure as its starting point.  The critical approach would say that it is absolutely crazy to assume the veracity of a text first written 1500 years after the events it purports to report about a religious figure ... so the burden would be to support that extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence, not the other way around.

    Islamic studies has lagged Christian and Judaic studies by well over a century; it is still the backwater of modern scholarship on Abrahamic religions.

    I think you hit the nail on the head by mentioning academic reaction to Crone and Luxenberg.  In fact there was a huge and histrionic outcry against them from the establishment, but (and I emphasize the but) that outcry got beaten down and lost to the point where Crone is arguably the most influential Islamic scholar nowadays.  Luxenberg was initially met with horror and outrage, but he is now relatively mainstream and constantly cited by mainstream scholars (although he is still non-establishment).  Many of his arguments have been accepted, while others have been show to be incorrect. 

    There was really a huge split in the field that emerged as a result of Luxenberg -- the group led by Gabriel Said Reynolds that took Luxenberg seriously and ultimately evolved into IQSA, probably the premiere association for Qur'anic scholars nowadays, and the old-school group led by Neuwirth who tried to suppress and reject Luxenberg's nuclear assault on traditional Qur'anic studies (just as the Germans did previously with Gunter Luling).  But it is IQSA that has stormed to the lead nowadays, and Neuwirth's position is somewhat on its heels.  IQSA has a great website, and are putting on ridiculously awesome conferences.  Check it out if you haven't seen it.

    http://iqsaweb.org/

    Check out the IQSA conference they are putting on next month in San Diego -- this IS the cutting edge of Qur'anic research, including a dizzying array of heavy hitters (including Neuwirth no less, along with Deroche and others).  It's pretty much the event of the year for Qur'anic studies.


    Zaotar - you are famous!

    https://twitter.com/gw_emily/status/522862697902141440
  • Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone
     Reply #31 - October 16, 2014, 10:39 PM
    Really want to read this bastard. Hope my local library will end up stocking it. Damn, that motherfucker is expensive!
  • Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone
     Reply #32 - October 17, 2014, 12:08 AM
    There is nothing more valuable than Interwebz fame ....    Wink
  • Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone
     Reply #33 - October 17, 2014, 12:24 AM
    The conference in San Diego sounds fantastic.  Afro
  • Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone
     Reply #34 - October 17, 2014, 01:48 AM
    Quote from: Zaotar on October 14, 2014, 06:34 PM
    It has to do with the Second Fitna (btw I have serious doubts about the historicity of the First Fitna), the Second Fitna being the epic struggle between the Zubayrids and Abd al Malik, both of whom claimed to be the 'true' caliph.  Both sides seized upon Mohammed as a symbol and justification for their movement. 

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Fitna

    All the evidence points to Ibn al Zubayr painting himself as the 'true inheritor' of Mohammed's movement, now centered in the Hijaz that the Zubayrids ruled, against the infidel Syrian Umayyads who were led by that accursed Abd al Malik.  Both 'caliphates' argued for their legitimacy by appealing to Mohammed's prophetic validation.  But the Hijazi caliphate was defeated.  In 692 Ibn al Zubayr was killed by Al Hajjaj, governor for Abd al Malik, in the siege of Mecca in 692.  Interestingly Abd al Malik is increasingly assigned responsibility for the authoritative distribution and imposition of the "Uthmanic" Qur'an that we know today, along with destroying all variant versions.

    I suspect that the real reason Mecca figures so heavily in Muslim narrative is because it was a very good *military* base for the Zubayrid caliphate, being highly defensible and remote.  Thus as an artifact of the practical fact that the Zubayrids were operating from that defensive position, the sacred status of Mecca was 'written into' the Mohammedan mythology, tying the Zubayrid caliphate's sacred legitimacy with its occupation and base in Mecca, now alleged to be where the prophet had lived in the vague years before he became associated with Medina.  Ibn al-Zubayr, in other words, was literally the 'representative' or 'successor' to Mohammed (i.e. caliph), and thus claimed that he was operating in the same sacred place that Mohammed had operated.

    I believe it is very likely that much of the Hijazi and Meccan background of Islam was contrived by the Zubayrid faction as part of their opposition to Abd al Malik, telling the story of a pure Hijazi past which Abd al Malik (rather than jettisoning) seized as part of his own imperial mythology (since it was so powerful, and since Syria could hardly be used for the same purposes).  Via Al Hajjaj and such institutions as creating the Dome of the Rock, the imperial "Islam" emerged at this time, a distinctive Arab religion.

