y, thanks for this.

I'd never even heard or Klingschor but this stuff is brillia

nt. Fabulously detailed and simultaneously subtle.
May 31, 2013 at 2:10 AM
Asadullah Ali said...
This Klingschor is not someone you should trust with this sort of information. H
e doesn't even read the very scholars he quotes from:
As a whole, however, the theories of the so-called sceptic or revisionist schola
rs who, arguing historically, make a radical break with the transmitted picture
of Islamic origins, shifting them in both time and place from the seventh to the
eighth or ninth century and from the Arabian peninsula to the Fertile Crescent,
have by now been discarded, though many of their critical observations remain c
hallenging and still call for investigation. New findings of qura nic text fragmen
ts, moreover, can be adduced to affirm rather than call into question the tradit
ional picture of the Qura n as an early fixed text composed of the su ras we have.
- Angelika Neuwirth (Cambridge Companion to the Qur'an. pg. 100)
I'll have to make a detailed blog post about this in the future, but for now, if
I were any of the readers on here, I would examine the sources he derives his i
nformation from an do a detailed analysis of their arguments and what they actua
lly say rather than take his word for it. He's just an undergraduate middle east
ern studies major in his junior year who has a prejudice against anything religi
ous.
Nothing new among many rookies I see in academia. We were all like that once unt
il we grew up into post-grad studies and realized how narrow minded we were befo
re.
May 31, 2013 at 5:19 AM
Asadullah Ali said...
Also, if I may note, Donner and Crone have recanted a lot of their previous work
in Revisionist scholarship. None of the so-called Islamologist can even agree o
n each others theories, but to say that they reject the traditional account or t
hat this is somehow the majority opinion (as what Klingschor seems to be implyin
g) is simply false.
May 31, 2013 at 5:25 AM
Asadullah Ali said...
For further evidence of my claims, check what he says here:
I actually agree with Crone and Holland s views on the unreliability of Islami Tra
dition, based upon the critical research of Ignc Goldziher, Joseph Schacht and He
rbert Berg. Although the various Revisionist hypotheses (e.g., John Wansbrough,
Yehuda Nevo, Christoph Luxenberg, etc.) haven t yet gained widespread consensus, i
t is now generally agreed amongst Islamologists that Islami Tradition is unrelia
ble (Donner, Narratives, p.25).
He claims the traditional account has generally been agreed upon as being 'unrel
iable'. He takes that from Donner's book "Narratives of Islamic Origins". No whe
re does Donner actually say this on page 25. In fact, he states the following in
troduction prior to critiquing the "skeptical approach" (the one Klingschor subs
cribes to):
The skeptical approach derives plausibility from years of source-critical and tr
adition-critical research that has conclusively demonstrated the existence in Is
lamic tradition of a heavy overlay of pious legend and the influence of manipula
tions, distortions, and fabrications of all kinds. This tampering of the traditi
on makes it unclear where the kernel of historical truth may lie, and gives the
skeptics the claim that there is no historical kernel at all, only successive la

yers of repeatedly reshaped and redacted material" (Donner, Narratives pg. 25)
No where does he claim that the tradition is "unreliable". Even traditional scho
lars find discrepencies and often even consider certain narrations "weak" or att
empt to find what actually happened from the source material. That's why there a
re various tafsirs, seerahs, etc. with sometimes differing accounts of what actu
ally occurred, but in regards to the Qur'anic text, there is little to be debate
d about its origins these days. What Donner is expressing here is a sentiment re
garding Islamic origins in general and then goes on to critique the skeptical ap
proach and being far and beyond what is expected.
That's also not saying that he's changed a lot of his views since then, give tha
t this work was written in 1998 and his recent work regarding the origins of Isl
am (2010) has been criticized as lacking any factual basis even by his former co
lleague, Patricia Crone.

