Bismika Alllahuma

Il libro nominato Hagarism: Fare del mondo islamico le domande appena circa tutto musulmani credono come verità storiche. Sfida la credenza comune che il Qur' è stato rivelato al Prophet Muhammad durante 22 anni (610-632) in Mecca e in Medina. Invece, il libro si contende che il Qur' si è composto, possibilmente in Siria o Irak, più di cinquanta anni dopo la morte del Prophet, è stato proiettato indietro a tempo ed è stato attribuito al Prophet. Il Qur', secondo il libro, è stato fabbricato durante il regno di Caliph Abdul Malik (685-705 C.E.) per legitimize un impero d'espansione.

Il libro inoltre si contende che la parola “musulmano„ è stata inventata nell'ottavo secolo per sostituire la parola Muhajirun (immigranti), che era il nome originale della Comunità araba che ha conquistato il Palestine ed ha costruito la cupola della roccia. Il libro in se prescrive un nuovo nome per i musulmani in anticipo. Li denomina Hagarenes, cioè i discendenti biologici di Abraham da Hagar. Questo chiamare razziale dei musulmani in anticipo è impiegato per distinguerlo dagli ebrei, che sono i discendenti di Abraham da Sarah. Hagarism, il titolo del libro, è un quasi-pejorative e possibilmente un razzista, etichetta per descrivere il fenomeno storico dei musulmani in anticipo.

Negli autori' possedere le parole, il libro è scritto “dai infidels per i infidels.„ Gli attacchi all'autenticità del Quran, all'integrità del Prophet, o alla storia islamica non sono nuovi. Il Quran in se riconosce gli attacchi simili i unbelievers fatti mentre il Quran stava rivelando. Per più di mille anni, la borsa occidentale è stata determinata per esporre che cosa considera come “fondamento fraudolento„ di Islam. In questo senso, Hagarism è ancora un altro libro nel grande deposito della letteratura di attacco.

Tuttavia, che cosa si distingue questo libro è il fatto quello i relativi autori, cuoco del Michael e Crone del Patricia, più non si abbonano ai relativi risultati critici. Il 3 aprile 2006, ho avuto una conversazione telefonica con il cuoco del Michael ed abbiamo parlato di Hagarism. Ha detto a me quanto segue, che più successivamente ha confermato per mezzo di un email: “La tesi centrale di quel libro era, io ora pensa, sbagliato. 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 not think that the book’s thesis is valid.”

Many Western scholars, Christians and Jews, have dismissed Hagarism as a “thin argument” rather than “credible research.” One historian who appears to admire the book is Daniel Pipes, who has taught at Chicago and Harvard universities. Pipes, an embittered Zionist known for his ugly utterings against Islam and Muslims, argues that while Western scholars like Crone and Cook “in the role of termites” are eating away at the magnificent Islamic edifice, Muslims are “acting as though the beams and joints were as strong as ever.” Even Pipes, however, describes the book as “wild.” Notwithstanding scholarly repudiations, Internet websites continue to rely on the book to malign Islam, assuming that the book’s thesis is derived from credible research.

Even online Wikipedia features the book, citing a large quotation from Daniel Pipes. The article concludes: “Although this line of research is discounted by Islamic traditionalists, Western scholars have generally applauded Crone and Cook’s advances in tracing the origins of Islam.” When I insisted that Wikipedia provide a source to support the above conclusion, the editor added “citation needed” to the conclusion. As of today, no citation to support the conclusion has been furnished.

Part of the confusion arises from the fact that Cook and Crone have made no manifest effort to repudiate their juvenile findings in the book. The authors admitted to me that they had not done it and cater no plans to do so. Repudiating scholarly work is not easy because sometimes errors are intertwined with valid findings. No scholar is obligated to rewrite books to correct errors. Scholarly decency, however, demands that the authors officially repudiate a scandalous thesis, one in which they no longer believe and one that maligns the faith of more than a billion people.

It appears however that the authors do not wish to discount a book that launched their careers and brought to them contacts and fortune. Patricia Crone teaches at the Institute for Advanced Studies, the academic home of Albert Einstein, an institute that proclaims itself as “one of the world’s leading centers for theoretical research and intellectual inquiry.” Michael Cook is a chaired professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, who in 2002 (a few months after 9/11 terrorist attacks) received a $1.5 million Distinguished Achievement Award from the Mellon Foundation “for significant contribution to humanities research.”

One needs no brains to write against Islam in the Western world. After 9/11, anti-Islamic literature has become a big business that even acclaimed academics have generously exploited for self-promotion. In this milieu, repudiating even a false anti-Islamic book will be condemned as apostasy. We need not burn the book. Crone and Cook themselves must muster the courage and put out the brushfire they started three decades ago, albeit in youthful excitement.

Dr. Ali Khan is a professor of law at Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kansas. This excerpt is taken from his forthcoming law article, “The Externalist Scholarship on Islamic Law”, which will be published in Michigan State Law Review.