Haha... Patricia Crone et al. schreven in de jaren 70 een boek, genaamd: Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World. Deze vrouw weet absoluut niet waar ze het over heeft en zit vol haat, getuige de reviews: 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. [van Ess, The Making Of Islam, Times Literary Supplement, 8 September 1978, p. 998] Steven Humphreys criticised the authors for their ...use (or abuse) of its Greek and Syriac sources... [Stephen Humphreys, Islamic History, (Princeton, 1991) pp. 84-85.] The controversial thesis of Hagarism is not widely accepted. [Political Islam:Essays from Middle East Report. Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. 1997. p. 47.] 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’. [R. B. Serjeant, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society (1978). p. 78] 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. [Eric I. Manheimer. Review. The American Historical Review, Vol. 83, No. 1. (Feb., 1978), pp. 240-241] 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. [Introduction to Islam, Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1995. ISBN 0-521-42929-3, pp 273-274] 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. J. Wansbrough. [Review, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 41, No. 1. (1978), pp. 155-156.] ...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 [Grabar, Oleg. Speculum, Vol. 53, No. 4. (Oct., 1978), pp. 795-799.] 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. [Morony, Michael G. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 41, No. 2. (Apr., 1982), pp. 157-159.]
Posted on: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:41:02 +0000