Talk:Seeing Islam as Others Saw It

Disputed

"The book presents the evidenciary text of over 120 medieval documents which seem to contradict and refute traditional Islamic accounts of the origins of Islam."

This sentence seems dubious. A review of the book states the following:

Overall, Hoyland tends to emphasize parallels and similarities between non-Muslim evidence and reports in Muslim literature, and argues that non-Muslim sources can sometimes tell us what Muslims were saying long before the earliest surviving Muslim texts were written. Since the information often turns out to be the same, Hoyland's text could be read as a vindication of Muslim historiography.

Michael G. Morony. International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 31, No. 3. (Aug., 1999), pp. 452-453. [1] BhaiSaab ^talk 05:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that is ridiculous. Did this guy get paid off to say that?--CltFn 23:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No offense to you, but I'm more inclined to trust a professor at UCLA. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia sources should be verifiable , and this particular statement you use is demonstrably false thus , irregardless of where he is from it is not useable. Furthermore this is the same guy , you quote out of context in Hagarism, in your efforts to discredit these types of books--CltFn 12:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

He's not quoted out of context at all. This source is verifiable - I'll send you the pages off of JSTOR if you want. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

YOu can paste them here--CltFn 23:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

JSTOR provides scanned pages - not text. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think this book contradicts Muslim historiography, why can't you choose a secondary source to source your claim? To pick a quote out of this book, and then say most of the book refutes traditional Muslim historiography is original research. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Review

ROBERT G. HOYLAND, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam, Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, 13 (Princeton, N.J.: Darwin Press, 1997). Pp. 890. $49.95 cloth.

REVIEWED BY MICHAEL G. MORONY, University of California, Los Angeles

What did non-Muslims in western Asia think was happening in the 7th and 8th centuries? How did they describe it? How reliable are their descriptions? Hoyland's main purpose is to evaluate the usefulness of non-Muslim evidence for matters concerning early Islamic history. He notes that (at least outside of Arabia) non-Muslim sources represent the majority of the population in early Islamic times. His argument that the different reactions to Islam among Christians reflects differences in their own perceptions and intentions could apply equally to Jews and Zoroastrians.

Hoyland identifies virtually every relevant text, providing appropriate text criticism and dis¬cussions of textual history and editions, and liberal quotations of passages referring to Islam. At the very least, this makes his work a useful reference tool, but it is much more than that. The texts are divided conceptually into two groups. The first contains incidental references to Islam in Greek, West Syrian, Armenian, East Syrian, Latin, Jewish, Persian, and Chinese sources. On the Persian sources, one should also now consult Choksy, Conflict and Cooperation (New York, 1997). The second group consists of deliberate references to Islam in apocalypses and visions (including Muslim Arabic texts; again one should consult Choksy on Zoroastrian apocalypses), martyrologies, chronicles and histories, and apologies and disputations.

Having identified and presented the texts, Hoyland then synthesizes non-Muslims concep¬tions of Islam. While some saw Muslims as a punishment sent by God for their collective sins or the sins of the emperor, Jews saw Muslims as an instrument of God's deliverance. Muslims were also seen as primitive monotheists. However, the view of Islam as worldly that occurs in martyrologies written by ascetics should be related to the larger issue of asceticism, which was given new meaning by the worldly success of Islam and was also an issue among early Muslims. Although the non-veneration of images and worship toward the south appear to be new issues, Hoyland's point that Christians recycled old arguments against Judaism and used them against Islam should be extended to include Zoroastrians, who recycled old arguments against monotheism.

This is followed by a chapter that demonstrates what an empirical approach to using non-Muslim sources can yield. The opening section deals with Islam in 7th-century non-Muslim sources. From these one can learn that there was a new system of dating and a new ruling elite called muhdjirun/mhaggrdye, that they were monotheistic and iconoclastic, and had a sanc¬tuary, the "House of God," toward which they worshipped and where they sacrificed and re¬vered a stone. They followed Muhammad, their "guide" and "instructor," and upheld his "traditions" and "laws," which prescribed abstinence from carrion, wine, falsehood, and for¬nication. They honored Jerusalem, were hostile to the cross, denied Christ was God's son, and worshipped in a masjid. There are also sections on sacred direction in Islam and on the con¬quest of Egypt. The final chapter is an argumentative approach to using non-Muslim sources, in which it is suggested that one should ask what is the source, character, and subject of the information.

Overall, Hoyland tends to emphasize parallels and similarities between non-Muslim evi¬dence and reports in Muslim literature, and argues that non-Muslim sources can sometimes tell us what Muslims were saying long before the earliest surviving Muslim texts were writ¬ten. Since the information often turns out to be the same, Hoyland's text could be read as a vindication of Muslim historiography.

To Hoyland's evidence for incidental knowledge of Islam should be added the Monk of Beth Hale's reference to nursing an infant for two years (p. 538), since this is in the Qur^an (al-Baqara, 233). There are a couple of inexplicable lapses. Hoyland says that Mahdi means "saviour" in Arabic (p. 415, the literal meaning is "guided"), and he says that Fatima was a wife of Muhammad (p. 510; she was his daughter).