May 31, 2013 at 5:45 AM

Anonymous said...
Undoubtedly, for Muslims, the unkindest cut of modernity is its claim to have di
spensed with every source of transcendence that Islam holds so dear. God, revela
tion and the moral law emanating from it, are, accordingly, all ghosts of an inf
antile and obsolete metaphysics: they are nothing but deceitful and untrustworth
y idols of the unfree and the un-enlightened. However, Islam s suffering form the
affliction of modernity is twofold: it is not only the target of the transcenden
ce-negating rationality of Enlightenment, but also the victim of all the passion
s and phobias of an unforgiving Christianity. How tragic then that for many Musl
ims today, there are no other mentors but orientalists, missionaries, media pund
its, political analysts and other nondescript experts. For who can deny that eve
n a minimum allegiance to the notion of a western political identity leads to th
e construction of difference that renders Islam as the ultimate other that must
not to be taken on its own terms. Thus, for all its achievements and respectabil
ity, western science of Islam is but an instrument for the propagation of a messag
e the ultimate aim of which is to ensure the western dominance of the world.
http://www.algonet.se/~pmanzoor/Western%20Lies.htm
May 31, 2013 at 9:30 AM
ABCshake said...
@Asadullah Ali- Your Angelika Neuwirth quote seems to be talking about the compo
sition of the surahs. The surahs themselves are fixed from an early states as sh
own from earliest manuscripts. However some hadith sources mention some interpol
ations. However the very earliest manuscript of the Qu'ran have different surah
orders. Have a look at "Sanaa 1 and the Origins of the Qur'an" by Behnam Sadeghi
and Mohsen Goudarzi
May 31, 2013 at 8:00 PM
Asadullah Ali said...
ABCShake:
That's already been acknowledged by the majority of ulema that there were variou
s different organizations in the surahs. This does not take away from the fact t
hat the content was preserved.
May 31, 2013 at 9:31 PM
Klingschor said...
@Asad Allah ?Ali: I appreciate the feedback, but I fear it may be mistaken.

Firstly, there is a difference between the Critical Scholarship and the Revision
ist scholarship. The former is widely accepted; the latter is not. It is now gen
erally accepted in Islamology that Islami Tradition is unreliable
as Fred Donner
(Narratives, p.25) noted, critical Islamology has conclusively demonstrated the
existence in Islamic tradition of a heavy overlay of pious legend and the influe
nce of manipulations, distortions, and fabrications of all kinds. Even if we acce
pt (as I indeed do I never stated anything to the contrary) that a kernel of tru
th is contained within Islami Tradition, this doesn t change the fact that Islami
Tradition including the Kitab al-Jami? a?-?a?i? is largely unreliable, something tha
t most modern academics accept.
The general acceptance in modern Islamology of the unreliable nature of Islami T
radition as a whole (as it pertains to early Islam) is also noted by Jacob Lassn
er (Jews, Christians, and the Abode of Islam, p.43): Ever since Goldziher s Muhamme
danische Studien first appeared in the latter part of the nineteenth century, We
stern scholars have widely shared a belief that Islamic literary traditions, rel
igious and historical, and many Muslim institutions and practices, administrativ
e and legal, are indeed retrospective creations of a later period.
For an overview of recent critical scholarship, see: Fred M. Donner, Narratives
of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing (Princeton, N.J
: The Darwin Press, Inc., 1998), pp.5-25. Also see: Stephen J. Shoemaker, In Sear
ch of ?Urwa s Sira: Some Methodological Issues in the Quest for Authenticity in the
Life of Mu?ammad , Der Islam, Volume 85, Issue 2 (2011), pp.257-261.
Whilst the conclusions of critical Islamology specifically the unreliability of th
e ?adith Literature in general are widely accepted, the various Revisionist hypothes
es that have arisen to fill the void left by the traditional narrative of early
Islam are not.
I hope that clarifies the issue.
June 1, 2013 at 5:21 AM
Asadullah Ali said...
@Klingschor
Yes, there is a difference, and no where did I assume otherwise. However, as we
both know, you subscribe to the latter with your following of Crone and Holland
(to which degree is still unknown since you wont be too open about it). Holland
has even admitted as much to following Revisionists accounts of the Islamic orig
ins -- as well as Crone.
Further, you have yet to prove that much of original source material in Islamic
tradition is "largely unreliable". Let us also note that the critical and revisi
onists schools largely critique the tradition based on a form of anti-religious
zea or pro-Christian zeal-- the former you gladly take part in, obviously -- hen
ce Donner's assumption that much is colored with "legend" and other such things.
Further, while it certainly cannot be conteste that there are some negative inf
luences on the hadith literature, to imply (as you seem to) that traditional ule
ma do not sift through these sources with a critical eye is simply conjecture on
your part.
Jacob Lassner's view contradicts Angelika Neuwirths -- the latter being, if I ma
y remind you, someone you recommended to your audience. It would appear that the
latter would consider Lassner and others in the category of "revisionist". Why
do you disagree with her?
Since we're on Lassner, he also says of Goldziher on page 20-21 (yes I have the
same materials as you), that he believed much of the source material was a creat

ion of later legal and theological debates rather than actual historical account
s, and that this perspective of his was primarily influenced by his views on the
Rabbinical tradition. Have you actually examined if this bias is valid? Have yo
u actually examined if the revisionist/skeptical school that he and others adher
e to are actually valid other than the fact that they conform to your anti-relig
ious stance?
- See more at: http://awaisaftab.blogspot.com/2013/05/lorientalist-on-history-of
-quran.html#sthash.qToNEfuA.dpuf