Bismika Alllahuma

O livro intitulado Hagarism: Fazer do mundo Islamic as perguntas apenas sobre tudo muçulmanos acreditam como verdades históricas. Desafia a opinião comum que o Qur' estêve revelado ao Prophet Muhammad sobre um período de 22 anos (610-632) em Mecca e em Medina. Instead, o livro contends que o Qur' estêve composto, possivelmente em Syria ou Iraq, mais de cinqüênta anos após a morte do Prophet, projetado para trás a tempo, e atribuído ao Prophet. O Qur', de acordo com o livro, foi fabricado durante o reino de Caliph Abdul Malik (685-705 C.E.) para legitimize um império de expansão.

O livro contends também que a palavra “muçulmano” estêve inventada no 8o século para substituir a palavra Muhajirun (immigrants), que era o nome original da comunidade árabe que conquistou Palestina e construiu a abóbada da rocha. O livro próprio prescreve um nome novo para muçulmanos adiantados. Chama-os Hagarenes, isto é, os descendentes biológicos de Abraham por Hagar. Este nomear racial de muçulmanos adiantados é empregado para distingui-los dos Jews, que são os descendentes de Abraham por Sarah. Hagarism, o título do livro, é um quasi-pejorative, e possivelmente um racist, etiqueta para descrever o fenômeno histórico de muçulmanos adiantados.

Nos autores' para possuir palavras, o livro é escrito “por infidels para infidels.” Os ataques no authenticity do Quran, na integridade do Prophet, ou na história Islamic não são novos. O Quran próprio reconhece ataques similares os unbelievers feitos quando o Quran era revelado. Para mais do que mil anos, o scholarship ocidental foi determinado expo o que considera ser “fundação fraudulent” do Islam. Neste sentido, Hagarism é contudo um outro livro no dump grande da literatura do ataque.

Entretanto, o que distingue este livro é o fato isso seus autores, cozinheiro de Michael e Crone de Patricia, já não subscrevem a seus findings críticos. Abril em 3, 2006, eu tive uma conversação de telefone com cozinheiro de Michael e nós falamos aproximadamente Hagarism. Disse-me o seguinte, que confirmou mais tarde por meio de um email: “O thesis central desse livro era, mim pensa agora, confundido. 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.