Hoyland's treatment of the materials is judicious, honest, complex, provocative, and ex¬tremely useful. One hundred pages of excurses include translations of the Canons and Reso¬lutions of Jacob of Edessa, the Byzantine-Arab Chronicle of 741, material most likely to come from the late-8th-century chronicle of Theophilus of Edessa, the Armenian Passion of David of Dwin (by Thomson), Georgian historical writing (by Rapp), and dated Muslim writings from the 7th and 8th centuries. There are bibliographies of the primary sources by language and of secondary sources and a very good index. As useful as it is to have all of this material together, Hoyland's suggestion that the problem of understanding early Islam "is not so much lack of the right materials, but of the right perspectives" (p. 559) has a great deal to recom¬mend it.

It's OCR but should be readable. When I saw Bhai's sentence I was highly skeptical. In fact, Bhai, please never add something as loosely related to the text as that ever again. Yet, the review is very positive and it shows that the book takes a positive view of Islamic sources. Here's my problem with what Amenra did. He made it look like the book was trying to refute Islamic sources--which it doesn't seem to be trying to do. It apparently uses some of the same sources as Hagarism but ends up supporting some Islamic history views. I don't know the methodology and it doesn't matter. If this book is very praising it needs to be portrayed that way. If you guy find scathing reviews of it from notable sources then by all means add them. However, you can't assume that this professor was paid to write a good review or that the book is negative just because you believe the sources it uses show Islamic history negatively. gren グレン 06:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I did search for other reviews on JSTOR but this is apparently the only one of the book there. I will search some other places to see if I can find another review of the book. This could mean many things--people didn't see it fit to review or my school doesn't subscribe to enough databases, I don't know. But, we shall see what else I can find. "The Islamic Origins Debate Goes Public" by Peter von Sivers apparently references it (and could be a good reference in other places) although I don't have access to History Compass. gren グレン 06:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

voila, here is a review ... and its conclusion is also positive: "It deserves to be widely used." Interestingly it talks of Hoyland's roots as being Crone and discusses the mellowing of scepticism which I think is true even in Crone's own work. I think we should find a source to demonstrate how he uses source criticism and how his sources manage to incorporate the non-Muslim into Muslim accounts. gren グレン 06:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"In fact, Bhai, please never add something as loosely related to the text as that ever again." Please explain. The addition I made was not loosely related so I'm not sure what you're getting at. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It said "The book presents the evidenciary text of over 120 seventh century manuscripts that tend to confirm Muslim historiography". I don't think the review mentioned '120 seventh century manuscripts' and it wasn't that the manuscripts confirmed the Muslim historiography... because many of the texts have been used by the revisionists. It's Hoyland's interpretation of the text that was being reviewed. It should have explained the point of view of the review since that's what was cited. That is all I meant. gren グレン 01:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

CltFn originally worded it like this: "The book presents the evidenciary text of over 120 medieval documents used to contradict and refute traditional Islamic accounts of the origins of Islam." so I just reworded it according to Morony's review - my bad. If you look above on this talk page, I provided the quote already too.BhaiSaab ^talk 01:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just looked at the first revision of this page and saw. Just, when using reviews try to make sure what is cited is exactly from the review in order to avoid confusion.

CltFn, please know something about a book before you create a page, really. If you create a page just to create a point about a book that 'refutes Islam' then at least get it right. Do not do anything like this again. gren グレン 04:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ, Gren, I do know the book as I have the book , and quoted straight out of the book with the book in front of me. If you have not read it, then I would recommend you do, then you would sift through the misinformation that can often be associated with any such controversial works . Hoyland is clever enough to stay out of the explosive ideological debate that might arise due to his work, so he just presents the sources without making explicit judgments or commenting about their implications , he cleverly leaves that up to the reader. My opinion is that if he had derived an analysis like Patricia Crone did , then he would have suffered an unpleasant backlash by the traditionalist community like she did.--CltFn 04:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Has the autor said any such thing, or is this your own personal conspiracy theory? --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The latter of course. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

NPA, guys.

CltFn, if you want to say that or use a quote paste about a page before and after from the book for context. Also, if that is the case then the reviews (and I've only seen two) should not be reading like they are. If you can find other reviews in journals that would be great. I just don't seem to have access to any. I can't vouch for Hoyland's personal feelings but if he is tempering his work to avoid controversy then his work is still tempered. We could use to find out what the reviews mean when they talk about using the non-Muslim texts to help paint a view that agrees with Muslim ones since that is a vague statement. gren グレン 02:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the other review you linked above states "Perhaps one of the surprising conclusions of this study is that the non-Muslim accounts, to a large extent, corroborate general trends and major features of the Muslim accounts." If what CltFn is saying is true, both of those reviewers would not have stated that these sources act as a vindication of traditional Muslim historiography. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why

Why is there a cover of a book sans the Dust Jacket? Seems rather pointless, it serves no purpose.

The book doesn't have a dust jacket. Brianbleakley (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SeeingIslamAsOthersSawIt.jpg

Image:SeeingIslamAsOthersSawIt.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Title capitalisation

What rules to follow?

"As" and "It" both upper-case? None of them? Just "It"?

One edition has all initials in caps. Some catalogues just the "It". We have one version in the title, and another in the intro/lead. That's not OK, whatever rule we settle for.

The LOC entry is simply "Seeing Islam as others saw it".

Are there standards on enWiki? Do they depend on whether BE or AE is used? Do they differentiate between main title and subtitle, so do rules vary before the colon and after? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)