    The very first dated mention of the word "Mohammed" that we have, in fact, is on a coin issued by Ibn al Zubayr in Persia, prior to his flight to the Hijaz.  In other words, it was his innovation.  A few years later we see Abd al Malik copying that usage on his own coins.  Prior to this point, the Arabs had issued coins but they generically praised "Allah," no mention of Mohammed, the Qur'an, Muslims, or Islam.  Thus Ibn al Zubayr seems to have been the first to have made "Mohammedanism" the basis for his claim to political and religious authority.
     
    http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Coins/

    http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Coins/drachm1.html


    This all really does make quite a lot of sense. The idea of Banu Umayyah deliberately adopting the symbolism of Muhammad and Islam after defeating Ibn Zubair and Hussein fits very well into both what we can gather from the traditional narrative as well as what we might expect to happen from a historical perspective. Zoatar, I'd be curious as to your thoughts regarding Abu Sufyan. Would you consider him to be a historical figure and a contemporary of the "prophet?" Also do you think Hussein's claim of being the grandson of the prophet to have been genuine, made up for his own interests, or invented later on by his supporters?
  • Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone
     Reply #35 - October 17, 2014, 04:23 PM
    Quote from: Lilyesque on October 16, 2014, 10:05 PM
    Zaotar - you are famous!

    https://twitter.com/gw_emily/status/522862697902141440


    Quote from: Zaotar on October 17, 2014, 12:08 AM
    There is nothing more valuable than Interwebz fame ....    Wink


    Oh god! That thread on twitter now has someone who is saying if you don't accept the accepted Islamic version of history that you are wrong and disrespecting the Muslim populous. Basically saying if more people believe in something versus the other that you are wrong and they are right; not based on evidence!
  • Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone
     Reply #36 - October 17, 2014, 04:52 PM
    Hmmm, that means Zeus really existed as a thunderbolt-wielding beardy during ancient Greek times because lots of people believed in him then. I wonder where he went after all those Greeks became Christians...

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As for the rest of the good stuff above, I'll need a weekend to digest it.
  • Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone
     Reply #37 - October 17, 2014, 05:02 PM
    Quote from: Zaotar on October 15, 2014, 05:03 PM
    Btw, I have a pet hypothesis that the traditional Islamic dating of Aisha's super early age at marriage and its consumation is a chronological fiction crafted by later Muslims, just as all of the early Islamic chronology is famously artificial.  Why such an early age?  Because it was designed to claim authority for her as a contemporaneous source on claims that were later made about Islamic history.  In other words, with Aisha being so young at her marriage, you had an incredibly 'close source' who could be cited as making accurate reports all the way up to her reported death in 678 CE -- conveniently just two years before Ibn al Zubayr first started printing "Mohammed" coinage.  

    Aisha is also cited as a contested figure authorizing the legitimacy of one or another faction of warring believers from an early date.  Again, this is all incredibly dubious.

    I'd be interested if somebody did an analysis of Aisha's reported chronology in terms of its artificial construction along these lines, but I've never seen it.  Instead the only debate seems to be about pedophilia, which is ironic given that I doubt there is a shred of truth to the traditional Muslim accounts, and they probably served a very different ideological purpose when written down.

    I had wondered about this and why, whenever Aisha's age is brought up, it's assumed for some reason that the sources are accurate.
    Which side are you on?
  • Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone
     Reply #38 - October 17, 2014, 05:08 PM
    Yep, typical ignorance.  Btw, "ignore Muslim sources"?   The guy knows absolutely nothing about Crone.  She makes encyclopedic use of Muslim sources.  Most of her books use almost nothing but Muslim sources -- the key difference being that she subjects her sources, Muslim and non-Muslim, to critical analysis:

    http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Caliph-Religious-University-Publications/dp/0521541115/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413564775&sr=8-1&keywords=gods+caliph

    http://www.amazon.com/Slaves-Horses-Evolution-Islamic-Polity/dp/0521529409/ref=la_B001HMUUDM_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413564835&sr=1-7

    http://www.amazon.com/Meccan-Trade-Islam-Patricia-Crone/dp/1593331029/ref=la_B001HMUUDM_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413564943&sr=1-2

