What do you think?
Rate this book
الرد على كتاب باتريشيا كرون: تجارة مكة وظهور الإسلام
http://www.sultan.org/books/Patricia_...
- GenresHistory
200 pages, ebook
First published January 1, 2007
29 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
Want to read
July 19, 2020بحث كراون (بوصف المستشرق روبرت سرجينت) "دراسه جدلية ارادت منها صاحبتها ان تصدم المستشرقين بنظريات غريبة عن تاريخ مكة قبل الإسلام، وهو بحث كتب بلغة استعلائية، وفكر مشوش وغير عقلاني يفتقد الحس النقدي، مع لي اعناق النصوص التاريخية الواضحة، وصاحبته تفتقد معرفة البنية الاجتماعية للبلاد العربية.
"
منقول من سامي عامري كتاب براهين النبوة والرد على المستشرقين
"
منقول من سامي عامري كتاب براهين النبوة والرد على المستشرقين
March 26, 2023
A rather abysmal attempt to debunk Crone's book. There is no time to go through all of his arguments, so I will focus on just two points.
1. Let's look at his first point in the book:
"First, is Crone's rejection of historical and geographical facts claiming that the Holy City of Makkah is not situated on its original historical location. She moved the location of Makkah on the map thereby rejecting all indications made by Greek and Roman authors to Makkah in the old ages."
Crone has not rejected 'historical and geographical facts'. This can be done by simply looking at the direction of the mosques built in the first century AH--they point at Petra. This cannot be explained due to slight calculation error on the part of the builders as some of these mosques were built between Petra and Mecca, so they face north toward Petra rather than south toward Mecca.
The references to the goddess Allat, a Nabatean goddess, also support this as the Nabateans lived in Petra. Thus the facts support (even if they don't completely prove it yet) Crone's argument that the center of Islam may not have been Mecca, and that Mecca was not originally the type of place that later Islamic tradition made it out to be.
2. Secondly, the author loves to talk about how Crone's assertions are in conflict with Muslim sources, as if that shows Crone is wrong. She is writing the book for this very reason--that she thinks the evidence is contrary to Muslim sources. Since all of the Muslim sources that aren't the Quran were written down a couple hundred years (at least) after Muhammad, it makes more sense to look at the evidence from the time when Muhammad was said to have lived. That evidence has thankfully been preserved in structure of the mosques built in the time of Muhammad.
Moreover, the fragment of a Quran from Birmingham that was carbon dated a few years ago was dated to a time two years before Muhammad's death to seven years before the Quran was first written down. This is further evidence that many Muslim sources may have been fabricated when they were written down. For how could a Quranic fragment be in existence before Muslims say the Quran was compiled? If Islam came out of a Nabatean religion or something like it, then this would explain how this is possible.
1. Let's look at his first point in the book:
"First, is Crone's rejection of historical and geographical facts claiming that the Holy City of Makkah is not situated on its original historical location. She moved the location of Makkah on the map thereby rejecting all indications made by Greek and Roman authors to Makkah in the old ages."
Crone has not rejected 'historical and geographical facts'. This can be done by simply looking at the direction of the mosques built in the first century AH--they point at Petra. This cannot be explained due to slight calculation error on the part of the builders as some of these mosques were built between Petra and Mecca, so they face north toward Petra rather than south toward Mecca.
The references to the goddess Allat, a Nabatean goddess, also support this as the Nabateans lived in Petra. Thus the facts support (even if they don't completely prove it yet) Crone's argument that the center of Islam may not have been Mecca, and that Mecca was not originally the type of place that later Islamic tradition made it out to be.
2. Secondly, the author loves to talk about how Crone's assertions are in conflict with Muslim sources, as if that shows Crone is wrong. She is writing the book for this very reason--that she thinks the evidence is contrary to Muslim sources. Since all of the Muslim sources that aren't the Quran were written down a couple hundred years (at least) after Muhammad, it makes more sense to look at the evidence from the time when Muhammad was said to have lived. That evidence has thankfully been preserved in structure of the mosques built in the time of Muhammad.
Moreover, the fragment of a Quran from Birmingham that was carbon dated a few years ago was dated to a time two years before Muhammad's death to seven years before the Quran was first written down. This is further evidence that many Muslim sources may have been fabricated when they were written down. For how could a Quranic fragment be in existence before Muslims say the Quran was compiled? If Islam came out of a Nabatean religion or something like it, then this would explain how this is possible.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews