Quran might predate Muhammad?

[Adrift]

exactly

bias exists---why?---because in history physical evidence has to be interpreted....

So, in your opinion, are historians doomed to perpetual bias? If so, why do history?

[siam]

So, in your opinion, are historians doomed to perpetual bias? If so, why do history?

Why do history?---Because it is knowledge of the past--and as such, it is knowledge about "Us" (Humanity). History is a record of the world-view, the events and ideas, the interactions and circumstances that shaped the past from which we emerged. Human "progress" is not unilinear and history can be a witness to both our achievements and our regressions....

Bias---that would depend on how "history" is defined--as a narrative of the past or as a science---if it is a science---then as you mentioned previously....it has a methodology. This means that conclusions reached would be based on a body of narrative evidence or physical evidence that are then interpreted to form a "history" or "Historical account". Such conclusions will inevitably be based on the prevalent cultural presumptions or world-view---but the preservation of this body of evidence for the future will ensure that those from a different culture or world-view will have an equal opportunity to come to their own conclusions....so---a Post-Modern approach to history may generate different conclusions to "history"....As a science---such progress is inevitable...science is not a field of knowledge that is static...

So....a degree of bias may be inevitable in our understanding and perception of knowledge---but if this is done within the framework of a methodology---it will be open for re-examination and re-interpretation which may make the degree of bias less problematic....?.....as it is in any science.....

[siam]

"Western history" is only biasedly revisionist if it attempts to pervert the historical record. You haven't shown that that is the goal of "Western history". Also I reject any distinction between Western and Eastern historians. I'm certain that there are historians, both in the East and the West with similar goals.

And that's where checks and balance systems like peer review step in. No doubt even peer review is also occasionally prone to error, but it's better than accepting facts on blind faith.

I have no idea what you mean by "artificially imposed criteria of uniformity of thought". In Biblical studies, for instance, the gamut runs wide on acceptable views. To the one who is willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, this shouldn't be overly problematic.

You've already inferred that pre-Modern Islamic scholars held to particular biases. That Islamic studies must needs lead to a particular perspective. No doubt those perspectives differed in the details, but you've more or less said that they could only come to certain conclusions on major issues.

That isn't the case. There are plenty of examples of modern historians who are Jewish or Christian (or even Islamic scholars like Reza Aslan), who may or may not accept the theological "myth" of the Old and/or New Testament, yet still retain a certain level of objectivity when delving into the historical record. This is not an impossible task, and often times, those who are thoroughly devout on one level, are also those who are most critical. Again, a good historian leaves theology to theologians in their academic work (though they may diverge into theology in their more popular works), and focus on the historical record. There is no reason that Islamic scholars, as a general rule, cannot do the same.

"Secularism"---is understood to be a separation of Church(religion) and State---but this spirit of separation---the idea that spheres of knowledge should be separated---is a Modern world-view....It is a view that "Modern" scholars conform to----but it is imposed by the structure of academia and the presumptions that "Modernity" is based on. A future generation that does not conform to the "Modernist" world-view may not have the same criteria of separation of knowledge.....

Biases (Pre-Modern Muslim Scholars)---to hold to particular biases means that the conclusions that they will come to after examining the evidence may be different----the preservation of the evidence itself is a different matter....

[robrecht]

exactly ...

I thought I was disagreeing with you. So you are not [no longer/never were] claiming that revisionist history is biased because it is revisionist and thereby implying that accepted/Muslim history was not biased because it was not revisionist?

[siam]

I thought I was disagreeing with you. So you are not [no longer/never were] claiming that revisionist history is biased because it is revisionist and thereby implying that accepted/Muslim history was not biased because it was not revisionist?

I was expecting this question....I realized after I already posted that the reply was incomplete....I was inept in my explanation.....

Revisionist history IS biased---the degree of bias differs--the examples I gave previously of Holland and Donner...

"Traditional" History ---in my opinion---may be grouped as Modernist approach and the Islamic approach---the Modernist approach is "secular" in its presuppositions because it is the product of Modernity...The Pre-Modern Islamic approach holds to pre-Modern presuppositions (ofcourse---since Modernity did not yet exist!) Both have a degree of bias.

