I started reading Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World by Crone and Cook. Who has read it and what are your opinions?
It dates Islam before Islam dates itself, based on the Doctrina Iacobi in the year 634: “Of greater historical significance [than the tract saying that Mohammad claimed to have the keys to paradise] is the fact that the Prophet is represented as alive at the time of the conquest of Palestine. This testimony is of course irreconcilable with the Islamic account of the Prophet’s career, but it finds independent confirmation in the historical traditions of the Jacobites, Nestorians and Samaritans… But the really startling thing about the Doctrina is its report that the Prophet was preaching the advent of ‘the anointed one who is to come’. That is to say the core of the Prophet’s message, in the earliest testimony available to us outside the Islamic tradition, appears as Judaic messianism.”
And the messiah? “Umar, the second caliph of the Islamic schema retains even there the messianic designation al-faruq, the Redeemer. At the same time his entry into Jerusalem is an appropriate performance in this role, while the ‘Secrets’ ‘Secrets of Rabbi Simon ben Yohay’, mid-eighteenth century] would seem to have him engage in the equally messianic task of restoring the Temple. Umar’s embarassing by-name was not of course left unglossed in the Islamic tradition. When eventually the original Aramaic sense of the term had been successfully forgotten, it acquried a harmless Arabic etymology and was held to have been conferred by the Prophet himself… Detailed historical accounts of the way in which an innocently curious Umar was hailed in Syria as the faruq are accordingly balanced by the attribution to him of acts which emphatically deny his role as a Judaic redeemer.”
So the Prophet’s first message was preaching the coming of a Judaic messiah? The earliest identity of Islam (not as Muslims but as Magaritai / Mahgre / Mahgraye) is the exodus not from Mecca to Medina but from the deserts to Palestine and then Muslims as a constructed identity later?
I am still learning Middle Eastern and Islamic history and am about 10 pages into the book but shed some light please.
"The central idea which inspired the eruption of the invaders [from contemporary Greek and Syriac sources] from the Arabian Peninsula into Syro-Palestine early in the 7th century was an irredentism based on the assumption that the Arabs, being the children of Abraham the patriarch by his concubine Hagar [Mahgraye etymologically being both hijra *and Hagar], had an ancestral claim to Palestine and to the holy city of Jerusalem - their native sanctuary in Mecca was thus a more temporary and second-rank substitute for it - and they were in duty bound to redeem it [Jerusalem] from the hands of the Byzantine Christian rulers. Did these Arab invaders style themselves "Muslims"? Hardly, since the earliest known documented appearance of this term (in the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem) cannot be dated earlier than the last decade of the 7th century." - from a book review Leon Nemoy in *The Jewish Quarterly Review.
With Jewish support for the migration to the Promised Land because, as the Doctrina says, the Prophet heralded the coming of the Judaic messiah. Conquests of Asia Minor and Persia continued, with the conquering Mahgraye folding Christ into their religious doctrine as a true prophet to appeal to the Christians. The hijrah, Crone and Cook claim, was only constructed as the migration of the Prophet from Mecca to Medina later.
This has implications for our understanding of Islamic history. No wonder Crone and Cook preface their book by saying it is a book by infidels for infidels. It contradicts Islamic history as Islam constructs it with historical proof.
And by Jewish Law the Oldest Son inherits from his Father, it follows from that..... The oldest Son of Abrahim (ES) was Ismail (ES) not Ishaaq(ES), hence Children of Ismail (ES) the Arabs have more right over Palestine than the Europeans who occupy it now!
It dates Islam before Islam dates itself, based on the Doctrina Iacobi in the year 634: "Of greater historical significance [than the tract saying that Mohammad claimed to have the keys to paradise] is the fact that the Prophet is represented as alive at the time of the conquest of Palestine. This testimony is of course irreconcilable with the Islamic account of the Prophet's career, but it finds independent confirmation in the historical traditions of the Jacobites, Nestorians and Samaritans
Respected Sir,
Welcome aboard to this forum. It is nice to have you with us. Let me confess that I have not read the book under refernce but would still like to comment upon your post.
From Islamic point of view, Islam really started long before 634 AD as we believe that all the Prophets brought the same message of Islam but with different names and rituals. So much so that Quran has used the word "Muslim" for Hazrat Ibrahim (Abraham) (AS).
From all other sources of history except the three named here, there is no doubt that Holy Prophet Muhammad (MPBUH) had passed away at the time of Palestinian Conquest.
The statement that Prophet was alive at the time of Palestinian Conquest is inconcievable. We Muslims believe Hazrat Muhammad (MPBUH) to be the last Messanger and Prophet of Allah Almighty. However, as per the sayings of Holy Prophet himself, two of his companions have been likened to prophets. First one was Hazrat Ali (KAW) who was at one time likened to Hazrat Haroon (Aaron) (AS) at the time of battle of Tabook, and at another time with Hazrat Essa (Jesus) (AS). The second companion was Hazrat Omer-e-Farooq (RA) about whom the Prophet had opined a probability of Prophethood, if it had continued. Both of these companions were alive at the time of Palestinian Conquest. Infact one of them Hazrat Omer (RA) was the one who was responsible for this conquest. There may be a possibility that these Prophetic sayings of Hazrat Muhammad (MPBUH) about his companions were distorted by time and or design.
