Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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