2 aspects of history----a) evidence (narrative or physical) and b) the conclusions drawn from an examination of the evidence make up the history/historical account.

The physical evidence would be original manuscripts, contemporaneous items....etc...
The narrative evidence---the written narratives that may not be original but provide information for verification/cross reference---such as the Isnad, Asbab al Nuzul, biographies, genealogies...etc...

The traditional narrative (both Modern and Islamic) rely on these evidence---Some revisionist historians also rely on this evidence --- but reconstruct/revise the conclusions---other revisionist historians ignore the (Islamic) narrative evidence to reconstruct history in a "new"/creative story.

At present---as far as I know---there is no physical evidence of the Quran before the compilation process---the narrative that comes from Islamic sources gives the background. This narrative was written many years later than the events---so these sources site the chain of transmission and other information---there was a methodology established to verify the degree of authenticity of the narrative evidence.
for example---the Asbab al Nuzul is the narration of the occassions, reason or causes of revelation.....the Isnad records who hears what and to whom it was passed down to---etc. The biographies check the integrity of the witnesses, the geneologies establishes their existence and timeline----etc....There are contentions in this large body of work----BUT
Western historians need to (at least) match the standard of evidence already set by Pre-Modern Muslim scholars when they "do" history to be taken with any degree of seriousness....Revisionist scholars that ignore the traditional narrative can only base their theories on speculation---because the only evidence there is--is in the traditional narrative.....

(...some Muslims such as the Wahabists also ignore the traditional narrative---they have their own revisionist version of history.....)

[shunyadragon]

I was expecting this question....I realized after I already posted that the reply was incomplete....I was inept in my explanation.....

Revisionist history IS biased---the degree of bias differs--the examples I gave previously of Holland and Donner...

It has been already well established the Holland is not remotely a historian. Your objections to Donner are not based on bias or no bias, it is based on your disagreements with him. His academic credentials are excellent. Yes, there is bias among historians, but in the west the secular academic nature of history research is more diverse and has fewer agendas on Islam than Islamic historians.

"Traditional" History ---in my opinion---may be grouped as Modernist approach and the Islamic approach---the Modernist approach is "secular" in its presuppositions because it is the product of Modernity...The Pre-Modern Islamic approach holds to pre-Modern presuppositions (ofcourse---since Modernity did not yet exist!) Both have a degree of bias.

On the surface I agree with this, but ---in my opinion--- does not represent any reasonable academic authority. As with previous discussions you use of the concept of 'Modernity' is highly questionable at best.

The physical evidence would be original manuscripts, contemporaneous items....etc...
The narrative evidence---the written narratives that may not be original but provide information for verification/cross reference---such as the Isnad, Asbab al Nuzul, biographies, genealogies...etc...

True

The traditional narrative (both Modern and Islamic) rely on these evidence---Some revisionist historians also rely on this evidence --- but reconstruct/revise the conclusions---other revisionist historians ignore the (Islamic) narrative evidence to reconstruct history in a "new"/creative story.

Contemporary secular historians like Donner and Patrician Crone definitely do not ignore (Islamic) narrative evidence. Like your questionable use of Modernity, your use of revisionist has unfortunate negative connotations.

Western historians need to (at least) match the standard of evidence already set by Pre-Modern Muslim scholars when they "do" history to be taken with any degree of seriousness....Revisionist scholars that ignore the traditional narrative can only base their theories on speculation---because the only evidence there is--is in the traditional narrative.....

Contemporary historians like Donner and Patrician Crone do take into consideration Pre-Modern Muslim scholars. You accusations are unwarranted.

[siam]

@Shuny

I respect Donner---though I have my own views---which I am entitled to---Donner backs up his theories with evidence---and one can't argue when there is evidence!....
For example--Donner feels that "Islam" began as a "believers movement" and only later took on the specifics of what we understand as "Islam". This believers movement encompassed all monotheists as a single community and he uses the Quran and the constitution of Medina to back up his theory.

Holland---He insists he IS a historian and scholar---though he does admit he is a historian of Anitquity---not the Islamic period....