The title Al-Faruq had no Armaic sense in Islam. This title or word had been derived from the Arabic word *Faraq *which means "The Diffrence". The tilte *Al-Faruq *means "The one who can Differentiate" or "The one who has Differentiated" and was conferrd upon Hazrat Omer (RA) at the time of his conversion to Islam when he "Differentiated" right from wrong. To juxtapose the rather difficult and out of tune Armaic Redeemer over simple Arabic Differentiater is probaly a later development.
The prophet did indeed prophecied the coming of a man who would try to undo the injustices and corruptions in the world in one way or the other. The Muslims consider him to be Hazrat Imam Mahdi. He will be helped by (or rather he will help) Hazrat Essa (Jesus) (AS). I think that over here the three divine religions seem to have something in common (in one way or the other). The Jews are waiting for a Judaic Messiah, while the Muslims and Christians are waiting for the second coming of Hazrat Essa (Jesus) (AS) himself.
We believe that the people of Book whether Jews or Christians were infact Muslims because they believed in One True God and His messangers. The later additions and/or deletions in their respective religions driftd them away from the true Islamic definition of Muslim. Moreover, the Hebrews and Arabs are both from the creed and family of Hazrat Ibrahim (Abraham) (AS). So if it said that Exodus from Palestine and not from Mecca is the earliest Identity of Islam, from a philosophical and historical point, it may be agreed upon. But from strictly religious view-point it may not be as simple and may be difficult to establish and prove.
All of a sudden, Islamic sources are acceptable…and their concerns seem to have shifted from the origins of Islam (or accusations of it’s fabrication over time) to understanding the historical context in which the religion rose.
I suppose the original hypothesis was a bit too much even for the author…
I happened to read a 8 volume book on seerat-un-nabi titled 'Zia-un-nabi" and the last two volumes are dedicated to refute the allegations of orientalists.
i wonder how they twist the fact and than insist that their search is unbiased and Muslims is biased. How can they be unbiased i am not sure. see how they have linked faruq to something hebrew.
I happened to read a 8 volume book on seerat-un-nabi titled 'Zia-un-nabi" and the last two volumes are dedicated to refute the allegations of orientalists.
i wonder how they twist the fact and than insist that their search is unbiased and Muslims is biased. How can they be unbiased i am not sure. see how they have linked faruq to something hebrew.
What a great book by a great Scholar (of religion, history, jurisprudence, etc), Philosopher, Teacher, Mentor, Sufi, and Saint of Silsila-e-Chishty Nizami, Hazrat Justice Peer Karam Allah Shah Al-Azhari (RA) of Bhera Shareef, District Gujrat, Pakistan.
patricia crone seems to have a vendetta against early pious muslims, that is nowhere more obvious than in her book "God's caliphs" with she co-authered with martin Hinds. Also her defence of the ummayyads and demonizing of the islamic oppostion against them it totally at odds with traditional * islamic opinion
Hinds too always think that every event in early islamic history was basically motivated by politics and greed and fail to see the obvious religious motivations in them.Interestingly even though they derive their research from early islamic sources they disregard religious implications as later fabrications but treat the accounts of bloodshed , treachery , machiavellian politics [from the same sources] as indisputable facts.*
. From all other sources of history except the three named here, there is no doubt that Holy Prophet Muhammad (MPBUH) had passed away at the time of Palestinian Conquest.
The statement that Prophet was alive at the time of Palestinian Conquest is inconcievable.
esp. since the there is no mention of any Ghazwas on the western front apart from tabuk and Mu'tah
also if we see the military perspective the conquest of palestine was extremely unlikely in the close proximity of the syrian garrison towns
and it was only after their defeat and subjugation can a realistic conquest of palestine be done.
evidence of that is during the first civil war when muhammad b abi hudhayfa[ra] and some other sahaba wanted to go to egypt via palestine they were easily captured by the syrian patrols of muawiyah then rebel governer of syria.
[quote]
Both of these companions were alive at the time of Palestinian Conquest. Infact one of them Hazrat Omer (RA) was the one who was responsible for this conquest. There may be a possibility that these Prophetic sayings of Hazrat Muhammad (MPBUH) about his companions were distorted by time and or design.
[/quote]
precisely and if conquest of palestine was a war in which prophet[saw] took part then everyone who participated in it wud have to be a companion [sahabi] but we find many of the tabii [successors] participating in these battles which implicitly means that they never met the prophet [saw]
Again muslim scholars wud have no reason to hide this honorable title from any great warrior if there is any evidence to support it
e.g ahnaf b qays [ra] a great general of persian wars,tribal leader is a tabii depsite his stature and prestige
but for example a relatively insignificant person like hajjaj b amr ansari[ra] is a companion despite his low tribal status, as he met the prophet[saw]