    What Crone essentially did is much more important than any particular thesis of hers (many of which I disagree with btw):  She made it okay to analyze Islamic history just like any other type of history, and in particular to require that historical claims conform to the *normal standards of historical analysis*, something that effectively eliminates most traditional Islamic 'history' just as it eliminates traditional Christian 'history' and traditional Jewish 'history.'  In that sense, the Muslim commenter is right, such a historical position is a rejection of Islam's claims to be a sacred exception to the normal laws of history, and thus an attack on Islam as a religious faith.  But one can hardly claim to be conducting historical analysis from such a theological position which assumes the truth of what it sets out to discuss -- that is simply theology, which might be appropriate for a believing Muslim, but can hardly be emulated by a non-believer, any more than a non-believer would be expected to go do the hajj to Mecca.

    Btw that poster also mentioned Madelung .... you may recall the ire I directed at Madelung in another thread, he's an archaic and uncritical relic of the old Orientalist school who, I expect, will expire any day now, along with his shrinking theology-besotten faction of Islamic studies.  It's ironic that he claims "Madelung is where we're at now" when in fact Madelung is now 85 years old and almost as dead, physically speaking, as his views are within modern Islamic studies.
  • Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone
     Reply #39 - October 17, 2014, 05:17 PM
    Quote from: Zaotar on October 17, 2014, 05:08 PM
    Yep, typical ignorance.  Btw, "ignore Muslim sources"?   The guy knows absolutely nothing about Crone.  She makes encyclopedic use of Muslim sources.  Most of her books use almost nothing but Muslim sources -- the key difference being that she subjects her sources, Muslim and non-Muslim, to critical analysis:

    http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Caliph-Religious-University-Publications/dp/0521541115/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413564775&sr=8-1&keywords=gods+caliph

    http://www.amazon.com/Slaves-Horses-Evolution-Islamic-Polity/dp/0521529409/ref=la_B001HMUUDM_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413564835&sr=1-7

    http://www.amazon.com/Meccan-Trade-Islam-Patricia-Crone/dp/1593331029/ref=la_B001HMUUDM_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413564943&sr=1-2

    What Crone essentially did is much more important than any particular thesis of hers (many of which I disagree with btw):  She made it okay to analyze Islamic history just like any other type of history, and in particular to require that historical claims conform to the *normal standards of historical analysis*, something that effectively eliminates most traditional Islamic 'history' just as it eliminates traditional Christian 'history' and traditional Jewish 'history.'  In that sense, the Muslim commenter is right, such a historical position is a rejection of Islam's claims to be a sacred exception to the normal laws of history, and thus an attack on Islam as a religious faith.  But one can hardly claim to be conducting historical analysis from such a theological position which assumes the truth of what it sets out to discuss -- that is simply theology, which might be appropriate for a believing Muslim, but can hardly be emulated by a non-believer, any more than a non-believer would be expected to go do the hajj to Mecca.

    Btw that poster also mentioned Madelung .... you may recall the ire I directed at Madelung in another thread, he's an archaic and uncritical relic of the old Orientalist school who, I expect, will expire any day now, along with his shrinking theology-besotten faction of Islamic studies.  It's ironic that he claims "Madelung is where we're at now" when in fact Madelung is now 85 years old and almost as dead, physically speaking, as his views are within modern Islamic studies.


    More info! Good stuff! I haven't read up on this stuff much but what I have done it seems that Crone et al comply most with historical standards and evidence bases as seen in history classes in school from a wide variety of sources on both sides of evidence and timelines.
  • Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone
     Reply #40 - October 17, 2014, 06:40 PM
    Quote from: happymurtad on October 17, 2014, 01:48 AM
    This all really does make quite a lot of sense. The idea of Banu Umayyah deliberately adopting the symbolism of Muhammad and Islam after defeating Ibn Zubair and Hussein fits very well into both what we can gather from the traditional narrative as well as what we might expect to happen from a historical perspective. Zoatar, I'd be curious as to your thoughts regarding Abu Sufyan. Would you consider him to be a historical figure and a contemporary of the "prophet?" Also do you think Hussein's claim of being the grandson of the prophet to have been genuine, made up for his own interests, or invented later on by his supporters?


    On your last questions, I don't actually have much of an opinion.  Genealogy and chronology are two of the least reliable aspects of Muslim tradition (and Middle Eastern tradition generally).  Fictitious genealogies are rampant.  Everybody claims descent from everybody, and fictitious ancestors abound.