Patricia Crone---is said to have matured somewhat as a scholar in her later period---but many claim her work of Hagarism is "Orientalist" (=prejudiced)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Crone
Their work was acknowledged as raising some interesting questions and being a fresh approach in its reconstruction of early Islamic history, but it was described by Josef van Ess as an experiment.[21] He 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."[21]

Steven Humphreys criticised the authors for their "... use (or abuse) of its Greek and Syriac sources ..."[5] The controversial thesis of Hagarism is not widely accepted.[4]

R. B. Serjeant claimed 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'."[22]

Eric Manheimer concluded his review with the comment that, "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."[23]

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 relations were as intimate as they would wish them to have been."[3]

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." But, he says 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."[24]

Oleg Grabar described Hagarism as a "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 phenomenon to broad theories of acculturation and historical change."[25] Norman O. Brown wrote that Hagarism, "illustrates in an ominous way the politics of Orientalism", and citing Grabar's review, added that, "The Western tradition of urbane condescension has degenerated into aggressive, unscrupulous even, calumny".[26]

Michael G. Morony remarked that "Despite a useful bibliography, this is a thin piece of Kulturgeschichte 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."[27]

Later disavowal[edit]
In 1991, Patricia Crone and Michael Cook disavowed the views that they presented in this book.[3][4][5]

[siam]

Orientalism---

Hagarism---In the words of Cook and Crone themselves is a work written "by infidels for infidels"....
If this is not blatant prejudice---what is!!!.....

In the authors’ own words, the book is written “by infidels for infidels.” Attacks on the Quran’s authenticity, the Prophet’s integrity, or Islamic history are not new. The Quran itself acknowledges similar attacks the unbelievers made while the Quran was being revealed. For more than a thousand years, Western scholarship has been determined to expose what it considers to be the “fraudulent foundation” of Islam. In this sense, Hagarism is yet another book in the large dump of attack literature.
However, what distinguishes this book is the fact that its authors, Michael Cook and Patricia Crone, no longer subscribe to its critical findings. On April 3, 2006, I had a phone conversation with Michael Cook and we talked about Hagarism. He said to me the following, which he later confirmed by means of an email:"The central thesis of that book was, I now think, mistaken. Over the years, I have gradually come to think that the evidence we had to support the thesis was not sufficient or internally consistent enough." On April 6, 2006, I interviewed Patricia Crone, as well, to see what she now thinks about the book. She was even more candid in repudiating the central thesis of the book. She agrees with the critics that the book was "a graduate essay." The book was published in 1977 when the authors lived in England. "We were young, and we did not know anything. The book was just a hypothesis, not a conclusive finding," said Crone. "I do no think that the book's thesis is valid."
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/042606AliKhan.shtml

If, in Western academia, works written by the ignorant for the ignorant are passed off as "scholarly" then perhaps some skepticism/criticism of their standards could be allowed...?.....

[shunyadragon]

Orientalism---

Hagarism---In the words of Cook and Crone themselves is a work written "by infidels for infidels"....
If this is not blatant prejudice---what is!!!.....

In the authors’ own words, the book is written “by infidels for infidels.” Attacks on the Quran’s authenticity, the Prophet’s integrity, or Islamic history are not new. The Quran itself acknowledges similar attacks the unbelievers made while the Quran was being revealed. For more than a thousand years, Western scholarship has been determined to expose what it considers to be the “fraudulent foundation” of Islam. In this sense, Hagarism is yet another book in the large dump of attack literature.

However, what distinguishes this book is the fact that its authors, Michael Cook and Patricia Crone, no longer subscribe to its critical findings. On April 3, 2006, I had a phone conversation with Michael Cook and we talked about Hagarism. He said to me the following, which he later confirmed by means of an email:"The central thesis of that book was, I now think, mistaken. Over the years, I have gradually come to think that the evidence we had to support the thesis was not sufficient or internally consistent enough." On April 6, 2006, I interviewed Patricia Crone, as well, to see what she now thinks about the book. She was even more candid in repudiating the central thesis of the book. She agrees with the critics that the book was "a graduate essay." The book was published in 1977 when the authors lived in England. "We were young, and we did not know anything. The book was just a hypothesis, not a conclusive finding," said Crone. "I do no think that the book's thesis is valid."
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/042606AliKhan.shtml

You are neglecting the fact that the work was a 'graduate essay' and not the work of a historian. It is foolish to dwell on this 1970 reference.

If, in Western academia, works written by the ignorant for the ignorant are passed off as "scholarly" then perhaps some skepticism/criticism of their standards could be allowed...?.....

The above 1970 essay was not passed off as a scholarly work. Get real and cite modern scholarly references. The article you cited make this clear.

Your neglecting another very important issue concerning the nature of western secular scholarship. It changes and is revised over time when new information is available, and old information is reevaluated. This is true in both science and history. I would only selectively and cautiously cite research references in science and history more than 30 to 40 years old, because of the evolving nature of our scholastic knowledge. Your references on Islam reflect this.

[shunyadragon]

There are some facts born out by Crone and others concerning the history of Islam, and Christianity as well. There is very little actual information concerning the origins of the Quran for the first ~fifty years of Islamic history. This engenders academic skepticism, but as witnessed by the changes over time in western academics, it does not provide sufficient evidence to question the origins of the Quran with Muhammad. Over time the academic view in the West has and will change in the future.

As far as the history of Jesus Christ and NT scripture the evidence is silent, zip, nada, nugatory for the first fifty years of history of Christianity, which engenders justifiable academic skepticism.

The OT faces even more questions as to their origins as revealed scripture. The best that can be said of the OT is that it is an evolved text beginning with pre-Babylonian sources that have been edited and added to over the millennia of the early history of the OT.

[robrecht]

... As far as the history of Jesus Christ and NT scripture the evidence is silent, zip, nada, nugatory for the first fifty years of history of Christianity, which engenders justifiable academic skepticism. ...

The letters of Paul are dated at 10-30 years after the death of Jesus. The first gospel is typically dated about 40 years after his death.

[shunyadragon]

The letters of Paul are dated at 10-30 years after the death of Jesus. The first gospel is typically dated about 40 years after his death.

Typically and claimed to be dated are unsubstantiated claims. No documents of the gospels can be dated that early. Yes there may be early versions, but speculation does not work.

[robrecht]

Typically and claimed to be dated are unsubstantiated claims. No documents of the gospels can be dated that early. Yes there may be early versions, but speculation does not work.

It is a very broad consensus of critical scholars.

[siam]

There are some facts born out by Crone and others concerning the history of Islam, and Christianity as well. There is very little actual information concerning the origins of the Quran for the first ~fifty years of Islamic history. This engenders academic skepticism, but as witnessed by the changes over time in western academics, it does not provide sufficient evidence to question the origins of the Quran with Muhammad. Over time the academic view in the West has and will change in the future.

This is correct

...though I would change the words "actual information" to "physical evidence"...as of now---from what I know---some physical evidence of the hijra (immigration) taking place have been found---some merchants used the hijra dating on their business receipts---Early Quran pieces have been found (apart from the one mentioned on this thread) which gives greater weight to the traditional narrative...and new inscriptions of verses have also been found (I think----though I need to double check this info)

This area of research is changing---and for the better---in many ways....
(..but one also has to keep in mind that the Wahabists have been bent on destroying much of Islamic heritage for a long time now...they seem to be unreasonably anti-history...this may create some problems for future researchers......)

Orientalism---I was only pointing out the existence of orientalism because there is often an assumption that "Modernity" is somehow value-neutral---IMO, this is a myth---Modernity is based on particular philosophical world-view and since it is said "History is written by the winners"---the dominant power---the West----determines what is the default/universal....

[shunyadragon]

Orientalism---I was only pointing out the existence of orientalism because there is often an assumption that "Modernity" is somehow value-neutral---IMO, this is a myth---Modernity is based on particular philosophical world-view and since it is said "History is written by the winners"---the dominant power---the West----determines what is the default/universal....

First of and repeating numerous times your slam of some mythical 'Modernity' is a scape goat. No, history and scientific scholarship does not claim some mythical 'value neutral.' These disaplines are devoted to change and adjustment over time to become more adequate. Your references to Crone and her change over time is a clear witness of how contemporary history works. The concept "History is written by winners" is not any more applicable in Western scholarship then Islamic scholarship, and another worn out scape goat. In modern history and science academics main goals is the resolve this burden of past academics of history. Nothing is perfect, but contemporary academic history is not worthy of your accusations. Let's get away from past paradigms and focus on how things work today.