    Not much different nowadays.  To take an example I always find funny, an almost unbelievably high number of Americans falsely claim to have a recent Cherokee Indian ancestor.  It is almost never any other Indian tribe.  *Always* Cherokee.

    http://www.dailyyonder.com/cherokee-syndrome/2011/02/08/3170

    These claims are patently false, but there is some sort of strange reason why they keep getting made.  Now, in a climate where there is no ready proof of ancestry, and a great deal of incentive to claim your ancestor was so-and-so, fictitious genealogies sprout up like mushrooms.

    So I can't really say much about abu Sufyan except that he may have existed as a warleader back in the day (his name doesn't appear like an artificial epithet), but almost all the traditional Muslim claims about who he was and what he did are likely false (just as with Mo).
  • Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone
     Reply #41 - October 17, 2014, 08:34 PM
    Quote
    These claims are patently false, but there is some sort of strange reason why they keep getting made.


    As far as Americans go, it's my personal theory that there's a spike in these claims around Halloween when white people face criticism for their Sexy Native American costume.
  • Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone
     Reply #42 - October 18, 2014, 02:38 PM
    A bit ironic that the Islam Awareness site ends up being a good place to look for inconsistencies on early Islamic history.

    Looking at coin inscriptions (www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Coins/) it seems that coins from early on in the conquest of Byzantine and Sassanian lands only mentioned Allah, without the usual shahada phrasing. It's only from 66 AH to 70 AH, the time of the Dome of the Rock inscriptions, that Muhammad appears and the shahada shows up from 72 AH onwards.

    That doesn't match Muslim tradition that the Qur'an sprang forth out of Mecca fully formed and Islamic doctrine was already complete by the time Arab armies went a-conquering. It's more like some event made the Umayyads compile and standardize the faith in a hurry.
  • Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone
     Reply #43 - October 18, 2014, 08:30 PM
    This is one of the reasons there's a growing number of people questioning his existence.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone
     Reply #44 - October 18, 2014, 09:52 PM
    I just can't wrap my head around them making Mohammad up. If that was the case, then why the details that portray him as a narcissistic, lustful, old liar and hypocrite?
  • Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone
     Reply #45 - October 18, 2014, 09:58 PM
    It's too simple to think of that way. Legends are often born over time. Even if there actually was a historical Muhammad, which I think is very likely, as the years and decades and centuries passed so did things attributed to him.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone
     Reply #46 - October 18, 2014, 10:02 PM
    Yeah. I doubt a tree cried because it missed him.
  • Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone
     Reply #47 - October 18, 2014, 10:07 PM
    Yeah, who is he, Baldr? False hadith.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone
     Reply #48 - October 18, 2014, 10:14 PM
    Indeed.
  • Islamic Cultures, Islamic Contexts - Essays in Honor of Patricia Crone
     Reply #49 - October 19, 2014, 02:51 AM
    Quote from: Zaotar on October 17, 2014, 06:40 PM
    On your last questions, I don't actually have much of an opinion.  Genealogy and chronology are two of the least reliable aspects of Muslim tradition (and Middle Eastern tradition generally).  Fictitious genealogies are rampant.  Everybody claims descent from everybody, and fictitious ancestors abound.

    Not much different nowadays.  To take an example I always find funny, an almost unbelievably high number of Americans falsely claim to have a recent Cherokee Indian ancestor.  It is almost never any other Indian tribe.  *Always* Cherokee.

    http://www.dailyyonder.com/cherokee-syndrome/2011/02/08/3170

    These claims are patently false, but there is some sort of strange reason why they keep getting made.  Now, in a climate where there is no ready proof of ancestry, and a great deal of incentive to claim your ancestor was so-and-so, fictitious genealogies sprout up like mushrooms.

    So I can't really say much about abu Sufyan except that he may have existed as a warleader back in the day (his name doesn't appear like an artificial epithet), but almost all the traditional Muslim claims about who he was and what he did are likely false (just as with Mo).


    That's odd. Everyone here is Sioux. I suppose because it is Sioux country, and yes, Ojibwe are Sioux, too. I only met one Cherokee. My mother was ¨adopted¨ ritually, into the Cherokee. Maybe such a rite is very common, which leads to those Cherokee claims.
    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »